Malarndirri McCarthy's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Perth: Attack | Motions | Senate debates
I rise to condemn the sickening attack on an Invasion Day rally in Perth last week. On 26 January, First Nations families and non-Indigenous supporters gathered at Forrest Place in peaceful...
I rise to condemn the sickening attack on an Invasion Day rally in Perth last week. On 26 January, First Nations families and non-Indigenous supporters gathered at Forrest Place in peaceful protest, exercising their democratic right to make their voices heard. First Nations people were leading 2½ thousand Australians of all walks of life, waving the Aboriginal flag and national flag and holding banners about serious issues facing First Nations Australians—homelessness, incarceration, health outcomes. Many of us have seen the released footage of what happened next. As a Noongar elder was addressing the crowd, a man threw an object from a nearby balcony. From police descriptions, it's a miracle that footage wasn't very different. Police have confirmed that the item thrown was an improvised explosive device—metal ball bearings and screws wrapped around an explosive liquid compound of chemicals. We've heard from experts in the media in recent days about the device's destructive potential. Professor Mark Briskey, a counterterrorism expert from Murdoch University, has worked on investigations alongside the AFP and FBI. He described the similarity between this device and others used by terrorists to kill in other countries. It's only by chance that the device didn't detonate and cause mass casualties. Eyewitnesses have said the device landed in an area reserved for the most vulnerable—people in wheelchairs, babies in prams. We narrowly avoided a catastrophic disaster. The Western Australia Joint Counter Terrorism Team is investigating the incident as a potential terrorist act. While a man has been charged over the incident and remains in custody, this remains an ongoing investigation, and we must call this attack out for what it is. What we saw in Perth last Monday was an attempted bombing of a peaceful First Nations rally led by First Nations Australians and their allies. This was an attack on the social cohesion of the Australian community. It was an attack on all Australians. When our social cohesion is attacked, all of us in this chamber—the government, the opposition and the crossbench—must apply consistent focus and condemnation. Leaders' words carry meaning, and our government will not be silent. The Albanese government condemns this sickening and abhorrent incident. An attack on First Nations Australians is an attack on all Australians, and I am incredibly proud of the Prime Minister for standing up and saying what he said in regard to this incident. First Nations Australians, like all Australians, must be able to gather peacefully without fearing for our safety. There is no place for hate, intimidation or racism of any form in Australia, and we will continue to take action. Last month, we legislated to target acts of hatred designed to disrupt our social cohesion. That legislation better protects Australians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, including First Nations Australians, from hateful attacks. As Minister for Indigenous Australians and as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman, I understand the importance of our work to eradicate violent hate all too well. First Nations Australians have come to understand that, where hateful narratives spread, violence does follow and generations will be devastated. I'm hearing from First Nations people in Western Australia and around the country, and they are deeply concerned. So many are scared—many are despairing—but First Nations Australians will not be cowed, by this violence, from exercising their rights or from being proud of who they are. We won't stop in our efforts to protect social cohesion in Australia. On behalf of the government, I sincerely extend my condolences to those shaken by these events; to the many people I've spoken to in regard—not just here in the Senate chamber; my colleagues Senator Cox and Senator Lines; and all of those families, Noongar families and allies who were protesting that day. Condolences to you, and we reach out to you to support you. We will not stop in our efforts to ensure that First Nations Australians and all Australians live in safety.
Bondi Beach: Attack | Condolences | Senate debates
I rise to offer my condolences to the Jewish community following the horror of last month's antisemitic terrorist attack. On that warm December evening, Jewish Sydneysiders had gathered in joy on...
I rise to offer my condolences to the Jewish community following the horror of last month's antisemitic terrorist attack. On that warm December evening, Jewish Sydneysiders had gathered in joy on Bondi Beach, on the lands of the Birrabirragal of the Eora nation and the nearby clans of the Gadigal and Bidjigal people. They met at Bondi Beach, a location so many Australians associate with summer fun, to celebrate the first night of Hanukkah with food, music, petting zoos and face paints. But those innocent celebrations were shattered by horror, an act of hate and of darkness targeting the festival of lights—murderous, antisemitic violence targeting those celebrating simply for being Jewish. I rise to remember those who were taken: Edith Brutman, Dan Elkayam, Boris and Sofia Gurman, Alexander Kleytman, Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, Peter Meagher, Reuven Morrison, Marika Pogany, Rabbi Eli Schlanger, Adam Smyth, Boris Tetleroyd, Tania Tretiak, Tibor Weitzen and the youngest victim, beautiful 10-year-old Matilda. Since the attack, we've seen the faces and heard the stories of each of those 15 people—cherished granddaughters and sons, sisters and brothers, wives and husbands, parents and grandparents. Each smiling photograph is a reminder that they were members of families and communities and that each loss will leave a void that simply cannot be filled. I offer my sincere condolences to the families, friends and communities of those grieving. I offer my prayers for recovery to the dozens injured and their loved ones. As Minister for Indigenous Australians and as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman, I offer a particular condolence to our Jewish community. The pain of violence committed against innocent people, targeted purely for their identity, is something First Nations Australians have felt all too often throughout Australian history and still continue to feel in various forms. The intergenerational harm caused by that violence and loss is a devastating reality for a community. I grieve with our Jewish brothers and sisters, and I stand in solidarity with them. The message of Hanukkah is the triumph of light over darkness. In that spirit, I also honour the extraordinary acts of light that shone in that awful darkness. They are stories of extraordinary selflessness and courage to save lives: Boris and Sofia Gurman and Reuven Morrison, who bravely tried to stop the attackers but made the ultimate sacrifice; Ahmed al-Ahmed, who confronted and disarmed one of the shooters and was shot himself; 14-year-old Chaya, shot while shielding two young children; mother-of-two Jessica, who threw herself over three-year-old Gigi, a child she didn't know, to protect her from bullets; policeman Jack Hibbert, who was shot in the head and chest while getting people to safety; Constable Scott Dyson, who managed to return fire despite critical injuries; and their fellow police officers, emergency services workers, health workers, lifeguards and everyday Australians who bravely sprang into action to save lives in the face of danger. The triumph of light over darkness—that central theme of Hanukkah—is undoubtedly what we saw at Bondi. It's incumbent on all of us to ensure that the light continues to drive out darkness. This is a time for unity, not division. It is a time to stand together to emanate that light. We should follow the gracious example of those who lost loved ones in this tragedy—like Ms Lina Chernykh, little Matilda's aunt, who said, 'Take your anger and just spread happiness and love and memory for my lovely niece,' and also Rabbi Zalman Lewis, the late Rabbi Schlanger's cousin, who reminded us: 'The message of Hanukkah is of optimism, of hope, of a good world, of a kind world. The world is a good place, and it's filled with billions of good people. We have to believe that the billions of good acts can dispel the darkness, and that is what Eli would be saying.' On Thursday, all Australians will observe a national day of mourning for the Bondi victims, and I'll be remembering Rabbi Schlanger, remembering little Matilda, and remembering the brave Gurmans and Mr Morrison and all of those lost in this attack. On behalf of the people of the Northern Territory, we do send our sincere love and condolences. And I'll be remembering that light must always triumph over darkness. Yo, bauji barra.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— COMMUNICATIONS...
I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN CONTENT REQUIREMENT FOR SUBSCRIPTION VIDEO ON DEMAND (STREAMING) SERVICES) BILL 2025 Today the Albanese Labor government is legislating for streaming services to have guaranteed Australian content. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and subordinate legislation, to allow for an Australian screen content requirement on subscription video on demand (streaming) services. In the National Cultural Policy, Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place, the Australian Government committed to introduce requirements for Australian screen content on streaming services to ensure continued access to local stories and content. We should never underestimate how important it is for Australians to see ourselves on screen. It helps us to better understand ourselves and our neighbours and allows the world to see us. Australian stories play an important role in shaping Australia's national identity, fostering social inclusion and encouraging cultural expression. They are our greatest cultural asset. They help build a sense of community, collective well-being and a shared identity. They reflect and define who we are as a nation and make us recognisable on the international stage. Australian stories help make sense of our past, define ourselves in the present and promote our people, our creativity and our country to the world. They bring people together and enable the exchange of experiences, ideas and perspectives. All Australians benefit when we are represented by and can hear our voices in the stories brought to the big and small screen. Maj or structural changes in audience viewing habits have meant that contemporary Australian audiences are increasingly engaging with content across multiple platforms. Public broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, cable and streaming are all part of Australia's television landscape now and into the future. In relation to the public broadcasters. The ABC Charter includes the requirement for the ABC to broadcast programs that contribute to Australia's sense of national identity, inform and entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community. The SBS Charter states that the SBS's principal function is to provide multilingual and multicultural broadcasting and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians, and in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society Australian content quotas for commercial television were first introduced in the 1960s to ensure that Australians had access to Australian stories and to see their culture, language and values reflected on screen. These local content requirements were updated in the 1990s to apply free-to-air and other subscription television broadcasters, requiring broadcasters to commission a minimum level of Australian content every year. This is either based on hours, in the case of free-to-air commercial television broadcasters, or, in the case of other subscription broadcasters, a percentage of their total drama expenditure in Australia. These requirements stabilise the market, and act as a safeguard for the Australian screen production sector. But, unlike free-to-air broadcasting services and other subscription television services, streaming services have no requirements to make Australian content available on their platforms. The ready availability of content produced in other countries risks drowning out our own Australian stories. Without Government intervention there is no guarantee that streaming services will produce and make Australian content available to Australian consumers. As more Australians watch screen content through streaming services, the Government's goal in introducing these requirements is to guarantee a minimum level of expenditure on new Australian content on these services. It will ensure that access to Australian content—and Australian stories—is guaranteed to Australians regardless of the platform on which they choose to view it. Since the policy was endorsed in Australia's National Cultural Policy, Revive in 2023, there has been an extraordinary amount of engagement with stakeholders also involving the Minister for Communications Anika Wells, and before that by the now Attorney-General Michelle Rowland as well as Arts Envoy Susan Templeman. The extensive and genuine consultation process has informed the development of this requirement. The views of stakeholders and the analysis undertaken throughout the consultation process has informed the development of the Australian screen content requirements being introduced today. Consultation took longer than we would have liked but we were determined to get this right. The proposed requirement introduced today is consistent with Australia's international trade obligations. The Australian screen content requirement will apply to streaming services operating in Australia with at least 1 million Australian subscribers The requirement is for streaming services to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure for Australia on eligible program formats in Australia on new Australian programs. Eligible program formats are drama, children's, documentary, arts and educational programs. Total program expenditure for the Australian market includes the cost of programs commissioned or acquired specifically for the Australian market, as well as programs which were made overseas and not specifically licensed for Australia, otherwise known as global content. This global content can represent a large portion of streaming services' catalogues. There are some streaming companies operating in Australia that only have global content. If global content wasn't included, and the requirement was based solely on a streaming service's total drama expenditure in Australia, then there is a risk that services could have no requirement at all. If global content is excluded from any requirement, international streaming services could simply minimise their expenditure in Australia and avoid any obligation. Simply put, 10 per cent of nothing, would deliver nothing. The requirement also includes a voluntary option for streaming services to acquit their requirements based on a calculation of 7.5 per cent of their Australian revenue. The requirement uses the definition of Australian content set out in the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020. This is the definition that is used for commercial free-to-air and other subscription television broadcasters. It is therefore the appropriate consistent definition. Streaming services covered by the new requirements will report to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will administer the Australian screen content requirement. Streaming services can acquit their obligation over a three-year period. This principle was put strongly to the Government during consultation by the streaming services and reflects the lumpy nature of investment cycles in high quality programs. There will also be a statutory review conducted four years after commencement to make sure the requirement is operating effectively. The Australian Government committed to ensuring Australians have access to local stories wherever they choose to watch their screen content. This Bill fulfils that commitment. In introducing this legislation, I must acknowledge the numerous stakeholders who have long advocated for an Australian content requirement on streaming platforms. The Screen Producers Association, the MEAA, all of the guilds as well as many people who don't work in the industry, but who have a connection to the screen through great Australian stories. The path to this legislation has been long. The streamers hadn't arrived in Australia in 2013 when I was a new Arts Minister. I noticed you could log onto Apple iTunes and you could choose a movie—and come back half an hour—and it would be ready to watch. I said at the time, it's not going to be long before we are watching the internet through our televisions. I knew then, that the television quotas on Free to Air television wouldn't help. I wish we had acted then, we didn't have time before we lost office. We are acting now. Since their introduction in Australia, streaming services have created some extraordinary shows. In the last few years, many of them have produced great Australian content. A minority are yet to produce any. This legislation is not a criticism of the streaming businesses in Australia. It is an endorsement of Australian stories, a celebration of Australian creatives and a show of respect for the Australian audience. This Bill will guarantee Australians will have access to Australian stories, now and into the future—it will ensure that no matter which remote control you're holding, Australian stories will be at your fingertips. Australians will see themselves, know each other and the world will meet us. VET STUDENT LOANS (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2025 Today, I introduce the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025. The Bill ensures that VET Student Loans (VSL) providers were authorised to handle students' tax file numbers (TFNs) to administer the VET Student Loans program. The VET Student Loans Act 2016 (VSL Act) governs both the eligibility criteria for students seeking a loan and the requirements that providers must meet, to participate in the program. Students are required—under the VSL Act—to provide their tax file number (TFN) when submitting a loan application, as repayments are made through the tax system. The TFN is essential to ensure the student's loan application details align with their Australian Taxation Office account. During a review of how VET Student Loans are administered, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified that there was no clear role for VSL providers to handle tax file numbers under the VSL Act and stronger alignment between relevant IT systems and legislation was required. We have taken action to fix this. Since early 2025, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has implemented updates to the IT systems to mask VSL students' tax file numbers and automate the transfer of TFNs between the student interface and government systems. So now VSL providers no longer need to handle TFNs. This Bill includes a retrospective measure to authorise VSL providers' past handling of student tax file numbers (TFNs) for the purpose of administering loan applications and VET Student Loans. It also authorises the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations' previous disclosure of TFNs to providers for the same purpose. The measure applies to all current and former VSL providers and their officers who handled TFNs from 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2025. It also extends to other relevant parties, including the Secretary of the Department, the Commissioner of Taxation, and Commonwealth officers. By clarifying the basis for these past practices, the Bill ensures the VET Student Loans program remains both accessible to students and compliant—supporting confidence in the system and the delivery of quality vocational education. Income-contingent loans for Vocational Education and Training (VET) students were first introduced in 2008, under the former VET FEE-HELP scheme. That scheme operated under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which allowed VET FEE-HELP and Higher Education Loan Program providers to handle students' tax file numbers (TFNs) for the purpose of administering loans. In 2017, the VET FEE-HELP scheme was replaced by the VET Student Loans (VSL) program. While the VSL program operates under its own legislative framework—the VET Student Loans Act 2016—it continued to use the same IT systems platforms. This Bill is important because VET plays a huge role in building the skilled workforce Australia needs—now and into the future. The VET Student Loans program makes vocational education and training more accessible to Australians by providing opportunities for students to undertake a VET course—diploma level and above— and defer the payment of tuition fees through an income contingent loan. The program helps to address skills shortages across critical industries including engineering, occupational licencing trades like plumbing, carpentry and electrical work, and training and assessment. There is no change to the way students apply for a VET Student Loan using the Electronic Commonwealth Assistance Form (eCAF). I confirm to the house that since the VSL program commenced in 2017, there have been no student complaints related to the handling of tax file numbers (TFNs) for the purposes of administering the program. Ensuring VET Student Loans are accessible and administered with integrity is critical to helping Australians gain the skills and qualifications to build our future, strengthen our workforce, and support long-term national prosperity. Further details of the measure in this Bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025; First Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time.
Housing Australia, Housing, Tobacco Regulation, Housing Australia Future Fund; Order for the Production of Documents | Documents | Senate debates
I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Housing Australia, the five per cent home deposit scheme, illicit tobacco and funding agreements concerning the...
I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Housing Australia, the five per cent home deposit scheme, illicit tobacco and funding agreements concerning the Housing Australia Future Fund.
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee; Government Response to Report | Committees | Senate debates
I present two government responses as listed on today's Order of Business and seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows—...
I present two government responses as listed on today's Order of Business and seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report: Review of the amendments made by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 NOVEMBER 2025 Recommendations made in the Review of the amendments made by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 Committee Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Government implement a periodic survey, starting in three years from the presentation of this report, to ascertain ongoing economic impacts of the TOLA Act legislation on Australia's ICT industry and the results should be made publicly available. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends the Government, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, develop a prescribed set of requirements for information that must be included in technical assistance requests. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that s317C of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to clarify that a designated communications provider does not include a natural person, where that natural person is an employee of a designated communications provider, but will only apply to natural persons insofar as required to include sole traders. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to remove references to 'systemic vulnerability'. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that s 317ZG of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to describe the 'prohibited effects' of a technical assistance request, a technical assistance notice or a technical capability notice. Such an amendment could take the form of the words put forward by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in his recommendations 9 and 10, and the government may consider incorporation of additional definitions in s317B of the Telecommunications Act 1997 arising from the proposed amendment. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs develop, maintain, and publish non-exhaustive guidance documents that set out non-binding examples of what may constitute a 'whole class of technology' for the purposes of defining a systemic weakness. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends the Government commission a review of Commonwealth legislation to determine whether the concept of 'serious offence', 'relevant offence', and other similar concepts: This body of work should inform, or occur as part of, the eventual electronic surveillance bill being considered by the Department of Home Affairs and other departments. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that the relevant provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and law enforcement agencies to seek external authorisation from the Attorney-General or issuing authority to carry out concealment activities in relation to the execution of computer access warrants following the initial 28 day window provided in the respective acts. The Committee recommends that such an application should allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or law enforcement agencies to carry out concealment activities within a window of time not exceeding six months from the expiry of the initial 28 day window, with the option to seek additional external authorisation for a further six months if required. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that the Government make clear that no mandatory assistance order, including those defined in section 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 and section 201A of the Customs Act 1901, can be executed in a manner that amounts to the detention of a person where that agency does not otherwise have any lawful basis to detain the person. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that s21A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to limit authorisation of activities under voluntary assistance provisions to the Director-General of Security and Deputy Directors-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that s 21A(1)(e) and s 21A(5)(e) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to confine the scope of the immunity from civil liability offered under the Act to 'conduct that does not result in serious personal injury or death to any person or significant loss of, or serious damage to, property'. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that s21A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Director-General of Security to be satisfied of the reasonableness and proportionality of the conduct of a voluntary assistance request prior to issuance. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that s21A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to retain written reasons underpinning a voluntary assistance request. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that s21A and s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to state that nothing in either section authorises the Director-General of Security to make a request of a person that is properly the subject of a technical assistance request as set out by s317G of the Telecommunications Act 1997. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends that the Government make clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the compulsory assistance order power in s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 does not authorise the detention of person to whom the order applies where the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation does not otherwise have any lawful basis to detain the person. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to state that the requirement to comply with a compulsory assistance order is only enlivened once the specified individual has been provided with a written notice that outlines what they must do to ensure compliance with the order. This notice should also clarify the consequences of failing to comply. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends that s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to advise the individual subject to a compulsory assistance order the conditions associated with that order at the time the written notice is provided or at such time as the conditions are known. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends that the Government amend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to expand the jurisdiction of the IGIS to oversee the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 19: The Committee recommends that the Government amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security with the ability oversee to the intelligence functions of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 20: The Committee recommends the Government give further consideration to the proposal from the INSLM for an Investigatory Powers Division within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and provide a response on the proposed model or any recommended alternatives by September 2022. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 21: The Committee recommends the Government consider the proposal for an Investigatory Powers Commissioner, as recommended by the INSLM, and provide a response on the proposed model or any recommended alternative models by September 2022. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 22: The Committee recommends that the Government expressly clarify that the Commonwealth Ombudsman must consult with relevant agencies to identify operationally sensitive material that should be removed or amended before publication of a report. Section 317ZRB(7) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 should then subsequently be repealed. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 23: The Committee recommends that s317LA of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be repealed so that State and Territory police are not required to seek the approval of the Australian Federal Police for a technical assistance notice. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 24: The Committee recommends that s 34 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to report to the Attorney-General when a device is removed from premises in the execution of a computer access warrant and the duration of the removal. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 25: The Committee recommends that: Intelligence Services Act 2001 Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 26: The Committee recommends that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation brief the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the acts or things implemented as part of a compulsory assistance order to facilitate and assist the ongoing review and oversight of the legislation. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 27: The Committee recommends that s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 and s 201A of the Customs Act 1901 be amended to require agencies to report to inspection bodies on the execution of assistance orders and publish those figures in their respective annual reports. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 28: The Committee recommends the definition in s 4 of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 be amended to allow the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the amendments made by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 of its own motion. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 29: The Committee recommends s 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to commence a review within three years once the Committee becomes aware through existing annual reporting requirements that the technical assistance notices or technical capability notices provided by Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 have been used. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. ______ Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security: Advisory Report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 NOVEMBER 2025 Recommendations made in the Advisory Report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 Committee Recommendations Recommendation 1: In accordance with the Committee's recommendations from previous reports, which the Government has agreed to, the Committee recommends that the Government ensure that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's has sufficient resources to enable effective oversight of powers under the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that a new subclause be added to the proposed Clause 182 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that designated international agreements must be published and tabled in the regulations, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and subject to a period of disallowance. For the commencement of the regulations, proposed Schedule 1 should be amended to provide that regulations made under clause 3 (i.e. listing an agreement as a designated international agreement) cannot commence until no earlier than the expiry of the standard period for disallowance (i.e. 15 sitting days) under the Legislation Act 2003, or until the commencement of the other party's agreement, whichever is the longer. For the period for disallowance, the bill should be amended to provide that the statutory disallowance period for regulations made under proposed clause 3 of Schedule 1 is the longer of: Legislation Act 2003 Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that an additional subclause be added to the proposed Clause 182 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that a designated international agreement may be renewed or extended for a period of three years without completing the parliamentary treaty process, if such a renewal or extension is proposed without amendment to the agreement. However, the Committee recommends that the clause also provide that, following the term of the initial agreement and any additional three year period, any further renewal or extension should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance even where no amendment is proposed. Finally, the same clause should also be amended to provide that, whenever an amendment to a designated international agreement is made or proposed, the amended agreement must be specified as a new agreement in the regulations and thus subject to the usual parliamentary treaty process and be subject to disallowance. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that a new subclause be included in proposed Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that—in order to qualify as a designated international agreement—the agreement must: Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends a subclause be included in proposed Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that a designated international agreement shall not permit a foreign government to: Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends a subclause be included in proposed Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that incoming international production orders under a designated international agreement must only be issued for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that proposed Clause 182 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to provide that, for the purposes of the Act, an agreement—and a foreign government—will be considered to satisfy the statutory requirements (including the requirements set out in Recommendation 4 and Recommendation 8 of this report) if the Attorney-General, with the concurrence of the Minister for Home Affairs: Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that the proposed Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to state that a country seeking a designated international agreement with Australia must meet the following criteria: The name of the agreement must not be specified under paragraph (1)(b) unless the Minister has received a written assurance from the government of the foreign country relating to the non-use of Australian-sourced information obtained by virtue of the agreement in connection with any proceeding for a death penalty offence in the country or territory. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that, where relevant, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 be amended to implement the recommendations set out in the Committee's report of its Inquiry into the Impact of the Exercise of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Powers on the Freedom of the Press, including recommendation 2 (i.e. that the current role of the Public Interest Advocate, as provided for under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended in line with the terms of that recommendation and expanded to apply to applications for international production orders. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that proposed Clause 2 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to include a definition of 'urgent circumstances' which provides that in circumstances where: such circumstances would constitute 'urgent circumstances' for the purposes of making an oral or telephone application. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that proposed Clauses 22(3), 33(3)(a), 52(3)(a) and 63(3)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended in a manner that is consistent with Recommendation 11 of the of the Committee's Review of the Mandatory Data Retention Regime. That is, these provisions should be amended so that: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that proposed Clause 2 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 amended to insert a definition of senior position holder that is consistent with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that proposed Clauses 83 (3)-(4) and 92(3)-(4) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended so that the Director-General of Security may only delegate powers to a senior position holder Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that proposed Clauses 101(3)-(4) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to provide that the Director-General of Security can only authorise Australian Security Intelligence Organisation employees, or classes of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation employees, at the Executive Level 2 (or equivalent) and above to make applications on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's behalf. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends that proposed Clause 83(9) and 92(8) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to provide the Attorney-General with: Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has sufficient resources to enable effective oversight of the proposed powers granted by the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to ensure that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is given appropriate resources to enable effective oversight of the proposed powers granted by the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends that the proposed Schedule 1, Division 4 be amended to include an express provision for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, or an official of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, to access the register of international production orders in connection with its oversight responsibilities. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 19: The Committee recommends that proposed Schedule 1, Clause 153 be amended to allow international production order information to be used, recorded or disclosed for the purposes of an official of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security exercising their duty as an official. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 20: The Committee recommends that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 be amended to allow for officials of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to share information relating to the international production orders regime with members of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and members of the Attorney-General's Department where sharing such information is connected to the roles and duties of the member of the organisation. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 21: The Committee recommends that: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 22: The Committee recommends that proposed Schedule 1, Clause 135 and 136 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to: Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 23: The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to commence a review on the effectiveness and continuing need for an international production orders regime on the earlier of the date that is: Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 24: The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Bill be passed by Parliament. Response: The Government notes this recommendation.
Indigenous Employment | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
When we develop policies for remote communities, I want to ensure that it's done in a way that does maximise the catchphrase of 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. Two examples of this are Indigenous rangers and...
When we develop policies for remote communities, I want to ensure that it's done in a way that does maximise the catchphrase of 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. Two examples of this are Indigenous rangers and food security. Both of these policies are creating even more jobs on top of our commitment to 3,000 remote jobs. On rangers, last week, I announced 900 new ranger jobs on top of that. They will be created in the latest round of funding as this government continues on the path to deliver on our commitment to double the ranger workforce by the end of the decade. On food security, we're also delivering a new nutrition workforce in remote communities, with over 100 locally employed positions in remote stores. These roles will provide culturally appropriate nutrition support delivered by local people in local languages, improving health outcomes while creating new employment pathways.
Senators will be very familiar with the catchphrase that I've been speaking about, and that is 'jobs, jobs, jobs' in our remote communities. While RAES is an employment service that provides...
Senators will be very familiar with the catchphrase that I've been speaking about, and that is 'jobs, jobs, jobs' in our remote communities. While RAES is an employment service that provides skills training and activities to get people job ready, we know the reality in some of our remote communities is that their job market is limited. That's why we're delivering on our commitment to creating 3,000 jobs in remote communities under our Remote Jobs and Economic Development program. That program, RJED, is currently rolling out. These are real jobs that provide the dignity of work with proper pay and conditions, like sick leave, annual leave and superannuation. These jobs are rolling out in communities in industries like health, education, tourism, land management and cultural services.
I thank Senator Stewart for the question and for her work in the area of economic empowerment for First Nations people—in particular, for her artwork on her Christmas card, by the way. On 1...
I thank Senator Stewart for the question and for her work in the area of economic empowerment for First Nations people—in particular, for her artwork on her Christmas card, by the way. On 1 November, the Albanese Labor government delivered on its commitment to abolish the failed Community Development Program and to replace it with the new Remote Australia Employment Service, or RAES. For years, remote communities were very clear. The CDP was not working and it focused on compliance rather than opportunity. It did not deliver the real jobs, training or pathways people asked for. RAES is changing that. It will provide tailored support to around 40,000 participants across 1,200 remote communities. It will help people build the skills they need to become job ready, to move into work when it's available and, crucially, to stay in work through greater access to mentoring and ongoing support. Where the job market is limited in these communities, RAES providers will engage participants in local community projects that build practical skills and confidence. At least 25 per cent of provider funding will be invested directly into these projects, giving communities the flexibility to design solutions that meet their own employment needs. This is about shifting from a top-down model to genuine partnership. We've already seen the impact through job trials that informed the design of RAES in Galiwin'ku—just one example. The Miyalk Kitchen has supported 28 Yolngu people to build a thriving community enterprise, creating pathways to long-term employment and even supporting faster delivery of housing projects in the region.
Consideration of Legislation | Business | Senate debates
by leave—I move: That the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 be considered at the time for private senators' bills today. Question agreed to.
Migration | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
See—you laugh. Senator Canavan, I'll pick you up on that. No, you're a joke, Senator Canavan. (Time expired)
I can see that the senators are very interested in net zero, but let me tell you this. Unlike the other side, we do see that there are issues impacting the climate. We do know, along with...
I can see that the senators are very interested in net zero, but let me tell you this. Unlike the other side, we do see that there are issues impacting the climate. We do know, along with countries around the world, that we have to act. So, on this side of the Senate, we will be responsible. We will be sensible. We will try.
I so welcome this question on net zero, President; I really welcome this question. I have just come to the Senate from a population of over 100,000 in the north who've had to deal with a tropical...
I so welcome this question on net zero, President; I really welcome this question. I have just come to the Senate from a population of over 100,000 in the north who've had to deal with a tropical cyclone way early in the piece, at speeds that are phenomenal for this time of the year for us. We know, unlike the deniers opposite—
President, do you know what is madness? What is madness is that One Nation and the coalition continue to oppose the building of this great country through the development of infrastructure and...
President, do you know what is madness? What is madness is that One Nation and the coalition continue to oppose the building of this great country through the development of infrastructure and through the development of housing. We constantly bring to this Senate the ability to do that, and you guys opposite sit there, smirk and say no, and then you want to blame everyone but yourselves for why we are having challenges in trying to move forward. You're blaming migration? There is a deeper theme going on here, and I won't have a bar of it. The madness is not on this side. We know where it's coming from.
I thank the senator for his question. He's covered quite a lot in it. In fact, if he'd listened to the previous responses I've made in the Senate on employment, he would know that we are trying...
I thank the senator for his question. He's covered quite a lot in it. In fact, if he'd listened to the previous responses I've made in the Senate on employment, he would know that we are trying to grow our own, especially in our remote regions with First Nations people. In fact, we tried to roll out at least 3,000 jobs across remote Australia. We are looking at 3,000 rangers, with 1,000 of them women. So when we talk about growing our own, in terms of employment across Australia, we are certainly doing it. In terms of your premise around migration to Australia, we're very proud to have people call this place home, along with our oldest culture in the country—in the world. We are very proud to welcome visitors from overseas who call this place home. But I will say this too: each time our government moves to try and improve the workforce across Australia, it's not just building the Australian economy and local people in this country and those who call it home; we also need to build houses. But when we have the other side opposing the opportunity to do that, especially One Nation, who oppose everything that we're trying to do, to develop and grow this country, then I would say to the senator: I'm more than happy to provide those details to you about how, on this side of the parliament, we welcome all people who call Australia home, and we are doing our best to ensure that there is employment and growth.
Roads | Questions without Notice | Senate debates
When we talk about the ideological pursuit of net zero, we know where the Nationals sit but we have no idea where the Liberals sit on net zero. In fact, if you listen to the media or if you go up...
When we talk about the ideological pursuit of net zero, we know where the Nationals sit but we have no idea where the Liberals sit on net zero. In fact, if you listen to the media or if you go up to—
As I said in my previous response, it was priority action No. 1 in your plan to review speed limits on high-risk regional roads. Can I just say— Well, if you know the answer, I don't need...
As I said in my previous response, it was priority action No. 1 in your plan to review speed limits on high-risk regional roads. Can I just say— Well, if you know the answer, I don't need to speak.
Thanks for your protection, President. To let the other side know: we've doubled funding for the Roads to Recovery Program to $1 billion per year to help councils upgrade their roads. We've...
Thanks for your protection, President. To let the other side know: we've doubled funding for the Roads to Recovery Program to $1 billion per year to help councils upgrade their roads. We've reversed the Liberal freeze on highway maintenance funding to get on with fixing potholes and resurfacing our national highways. The coalition could have done that in their wasted decade of government, but they didn't. We're making big investments in our roads, making them safer and more efficient. It's no thanks to those opposite.
Priority action No. 1 of their road safety action plan was to consult on changing speed limits on high-risk regional roads. We're putting their idea out to consultation for Australians to settle...
Priority action No. 1 of their road safety action plan was to consult on changing speed limits on high-risk regional roads. We're putting their idea out to consultation for Australians to settle it. The other part of this scare campaign is to say: 'We just need to fix the roads. We want potholes filled and roads improved. That's why we're investing more than ever in making our roads safer.' They're not interested in making our roads safer. We've doubled funding for the Roads to Recovery Program.