Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications. Yesterday, the minister told the House that the government made no error in the triple 0 crisis and that it was 'the fault of Optus and Optus alone'. But, today, when the coalition moved an amendment to double the maximum penalty for a telco company to $20 million per offence, the Albanese government shamefully voted it down. If Optus and Optus alone is to blame, why did Labor vote against the interests of Australians, who just want triple 0 to work when their lives are on the line?

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question. As I noted when the amendments were moved earlier today, we were keen to engage in good faith on potential amendments. But, unfortunately, that was not reciprocated by the opposition, who then pulled a parliamentary stunt. However, since then, we've had a bit of time to look over the proposed amendments by the member for Lindsay and I must say, unfortunately for all of us, they are quite poor.

In relation to the proposed amendment to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018, at best, the amendment is completely redundant. The current definition of 'critical telecommunications asset' already captures the infrastructure the amendment is targeted towards. At worst, the amendment would extend the definition of 'critical telecommunications asset' far beyond its intent. The proposed insertion of 'a telecommunications network that is used to supply an emergency call service' is untethered from the concept of carriers and carriage services and does not define what an emergency call service is and so it would potentially capture any system—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will pause. She's talking about the amendment. I'll just get her to take a seat for a moment so I can hear from the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The minister is not answering the question about the penalty specifically. The minister needs to answer why she is letting Optus off the hook.

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, members on my right! I want to hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition knows that on a question where you ask about an amendments and votes in the House and the minister responds by referring to the amendments that the House voted on it's completely relevant to what was asked. The Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the Leader of the Opposition was asking about a specific amendment, but the minister is giving detail about broader amendments. She can address those as part of the answer. She's got to remain directly relevant. I can appreciate the Leader of the Opposition would like a specific answer. If the minister was talking about another complete topic, it could not be classed as directly relevant. I note the beginning of her answer specifically addressed that part of the question, so she has addressed that part of the question about the specific she was asked. Now she's giving further information. Under the standing orders, she's addressed the specific part of the question directly. Now she's being directly relevant. I am going to listen carefully. She's talking about an amendment, and I want to make sure that's directly relevant to the topic she was asked about. The minister is in continuation.

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the impact of that amendment would potentially capture any system or series of systems that carries or is capable of carrying communications by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic energy which is in any way connected to emergency services calls. It is not clear to me what exactly this is attempting to achieve beyond making the act confusing.