Cybersafety

Fatima Payman

I move general business notice of motion 394:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 15 April 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Prime Minister and/or his office, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Minister for Communications and/or her office and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner in relation to the meeting held on 5 November 2025 between the Prime Minister and a primary school student for the purpose of enabling the student to present her research on the social media ban to the Prime Minister; and

(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 18 March 2026, an itemised list of all expenses incurred, if any, in the course of, or incidental to, facilitating the meeting referred to in paragraph (a).

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

The amendment is the same as the amendment I moved to the previous one, as it relates to a request from the government that senators consider when they call for an order of production of documents prior to other avenues being exhausted and that senators should reflect on that and refine their orders accordingly.

Matt O'Sullivan

I'm wondering for your guidance on whether or not this copying—control-v—of motions is actually a breach of standing order 196—tedious repetition?

Sue Lines

As I indicated to someone the other day, it wasn't, and the reason is it needs to be related to the one debate. I think we need a division. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.