Laws & Bills

The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7373_amend_603f7fc6-7a71-4f28-97b0-41468cb73e83/upload_pdf/25075%202R%20T%20OBrien.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill), which means it failed. ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > >> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:* >> >> *(1) the Opposition strongly supports the principle of Payday Super;* >> >> *(2) superannuation is part of an employee's wage and must be paid on time;* >> >> *(3) around $5 billion of superannuation goes unpaid every year;* >> >> *(4) the Government has ignored Treasury advice which suggests Digital Service Providers require 18 months from legislating the changes before implementation;* >> >> *(5) the Government is putting small business at risk by rushing the bill's implementation;* >> >> *(6) the Opposition is calling on the Government to delay the start date for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees for 18 months to provide them adequate time to adapt; and* >> >> *(7) the Opposition is calling on the Government to legislate protections for small businesses who have made good faith efforts to comply".*

Andrew Wallace I seek leave to move the following motion: 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 upon resumption of the meeting of the Federation Chamber today at 4 pm, 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. 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 referring to the Federation Chamber; (2) the bill being called on for debate upon resumption of the meeting of the Federation Chamber today at 4 pm with the time for each second— Milton Dick Order! The member for Fisher will pause for a moment. The Leader of the House. Tony Burke Under standing order 45C, I move: That order of the day No. 3 be called on. Milton Dick The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.

The majority voted against an [amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7382_amend_9c3bfff3-1ec9-475e-85a4-e3c4c89b684e%22;rec=0) introduced by Fisher MP [Andrew Wallace](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fisher/andrew_wallace) (LNP), which means it failed. ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 3, page 53 (after line 20), after item 60, insert:* > >> *60A Paragraph 29(1)(baa)* >> >>> *Omit "under Part 5.3", substitute "in relation to Parts 5.3 and 5.3A".* >> >> *60B Paragraph 29(1)(bab)* >> >>> *Omit "under Part 5.3", substitute "in relation to Parts 5.3 and 5.3A".*

The majority voted in favour of a motion: > *That the debate be adjourned.*

The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-27.39.1) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means it failed. ### What do these amendments do? Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-27.39.1): > *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.* ### Amendment text > *(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.*

The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-27.36.2) introduced by Kooyong MP [Monique Ryan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/kooyong/monique_ryan) (Independent), which means they were unsuccessful. ### What do the amendments do? The wording of the amendments is available on [openaustralia.org.au](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-27.36.2). Dr Ryan [explained the purpose](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-27.36.2) of the amendments: > *Amendment (1) refers to the definition of 'public health matters'. Each of the topics listed in the bill relates to forms of public health and harm, and it's clear and obvious that they should be the natural responsibilities falling within the scope of a well-defined and fulsome CDC. This amendment captures the additional harm of occupational exposures and the public health responsibility for injury prevention related to these. I note that the addition of public health exposures and occupational exposures has been supported by the Public Health Association of Australia and the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, and even by the Australian Council of Trade Unions—a body with which the government may be familiar.* > > *Amendment (2) refers to the functions of the director-general, which sets out the centre's advisory role and the intersections with and coordination of bodies with health responsibilities within the CDC. The health effects of climate change are captured under the existing definition of 'public health matters' in this bill, but what is not captured is the importance of the Centre for Disease Control in providing integrated advice in a matter of national and global consequence. These amendments aim to position the CDC as an authoritative and valuable contributor to the understanding of and policy advice on climate change impacts on public health, particularly in the absence of any other national body which currently has this focus.* > > *Amendments (3) and (4) will ensure that the first statutory review of the act will be undertaken within the first three years, and every five years thereafter. The centre is an essential public health authority; we all agree on that. Scrutiny of the establishment and its functions at the earliest opportunity will ensure that it meets public expectations from early in its course.* > > *Amendment (5) will introduce mandatory reporting on matters of national importance, the health effects of climate change, and pandemic preparedness. Its purpose is to inform. That should be a core responsibility of the Centre for Disease Control. It will ensure accountability and transparency of the centre's activities and the whole-of-government preparedness for public health emergencies. Even this weekend, we've seen that they are on the immediate agenda, with elephant seals on Heard and McDonald islands being affected by bird flu. The next pandemic could be months away—or even less time that that. We need to have reporting requirements which are focused on attention to and resourcing of priority areas. Amendment (5) will provide transparency around government approaches to matters of national importance. It will encourage the culture of science, expertise and public trust that we need, and it will safeguard the core purposes of the Centre for Disease Control. The reports will relate to two specific areas of public health which are of national importance.*

The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-27.34.17) to read the bill a second time. In other words, they voted to agree with the main idea of the bill. ### What does this bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2526/26bd019) (which is a document prepared by the parliamentary library): > *The [Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7369) (the Bill) establishes the Australian Centre for Disease Control (Australian CDC) as an independent, non-corporate Commonwealth entity and establishes the role, powers, functions and duties of the agency and its Director-General.* > > *The establishment of an Australian CDC was a commitment made by the Australian Labor Party prior to the 2022 election. An interim Australian CDC was established on 1 January 2024 within the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing.* > > *The Australian CDC is intended to be an ‘authoritative source of public health advice and information’ for Governments, health professionals, the Australian public, international agencies and non-government organisations. The initial focus of the CDC includes communicable diseases, pandemic preparedness, emergency health management (including management of the National Medical Stockpile), disease surveillance and existing capabilities in environmental health and occupational respiratory diseases. The functions of the Australian CDC are subject to review and intended to grow over time.* > > *The [Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7372) (the C&T Bill) makes consequential amendments to existing Commonwealth legislation to transfer relevant public health responsibilities to the Director-General of the Australian CDC.* > > *The Bill and the C&T Bill have been referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee [for inquiry and report by 24 October 2025](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/DiseaseControlBill2025/Report).* > > *Stakeholders have argued that bipartisan support and surety of funding are essential for the Australian CDC to achieve success over the medium to longer term. (CDC Stakeholder Engagement, p. 6)*

Julian Leeser I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025. Leave not granted. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Berowra from introducing the Crimes Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Child Sexual Abuse) Bill 2025 without notice, with the debate being adjourned to the next sitting following the moving and seconding of the motion for the second reading. We're seeking urgency because this bill is about the safety of our children. It's also about sending an unmistakable message: those who exploit, abuse or prey upon children will face justice. Child sexual offences are some of the most serious offences on the Commonwealth statute book. Any person who commits one of these crimes should expect to do serious prison time, and I don't think there's a parent in the country who'd disagree with me. This bill is about restoring community confidence that the law treats these crimes with the seriousness they deserve. When I speak to people in my community and across the country, time and again I hear families who are concerned about child sexual abuse and its proliferation. They're concerned about what we saw in the childcare centres. They're concerned about the safety of children online. They want their children to be safe, and they're sickened by the offences we've seen reported in the media. Data released by the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation revealed that there were 82,764 reports of online child exploitation in 2024-25. That's an average of more than 226 a day. It's a figure that bears repeating. Over the course of the last year, there have been more than 226 reports of online child sexual exploitation every single day. It's an epidemic of child sexual abuse. In just the last year, we've seen a 41 per cent jump in online child sexual abuse exploitation reports. It's sickening, it's sadistic, and it's happening every day. It's clear that more needs to be done and in particular that there's an urgent need to strengthen our sentencing regime to remove predators from our communities and protect all Australian children. The need for urgent action to strengthen our sentencing regime is highlighted by the case of DPP and Maloney, which has attracted significant attention in the last fortnight. That's the case that was handed down in the County Court of Victoria. It involved a father who abused a five-year-old daughter on 19 separate occasions, producing and transmitting 77 separate files of child sexual abuse material. These files included 13 videos and 64 images. The judgement makes for very difficult reading, and I don't intend to repeat it here. Like every child in that situation, she was powerless. She was five. She was vulnerable and dependent. But the point that made it particularly difficult for me was when it became clear that, as she was being abused, the young girl knew what was happening to her was wrong. On at least two occasions, she told the father she didn't like it. She told him she didn't like it. No child should have to do that. The worst thing about it is that there are literally tens of thousands of instances that involve that type of horrific abuse or worse every year. We know this from data released by the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and others. Australian families rightly expect that any person who commits these appalling crimes should be removed from the community for a very long time. They should serve serious time in prison. But the Maloney case also highlights a problem: the offender in that case will be eligible for release after just 2½ years. That's a shockingly low sentence. It means that the young girl who was so shockingly abused by her father will not even be eight years old when her abuser is back on the streets. When you dig into the detail of the sentencing, it gets worse. The need for action by us here in this federal parliament becomes clear. The offender in the Maloney case was convicted of three offences: one state offence for the sexual abuse of their child and two Commonwealth offences for producing and transmitting child sexual abuse material. Each of those Commonwealth offences carries a maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment, but, shockingly, in the Maloney case, the court directed that the offender serve just six months for those Commonwealth offences. After that, the offender will be released on a recognisance release order, which is similar to good-behaviour bond. Six months—it's just appalling. It's for Victoria and the Allan government to account for the justice system in that state, but, at the Commonwealth level, there is something seriously wrong with our sentencing regime if a person can produce 77 separate files of child abuse material and then transmit them to the world at large via the internet and face just six months in prison. These sentences don't reflect community expectations. They're a travesty, and this bill seeks to correct that. The Commonwealth doesn't have a general power to make criminal laws; that's the preserve of the states. Commonwealth crimes must be linked to a head of constitutional power, and that means the Commonwealth Criminal Code deals with child sex offences in Australia in two ways. First, it establishes child sex offences that involve the use of a carriage service. Those are offences that involve the use of the internet or communications networks. Second, it establishes child sex offences that involve the use of a postal service. This bill today is a simple bill. It's about the sentences that are handed down for five existing offences. There is using a carriage service for child abuse material, which is an offence under section 474.22 of the Criminal Code. This is the provision that, among others, makes it an offence to transmit child abuse material. This is one of the offences at issue in the Maloney case. Another is possessing or controlling child abuse material obtained or accessed using a carriage service, which is an offence under 474.22(a) of the Criminal Code and is more or less self-explanatory. Possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through a carriage service is an offence under 474.23 of the code, and this appears to have been the other offence at issue in the Maloney case. The bill also deals with sentences for analogues of these offences that involve the use of a postal service. That's using a postal or similar service for child abuse material, an offence under 471.19 of the code, and possessing, controlling, producing, supplying or obtaining child abuse material for use through postal or similar services, an offence under 471.20 of the code. These are all existing offences. The bill that we seek urgency to bring on does not change them or introduce new ones. We're not asking the parliament to deal with complex questions of fault and criminal guilt; we're dealing with sentencing only. More specifically, we're talking about the existing mandatory sentencing regime found in part 1B of the Crimes Act. The existing mandatory sentencing regime in part 1B of the Crimes Act is a legacy of the former coalition government. The case for the scheme was clear. Before it passed into law, 39 per cent of Commonwealth child sex offenders did not serve a single day in prison. There was a clear need to strengthen our sentencing regime, so the coalition introduced a bill in 2019. Among other things, it delivered a carefully calibrated mandatory minimum sentencing scheme for child sex offenders. This is not the sort of flat scheme that's usually criticised in academic literature. It has significant flexibility and important carve-outs for things that underage offenders so you don't end up with a situation where children themselves end up being in prison. It's been the subject of a statutory review. As the Attorney herself has acknowledged, the review showed the existing scheme's been effective. As a result of that scheme, we've seen the proportion of offenders pleading guilty increase, imprisonment and total effective sentences are generally longer, and a higher number of offenders commit to rehabilitation. What does this lead to? It leads to safer streets and safer communities for all our children. I want to acknowledge that that bill was eventually passed with bipartisan support. Labor initially pressed the Senate to remove the mandatory sentencing regime and in fact were successful in doing so. But, when they saw the extent of community backlash, they dropped their opposition. They didn't insist on their amendments to the scheme, and they facilitated its passage on a bipartisan basis through the parliament. The mechanics of the bill that we propose to introduce if we get urgency are very straightforward. The bill would amend the Crimes Act to establish mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for the five offences I mentioned earlier. This is done in items 1, 2 and 3 of the schedule to the bill, which amend section 16AAA of the Crimes Act. This is the first-offence regime. Section 16AAB of the Crimes Act deals with the second and subsequent offences. This bill, in items 3 and 4, increases the existing mandatory minimum sentences for a second or subsequent instance of these offences. In those cases, the minimum will now be six years. The remaining items deal with the recognizance release order scheme, which was the mechanism used in Maloney to release the offender after only six months for the Commonwealth offences. The bill addresses these issues by making it clear that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a court that is sentencing a person for child sex offences must not grant a recognizance release order. I want to conclude by emphasising that from the very beginning the coalition has sought to take a constructive and bipartisan approach to this issue. I wrote to the Attorney on 6 October flagging the coalition's grave concerns with the outcome we'd seen in Victoria and our intentions to introduce this bill. We asked for the government's support to do so. Yesterday I saw the Attorney's comments on Sky News indicating that she was open to the bill, and I welcome the bipartisan spirit in which they were made. In that same spirit, last night I wrote to the Attorney again, attaching a copy of the legislation, flagging our intention to introduce it today and again asking for support. It's disappointing that the spirit of bipartisanship did not extend to allowing us leave to introduce this bill today. I would have preferred not to attempt to suspend standing orders, but this is an issue on which there's clear and legitimate need for urgent action. This is an issue on which we've sought to find common ground, and that common ground is very simple: any adult who sexually abuses a child should do serious prison time. I don't think there's a parent in Australia who'd disagree with us. I commend this motion to the House, and I encourage members to vote for the urgency that is needed to deal with these matters today. Milton Dick Is the motion seconded? Long debate text truncated.

The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-08.27.1) introduced by Mallee MP [Anne Webster](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mallee/anne_webster) (Nationals), which means they failed. Ms Webster [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2025-10-08.27.1): > *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.* ### Amendment text > *(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;*

The majority voted against a [second reading amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7367_amend_410231f9-d519-4b3b-9918-b630394a4a9e%22;rec=0) introduced by Mackellar MP [Sophie Scamps] (Independent), which means it failed. The amendment would have changed the words of the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). ### Amendment text > *That all words after “House” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *(1) notes that the bill continues the practice of legislating the instant asset write-off measure annually, which creates uncertainty and discourages investment at a time when many small businesses are already struggling; and* > > *(2) calls on the Government to do more to support small businesses, including:* > >> *(a) making the instant asset write-off permanent; and* >> >> *(b) adopting a $20,000 tax-free threshold for small business operators with annual turnover of less than $10 million, as proposed by the member for Mackellar”.*