|
senate vote 2023-08-09#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-12-29 10:48:51
|
Title
Business — Consideration of Legislation- Business - Consideration of Legislation - Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023
Description
<p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move:</p><p class="italic">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.</p> <p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p><p>The Greens oppose what is effectively an urgency motion to bring on this legislation contrary to the standing orders, which would otherwise require proper consideration of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023. We ask this: why is it the only occasion on which this parliament is willing to consider something is urgent is when it comes from either Defence or the security industry, when it comes from either somebody with golden braid on their shoulders or it comes from ASIO? Those are the only things that this chamber seems persuaded are urgent. When have we ever seen urgent legislation or urgent policy change dealing with the climate crisis treated like this? Never, never. When have we ever seen urgent legislation dealing with the housing crisis and the rental crisis and this agreement between the so-called parties of government that needs to be brought on and dealt with now because we have a crisis, an urgency? Never. When have we ever seen the crisis in public education and our universities and funding for young people to get that essential start in life dealt with as an urgent motion? When have we seen those issues brought on with urgency? Never. The only occasion we see the club come together and say: 'This is urgent. It needs to be dealt with now. It is super important to the nation,' is when it's Defence or it's spooks. And, again, this is what is happening here.</p><p>This is no more urgent than the climate crisis. This is no more urgent than the housing crisis. Those are the things that this parliament should be focusing on, but we can't get the club to listen. Millions and millions of Australians want those issues to be the feature of today. So, yes, we think this is an important bill, and let's deal with it appropriately. But it's an insult to say this is more important than the climate crisis or more important than the housing crisis, and that insult is being felt in millions of houses across this country and billions of households across the planet. We oppose this motion.</p> <p class="speaker">James Paterson</p><p>The opposition will be supporting this motion. Not to put too fine a point on it, following our debate earlier this week about the intelligence and security committee, but this is an example of how the parties of government—a term I know the crossbenchers and the Greens hate—can come together in the national interest to promptly and appropriately resolve issues relating to national security. I hope this is a lesson for the government that your other friends up there on the crossbench, the Greens, cannot be relied upon, whether members of the PJCIS or not, to get things like this done.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I will briefly indicate that the government does consider that this bill requires attention now. The current threat environment does call for increased collaboration and engagement across and outside of the government, and the ability to use and disclose this information is critical to the ability of agencies to protect key national security interests. I understand that it is not common in this place for the Greens party to acknowledge that there are national security interests that require our attention. In fact, nearly every bill that's brought before this place is described as overreach. That is not the approach of the government. We will consistently bring forward legislation which is in the national interest and requires debate in this chamber, and we do so today.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>The question is that the exemption of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023 from the cut-off be agreed to.</p> -
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-08-09.10.2):
- > *That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of [standing order 111](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Senate_chamber_documents/standingorders/b00/b20#standing-order_c20-111) not apply to the [Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill 2023](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r7070), allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.*
- This means that bill can be considered during the present sitting period.
- #### Rebellion
- Note that the two Jacqui Lambie Network senators voted differently, with Tasmanian Senator [Jacqui Lambie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jacqui_lambie) voting "No" and Tasmanian Senator [Tammy Tyrrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/tammy_tyrrell) voting "Yes".
- ### Paragraphs (5) to (8), Standing Order 111
- > *(5) Where a bill:*
- >
- >> *(a) is first introduced in the Senate by a minister in a period of sittings; or*
- >>
- >> *(b) is received from the House of Representatives and was introduced in that House in the same period of sittings; or*
- >>
- >> *(c) is received from the House of Representatives after the expiration of two-thirds of the total number of days of sitting of the Senate scheduled for that period of sittings,*
- >>
- >> *and a motion is moved for the second reading of the bill, debate on that motion shall be adjourned at the conclusion of the speech of the senator moving the motion and resumption of the debate shall be made an order of the day for the first day of sitting in the next period of sittings without any question being put.*
- >
- > *(6) Paragraph (5) does not apply to a bill introduced in the Senate or received from the House of Representatives within the first two-thirds of the total number of days of sitting of the Senate scheduled for the first period of sittings after a general election of the House of Representatives, but consideration of such a bill shall not be resumed after the second reading is moved in the Senate unless 14 days have elapsed after the first introduction of the bill in either House.*
- >
- > *(7) Paragraph (5) does not apply to a bill received by the Senate again in the circumstances described in the first paragraph of section 57 of the Constitution.*
- >
- > *(8) In paragraphs (5) and (6) "period of sittings" means a period during which the Senate adjourns for not more than 20 days*
-
-
|