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.

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.