Anne Webster

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 33), at the end of subsection 151A(2), add:

; (c) the deficiencies in connectivity in rural, regional and remote Australia that put Australians living there at risk from ECS outage events.

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (after line 16), after paragraph 151Q(1)(b), insert:

(ba) the specific challenges and personal safety risks faced by Australians living in rural, regional and remote areas through poor connectivity to emergency call services;

Labor governs for select parts of capital cities and not for the regions. That's the concern I have. My constituents in Mallee see time and time again that Labor treats them as invisible or, at best, obstacles to be pushed out of the way. I'm proud to stand here representing Mallee but also representing all regional Australians as the first shadow minister for regional communications. These amendments bring specific focus to the Triple Zero Custodian to investigate and report on deficiencies in connectivity for rural, regional and remote Australians.

As it presently stands, we really don't know how many regional Australians have been affected by triple 0 outages, but our lived experience in the regions is that it happens a lot. Indeed, regional Australians who contact my office are concerned about their mobile service connectivity more generally. Shockingly, when they call triple 0, they cannot get through. Waiting until a fatality occurs in regional Australia is not only unacceptable, but it puts lives at risk and in my view is a basis for the minister to resign or be censured or sacked. That's Westminster accountability. That's the minister's job. The buck stops with her.

These amendments ensure that the Triple Zero Custodian is reporting to the government and the parliament on the specific connectivity issues that rural, regional and remote Australians are facing. The minister described herself as new, five months into the job. I've been shadow regional communications minister for less time, and I've already taken countless briefings. It's already clear to me that not only are the problems in regional Australia dire but they are also unique. We don't have the benefit of a second-option mobile service if one fails, and not everyone can afford the low-Earth-orbit satellite service workarounds to secure more reliable coverage.

Labor is content with regional Australians having second-rate services, and that puts lives at risk. In other words, Labor is happy to put regional Australian lives at risk. If those opposite disagree with that proposition, support my amendments today. If my amendments are not supported, what is this government telling regional Australians? That they cannot be bothered having specific expectations the Triple Zero Custodian will focus on the specific risks they face in the bush. Or will they say: 'Just trust us. We care about regional Australians. Their issues will be in the mix of the considerations'? Well, call me and my Nationals colleagues once bitten, twice shy—or, more likely, constantly neglected, always vigilant—because we see Labor ignore and disrespect regional Australians time and time again.

I make no apology for moving amendments to ensure special consideration of regional Australians who are treated like second-class citizens. When Labor-backed programs roll through our electorates, regional Australians are not consulted. The decision is already in the bag. It's faux consultation to tick the box. The justifiable bitterness and anger of regional Australians sits at Labor's feet. The Prime Minister deserved the reception he got in Ballarat at the Bush Summit. The buck stops with him and his government. He's happy to be preaching Labor virtues at the UK Labour conference while this controversy raged back home but pretends the actions of his ministers and fellow state Labor governments have nothing to do with him. The Prime Minister has the nerve to tell regional Australians, 'I won't BS people,' yet under his government there's bulldust as far as the eye can see—no transparency, no accountability, secrecy and demands that it's Labor's way or the highway. The hubris of those opposite knows no end, and the best way to indicate the government is taking the second triple 0 failure on their watch seriously, to tell regional Australians they matter to this government, is to support these amendments.

The minister and the Albanese government also need to move very quickly on updating the universal service obligation. The USO underpins emergency connectivity, yet the old voice based USO is no longer fit for purpose. The minister protested last week that she was new to the portfolio. I don't know if that means the previous minister, Minister Rowland, was doing nothing and handed nothing over to her to continue with or that the minister has had priorities other than ensuring life-saving connectivity in the bush. The universal outdoor mobile obligation, or UOMO, is a step in the right direction, and telcos are rolling out connectivity via satellite on newer telephone handsets. (Time expired)

Anika Wells

The amendments moved by the member for Mallee are well intentioned, but they are unnecessary. The Albanese government is focused on the needs of regional Australians, and the Triple Zero Custodian, which has been established by the Albanese government and not any prior conservative government, will act accordingly.

Sharon Claydon

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Melissa McIntosh

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 3), before the heading specifying Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, insert:

Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018

1A Section 5 (after paragraph (a) of the definition of critical telecommunications asset )

Insert:

(aa) a telecommunications network that is used to supply an emergency call service; or

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 3), before the heading specifying Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, insert:

Telecommunications Act 1997

1B After paragraph 570( 3)( ac)

Insert:

(ad) in the case of a contravention of subsection 151D(1) or (2) of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999$20 million for each contravention; or

(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 13 (after line 19), after section 151K, insert:

151KA Register of ECS outage events

(1) The Custodian must establish and keep a register of ECS outage events.

(2) The Custodian must include an ECS outage event in the register as soon as reasonably practicable after the Custodian reasonably believes that the ECS outage event has occurred, is occurring or will occur.

(3) The Custodian must make the information contained in the register available for public inspection on the internet.

(4) The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the keeping of the register.

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (lines 11 and 12), omit "within 3 months after the end of each 6 month period", substitute "within 1 month after the end of each 3 month period".

(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 16 (line 24), omit subsection 151Q(2), substitute:

(2) The ACMA must:

(a) provide a copy of the report to the Custodian; and

(b) publish the report.

I am asking for some detailed amendments to this bill to ensure that our triple 0 network is protected. I shared these amendments with the Minister for Communications's office last night and this morning in an act of good faith and in the hope that the government is serious about fixing the triple 0 system. I don't want to believe that we are here today debating this urgent bill as part of a political show so the government can look like it's doing something. I want them to actually do something. You cannot wallpaper over this catastrophic event. People have died. Australians' confidence in the triple 0 service has been rocked.

The first point in my amendment seeks to list our triple 0 network as critical infrastructure. This will ensure that the triple 0 service is enshrined as an infrastructure asset of national significance. Systems of national significance are Australia's most vital and critical infrastructure assets. They underpin our social and economic stability, defence and national security. At the moment, there are around 170 assets, across energy, communications, transport and financial services. People expect their lights to turn on, despite soaring energy prices. They expect to have running water and sewerage. They also expect to be able to pick up the phone and call triple 0 in their greatest time of need. We must ensure that the triple 0 network is protected for all Australians, wherever and whenever they need it. It doesn't matter if you are in the city or in the regions, and my colleague the member for Mallee has been pushing this point so well.

The second point in my amendment will increase the current penalty framework for a contravention of the act from $10 million to $20 million. Let's be clear: if a person is unable to call triple 0, that cannot be tolerated. We must have strong enough penalties to make people pay attention. If we end up back here, it's not just going to be $20 million. These penalties won't just double—$30 million a breach, $50 million a breach or $100 million. It doesn't matter—whatever it takes for people to take this seriously and for things to change, because it is serious business. How many more times do we need to address these abhorrent failures before it's fixed and before we have transparency and honesty when we have an outage?

Among the members of the other place right now, Senate estimates is happening, and they are legitimately talking about emails sent to the wrong email box and no-one opening emails after the outage. This is not a joke; this is actually what has happened. Own it. Fix it. Pick up the phone and make a call if you can't get through on an email. I have heard nothing but excuses from Optus, the department, ACMA—the regulator—and the minister. Australians are sick of excuses. They are sick of cover-ups. Own it.

I'm also seeking an amendment to the bill to ensure that for all outages there is transparency regarding the number of calls affected and the geographical areas impacted. Without this vital information, we cannot expect to know where the gaps are in the system so that they can be fixed. Australians are hyperaware right now. Following the second Optus outage, which impacted Dapto in New South Wales, Optus reported some of the calls were made by people checking whether the triple 0 network was working. They are lacking confidence in our most essential telecommunication service. Yesterday in question time, the minister was asked how many triple 0 outages there have been, and she couldn't answer this question. That's not good enough. We need to know. Australians have a right to know. If the minister wants to restore faith in the network, she needs to walk the walk and be transparent about what's going on.

Finally, schedule 1 of the bill states that ACMA, the regulator, will provide a report every six months, and they will take three months to prepare that report. Minister, given what has been going on in this country over the last few weeks, where people have died, six months is not good enough. This reporting must be more frequent and more rapid, and, most importantly, the public must have access to it. It has to be transparent. So we are asking for it to be every three months. Minister, we ask on behalf of Australians for you to take this seriously and take no chances with the health, safety and welfare of Australians. (Time expired)

Anika Wells

Unfortunately, the shadow communications minister has made a choice, and these are the consequences of this choice. There have been discussions in good faith about these amendments. Those were being worked through. However, the choice of the opposition to move those amendments forward to an earlier time means that those discussions can't be finalised before this point where you're putting the question, so we oppose them.

Terry Young

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Melissa McIntosh

I move:

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

(1) a select committee, to be known as the House Select Committee on the Triple Zero Ecosystem, be appointed to inquire into and report on the health of the triple zero ecosystem;

(2) the committee consist of eight members: five Members to be nominated by the Government Whip, and three Members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any crossbench Member;

(3) every nomination of a member be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(4) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;

(5) the members of the committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;

(6) the committee present its final report no later than 8 December 2025;

(7) the committee elect a Government member as its chair;

(8) the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair to act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;

(9) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(10) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(11) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee;

(12) the committee have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;

(13) the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;

(14) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee;

(15) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;

(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private;

(d) report from time to time; and

(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives; and

(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

This should be an uncontroversial motion, so I will be relatively brief. Standing and sessional orders must be suspended so that this House can have a vote on whether to establish a parliamentary inquiry into the triple 0 ecosystem. It's as simple as this: do we, as members representing our communities across Australia, which is on the cusp of bushfire season, want more scrutiny of this vital emergency service, or less? If we do, the committee's work can start today and this House can work together to ensure all Australians can have confidence in triple 0. If not, members voting must be prepared to explain why they don't support robust oversight of this vital life-saving service by our nation's parliament.

The opposition have been consistent. We have repeatedly called for a thorough investigation into the health of our nation's emergency call service. In light of the gross and tragic mismanagement of the Minister for Communications and the recent Optus network outages, this is a necessity. A formal parliamentary inquiry has special powers, which no other inquiry currently underway has. It can compel witnesses; it can hear evidence in private sessions and travel across the country to hear directly from Australians. It is not a tick-and-flick exercise either. The work and findings of a parliamentary inquiry are fulsome and frank. These are essential qualities, which the other inquiries kicked off by the minister and the telcos may not be.

I envisage that the object of this motion, a select House committee, would be able to hear directly, for example, from affected emergency service personnel and telecommunications experts. This may be inconvenient for the government, but, as they have sought to put the blame for the tragic outages solely on Optus, I would have thought they would welcome some additional scrutiny and transparency.

In view of the Minister for Communications being new to the job, the opposition is working in the national interest. We allowed for the triple 0 custodian bill to be introduced yesterday without notice, and, despite the fact that it is against the conventions of this place, debate on this bill will resume later this morning. I pause here to say that we support this bill being wrapped up before the House rises tomorrow.

It's our job as parliamentarians to do the hard work, to get across our briefs and to not go missing in action when the going gets tough. Our communities expect us, given the shocking triple 0 outages, to apply the blowtorch to the entire system, and that's exactly what this motion tries to do. I call on those opposite, especially the Minister for Communications, to join with the opposition in a bipartisan way, and in the national interest, to support this motion for the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry into the triple 0 ecosystem.

Marion Scrymgour

Is there a seconder for this motion?

Anne Webster

I second the motion. Bushfire season is upon us in regional Australia, and the indications are that it could be a bad one, so reliable connectivity to triple 0 is absolutely critical to saving lives in the bush. That is why the haste in clearing up this minister's mess is so important and why a select committee on the triple 0 ecosystem is absolutely warranted. Given the second Optus triple 0 failure on Labor's watch, nothing could be more important than this House turning its mind to how we can save lives this summer and beyond, particularly in regional Australia. The composition of this proposed House select committee is fair and representative and has a quick timeframe of under two months to deliver findings.

It is well and good for the Minister for Communications to claim she has called the telco heads in for a good talking to. I have spoken with some of them recently as well, as has my colleague the shadow minister for communications. This travesty is so critical. We need transparency. With the minister flailing and calling herself a new minister five months in, saving Australians' lives warrants full House engagement and transparency on what is happening with our triple 0 service. Regional Australians need reassurance. After a very poor run of performance from this minister and from the Albanese Labor government on its treatment of regional Australians, this House needs to give those in the bush the certainty that triple 0 will be there to save their lives. Under Labor, we have seen tick-and-flick meaningless so-called consultation when federal and state Labor government have in mind precisely what it intends to do, which is centralisation and withdrawal of essential services from the bush.

The best way to rebuild trust in the triple 0 system and, indeed, in this government is to have this inquiry. I wrote about the triple 0 system in my local newspapers in Mallee, and it's my duty as member for Mallee and as shadow minister to reassure my constituents that they can have confidence in calling triple 0. Amid the debate about Optus triple 0 failures, we've had to be very careful to ensure Australians will call triple 0 and be confident that it will work. That is the reason for this select committee and what it is all about—rebuilding trust in arguably the most trusted service in Australia. Without triple 0, you don't get an ambulance. In all likelihood, particularly in the bush, you will die. Without triple 0, you don't get a firefighter or firefighting support. It's highly likely you'll die or suffer catastrophic injuries. Our job in opposition is to hold this government to account, and four lives have been lost—four! This government has allowed Optus to undermine confidence in our triple 0 system, and we need to rebuild confidence right here with this select committee.

Let me add my gratitude to our emergency services personnel. Nothing in this debate is a slight on their dedication and hard work, and I want to send a particular shout-out to our emergency services volunteers, volunteer firefighters and ambulance service members. In my home state of Victoria, the Allan Labor government has undermined confidence and support in volunteer firefighting through their so-called emergency services and volunteers fund levy. It is a tax grab. Volunteer firefighters are already shocked that transmission lines and wind turbines are being proposed through their farming land, exposing them to greater fire risk. Now they are being taxed for the inconvenience by yet another Labor government that is hungry for tax revenue. Labor desperately needs to rebuild confidence and support in emergency services, and this select committee is how we get there.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Milton Dick

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

Julie-Ann Campbell

I think it's fair to say that, when most people hear the words 'payments system modernisation', their eyes might glaze over. They might not be particularly excited. They might lean back in their chair and get ready for a snooze. They might put in their earphones and settle in to watch something on a streaming service—but not me. I am excited by payment systems because, while they might not seem sexy, they are something that we use every single day.

If you are writing out a cheque to someone special on their big birthday, if you are going to the corner store and swiping your debit card to buy milk when you are on your way home, if you are tapping your digital wallet at the supermarket when you're off to buy nappies, if you are paying cash when you are at the petrol station—each and every one of those things is a payments system. It's not something that we think about very often, but we use payment systems more than we do anything else that we will talk about today in this House. We use them to buy things every single day. But the technology is changing, and we have to change with it. To make sure that we protect consumers when it comes to payment systems, we have to make sure that the RBA can regulate them, and that is what this bill is all about.

While the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payments System Modernisation) Bill 2025 might not be the subject of intense water-cooler discussion in offices across the country, it is a very important piece of legislation. At its core, what it addresses is the risks that new and emerging technologies pose to the way we pay for goods and services. In 2025 you do that more often than not with just a tap of your phone. Updating the payments system regulatory framework is necessary to ensure Australia has a fit-for-purpose, modern and efficient payments system. This is crucial because the smooth operation of the economy rests upon it. You use the payments system when you dash to the servo to buy that milk late at night, you use it to transfer money to your mate at a restaurant after a shared dinner, and it's used to put your wages into your account. Every single day we use a payments system. None of us probably think very much about it when we're tapping our phones to buy our Pepsi Max, but it is the foundation of our financial system.

The payments system supports the stability of the financial system by minimising risks associated with transactions and by facilitating the flow of payments. A well-functioning payments systems bolsters the development of the financial sector through inspiring consumer and business confidence in their transactions. It also links Australians to the global marketplace. We know that consumers, everyday people in the community and in our society, need to have that confidence if they're going to put their hard earned money across the table to buy goods and services. Ensuring that our payments systems are up to date with technology and are well regulated is what drives that confidence for consumers. The components of the payments system are the nuts and bolts of our financial system. That's why it needs to be safe, that's why it needs to be trusted and that's why it needs to be accessible. And that is what this bill delivers.

The sector is a rapidly evolving sector, and, as a result of the digital revolution, teenagers today make purchases instantly and seamlessly with their watches or their phones. They've never had to learn how to write a cheque, and the only cash they see is in birthday cards from their grandparents. We now have a payment system that is large and complex, one that is continually adjusting to new technologies and processes. As the transactions become easier and more convenient for consumers, there are opportunities for growth and also increased risk. Where there is increased risk, we need to make sure that people in our community are protected, without stifling growth that will be critical to our economy.

There is also the need to balance this with maintaining the more traditional methods of payment, to meet the needs of consumers who rely on those systems. Those consumers are often some of the most vulnerable in our community. That's why, as we expand the regulatory framework for payment systems, we need to make sure that those consumers who use more traditional forms of payments are still protected, particularly older Australians. The New Payments Platform, NPP, underpins the modern payment system, enabling fast and secure transactions. Services such as PayID and PayTo have changed the way consumers and businesses interact. As of mid-2023, nearly 13 million PayIDs had been created, over 25 per cent of account-to-account transactions were being processed via the NPP, and more than 100 payment providers were offering NPP services to approximately 90 million consumer accounts. We are hugely reliant on the robustness and security of this digital infrastructure, and we must take into account the necessity of safeguarding against outages, against technological failures and against cyberattacks.

This bill is part of Labor's commitment to the Strategic Plan for Australia's Payment System, which was released in June 2023. The strategy lists five priorities for the government. The first is promoting a safe and resilient payment system. This involves reducing the prevalence of scams and fraudulent activity, strengthening cybersecurity measures to guard against attacks and maintaining robust oversight of systematically important payment infrastructures. When it comes to scams, everyone in this chamber knows someone who has been hit by a scam, whether it be digital or online. Making sure that we as a government prioritise protecting those vulnerable people who are the target of scams is an important part of what we do. The secondary focus is on ensuring the payments regulatory framework keeps pace with technological and market developments. That is what we're talking about particularly in this bill today. Key initiatives include establishing a comprehensive licensing framework for payment services providers and promoting competition through transparent access to payment systems.

Thirdly, there is a need to modernise the payments infrastructure by implementing the phased removal of cheques, the enhancement of existing systems and the continued provision of access to cash, to ensure that no community is left behind. This purpose is designed to make sure that, whether you like to tap your phone as you get on the bus, you like to put cash in a card to your grandchild on their birthday or you like to use a debit card, it doesn't matter; you will be protected, you can have confidence in that payment system, and you will have a regulated system that works for everyone.

The next priority area is in uplifting competition, productivity and innovation across the economy. We've recently seen that the Treasurer hosted a roundtable focused on productivity. With our laser focus on ensuring that productivity increases and that we have reform in the productivity space, this is another layer to that work. This means aligning the payment system with broader economic and digital transformation goals. These include the Consumer Data Right framework, supporting wider adoption of digital ID and investing in digital and technological skills development.

Finally, the government aims to establish Australia itself as a leader in the global payments landscape, by creating a regulatory environment that encourages innovation and investment. This includes facilitating seamless cross-border payments and exploring the policy rationale for introducing a central bank digital currency. This background is useful to explain the broader work the Albanese Labor government is undertaking in this area, and this bill is an important part of that work.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Payments System Modernisation) Bill 2025 provides expanded definitions for 'payments system' and for 'participant' so that the Reserve Bank of Australia can regulate new and emerging payments systems and participants. These include digital wallet providers and buy-now pay-later service providers.

As part of the risk management protocols, the legislation will also enable the Treasurer to designate payment services or platforms that present risks of national significance. This isn't just about protecting everyday consumers, this isn't just about protecting people in our community and families in our community, this is also about protecting our country from risks of national significance. These designations will give appropriate regulators additional oversight powers. This is a sensible and responsible approach from the forward-looking Labor government.

Under the new legislation, the Treasurer will only be able to give general directions. The Treasurer will not be able to direct the regulator on how to exercise functions or how to enforce regulations. This ensures the ongoing independence of the regulator in assessing and exercising their regulatory powers. These measures are key steps outlined in A strategic p lan for Australia's_ _payments s ystem. They also directly respond to recommendations in the payments systems review that the RBA should be better-positioned to regulate new and emerging payments systems that are part of the changing and growing payments ecosystem.

The recommendations also state that there should be a greater role for the government, through the Treasurer, in setting the strategic direction of the payments ecosystem in collaboration with regulators and industry. That is what this bill does.

As I mentioned, one of the drivers of these reforms is for Australia's regulatory framework to facilitate competition and innovation while upholding financial stability and decreasing risk. To achieve this, the Albanese Labor government embarked on a comprehensive consultation process with stakeholders regarding this bill. Consultation partners included industry participants, government agencies and regulators prior to the release of the strategic plan. The Treasury also received 30 submissions from banks, payment-service providers and industry associations. Further stakeholder meetings were held with organisations such as the Australian Banking Association, the National Retail Association, PayPal, Google and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to work through feedback on the text of the new definitions and the scope of the new powers proposed for the Treasurer.

The measures outlined in this bill are necessary to ensure that the RBA can not only regulate new and emerging payment providers but also combat risks to our national interest by expanding these powers to designated regulators. The measures support the government's key principles for the payment system: it is to be trustworthy, accessible, innovative and efficient. At their heart, what these laws are about is keeping up with the times. Because payment systems are something that we might not think about every day, but they are something that we use every day. Making sure that, as technology advances, we continue to protect consumers, to protect the national interest, to protect families who go about their day not thinking about payment systems but using them is incredibly important, because we don't want people to be scammed, we don't want new technologies to remain unregulated and we don't want families not to have the confidence to be able to pay for their groceries, their fuel and their health care every single day. They also speak to Labor's determination to provide a safe and secure payment environment for all Australians.

Long debate text truncated.

Kate Chaney

I move:

That the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for consideration and an advisory report.

I rise today to highlight significant concerns about the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 that justify referring this bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This bill has been introduced in response to the High Court's NZYQ decision and the challenges that have followed. The government has been clear about its aim to expedite the removal of noncitizens who have exhausted all options to remain in Australia.

I understand the government's concern. The NZYQ decision has left us with a group of people in the community who have serious criminal histories, and the government needs tools to deal with them quickly. I support the intention to manage that group in a way that protects the community, but there are serious question marks about whether this bill is the best way to do that. It retrospectively validates an unknown number of decisions that were based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. It also provides that procedural fairness doesn't apply at key steps in the removal process, without a proper assessment of whether this is appropriate, and it applies to a much broader group than the up to 300 individuals commonly described as the NZYQ cohort. It could also apply to many who have not committed any criminal offence and who may not have finished exercising their review rights. Some estimates suggest the practical reach could extend to around 80,000 people—well beyond what the public has been led to believe.

The fundamental problem is that parliament does not currently have a clear understanding of the true impact of this bill. We do not know how many people this bill could affect or in which circumstances. For that reason, I do not believe this bill should be rushed through the chamber. That's why I'm moving this motion to refer the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for detailed scrutiny. Before parliament passes a law relating to the application of procedural fairness for large classes of people, we should understand exactly who will be affected, how the powers will operate in practice, and what safeguards are needed to avoid serious error.

Let me step back to explain how we got here. In November 2023, the High Court handed down the NZYQ decision, and the court ruled that indefinite immigration detention is unconstitutional where there's no real prospect of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. This meant the government could no longer keep certain noncitizens in detention indefinitely, and between 150 and 300 people were released into the community. These people became known as the NZYQ cohort. Some of them had serious criminal histories, including violent or sexual offences. The government scrambled to respond by granting this group visas known as bridging visa Rs with strict conditions—ankle bracelets, curfews and regular reporting. Later, some of those conditions were struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional.

Since then, the government has sought ways to remove this group from Australia. One attempt was to deport three NZYQ members to Nauru. This was contested in the courts, based on the argument that the government had not applied the principle of procedural fairness. Earlier this year, the TCXM case found that procedural fairness did not apply to exercises of executive power like these, where a government is dealing with another government on behalf of an individual where a decision has already been made to deport them. This decision may be appealed in the future, but this bill aims to deal with this issue to limit further appeals.

It appears that the government is trying to do two things with this bill: firstly, retrospectively fix any decision that was made before NZYQ, based on the erroneous belief that indefinite detention is legal; and, secondly, ensure that procedural fairness doesn't apply to certain types of executive power related to the removal of noncitizens, in line with the TCXM decision. By seeking to validate past removal decisions that might now be unlawful in light of the NZYQ court decision, this bill would remove the right for individuals to have their decisions remade based on a correct interpretation of the law.

On procedural fairness, the bill makes it clear that the intention of the parliament is that procedural fairness does not apply in a set of specific powers used for deportation—namely, collecting, using and disclosing information to foreign countries—for example, sharing information about a potential migrant with a foreign country in preparation for deportation; collecting, using and disclosing criminal history information—for example, sharing criminal history information with a series of government officials in order to arrange for deportation; coming to arrangements with foreign countries to receive our deportees—for example, buying a Nauru visa for a migrant; and giving directions to a migrant to perform certain activities to facilitate their own deportation—for example, directing a migrant to purchase a passport.

Procedural fairness is a simple concept that forms a fundamental safeguard in our legal system. When government is making a decision that will adversely affect a person, the person should be told, shown the evidence and given a fair chance to respond. If a person is set to be deported, the government can make all the arrangements overseas, such as negotiating a visa or entry into another country, without telling the person. That person will then be legally required to comply with directions, without any right to respond, even if the arrangements are mistaken, impractical or harmful.

I have four main concerns with this bill which I think need to be considered by a committee. My first concern relates to the retrospective validation of unlawful decisions. The bill validates past visa decisions that may now be unlawful following the NZYQ decision. Retrospective lawmaking is always problematic. It undermines confidence in the rule of law when parliament steps in to rewrite the legality of past actions. People who may have had valid grounds to challenge decisions will lose that opportunity. The way the law works, if a court interprets the law in a particular way, that's seen to be the way the law always was. So, decisions made based on a previous, erroneous understanding of the law are then invalid. Changing the law retrospectively to declare decisions valid even though they were made based on an erroneous understanding of the law undermines this legal principle, and we should be very cautious before endorsing such a step. The minister has made visa decisions based on a series of factors, one of which was the belief that indefinite detention was legal. If this is not the case, those decisions are invalid. This is my main concern with the bill and the main reason this should be referred to a committee. When we're talking about decisions that deal with such fundamental issues as individual freedoms, we should not just paper over the cracks.

My second concern is that the bill declares that procedural fairness doesn't apply to these types of executive actions. While this may confirm the law as it exists right now, based on the finding of the TCXM case, any law that limits procedural fairness should be considered very carefully and with proper scrutiny. Changing the application of procedural fairness strikes at the heart of our legal system. For centuries, our legal system has recognised that there are moral and philosophical concepts of fairness that are pretty universal. In the last 50 years, this has been articulated as a more specific concept of procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is not about giving people endless rights of appeal. It's about something much simpler: ensuring people have the chance to know what's being decided about them and to respond. Procedural fairness upholds the integrity, transparency and accountability of decision-making processes, especially in government and administrative contexts. It protects individual rights, which is especially important when decisions have serious personal consequences—like they do if we're deporting someone to a country they have no connection with—and it promotes trust in institutions. People are more likely to accept outcomes, even unfavourable ones, if they believe the process is fair.

Exempting procedural fairness removes basic safeguards such as the right to be heard or to challenge adverse evidence. This undermines public confidence in the fairness of government decision-making and increases the risk of factual errors or bias. Not allowing procedural fairness may be in breach of our obligations under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Imagine being told you're to be deported to Nauru immediately. The government has already shared your personal information with the Nauru government and purchased a visa on your behalf. You might have children at school here. You might be caring for a partner with a serious illness. You might even be the wrong person, because of an administrative error. Under this bill, none of those matters could be raised as a matter of procedural fairness. You'd be legally obliged to comply with directions, and the government would be not required to hear your side.

Following a Federal Court decision this year, the courts may have already found that procedural fairness doesn't apply to these particular powers. In that case, what's the rush? There's time to send this to a committee for proper scrutiny. If there is any doubt about the application of procedural fairness—which, presumably, there is, or the government would not be introducing this bill—then it deserves scrutiny. I'm not arguing that procedural fairness should never be removed from certain legal powers, but I believe that we always need proper scrutiny of the impacts when dealing with such a fundamental legal right.

My third concern is that, while the government says this bill is aimed at the NZYQ cohort, its scope is far wider. The bill largely applies to removal pathway noncitizens. This includes people on bridging visa R, the specific visa for the NZYQ group, but also many people on bridging visa E and potentially people without visas. That's a much larger population. Previous Senate estimates found that this could apply to over 80,000 people rather than just the 300-odd in the NZYQ cohort. It also appears to apply to migrants who still have legal pathways to remain in Australia, contradictory to the government's claims. Some of this bill goes even further, to an even wider range of migrants. If we're going to pass a law that makes it clear that no procedural fairness applies to such a large number of people, it deserves scrutiny.

Finally I'm concerned by the rushed nature of this bill. It was introduced last week without clear consultation and will likely be debated and passed tomorrow. The government is clearly desperate to deal with the NZYQ cohort. This is reflected in the eye-watering sums of money that the government is reportedly paying Nauru to accept these people. The Guardian has reported that the government has agreed to deport to 280 members of the NZYQ cohort to Nauru, compensating Nauru with a $400 million upfront payment and annual payments of $70 million a year. That's $1.4 million per individual, with an annual payment per individual of $250,000. It is essential that we deal with this cohort of people quickly and safely. Based on the TCXM case, procedural fairness has already been found, at least in the first-instance decision, not to apply to the exercise of executive power needed to remove the problem of this cohort to Nauru. If it's not needed, then what's the rush? Let's go through a proper process. The fact that this bill is being introduced rather than the TCXM decision being relied upon indicates that there may be some doubt about the application of procedural fairness. If there's doubt, we should be treading very carefully. The retrospective legalisation of all decisions made based on an erroneous understanding of the law deserves scrutiny rather than haste. This is a complex area of law intersecting with constitutional principles, international obligations and human rights. It should not be rushed. Parliament works best when we take the time to scrutinise legislation carefully, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.

Concerns about the bill are shared by a number of groups that look deeply at these types of issues, including the Human Rights Law Centre, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Refugee Advice & Casework Service and Liberty Victoria. Given these concerns, I believe this bill should be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for consideration. The committee should consider, amongst other things, the number of visa decisions that may be affected by the original NZYQ court case and the implications for individuals of retrospectively validating these decisions, as opposed to allowing them to be reviewed; whether it's appropriate and justified to affirm the TCXM decision that procedural fairness does not apply in circumstances like this; and the potential impact of the bill beyond the NZYQ cohort. That scrutiny would give parliament the confidence to pass legislation that is precise, targeted and fair rather than broad and rushed.

I would also like to see the bill reviewed by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. Let me be clear. I understand the government's desire to deal quickly with the NZYQ cohort. Community safety is paramount, and we must have tools to remove people with violent criminal histories when they have no right to remain here. But, as legislators, we have a duty to make good law not just fast law. We need to balance security with fairness and efficiency with accountability. That's why this bill should go to committee. We owe it to the Australian public and to those affected by these laws to get it right.

Lisa Chesters

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Mark Butler

In summing up, I table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. The Albanese government is committed to strengthening Medicare and delivering cheaper medicines. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, provides timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines for all Australians. The Albanese government is supporting all Australians with cost-of-living relief, and this bill is just one of the many ways we're providing more affordable medicines to Australians, with savings to general patients of over $200 million per year.

The speeches we have heard in the debate on this bill in this place remind us why cheaper medicines are so important. The member for Bass, for example, spoke of pharmacists in her electorate who had shared stories with her of parents standing at their counter, weighing up which prescription they could afford to take home and which one they would have to leave behind. No parent in Australia, as the member for Bass reminded us, should ever have to make that choice, and, with this bill, fewer families will.

The member for Griffith spoke of a constituent in her electorate who was cutting her antidepressant tablets in half just to make them last longer. This woman was juggling medicines for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and mental health, and she just simply couldn't afford them all. The new member for Barton spoke of a young mother from Hurstville, in her electorate, who skips her own medication so she can afford antibiotics when her child gets sick and of the pensioner from Beverly Hills who told her she would space out her medication by only taking it every second day instead of daily, just to manage her expenses. By reducing the co-payment for general patients, we'll ensure the maximum amount a general patient will pay for a PBS medicine will be just $25 per script plus any applicable premiums—the same rate that it was way back in 2004.

This bill reminds us that we rely on the PBS to ensure that all Australians have continued access to high-quality health care at affordable prices, which is even more crucial in a time when the cost of living continues to be a major concern for Australian households. The reduction to $25 provides immediate cost-of-living relief to patients without a concession card while also ensuring that the PBS remains a sustainable investment for government. This level of investment was selected to ensure it does not come at the expense of other government priorities, such as continued listings of new medicines on the PBS; investment in other essential health services, including bulk-billing; and a competitive and sustainable pharmacy market. The general patient co-payment will continue to be indexed on 1 January each year, in line with existing indexation arrangements. Indexing from January 2027 will be calculated off the new general co-payment amount of $25, thereby saving patients out-of-pocket expenses right into the future.

Making medicines cheaper is not just good for the hip pocket, although it obviously is—it's also good for your health. This bill delivers on a significant commitment made prior to the last election. It builds on earlier actions undertaken by the Albanese government to deliver cheaper medicines, and it helps strengthen Medicare and improve the health of all Australians. I sincerely thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill, and I again commend it to the House.

Milton Dick

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Monique Ryan

I move:

That item 12 of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health and Aged Care Measures No. 4) Regulations 2024 made under the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997 on 24 October 2024 and presented to the House on 4 November 2024, be disallowed.

I move this motion to disallow the instrument amending the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997, referred to as the Moderna partnership, tabled by the Minister for Finance in the Senate and then this House on 28 October 2024. The Morrison government struck a deal with Moderna in May 2021 to build a facility in Australia for the domestic production of new vaccines. The Morrison government had failed to procure COVID-19 vaccines in a timely manner. It had lost the vaccine race. It struck a hasty deal without the usual competitive tender so it would be able to announce that it was doing something, knowing full well that that facility would almost certainly be built too late to contribute significantly to the COVID-19 pandemic response. The terms of the deal were kept secret at the time.

We now know that it is a multibillion dollar deal in which taxpayers paid for a facility which is fully owned by Moderna—a facility that has, as yet in 2025, failed to produce a single dose of vaccine for our domestic use. We now know—but only because of the tabling of this disallowable instrument by Senator Gallagher last October—that, as part of the Morrison-Hunt agreement, the government has created a streamlined vaccine procurement process exclusively for Moderna's pandemic and non-pandemic vaccines outside the National Immunisation Program.

The need for pandemic preparedness is still front of mind for all Australians, but this financial arrangement is about more than just preparing ourselves for the next pandemic. It is a commercial leg-up for one company in what is a very competitive non-pandemic vaccine market. This arrangement should be revised to ensure a level playing field for the best Australian and global companies to research, develop and manufacture the best medicines for Australians in Australia. It should be disallowed because it circumvents the standards and safeguards of Commonwealth procurement processes on the grounds of protecting human health when in fact it is to be applied to non-emergency medicines. There is a defined and accepted process for the procurement of medicines and medical treatments in this country. There is no possible justification for non-emergency vaccines sidestepping this process.

The COVID-19 pandemic was the greatest trauma experienced by this country in this century. Thousands of Australians died. Our social and economic life was damaged. Tens of billions of dollars were wasted by the Morrison government on a poorly directed economic stimulus package and on wasteful and opaque spending on diagnostics, PPE and vaccines. We will never know the full extent of that waste, because the Morrison and Albanese governments have refused a royal commission into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without those lessons, we will inevitably be less well prepared for the next pandemic. And so I'm moving this disallowance motion today in the national interest and in the interest of the health of Australians, the health of our economy and the health of the democratic institutions that safeguard the national public interest. I'm moving this motion in the interests of transparency so that a major decision of our government during the pandemic doesn't just slide through this place unnoticed and unquestioned.

Do we welcome the Moderna facility in Australia—Moderna in Australia? Yes, we do. Australia's world-class health and medical research capacity, with which I am personally and particularly familiar, makes us an obvious location for world-class pharmaceutical manufacturing. During the pandemic, Moderna's vaccine development was the fastest ever seen globally. Moderna's mRNA vaccine for COVID saved millions of lives. Do we need to expand our vaccine manufacturing domestically? We clearly do. Right now, only one COVID-19 vaccine is available in Australia. That's Pfizer (COMIRNATY) JN.1. The Albanese government actually decided not to replenish supplies of Moderna mRNA vaccine in late 2024. Those unable to receive mRNA vaccines have been unable to access any form of COVID vaccine in Australia since July 2024, and this has caused a lot of distress to those people who are keen to access the Novavax vaccine. We know that two COVID-19 variants are currently active in Australia. A recent COVID wave affected more than 200 aged-care facilities. Most older Australians have not been immunised for six months or more.

Does government investment in sovereign capability for medicine production domestically make sense? Yes, it does. Our pandemic experience has shown us the risks of global supply chain interruptions, and they've shown us the importance of building expertise and capacity for research and manufacturing onshore and for safeguarding our resources. Australia imports 90 per cent of its medicines. We have ongoing shortages of medicines for ADHD, for diabetes, for palliative care, for HRT, for antibiotics and more. For years, I have been pushing for more support for local medicines production, which we could facilitate through schemes like A Future Made in Australia. But we have no certainty that putting this very large egg in this single basket is going to help our pharmaceutical industry, our vaccines industry, even just our mRNA industry to strengthen and diversify, or that it will provide continuity of local vaccine production before and after this contract expires in 2032. We don't know if the government has looked at other options open to it under the existing facility establishment agreement, such as expanding expenditure for research and development or for manufacturing for research rather than vaccines. These are options which could have significant spillover benefits for Australian medical research capability and for our commercialisation skills.

Do we need to support medical research in Australia? We certainly do, which is why I've been asking the minister to immediately release funds from the Medical Research Future Fund to universities and medical research institutes, which are struggling in a time of decreased local funding for research and development, and at a time when support of Australian medical research by the NIH and other US sources has decreased by $368 million in this year alone.

Why is this deal so concerning? Australia's decades-old system of vaccine procurement ensures that safe, effective and cost-effective vaccines are purchased and provided to the Australian people. The government's arrangement with Moderna is the biggest change to vaccine procurement in Australian history. It gives a massive commercial advantage to one company by making a multibillion contribution to the construction of a new, single facility and to the servicing of its operations, with no transparency as to what, if any, ownership we have of that infrastructure and the ongoing operations of the facility. It gives one single company access to expedited procurement processes, remembering that it takes on average 3.8 years for the PBAC to approve new vaccines in this country. In doing so, this agreement disadvantages other vaccine manufacturers. It creates a disincentive for other companies to invest or expand here. In seeking to build capacity, we are potentially stifling it.

It's wholly appropriate that governments invoke human health considerations during a pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic acute phases, both Pfizer and Moderna benefited from alternative health technology assessment processes. We needed those expedited pathways because of the longstanding issues with medical regulatory pathways in this country. Those issues persist. To its credit this government commissioned the health technology assessment review in 2022, but it reported in May 2024, and it's still not scheduling implementation of its recommendations until 2026. That is too slow. We need faster medication approvals. We need to ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic. Now is the time to improve the TGA, the PBAC and MSAC, not to build cut-outs for our favoured partners.

We don't know what HDA criteria and assessments will apply to the vaccines produced by this facility. We don't know how they're going to vary from the standard processes. But we do know that the government has actively disapplied the usual rules around competition, value for money, merits review and regulatory impact assessments. And remember that this special treatment is not just for pandemic vaccines. It specifically includes non-pandemic vaccines. There is no possible justification for this carve-out. The usual safeguards for procurement should apply. The usual standards of best product at best value should apply to non-pandemic vaccines produced by the Moderna facility.

Giving a single commercial entity a sweetheart deal undermines competition. Companies which didn't receive taxpayer gifts upfront do not have the same capacity to invest. A business environment characterised by uncompetitive deals is an active deterrent to other companies which might be considering capitalising on Australia's medical research expertise, companies which are considering investing locally in the research and development required to bring new and improved products to our market. A guarantee to a single company to fast-track approvals for their product while their competitors wait three years or more for the same approvals is anticompetitive. It's a deterrent to new research and development, for which we will all be the poorer.

We need our government to always act in the public's best interest, with honesty and transparency. That is more important than ever when it comes to health care. The people in this place should be asking: What is in the best interests of the people of Australia? With this deal from 2021, what is being promised to the Australian taxpayer in 2025 and beyond? How can we guarantee a fair and equal playing field for business investments in this country? How can we encourage research and development and build sovereign capacity for medicine production when we are committing to these sorts of deals? How do we best protect and preserve the health of all Australians?

To that end, I move that this instrument be disallowed, to give the parliament of Australia an opportunity to investigate these really important questions and to act transparently and in the best interests of the health and wellbeing of our constituents.

Sharon Claydon

Is the motion seconded?

Long debate text truncated.

Joanne Ryan

I seek leave of the House to move a motion to suspend so much of the standing and sessional orders relating to private members' business on 25 August 2025.

Leave is not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Selection Committee's determinations for Monday, 25 August 2025 being varied to reflect the terms of the revised report and for the variation to be shown in the Notice Paper for Monday, 25 August under 'Business Accorded Priority' in the House and Federation Chamber.

Milton Dick

Is the motion seconded?

Lisa Chesters

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Chief Government Whip be agreed to.

Amanda Rishworth

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I move the government amendment as circulated:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 18), at the end of section 135A, add:

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) requires the FWC to exercise its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards.

The amendment introduces new subsection (3) to proposed section 135A, putting it beyond doubt that the changes introduced by this bill do not require or compel the Fair Work Commission to undertake a review of all modern awards to see whether the new principle applies or not; review award terms outside the scope of an application before the commission; or exercise its powers to make, vary or revoke a modern award. It was never the intent of the bill to compel the commission to undertake a review of all modern awards or to review penalty and overtime rates if those terms are outside the scope of the particular application before the commission.

We are and have been incredibly confident that the bill as introduced, without this amendment, would not have operated in this way. However, the government is committed to ongoing genuine consultation, which I have afforded to the opposition but also, of course, to business, employer representatives and unions. We are amending the bill for the avoidance of any doubt and to provide certainty for stakeholders, in good faith. I commend the amendment.

Question agreed to.

Tim Wilson

I ask leave of the House to move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together, as circulated in my name.

Milton Dick

I call the Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

No such amendments have been circulated or exist, so we should continue.

Milton Dick

I'll just clarify with the clerks. The normal way is that the amendments are presented. I understand the instruction was given to only circulate them after the speech. That's the way consideration in detail works, to keep the smooth running of the House. The Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

There is nothing for us to give leave to because there is nothing that the House is in possession of. People have the choice as to whether they circulate or not. If you don't circulate, you've got to read the whole thing out, which he should now do.

Milton Dick

We're going to do this efficiently. The member for Goldstein can read the amendment out, then.

Tim Wilson

Sure. Amendment (1) reads:

Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6) to page 3 (line 18), omit section 135A, substitute:

135A Special provisions relating to penalty rates and overtime rates

(1) In exercising its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the FWC must be satisfied that:

(a) the rate of a penalty rate or an overtime rate that employees are entitled to receive under the modern award is not reduced; and

(b) modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration referred to in paragraph 134(1)(da) that an affected employee would otherwise receive under the modern award.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when the—

Milton Dick

Just a moment, Member for Goldstein, I'll get you to take a seat. The Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

I think what the member for Goldstein is trying to do is move the amendments, which means he has to say at the start that he is moving them and then go through the provisions he is moving, otherwise there will be nothing before the House.

Milton Dick

Member for Goldstein, you've made the decision to read the amendments out, but, just before you start, to assist the House, could you say formally, 'I move the amendments,' and then begin.

Tim Wilson

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6) to page 3 (line 18), omit section 135A, substitute:

135A Special provisions relating to penalty rates and overtime rates

(1) In exercising its powers under this Part to make, vary or revoke modern awards, the FWC must be satisfied that:

(a) the rate of a penalty rate or an overtime rate that employees are entitled to receive under the modern award is not reduced; and

(b) modern awards do not include terms that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms would have the effect of reducing the additional remuneration referred to in paragraph 134(1)(da) that an affected employee would otherwise receive under the modern award.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part pursuant to:

(a) section 144 (flexibility terms); or

(b) section 160 (which deals with variation to remove ambiguities or correct errors); or

(c) paragraph 157 (3)(a) (own initiative).

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms existed immediately prior to commencement of Subsection (1).

(4) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply when the FWC exercises powers under this Part in relation to terms of a modern award that substitute employees' entitlements to receive penalty rates or overtime rates where those terms are expressed to apply only to a small business employer.

(5) Subsection (1) does not limit the FWC's ability to make a determination to vary a modern award where the determination is made:

(a) to ensure that awards are operating effectively by addressing any anomaly or technical irregularity in the award arising from either the making of the award or past variations to it; or

(b) as an outcome of proceedings commenced by the Commission of its own motion if Commission is satisfied is necessary to achieve the modern awards objective and compliance with section 138, or

(c) following the Fair Work Commission being satisfied that the variation is fair to employees and that it would:

(i) improve productivity; or

(ii) promote employment opportunities or the participation of employees in paid work; or

(iii) assist employees to balance their work and family commitments.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), at the end of the Schedule, add:

3 Regulatory impact statement

(1) The Minister must cause a regulatory impact statement to be prepared in relation to the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The persons preparing the regulatory impact statement must complete it within one year after this Act commences.

(3) The persons preparing the regulatory impact statement must give the Minister a copy of the statement.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the regulatory impact statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives a copy of the statement.

We just had a long dissertation on the amendments put forward, even though I understand they have been provided to the Clerk. But the Leader of the House, in his brilliance and capacity to be able to manage the challenges of this parliament, particularly its committee process, is, of course, being a pedant. So be it. There is a simple reality: we support penalty rates. We understand how important it is to support jobs and small businesses, and there are no penalty rates on jobs that don't exist. We have gone directly to the Australian people because the minister has shut down any pathway of understanding the impact of the legislation she is putting before the House. She is not interested in hearing from nor speaking to nor seeing any small business, so we did the minister's job for her.

Let's look at some of the feedback we have from the Australian community on why these changes are so important, to make sure that these voices are heard: 'I run a small business, and I'd like to know what this new legislation is, because I don't know what it entails'; 'Small business requires owners to work in the businesses, be bookkeepers, know all the taxes, know all the fair work laws, know all retail and wage laws and make sure everything is on paper. Penalties are great if not done'; 'Big businesses have accountants and PR and HR professionals—things small businesses can't afford'; 'At present we have good businesses closing down which can't sell'; 'No-one wants the stress, pressure and long hours for what now has little reward. It's easy to have a government job with shorter hours, large penalty rates, holidays, sick leave et cetera.' This is the problem. Without any proper consultation, the government has not understood the consequences of its legislation and the impact it's going to have on small businesses. The minister's understanding of small business, and this government's understanding of small business, is that corner shops have HR departments, legal departments and special advisers.

By the way, that's where all the money for penalty rates for young Australians and people who want to get ahead and get paid well gets sucked into: non-economically-productive activity to manage the realities of laws in this country. When we talk about simplification, we're talking about getting rid of needless legal work, needless accounting work and needless industrial relations advice so you can actually pay Australians more. It's simpler, cleaner and easier so Australians can get ahead, support their families, be in a position to have flexibility in their workplace arrangements and do things like pick up kids from school or manage work-life balance. It seems an entirely logical thing to do, except, of course, if you're part of the Albanese government. If you know this is the reality, and you know this is the consequence of legislation put forward to this House, the questions for the minister, the Prime Minister and, of course, everybody on Labor benches are: Why do they not want to hear from small business, see small business or talk to small business? Why don't they want to have a conversation where they can give the voices of small business a say in this nation's parliament?

We have had sloppy drafting at every stage of this legislation. This is not just my view; it's, of course, the view of industry, who have explicitly said that these are badly drafted laws. To the credit of the minister, she moved an amendment to address some of the sloppy drafting in her legislation, just now, and we supported her. We supported her because we actually want to make sure we get the legislation we need so that we get the outcome that we want for the Australian people. I will take a point of slight hilarity, which is that she's now accusing me of being disingenuous in my approach—through the Speaker, of course. The minister simply doesn't understand. Some of us believe in empowering Australians. Some of us—

Milton Dick

We're dealing with technical amendments. This is not a general debate. This applies to everyone who moves consideration in detail. I've allowed some latitude here. To assist the House, member for Goldstein, make your remarks about the regulatory impact statement and the reasons behind that, perhaps.

Tim Wilson

One of the reasons we want a regulatory impact statement is that we need to understand the direct consequence of this legislation on those people it's designed to impact. We have a current situation where the minister doesn't want to engage with small business or do a regulatory impact statement. And, even worse, when she's asked how many small businesses in this country are going to be affected, she cannot answer the simple question. It's a simple expectation. You've got legislation. You're trying to effect change. You're claiming it's positive, so tell me how many small businesses in this nation these laws will have an effect on.

Long debate text truncated.