﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2022-08-03</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>Senate</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 3 August 2022</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The PRESIDENT (Senator </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Hon. </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Sue Lines</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">)</span> took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Meeting</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ROBERTS () (): by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate requires the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to attend the Senate at 9.30 am on Thursday, 4 August 2022 to provide an explanation of not more than 10 minutes as to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) answers provided to Senator Roberts after question time on Thursday, 28 July 2022 which appear to have misled the Senate, as detailed in Senator Roberts' letter hand delivered to the Minister on Friday, 29 July 2022,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the failure by the Minister to bring foot and mouth disease vaccines to Australia ready for an outbreak should one occur, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the failure by the Minister to provide suitable biosecurity precautions at Australian airports to prevent foot and mouth disease entering Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (a); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any motion under paragraph (b) may be debated for no longer than one hour, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 10 minutes each.</para></quote>
<para>Foot-and-mouth disease is a clear and present danger to the Australian livestock industry. If foot-and-mouth disease enters Australia, our exports will be suspended for several years, which will cost the industry $80 billion. This will be devastating to rural communities. Farmers will not survive. Regions will be decimated. The country will suffer as a whole. The federal government will be on the hook for huge social security and assistance packages, as well as for compensation for culled animals. The animals would like to express their desire to not be shot and burned.</para>
<para>This will not only bankrupt farmers; it will negatively impact the affordability of meat protein. If you think meat is expensive now—once we destroy a large part of the Australian beef industry, prices will go beyond the means of everyday Australians to afford meat. This is not a rural issue. Foot-and-mouth disease will affect every Australian through the cost of meat and dairy and through the additional burdens on the taxpayers to meet compensation and social security expenses.</para>
<para>Minister Watt's response to foot-and-mouth disease has been half-baked and, quite honestly, dangerous. He has also, I believe, misled the Senate. I gave the minister a chance to correct and clarify his remarks, in a letter hand delivered to the minister last Friday requesting an attendance by close of business last Monday. The minister ignored that letter. The minister must attend the Senate to explain answers that he has given to my question without notice; they could constitute a misleading of the Senate.</para>
<para>Last Wednesday, 27 July, in questions without notice, my first question was in respect to the foot-and-mouth disease vaccine being held in the UK and read, in part: 'If foot-and-mouth disease arrives in Australia, the short-term response would be to start vaccination.' The minister's reply included the statement: 'The reason you don't vaccinate is that you are then deemed by the rest of the world as having foot-and-mouth disease.'</para>
<para>As a result of that misleading reply from Minister Watt, I have had to contend with suggestions on social media that I was advocating for a measure that would destroy our beef industry. I said no such thing. The minister was given an opportunity to correct the record, and he has not.</para>
<para>Minister Watt also stated that 'what we are actually prioritising in relation to the supply of vaccines at the moment is providing them to Indonesia to keep the disease out, and that is why we want to support the vaccine rollout in Indonesia'. I of course support assisting Indonesia with their foot-and-mouth disease response. They're neighbours of ours. We need to support them. We also need to support them for humanitarian reasons. However, I might make the observation that this response presupposes that we know the strain in Indonesia and can access that vaccine if suitable. If we know the Bali strain, then why are we not placing the same vaccine we are giving to Indonesia here in Australia right now, in case one of the travellers returning from Bali has brought foot-and-mouth disease with them?</para>
<para>Minister Watt went on and made the statement that 'we don't necessarily know what strain of disease we would have in Australia' and that we need to know the strain before we order the vaccine. If we need to know the strain before ordering the vaccine, then what about the million doses we already have in the UK? What strain do they protect us against, and at what cost? I received a call from the minister's office last Thursday advising that we would receiver an answer to the question the minister took on notice regarding how many vaccines Australia has stored in the UK, to which the minister gave an indicative answer of one million. That answer did not arrive, and it's been a week now.</para>
<para>Why are these vaccines being stored in the UK? How much are we paying to store them in the UK, when they should be stored here in Australia? Page 18 of the foot-and-mouth disease AUSVETPLAN, edition 3, states that vaccination is recommended to start within 48 hours of the first detected case, and this may include protective vaccination of livestock in the area surrounding the infection. In question time Minister Watt suggested that the vaccines could be here from the UK in seven days and that this was sufficient. However, the government's own manual indicates that vaccination would be an appropriate response after just 48 hours. Australia is currently holding tens of millions of vaccines for COVID in complete safety. If we are unable to hold foot-and-mouth vaccines in a similar way, then why not? It seems to be proving easier to get a human vaccinated in this country than a cow.</para>
<para>I'd just consider some other points as well. I note that the briefing last week by Minister Watt's staff said that the virus stays for just hours on surfaces. Other sources in the United States reliably say that the virus stays on surfaces for a month. Therefore, if quarantine measures are not adequate—and it means they are not—then we need the protection of a vaccine. This is about food security for the people in this country—fellow Australians. It is about food prices and cost of living. It is about humanitarian support for the Indonesians. It is about support for our farmers, for our whole agricultural sector. As I said, if foot-and-mouth disease breaks out here it will cost us a suspension that is estimated to be around three years, costing $80 billion in lost exports. It also will gut our agricultural sector and tarnish our reputation—all because we are not being told the truth and we are being misled, and that compares with a few million dollars on a vaccine, which is the lowest-cost option for us to protect our farming industry and our farmers.</para>
<para>How much does it cost us to store these vaccines in the United Kingdom? This is about Minister Watt looking good, not doing good—all mouth and no substance.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Wednesday 27 July in question time I asked a simple, standard, straightforward question of the new Minister for Agriculture, Senator Murray Watt. It was: can the minister confirm how many passengers have passed through Australian international airports from Indonesia since the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Bali was reported on 5 July 2022, and how many of those have been treated with disinfectant foot mats? The minister's reply was: '100 per cent of passengers have been walking through sanitised foot mats.' The minister's answer was wrong. We know it was wrong because the foot mats had only been installed in the major airports in the previous two days. They were nowhere to be seen on 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 July in our international airports, as thousands of returning passengers from Bali were making their way onshore. The minister knew that and was deliberately avoidant, whether he meant to mislead the Senate or whether it was because he was too cocky by half. 'The mats are here. Calm down, hysterical regional Australia. Calm down, hysterical farmers who are incredibly concerned.' And we are reflecting their concern in this place. We are actually reflecting their concern. I am happy for the contributions on this matter in this place and elsewhere from Senator McDonald, who is herself of a beef-producing family, to be on the record, along with those of Perin Davey, Matt Canavan, Jacinta Price, David Littleproud and the National Party more broadly on this substantive issue. We are reflecting the concerns of our constituencies and the industries that underpin our local communities. It's why they sent us here.</para>
<para>We wish you all success, Minister, in stopping foot-and-mouth and lumpy skin disease from arriving here, but you cannot come into this place and deliberately mislead the Senate. That is why Australians were shocked as Channel Nine, I think, was on the ground in international airports on a weekend a couple of weeks ago, interviewing returning passengers and saying 'What biosecurity measures did you actually have when you landed?' The response was: 'Nothing. I told them I'd been on a farm. I got waved through.' 'Foot mat?' 'No, the foot mats aren't here.' That was despite the minister claiming that he had it all under control. Then he walked into the Senate and told us that he had it all under control.</para>
<para>I wrote to the minister to tell him that I thought he had misled the Senate, and I implored him to do the right thing by this chamber, as a senator of integrity who claims to be concerned about accountability and transparency, and to come and explain himself. I asked him, if it was an accident—it was his first question time, and I understand people can get excited and say the wrong thing at the wrong time—to come in and explain, please, because you cannot stand up in this place and mislead the Senate and, therefore, the broader Australian public on an issue of such concern. The convention in this place is that, if you as a minister feel you may have misled the Senate or said the wrong number in question time, you avail yourself of the earliest opportunity to come into the chamber and correct the record. We often see ministers stand up after question time and put the right percentage on the record or ask to correct the record now that they've been alerted to the fact that they may have given an incorrect response. This minister, in his arrogance and his contempt for this chamber, chose not to do that, not just for Senator Roberts and his question but for me, telling Australians that 100 per cent of passengers had been walking through sanitised foot mats since 5 July.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You know I didn't say that.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a direct quote from your response to my question.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are lying.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Deputy President—through you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, you'll have an opportunity in a moment. A point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie is lying as to what I said to this chamber, and I ask that she withdraw that. I don't mind being held accountable for things that I said. I do not want to be held accountable for things that I did not say and for lies that are being said against me.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, do you wish to respond?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. Mine is a direct quote from an answer. I will quote you the question again and I will quote you the answer. My question on the day was whether the minister could confirm:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How many passengers have passed through Australian international airports from Indonesia since the foot-and-mouth outbreak was reported … on 5 July 2022?</para></quote>
<para>Subsequently, I asked:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How many of these … have been treated with disinfected foot mats …</para></quote>
<para>The minister's response is on <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. I quote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A hundred per cent of passengers have been walking through sanitised foot mats.</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>From when?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question was about 5 July.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not a debate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are lying, Bridget.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You are lying.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, I'd ask you to withdraw that. You'll have an opportunity to respond in a moment when I give you the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to withdraw the word 'lie', but Senator McKenzie repeatedly misrepresents what I said in this chamber, and I'm going to pick her up on it every single time.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, and you'll have the opportunity for that because you'll next have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're better than this, Bridget. You don't need to misrepresent what people say.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No disrespect. We represent the people in this parliament.</para>
<para>Instead, the next day, 28 July, the minister wrote back to me and still did not respond with the answer to my question. I gave him the opportunity. I implored him in my letter to, if he'd misled or if he wanted to add to his answer, actually give me the answer that I asked for. How many passengers arriving at Australian international airports had walked across the foot mats from 5 July when the outbreak was announced in Bali? Let me know the number, Minister. That was in the letter. The minister chose not to answer the question again. Instead, he chose to dig himself in further and further, deeper and deeper. In the letter to me, the minister conceded, and I quote, 'Sanitised foot mats started being installed in international airports on Monday this week.' Hoisted by his own petard.</para>
<para>Misleading the Senate—knowingly giving false information to the Senate, seeking to sidestep your way around being accountable—is a very serious issue. It's a simple question. You could have said, 'Actually, we got the mats in on Monday; 1,500 have gone through in Sydney and 800 yesterday morning in Melbourne.' But you chose not to do it, because it showed how flat-footed you'd been on your response to calls by industry for foot mats for many weeks before they actually arrived.</para>
<para>I understand the minister is sensitive about tardiness of action and the fact that tens of thousands of passengers had arrived home from Bali without having their shoes, thongs or sandals sanitised. In fact, as we speak right now, we don't even know if their luggage is being screened for meat products. Industry has been very clear that the most likely way that this catastrophic disease will enter our country will be through meat products being imported, getting into our food supply chain, probably through the pork industry. So we need to be vigilant. There is still more to be done. Just because it's not on the front pages of tabloids or the <inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline> doesn't mean this minister or the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment still do not have more work to do in ensuring this threat is actually dealt with in an appropriate manner.</para>
<para>I again invite the minister to answer the question. Please answer the question. How many passengers returning from Bali from 5 July have actually walked through a sanitising foot mat? That is the question I asked. You refused to answer it on the day. You chose to sidestep and mislead the Senate instead. I wrote to you requesting you to update the Senate in an appropriate way, to answer my question, and, in your response to me, you again refused to.</para>
<para>So today I stand. I know you're going to have an opportunity to respond during this debate, to answer the question, not just for me but for every cattle producer and regional community in Australia, every sheep producer, goat producer, livestock producer and abattoir worker that would be impacted and devastated, and the veterinarians that would have to deal with the outbreak. I spoke to veterinarians on the weekend who had flown over to assist the UK in their response. They are still devastated by the magnitude of the impact that they are to deal with on the ground in the UK, decades later.</para>
<para>This will have not only an economic impact, as you know now, Minister. You are taking it much more seriously, I think, than your earlier comments on the outbreak portrayed in June. But the impacts will be economic. They will be social. They will be emotional for those that will have to deal with this should it reach our shores. We wish you all the best and all strength in dealing with this. We want you to succeed. But you actually need to treat this chamber, the people of Australia and the industries you're privileged to represent and work with as a minister with respect and, when you're asked a question, to answer it to the best of your knowledge and not sidestep.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I very much welcome the opportunity to yet again put on the record this government's strong biosecurity response to foot-and-mouth disease. I will reserve most of my remarks until tomorrow morning, when Senator Roberts has asked me to appear in the chamber. I am glad to see that he is still here; I wasn't sure whether he was. So I will come back with a formal answer to the motion tomorrow.</para>
<para>But I did want to take the opportunity to make a few brief remarks to remind the chamber of the Albanese government's response to foot-and-mouth disease, which, as I have said many times, is the strongest response we have seen from any Australian government to any biosecurity threat in our national history. It is far stronger than any biosecurity response we saw from the former government, whether it be about foot-and-mouth disease—which, we might remind them, first got to Indonesia when they were still in office—or any other biosecurity threat.</para>
<para>We know that the latest the former government was advised about the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Indonesia was on 9 May, when former Minister Littleproud first tweeted about it. We also know that the only thing he did in response to that news was to send a tweet. Did we see foot mats put in airports? No. Did we see foot mats even ordered for airports? No. Did we see biosecurity response zones declared in international airports, as we have done? No. Did we see an increase in biosecurity officers in airports and mail centres? No. Did we see any of the measures that the Albanese government has put in place in response to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak when Minister Littleproud was the minister, when Senator McKenzie was in cabinet, when Senator Cash was in cabinet, when Senator Scarr was in the government, when Senator Canavan was in the government? When any of these people were in government, did they do any of those things that the Albanese government has put in place to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak? The answer is no, not one. In fact, Senator McKenzie was so concerned about the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak reaching Bali or reaching Indonesia that she didn't say a word about it.</para>
<para>We have had a look at Senator McKenzie's social media to discern exactly how concerned she was about the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. Did Senator McKenzie put up anything or express any concern when foot-and-mouth disease hit Indonesia in May, when her government was still in power? Well, she certainly wasn't concerned enough to say anything publicly about it or to put anything in her social media. In fact, when did Senator McKenzie first bother to express concern about foot-and-mouth disease in Indonesia? It wasn't until 19 July. So the outbreak had been in Indonesia for over two months before Senator McKenzie expressed concern. She comes in here, pretends to be the friend of farmers, pretends to be concerned about these issues—she was so concerned about it that she remained absolutely silent for more than two months. It was only when there was a Labor government in power that was taking action about biosecurity and foot-and-mouth disease that she felt concerned enough to even get her thumbs out and send a little tweet or make a little Facebook post.</para>
<para>So don't give me this rubbish about how you people are the people who are concerned about this outbreak. You were the government when this outbreak first got to Indonesia. You didn't do foot mats. You didn't even order foot mats. You didn't do biosecurity response zones. You don't employ extra biosecurity officers. You didn't check every mail package coming in from Indonesia and China, which we are doing. You didn't make the changes to SmartGates, which we are doing. You just sat on your hands, and only one of you sent a tweet.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you want to have a chat, Senator McDonald, we had a look at your social media. When did Senator McDonald first express concern on social media about this outbreak? Her first post was 14 July. So, Senator McDonald, who likes to claim that she is the guardian of the interests of the cattle industry, was so alarmed by this that she didn't send any posts in May, when the outbreak first got to Indonesia. She didn't even send anything in June. She waited until 14 July before she put anything up on social media. That's how concerned they were. So, while these people were all lounging and having post-election holidays, who was acting to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak? It was me, and it was this government. That's who was actually doing something. You all went on your holidays. You didn't bother doing any social media. You didn't bother doing any consultation with industry for more than two months, and then you finally woke from your slumber, got your thumbs out and sent a couple of tweets. Job done. Wow, what a big job that is!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on personal reflections: I am 100 per cent sure on this—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Through me, Senator Scarr.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>that there were a number of personal reflections made accusing my colleagues of being lazy, of being on holidays and of not consulting with constituents or stake bodies. I am 100 per cent sure that those personal reflections are unsustainable.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, you are debating the point. Senator Watt, just reflect on your language.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sure. I note that Senator Scarr didn't bother to jump when various personal reflections were made against members on the side of this chamber, but that's a member for you, Senator Scarr.</para>
<para>As I said, I welcome any opportunity to get up and talk about the strong biosecurity response from this government. I've already listed the things that we did which the former government didn't bother doing in any of the time that they were in office. Not only did they not take any of these actions in response to the outbreak in Indonesia, they never took action in any way, such as this government has done, about any of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks that occurred during their time in office. They were in office for nearly 10 years. In response to any of the 70 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease across the world in the time that they were in power, did they put down foot mats? No. Did they order foot mats? No. Did they declare national biosecurity zones? No. Did they do any of the things that we did? There were 70 outbreaks across the world, and not once did they do any of the things that this government has done. As I said the other day, this government has done more on biosecurity in nine weeks than the former government did in nine years. It's no surprise, then, that industry has had a fair bit to say about the government's response and about the way the opposition has handled this matter.</para>
<para>It's disappointing that we continue to see members of the opposition continue with the alarmist rhetoric that they were carrying on with last week. I know that you've all heard the calls from industry, asking you to pull your heads in. I know that. You know that. You've all had the calls saying, 'You are damaging our reputation overseas through your alarmist rhetoric.' I know that you have had the same calls that I have had from industry saying that overseas customers are watching what you are saying and it is already impacting on our trade. I know you've had those calls. I've had the calls as well. You really need to reflect on what you're doing and on your continued hysteria around this very serious issue.</para>
<para>Turning to the false claims of both Senator Roberts and Senator McKenzie about the way I have responded to these issues, if you'd actually bothered to look, you'd see I came into the chamber the other day and provided answers to Senator Roberts's questions and Senator McKenzie's questions. Those answers have already been provided. You like to get up and say that we haven't responded to things. Those answers have been provided, so maybe you should go back and have a look at your own inboxes to see what's there.</para>
<para>In the process of making these accusations, Senator McKenzie in particular has verballed me on at least two occasions. I have never accused farmers of being hysterical about the response. The people I have accused of being hysterical are members of the National Party and other members of the opposition. That's who is being hysterical here. If you don't want to believe me on this, refer back to the comments from one of the leaders of NSW Farmers last week, who said that he was disgusted that this was being politicised and that certain people were fanning the flames. I wonder who he was talking about. So if you want to think about who is being hysterical here, have a good look in the mirror. It's not about farmers. Farmers quite understandably have concerns about this risk, and their concerns are being escalated and wound up by people who are playing politics, by people who are being labelled by the industry as playing politics. That's who is being hysterical here.</para>
<para>Senator McKenzie keeps making the claim that I have misled parliament. It is absolute bollocks. She continues to quote selectively from answers that I have provided to the chamber. I can direct her to the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> of the day we're talking about where I was very clear. I will read out what I said to the chamber: 'I will confirm yet again—I'm probably up to five times, six times, seven times'—I actually think I'm probably up to about 28 times now. For the 28th time, I can confirm 'that 100 per cent of passengers since the foot mats were in place on Monday and Tuesday' have walked through those foot mats. That's what I said. You know it and you continue to verbal me.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have probably asked the question of the minister not, maybe, 28 times, but pretty close, and he still hasn't answered the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're contesting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I didn't ask about since the foot mats had actually been put in place, Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If anyone wants to question my integrity, and put it up against Senator McKenzie's, I would welcome that, because we all know Senator McKenzie has got a few issues, which I've always had the decency to not raise, around her administration of former portfolios which go directly to her integrity.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The queen of sports rorts wants to argue with me about integrity. Really?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, just keep it on point, please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, we're a bit defensive now, are we? So, integrity can be raised in one direction, but not in the other direction.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Through me I've given you a reasonable amount of rope, Senator Watt. Please join me halfway across the bridge.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy President. I note Senator McKenzie is very sensitive every time we raise matters relating to her integrity, especially sports rorts.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order, Deputy President: the senator is reflecting on another senator. He's claiming I'm sensitive. I think those that know me well would find that odd.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, you've have made your point. Senator Watt, please give some consideration to the language and tone you are using.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Deputy President. I have the utmost respect for your ruling.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, you're not assisting me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I say, I'm very happy to provide a full response to Senator Roberts's motion tomorrow, and will take yet another opportunity tomorrow to talk about the strong biosecurity response of this government.</para>
<para>The only thing I will say, in closing, is that I don't know why anyone would listen to Senator Roberts on matters involving vaccines. Senator Roberts is one of the people who've been pedalling conspiracy theories for the last two years about COVID vaccines, and now he wants to come in here as the so-called expert when it comes to animal vaccines. I don't know why anyone would listen to Senator Roberts.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order. He's misleading the Senate again, because I haven't been peddling conspiracy theories; I've been peddling data—hard, solid, scientific data.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, that's debating the point. Senator Watts can have his view. It may or may not be in concurrence with your own. Senator Watts, you're working me this morning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We all know about Senator Roberts and his so-called empirical evidence, which he seems to get out of the dark web. I don't know where he finds it. I don't why anyone would listen to Senator Roberts on any matter to do with animal vaccines, plant products or human vaccines, but if he wants to continue asking questions about vaccines, I am very happy to provide him with factual, science based evidence.</para>
<para>Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, I know you struggle with science and I know you struggle with evidence, but I'm happy to keep providing it to you because I genuinely hope that you, like me, have a deep concern about making sure that Australia remains foot-and-mouth-disease free, which we are, and that we are properly prepared for an outbreak if one were to occur. That is certainly what I'm working on. I hope that you join with me, as I hope the opposition joins with me, in that regard.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash? Senator Whish-Wilson, are you making a point of order or are you seeking the call?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You have jurisdiction as to who receives the call, but it has been to the LNP, to One Nation and to the Labor Party, and the Greens haven't had a chance to make a contribution.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash caught my eye. I'll go to Senator Whish-Wilson and then I'll go to Senator Hanson.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise in support of the motion moved by Senator Roberts. I think the chamber would be well aware of a former prime minister who once said, 'When they start attacking you personally, they have run out of any argument when it comes to policy.' What we have seen today in the speech that was just given by no longer Senator Murray Watt but now Minister Murray Watt is that Senator Murray Watt seems to have forgotten that he now has 'minister' in his title. Having 'minister' in his title means that he must be accountable not just to the Australian Senate but to the Australian people.</para>
<para>The speech that was just given by Minister Watt had excuse after excuse after excuse for the Albanese government's failure in relation to foot-and-mouth disease. Excuses are one thing, but when you have to resort to personal attack after personal attack after personal attack—guess what—the Australian public might be interested to know. There have only been four question times since the Albanese government came to office. And in those four question times, I am aware that Senator Murray Watt, now Minister Murray Watt, has been written to on not just one occasion, by Senator Roberts; but on a second occasion, by Senator McKenzie; and on a third occasion, by me. Do you know why we had to write those letters, despite the fact that there have only been four question times since the Albanese government came to office? Because, when Minister Watt stands up and responds to questions, he misleads the chamber. As Senator McKenzie has said: if you mislead this chamber, convention dictates you come into this place at the earliest opportunity and you correct the record.</para>
<para>It's little wonder that, just four question times into the Albanese government's parliamentary foray, those on the other side in government—not on the side of the chamber; I don't believe on the crossbench; it might be the Australian Greens, but they can stand up if it is them—have coined the phrase, I kid you not, 'Misleading Murray'. At question time last Wednesday, at question time last Thursday, at question time on Monday of this week, at question time on Tuesday of this week—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Urquhart</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: I would ask the senator opposite to refer to Minister Watt by his correct title, not other terms.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It would assist the chamber, Senator Cash, if you could observe that custom in the interest of the standards of the Senate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously that is the whole point I am making: it is now Minister Watt. But those on the other side seem to have conveniently forgotten that they are now in government. And guess what? When you are in government you get to assume responsibility. You do not get to come in here in response to questions and mislead the chamber. I don't know whether any minister in the history of the Australian parliament, in his first four question times from three different senators, has ever received three letters stating that he has misled the Australian Senate and the Australian people. But that is what we have seen.</para>
<para>Minister Watt, who is now accountable under the Albanese government's Code of Conduct for Ministers—he might want to actually read the code of conduct, because at section 4, responsibility, it actually says this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Ministers are expected to be honest in the conduct of public office and take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the Parliament.</para></quote>
<para>That is directly what Senator Roberts's motion goes to: misleading the Australian parliament, and in this case misleading the Australian Senate. The Albanese government's Code of Conduct for Ministers then goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is a Minister's personal responsibility to ensure that any error or misconception in relation to such a matter is corrected or clarified, as soon as practicable and in a manner appropriate to the issues and interests involved.</para></quote>
<para>And what do we see from the Minister Watt? I'm going to get to the letter he wrote to me shortly in relation to the issue that I raised on misleading the Australian Senate and the Australian people.</para>
<para>What we have seen to date is an excuse, another excuse, blaming the former government, personal attacks on Senator Malcolm Roberts and personal attacks on Senator Bridget McKenzie. Again I go to that very well-known former Prime Minister who said words to the effect of, 'Once they have to attack me personally, I have won the policy debate.' Given the phrase that is now being utilised in relation to Minister Watt by those on the other side, 'Misleading Murray', I can only assume that he agrees that he has misled the Senate, because he only has excuses and he only has personal attacks.</para>
<para>Foot-and-mouth disease entering this country, on any analysis, is a very, very serious issue. When you look at the impact on the Australian economy, it is estimated, I think, that the potential impact to our agricultural industry is around $80 billion. Minister Watt comes in with excuse after excuse after excuse and personal attack after personal attack after personal attack but still fails to actually answer the questions posed by Minister Robert and Senator McKenzie. The Australian people deserve answers from this government. Interest rates—good grief!— rose yet again yesterday. Can you imagine, if foot-and-mouth disease gets into this country, what it will do to the cost of living for the Australian people?</para>
<para>In relation to answers provided to me in question time on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the reasons given by the Albanese government for the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, I also had to write to Minister Watt, and I had to raise with him the following: 'in question time on Wednesday, 27 July 2022, in response to a question from me in which I asked the following'. And I quoted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">What consultation did the minister have with the construction industry and/or the Australian Building and Construction Commission prior to and in relation to the snap announcement on Sunday, 24 July 2022, that the ABCC in its powers will be pulled back to the bare legal minimum as of yesterday?</para></quote>
<para>I then quoted back to Minister Watt his response. In part, he said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That is because we have seen a gross waste of taxpayers' funds prosecuting workers for stickers on their helmets and flags on their worksites.</para></quote>
<para>On any analysis, that statement is misleading. Why? Because, colleagues, guess what: it is legally incorrect. The response was misleading. Let me tell you why. Journalists may be interested that one of the prime reasons that the Albanese government are running around saying they have to get rid of the tough cop on the beat in the building and construction industry is that it has 'seen a gross waste of taxpayers' funds prosecuting workers for stickers on their helmets and flags on their worksites'. Let me enlighten colleagues as to why this is misleading the Australian Senate. In the first instance, the Australian Building and Construction Commission has never—never—prosecuted a worker or a union for workers wearing stickers on their helmets or flying flags in their worksites—strike 1. There has never been a prosecution by the Australian Building and Construction Commission in this regard. Not only that but, in relation to the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work, which was in place before it was neutered just recently, guess what: it actually didn't enable—there was no legal basis—the Australian Building and Construction Commission to take an action against a union or a worker. Why? Because the code specifically applies to code covered entities.</para>
<para>You might say 'Well, Michaelia—Senator Cash—you're ideological when it comes to the ABCC.' I'm actually not; I just believe in a tough cop on the beat and I believe in the building and construction industry. But, when you actually have a minister coming into this chamber and giving a statement that is legally incorrect—because (a) there has never been a prosecution and (b) there is no legal basis for the Australian Building and Construction Commission to actually undertake such a prosecution—you would think that the minister would write back to you, colleagues, and just admit it. Instead, the answer that I have received from Minister Watt—and I'm more than happy to table it if people would like to read it—makes every excuse in the world as to how the Australian Labor Party justify the statements they are making but does not go anywhere near the fact that there has never been a prosecution by the Australian Building and Construction Commission.</para>
<para>As to the actual case they keep referring to, the Lendlease case, they failed to tell the Australian people that it was actually brought by Lendlease, not the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It was brought by Lendlease. The union intervened to support Lendlease. The ABCC were required to give evidence. Let's now turn to the judgement of the court. Of course, those on the other side say they actually respect the independence of the judiciary, but then they fail to acknowledge that, in 91 per cent of cases, the judiciary have actually found in favour of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And, in the Lendlease case, guess what? The judiciary found in favour of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.</para>
<para>So, again, when I look at Senator Roberts's motion, when I look at the fact that in this place there have now been only four question times, when I look at the fact that, in relation to those four question times, those on the other side have now coined the phrase 'Misleading Murray' in relation to Minister Watt, the fact that Minister Watt has now received three letters—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, please resume your seat. Senator Urquhart.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Urquhart</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order. I would again ask the shadow minister to withdraw that comment. She was asked before to address Minister Watt by his correct title, and she continues to use other terms.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACT ING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Urquhart.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, you don't have the call yet. Senator Urquhart, your point is made. I'm sure that Senator Cash has heard that. Senator Cash.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Sen</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I was referring to the minister by his correct title. I was then referring to comments that have been made by those on the other side in relation to the nickname that they have now given him.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, it would assist the chamber if you would withdraw. Did you seek to ask me to take further action?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I did. I would like you to review that ruling. I did refer to the minister by his correct title: Minister Watt.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, to proceed, it would assist the chamber if you would now withdraw—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me deal with this matter, Senator McKenzie. Senator Cash, if you would withdraw, that would assist the chamber, and then I'll give you the ruling on the second part.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you would give us the ruling on the second part, I will withdraw, subject to, obviously—are you providing your ruling now?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTI NG DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicate that I accept your request to review—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and I will. In that instance, do you withdraw?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just did.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you very much. Would you clearly withdraw for me, Senator Cash? I'm just trying to do this in a nice orderly way because people expect it to be done properly. Senator Cash, please, could you stand and withdraw?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have already done that.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, it was pretty messy—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. Senator McKenzie, you have the call. Is it on the same matter?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a point of order. In the ruling—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, we have already dealt with that matter. It would assist the chamber if we can proceed. If it's on another matter, I'll hear you, but if not, I don't—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like you to add the nickname 'Albo' to your ruling as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is completely out of order. Please continue with your remarks, Senator Cash.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, the motion that has been moved by Senator Roberts is actually a very, very serious motion. On day 5 of the actual sittings of the parliament—not counting the ceremonial sitting that we had on Tuesday—a motion has already been moved in relation to a minister that clearly states that comments have been made and responses have been provided which appear to have misled the Senate, as detailed in Senator Roberts's letter, hand-delivered to the minister on Friday 29 July. I too have had to write to the minister in a similar vein in terms of allegations of misleading the Senate. Senator McKenzie has also written to the minister. One might say there is a pattern of behaviour here, when the minister is asked a question.</para>
<para>I would rather the minister take a question on notice, to be honest with you, and actually provide the chamber with the correct answer. But, what we saw today, in the response to this chamber by Minister Watt to Senator McKenzie's address and to Senator Malcolm Roberts, is excuse after excuse after excuse. It's one thing to make excuses, but, when you then have to move to personal attacks, again I go to that very well-known former Prime Minister who used to say words to the effect of, 'Once they have to attack me personally, I know I've won the policy debate.'</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If there's ever an example of the famous saying, 'today a rooster, tomorrow a feather duster,' it's this debate that we are experiencing here in the Senate this morning. It's great that the school kids can witness how far the Liberal and National parties have fallen since they were in government for nine years. Seriously, we are wasting the Senate's time on a debate about—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You claim it's biosecurity, Senator—I'll take your interjection. Firstly, two significant things happened last week. The Senate behaved as it should. We had a briefing. We got together and requested a briefing from the agricultural minister on this very serious issue. Those of us who cared and those of us who had responsibilities in this area went to the cinema and we had a comprehensive briefing from a number of professionals. I notice that a lot of the things we were told were conveniently ignored by Senator McKenzie in her contribution this morning.</para>
<para>The second thing we did, as mature adults elected by the Australian people to do our job and scrutinise the minister, was to get up a Senate inquiry into this exact issue. We worked together to get that so that the National Party and the Liberal Party could chair that through the rural and regional affairs committee, and we've begun the process to scrutinise the minister's response to this issue. We will be taking comprehensive evidence from witnesses and stakeholders right around the country. That's our job—that's what we were elected to do.</para>
<para>It's fascinating for me this morning to see what you have become. I won't say it's sad, but it's fascinating. What is sad is seeing you play politics with this issue. We were told by the department officials at the briefing that it is dangerous for you to play politics with this issue. It is dangerous for the reputation of the farmers you purport to represent in here. It's dangerous on many levels—for our trade negotiations and deals that we have with other countries, for our reputation and for our image internationally. It's dangerous for you to continue down this road when we're already doing our job to scrutinise the minister. I ask you here this morning to consider exactly what it is you are doing. You are coming in here—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, I remind you to make your remarks to the chair. The term 'you' does change the nature of the debate, so if you could refer to the speakers through me rather than directly, I am sure that will help the tenor of the debate.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Acting Deputy President, I've shifted to the other side of the chamber—I used to stare directly at you. I have to swivel my hips a little bit to the left.</para>
<para>The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDEN T: It's all new for us.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are scrutinising this issue. That's our job. The minister has come in and provided responses. The minister has said he will come in tomorrow and provide a response to One Nation. So, I genuinely ask the Liberal and National parties to reflect on their behaviour in this chamber this morning and what it is that they are trying to achieve by coming in here and politicising this issue.</para>
<para>I know why One Nation are coming in here to politicise this issue. They are searching for relevance. Senator Hanson was nearly knocked off by the Legalise Cannabis Australia Party, which would have had a delicious irony to it, had it happened, and there were many of us glued to the screen during those final days of the count in Queensland. We would have genuinely welcomed the Legalise Cannabis Australia Party to this chamber. We understand why One Nation are doing this—they have no power in this government anymore and their votes are no longer relevant or necessary to this government in this parliament. I understand why they're doing it, but I still say to Senator Hanson that it's very dangerous what you're doing. Reflect also on your behaviour and what you are trying to achieve here. Are you representing the best interests of Australian farmers in doing what you're doing now? We all accept the government needs to be scrutinised. We all accept the government needs to be put under pressure. That's how it works in here, but that's exactly what the Senate is doing. The Senate is already having a comprehensive inquiry into this issue, the government's response to it to date and, more importantly, what else needs to be done. You'll get the chance for a contribution very shortly, Senator Hanson, I'm sure.</para>
<para>This inquiry is also looking at an outbreak of varroa mite in this country, which I haven't heard the National Party asking any questions on in here. Another four outbreaks were announced in New South Wales on this yesterday. This is a very serious issue that's also being looked by the inquiry—a very serious issue not just for the bee industry but also for those in the agricultural industry that rely on the pollination services of bees. It couldn't be more critical, but I don't hear anything from you about this issue at all. So there are lots of other priorities.</para>
<para>I know you're struggling to find a reason to put the government under the pump, but, really, please reflect on your behaviour. Be mature adults. And let's get on with doing the job that we were elected to do.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government gave leave to Senator Roberts. The reason I gave leave was that the motion I had before me said that he was going to give notice of a motion for the next day of sitting; that was the version I had. We gave leave because we want this chamber to work more collaboratively than it has in the past. I didn't expect that there would be then an extended political attack and debate—not really about the substance of the motion, which the government is happy to agree to. The minister has made it clear that he is happy to come in and follow the sentiment of the motion, or to attend the Senate tomorrow. But we are not supportive of having the whole morning spent on this and then the whole morning tomorrow spent on this, which is essentially what the motion, as it's being conducted in this place, is going to mean: we're going to have an open-ended debate this morning of unrelated contributions from those opposite and then we're going to have a repeat of this tomorrow morning.</para>
<para>Now, the approach the government is taking is: we want to work with people in this chamber. We would appreciate notice—not just walking into it—and I've spoken to Senator Roberts about that. If you are going to move a motion like this, it is common courtesy that, if you're advising other people in this chamber, you advise everybody and give people a little bit of a heads-up. We would ask for that, because that assists us in whether or not we give leave to allow for certain motions. So we would request that.</para>
<para>The minister has spoken. We have allowed two contributions from the opposition. One Nation has made a contribution. The Greens have made a contribution. So I feel that we have done what we need to do today, and no doubt there will be further contributions that can be made tomorrow. So I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the question be put.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:32] <br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>35</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>Lines, S.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>33</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Babet, R.</name>
                <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Molan, A. J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Van, D. A.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm now going to put the original question, but before I do I'll remind you, Senator Sterle, that once the tellers are appointed you need to remain in your seat. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>13</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>13</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, allowing it to be considered.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make it clear that the Greens do not support this exemption. We are concerned about the rushed nature of this. We're concerned that we're now halfway through the second week of the first sitting fortnight and we haven't been able to get an adequate briefing on or understanding of the true implications of this bill. We don't believe that this is a bill that should be exempt from the cut-off order. We believe the Senate should consider this properly, that the process should not be rushed. It's not a good enough excuse from the government of the day to want to circumvent a court, particularly when the legislation has a retrospective nature. We're concerned about the principle that this sets and also about how this chamber works. Already this morning we've heard the Manager of Government Business in the Senate pleading with this place to run in an orderly way and to be collaborative, and we think that rushing bills like this through is not an appropriate way to do that.</para>
<para>We are genuinely concerned about the real impacts of this legislation on both the people it includes and the people it does not include. We are worried about what it means for the liabilities of the government's budget, of course, but we need the real information about that, and at this point we have not been given it. The Public Service deserve our support, and rushing a piece of legislation like this through really is thumbing your nose at hardworking public servants, particularly those here in the very territory in which this wonderful parliament exists.</para>
<para>We plead with the government and the opposition to allow more time for consideration of this bill to consider its real implications and to make sure everybody is aware of the precedent that it sets. It's a retrospective bill that changes the circumstances of everyday people and makes a precedent in relation to rushing bills like this through the new parliament. We are genuinely concerned that every time the government has the support of the opposition we are going to be confronted in this chamber with a 'bang, bang, bang, bang it through'. That is not the type of parliament that the Prime Minister promised. It is not the 'collaborative nature' that we continue to hear from all sides in talking about how we are going to operate in this chamber.</para>
<para>There's been a deal stitched up between the government and the opposition to effectively cut the wages of public servants. Well, you can wear that but we are not going to be part of it, and we are not going to be part of a bill being smashed through this place when we haven't even got answers to some basic questions. We are concerned that we won't be able to go into a proper committee stage in relation to this bill to get to the bottom of these issues. We are concerned that those who are being asked to speak on this bill have not been given thorough enough briefings. We are concerned that even if we had a committee stage and were able to ask the government questions they wouldn't even know the answers because this hasn't been considered properly and thoroughly enough. I hope this is not going to be business as usual for this new parliament—that, every time the Labor Party can get the support of the Liberals to gang up, whether on wage thefts, cuts to superannuation, an attack on the Public Service, handing out money to their fossil fuel mates or whatever it might be that they can find agreement on, this chamber gets upturned and we can't do our role, being the chamber of scrutiny and accountability.</para>
<para>We feel very strongly about this. We plead with the opposition: this chamber has a job to do. Our job is to hold government to account, to look at the details of legislation, to consider in detail legislation and to make sure that when something passes this place we know exactly what it is doing and who it will affect. No-one on either side here today can tell us what the real-life implications, or even the financial implications and the precedent implications, of rushing this piece of legislation through this place today will be. Until you can answer that, you don't have the Greens' support.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Hanson-Young and say that, as a principle, we support the full processes of the Senate being applied to legislation and any other business of this place because we are the house of review. Today we have made a decision to support the bringing on of debate on this bill at the request of the government, but that is all we will be agreeing to. We believe that the appropriate process for debate on this bill should not be truncated. So, whilst we will accept the exemption, that is all we are accepting.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to respond to the concerns that have been raised by Senator Hanson—</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An honourable senator interjecting</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young—sorry, my mind is moving quickly because I'm unclear about what Senator Ruston just said. This is not, and will not be, the normal practice of how we deal with bills. This is an exceptional set of circumstances and an issue that has been compounded by the election and the commencement of the new parliament. In an ideal set of circumstances we would have much preferred to have more time for people to consider the legislation, albeit that it is fairly straightforward. This has been an issue under the attention of the former government for a period of time, and it came to me relatively early in taking on the role of Minister for Finance. The assurance we give you is that this is not the way we will be conducting legislation in this place. It is a very unique set of circumstances.</para>
<para>In relation to the comments—and we can probably deal with this better in debate on the bill: this is not about ripping things away from the Public Service or being disrespectful to the Public Service. The bill is about clarifying the administrative practice that has existed for a period of time since 1986 and ensuring that the legislation basically follows the administrative practice. We are happy to have that debate during the bill itself. But I can guarantee this is not the way we will be proceeding with legislation in this place. It is the exception rather than the rule.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id></name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>DEPUTY PRESIDENT (): The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Government Business be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<division>
          <division.header>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:49]<br />(The Deputy President—Senator McGrath)</p>
            </body>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>45</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Antic, A.</name>
                <name>Askew, W.</name>
                <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                <name>Hume, J.</name>
                <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                <name>Molan, A. J.</name>
                <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                <name>Payman, F.</name>
                <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                <name>Polley, H.</name>
                <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                <name>White, L.</name>
              </names>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>12</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
              <names>
                <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                <name>Cox, D.</name>
                <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
              </names>
            </noes>
            <pairs>
              <num.votes>0</num.votes>
              <title>PAIRS</title>
              <names />
            </pairs>
          </division.data>
          <division.result>
            <body>
              <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to. </p>
            </body>
          </division.result>
        </division></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>15</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6856" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to public sector superannuation, and for related purposes. Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022..</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>16</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">PUBLIC SECTOR SUPERANNUATION SALARY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2022</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SECOND READING SPEECH</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 repeals paragraph 5(e) of the Superannuation (Salary) Regulations with effect from 1 July 1986 and provides that the effect of the repeal does not apply to individuals where limited circumstances are satisfied.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The changes in the bill are only relevant to current and former Commonwealth public sector civilian employees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The default superannuation salary of a member of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme established under the Superannuation Act 1976 includes the value of any allowance that, under the regulations, is to be treated as salary under the act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Prior to 1 March 2022 paragraph 5(e) of the regulations provided that the rent-free use of housing made available to a person by reason that they held a particular office or performed particular duties or work was an allowance that was to be treated as salary for the purpose of the act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The value of rent-free housing as per paragraph 5(e) of the regulations flowed through to the default superannuation salary of members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, and members of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan and certain members of non-Commonwealth choice funds.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At the time the regulations were made in 1978, an employee's assessable income was taken to include the value of rent-free housing. With the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime in 1986, the tax burden in relation to rent-free housing shifted from the employee to employer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Following this change in 1986 the Commonwealth has typically not treated rent-free housing as forming part of superannuation salary and generally neither employers or employees have made superannuation contributions that have taken into account the value of rent-free housing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A recent case before the Federal Court has exposed differing views on the operation and scope of former paragraph 5(e) of the regulations. If the interpretation as argued by the applicants was accepted, it would have significant financial impacts for the Commonwealth and inequitable financial outcomes for differing cohorts of individuals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some individuals would receive an unexpected windfall increase in their superannuation benefits while others could incur potentially large unexpected debts for unpaid member contributions with little or no corresponding increase in their superannuation benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These outcomes would be a consequence of the reliance by all relevant parties on a view that rent-free housing at the time it was provided did not form part of superannuation salary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Retrospectively repealing paragraph 5(e) of the regulations will regularise the past administrative practice of Commonwealth employers and employees by effectively restoring the position with respect to rent-free housing that all relevant parties have treated as governing the Commonwealth civilian public sector superannuation schemes since 1986.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations will commence from 1 July 1986, the date of the introduction of the fringe benefits tax regime, and therefore regularise the change in practice that seemingly occurred after that time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As the purpose of the retrospective repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations is to regularise the longstanding practice of employees and employers, the bill makes provision for cases, if any, in which paragraph 5(e) was applied historically in particular employer relationships in a way that included the value of rent-free housing in superannuation salary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill does this by excluding a limited cohort of individuals from the effect of the repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations where no-one was acting pursuant to a mistake as shown from the actions of both Commonwealth employers and employees as evidenced by contributions having been made on the basis, in the period 1 July 1986 to 28 February 2022 that the value of the rent-free housing received by the employee was included in their superannuation salary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The exclusion end date of 28 February 2022 reflects that paragraph 5(e) of the regulations was repealed with prospective effect from 1 March 2022.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I note that the provisions that this bill seeks to amend are currently the subject of an action in the Federal Court of Australia, and so I will limit my remarks out of respect for that process. Schedule 1 of this bill repeals section 5(e) of the superannuation salary regulations with effect from 1 July 1986. This will regularise the past administrative practice of the Commonwealth employers and employees by, effectively, restoring the position, with respect to rent-free housing, that all relevant parties have treated as governing the Commonwealth civilian Public Sector Superannuation Scheme since 1986. Schedule 2 of this bill contains exemptions that will ensure that individuals where explicit arrangements were in place about the treatment of rent for salary purposes will not be affected by the repealed provisions.</para>
<para>I note that the quantum of financial impacts is presently unquantified and that the administrative task involved in quantifying the financial impacts is prohibitive. However, based on the briefing that we have received from government, we accept that the quantum would involve a significant unintended cost to the federal budget, a significant unintended cost to the taxpayer. So, in putting on the record the opposition's support for this bill, I would like to note that the government has provided assurances that this is the most preferred option to resolve this unintended anomaly, that it is not a precedent for retrospective legislation or for such legislation to be rushed through the parliament and that this is the earliest possible that this legislation could be considered, with an urgency that it must pass before we head into a four-week break between sitting weeks.</para>
<para>I thank the government very much for making officials, from the Department of Finance, available to brief the opposition on this legislation and the cooperative way that they have approached this matter, particularly the minister and her office. I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is not my first speech. I rise to speak on this bill to make a few comments from the perspective of the Greens. I appreciate the briefing we had yesterday from a group of public servants who attempted to illuminate the complexity that is before us, but it was a very short presentation—less than 35 minutes—and it illuminated a number of elements in this bill that illustrate its complexity. So I rise to express and reinforce the concerns that my friend Senator Hanson-Young has put before us.</para>
<para>This is a very rushed consideration of a complex question. It's one of the first bills that I've had the opportunity as a new senator to deal with. I'm surprised that we didn't have before us an analysis that showed, as they suggested, there would be some people who benefited from this bill but others who would be disadvantaged. The general analysis about how those numbers would fall and what the characteristics were, of people affected, weren't put before us. So I am surprised that the analysis was thin and inadequate for the complexity of the matter in front of us.</para>
<para>Superannuation is complex. The schemes that we are dealing with, several of them, are complex. So I am resisting the notion that this is an urgent question which doesn't allow consideration of the proper facts, the full facts, before us. We don't have adequate information about the bill. We don't know who will be benefited and who will not, who will be disadvantaged, and we need that full analysis for the consideration of bills in this place and certainly on this issue. So a rushed process, lacking a fulsome briefing, is problematic. Secondly, it's not clear to me why this needs to be rushed through with such urgency. What's the reason? We haven't had a full explanation, and I think that setting a precedent for the urgent and very quick consideration of this matter is a mistake.</para>
<para>We've been here in this parliament, in this sitting, for a week and a half. To find ourselves suddenly dealing with this, at this pace, is a mistake—an issue that's been around, certainly in the court, for over two years, we heard yesterday. That's long enough for us to have had a proper briefing around it, and it hasn't arrived. The bill is retrospective for 30 years. That's a long time. And it's a real concern to us that that will create some retrospectivity and a precedent around an important piece of legislation, one that we still don't understand the negative or unforeseen implications of. The bill, it seems, will overturn, possibly, a court outcome in a case that's not yet been concluded. It's important that government doesn't interfere with the courts and that we have a deliberate and clear separation of powers in what we're doing.</para>
<para>We understand, here, in the Greens, the importance of superannuation. It's a really important issue that affects the lives of so many Australians, and we care about making sure that system works properly, especially in this case, and works well for the hardworking public servants, over many decades, as this bill would affect them. So we're unable to support this bill, given that Labor haven't given us enough information about how it would affect people, especially our public servants.</para>
<para>We want to ensure that those who do all of the work in the public sector, with their commitment to service, are not inadvertently disadvantaged through the rapid progress of a bill that's not well understood, even in this place. Our public sector has been cut to the bone. We have to make sure everything we do rewards and supports and protects public servants, increases their pay and conditions, and does no harm.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll start by thanking senators for their contribution. In particular, I'd like to thank Senator Hume for her cooperation and for engagement over this issue—and Senator Birmingham, prior to Senator Hume's appointment. Also, I thank the senators who had briefings yesterday afternoon.</para>
<para>We accept that this is an unusual way of dealing with legislation. I don't bring this legislation to the chamber lightly and have no intention of treating the chamber with any disrespect at all, but the Public Sector Superannuation Salary Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 is urgent. That is the very, very clear advice from officials to the government. The financial risk to the Commonwealth is high and in the order of billions of dollars. I have responsibilities to ensure that we are protecting the interests of the Commonwealth and balancing that with a whole range of other pressing needs.</para>
<para>I would say that this is not mine or the government's general way of operating—to be introducing retrospective legislation. The unique circumstances of this issue leaves us with very little choice if we are to avoid the unintended and inconsistent outcomes that would be at odds with the community's expectations about what is reasonable in terms of superannuation payments. I don't think anyone could come into this chamber and argue any other case. I want to thank senators for engaging on this, accepting that it is unusual, but I think anyone who is engaging on the content of the bill understands why we are taking this action.</para>
<para>The bill ensures that the superannuation entitlements of current and former Commonwealth public sector civilian employees remain as they were understood to be by Commonwealth employees and employers over many years prior to the commencement of a superannuation claim in the Federal Court. I think this goes to one of the concerns that Senator Pocock raised around the retrospective nature of the legislation. Prospectively, this issue has been dealt with under Senator Birmingham, when it was brought to his attention. The relevant section of the superannuation regulations was repealed prospectively from I think 28 February 2022, but we do have this issue going back to 1986.</para>
<para>The important point for the Senate to understand here is that the retrospective nature of this bill enshrines the administrative practice that has been followed since 1986. Employees were not making member contributions. Employers were not making employer contributions on rent-free housing that was provided to employees on top of their salary and conditions as free. The taxpayer pays the rent. The employee gets their salary. Super is paid on their salary but not on their rent. This is the issue here. The rental payment was over and above their salary, and this is the issue that's now in question. It has been the administrative practice of the Commonwealth since 1986 to pay super on employees' salary but not on the rent-free accommodation they were receiving as part of their posting.</para>
<para>Going to the question of urgency, if this matter were not resolved by this week, the different views about the operation of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations would not be definitively resolved, and that could perpetuate the possibility of widely variable and inequitable outcomes for different cohorts of employees. I have been briefed by the department and have spent some time looking at this. For example, you could have a situation where an employee, depending on their postings, the point in their career and a range of other things, which is why it does vary widely, could go from receiving a lump sum payment of $1.2 million to one of $11.7 million. That is the consequence of not dealing with this. It will also leave other employees with potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid member contributions that would need to be dealt with. Another situation is that a person on a different posting and a different stage of their career who is receiving an annualised pension in the order of $200,000 could see that increase to over $1 million a year. That doesn't pass the pub test. It's out of line with community expectations about the adequacy of superannuation arrangements. That is why we are dealing with this today.</para>
<para>On Senator Barbara Pocock's concerns about numbers and how they are affected and about the analysis that she's arguing should have been done, there is some uncertainty about that because, if we were to do that level of detail, it would require going back individually from 1986 onwards for everybody who has had a posting in order to provide that analysis. That would take a lot of time and resources, and I'm not sure it's particularly useful when we know that this bill is about ensuring that the administrative practice that has been followed since 1986 is essentially reflected through this legislation.</para>
<para>I'm not sure we need to fully understand every individual circumstance, because every individual will be slightly different, based on length of service, posting, point in their career—things like that. We do know that we have had thousands of public servants who have served overseas and had a posting overseas in the last 30-odd years. We know that the potential reach in terms of numbers affected is in the order of 10,000 public servants, but we can't be exact on that. Again, I'm not sure that understanding every individual situation is relevant to the broader question of this legislation, which is: do we need to deal with this? We would argue yes. Is there an issue about the different impacts and the way the variable and inequitable outcomes would apply if we left this the way it is now? We would say yes. That's what this bill before you does.</para>
<para>Repealing the regulations regularises the past administrative practice of Commonwealth employers and employees by effectively restoring the position with respect to rent-free housing that all relevant parties have treated as governing the Commonwealth civilian Public Sector Superannuation Scheme since 1986. As the purpose of the repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations is to regularise the longstanding practice of employees and employers, the bill makes provision for certain cases, if any, in which paragraph 5(e) was applied historically in particular employer relationships in a way that included the value of rent-free housing in superannuation salary. The bill does this by excluding a limited cohort of individuals from the effect of the repeal of paragraph 5(e) of the regulations where contributions have previously been paid on the basis that a person's super explicitly included the value of rent-free housing. That is to say that, where your employment arrangements did explicitly include rent-free accommodation counting for superannuation purposes, those arrangements are not affected by this bill.</para>
<para>This is an important piece of legislation, and I do thank other senators for their contributions to this debate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:14]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>40</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Molan, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>12</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, does any senator require that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Sena</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>tor GALLAGHER (—) (): I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I put on the record that the Greens are opposing this bill at the third reading.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Self-Employment Programs and Other Measures) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1342" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Self-Employment Programs and Other Measures) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Self-Employment Programs and Other Measures) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>20</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1342" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Self-Employment Programs and Other Measures) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>20</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank senators who have contributed to the debate on this bill. This is the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Self-Employment Programs and Other Measures) Bill 2022 and the substance of this bill seeks to amend the social security law and related elements of the veterans and family laws to make it clear that the law operates in the same way for people assessing self-employment assistance programs through the new enterprise scheme.</para>
<para>As many have said earlier in their contributions, the NEIS is a proud Labor legacy that was introduced under the Hawke government in 1985 and the program has supported unemployed people to establish their own small businesses. Since the program's inception, it has helped almost 200,000 people to start a small business, and it's testament to its success that it has lasted as long as it has through multiple changes in government. Some of the people who made contributions in the debate shared success stories, and you can appreciate the important contributions this program provides for people who might not be able to find a job in the traditional sense but have been given the skills and opportunity to take that leap and start a business as a result of this program. The bill makes clear that the provisions for NEIS payments also apply equally to self-employment assistance payments, as has been the policy intent.</para>
<para>I was at a community function in Caboolture on Saturday and I met Rebecca, who talked to me about her partner, who was a veteran out of the armed forces who was participating in this program and actually talked to me about this legislation. I can report, Rebecca, that this legislation is before the Senate this week. I again thank senators who contributed on this legislation and commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>21</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6879" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>21</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statement read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2022 SPRING SITTINGS TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2022 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The purpose of the bill is to:</para></quote>
<list>provide an income and withholding tax exemption for Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and its wholly owned subsidiary for activities associated with the Women's World Cup 2023;</list>
<list>amend the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Act 2018 to facilitate the closure and any transitional arrangements associated with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority replacing the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal;</list>
<list>provide additional support to small businesses and primary producers impacted by Cyclone Seroja; and</list>
<list>make some minor amendments to Treasury portfolio laws to correct technical or drafting defects, remove anomalies and ensure legislation operates as intended.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Urgent passage of the bill required to:</para></quote>
<list>give FIFA certainty as to its taxation affairs;</list>
<list>provide certainty to grant recipients and ensure that the grants are treated as non-assessable non-exempt income for the 2021-22 income year (grant recipients have already received and would likely have been treating them as non-assessable non-exempt income, and from 1 July 2022, the ATO will have to treat these grants as assessable income if the legislation has not passed both Houses before the end of the income year); and</list>
<list>address considerable legal risk that will arise shortly in relation to the Modernising Business Register Program, as the legislative framework for the Program will deviate from the system roll out status from 22 June 2022 until passage of the necessary amendment.</list>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The speech </inline> <inline font-style="italic">read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will provide certainty to stakeholders about their tax obligations and benefit entitlements, reduce risks to the Commonwealth associated with uncertainty in existing laws and limit the retrospective application of proposed new laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1 to the Bill provides an income tax exemption for qualifying grants made to primary producers and small businesses affected by Tropical Cyclone Seroja, which had a devasting impact on communities in Western Australia in April last year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Affected primary producers and small businesses were eligible to receive recovery grants of up to $25,000, which were activated under thejoint Commonwealth-State<inline font-style="italic"> Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018</inline>. Schedule 1 makes these qualifying grants non-assessable non-exempt income for tax purposes, assisting affected communities as they rebuild and recover.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the <inline font-style="italic">Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First</inline><inline font-style="italic">—</inline><inline font-style="italic">Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Act</inline> to support the practical closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT) and any transitional arrangements associated with AFCA replacing the SCT.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The AFCA Act will be amended to allow for the transfer of SCT records and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for ongoing records management, and will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA, where previously these had been remitted to the SCT.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 also introduces a rule-making power to the AFCA Act, to allow the Minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to support the closure of the SCT.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 3 to the Bill is part of a package of commitments to secure the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2023. The Bill provides an income and withholding tax exemption to FIFA and a local Australian subsidiary, confined to income in relation to the event.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will maintain Australia's strong reputation as a host for major international sporting events and, in particular, help promote women's sport.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 4 amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure those laws operate in accordance with the policy intent, make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments have been identified by Treasury portfolio agencies, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and policy divisions within Treasury.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 4 includes changes to the legislation that supports the Modernising Business Registers program. This program is an important economic reform that will consolidate over 30 business registers on a centralised and modernised business platform. Under the current legislation the legal transfer of all registry functions from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the new Registrar occurred on 22 June 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since coming to government, we have discovered significant issues that have affected delivery of this program and put it significantly behind schedule. Given these delays, this Bill retrospectively defers the automatic transfer date of all functions to 1 July 2026.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The program will also be well over budget. The previous government originally committed just under half a billion dollars for the program. Preliminary estimates suggest full delivery of the program may now cost up to $1.5 billion. We will keep Australians informed as we go about the important business of managing this project.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Bill further the Government's commitment to the care and maintenance of Treasury laws and will make it easier for Australians to comply with current laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition welcomes the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 to the extent that it extends and implements key measures of the former government's economic plan. This bill delivers key measures of the former coalition government's commitment to provide cost-of-living relief to disaster-affected communities, to support women's sport and to cut red tape for business. The bill brings together a number of Treasury measures which were included in bills that lapsed at the election. I note that the opposition will be supporting the bill.</para>
<para>The bill covers a number of measures from the previous government. Schedule 1 implements important protections around grants for recovery from Cyclone Seroja. Schedule 2 supports transitional provisions relating to the repeal of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993. Schedule 3 implements income tax and withholding exemptions for the FIFA Women's World Cup. Schedule 4 makes a number of minor and technical amendments, including tidying up drafting errors in consequential amendments in previous legislation and extending the automatic commencement date for modernising business registers.</para>
<para>This is an uncontroversial bill that wouldn't normally be debated, and the fact that we are debating it points to the lack of an economic plan from this government. Indeed, just this morning, we have seen another important report from the Productivity Commission, and all we have seen in response from the government is more economic commentary but not a plan. We could be debating the cost of living. We could be debating cost-of-living relief and measures to support families and businesses. But, instead, we're debating this.</para>
<para>Now, schedule 4, among many minor and technical changes, extends the automatic commencement date for modernising business registers. A lot has been written about this in recent days. All decisions taken with regard to the Modernising Businesses Registers Program were included in the coalition's 2022-23 budget, and then they were independently confirmed by the secretaries of Treasury and Finance at the 2022 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook.</para>
<para>Noting the minister's second reading speech in the other place, I must add that the government's attempts to politicise this would be far more credible if they weren't planning to drive up debt and government spending even further. The fact is that this government went to the election proposing to run bigger deficits—bigger deficits—and this was confirmed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, which showed that the platform that this government took to the election would actually make the budget bottom line worse. In contrast, the PBO confirmed that the coalition parties were the only parties that went to the election with a pathway to improve the budget bottom line. So, while the opposition will be supporting this bill, the politicisation of this measure by the government, despite their supposed support of it, is a damning example of this government's approach to economic policy.</para>
<para>The Modernising Business Registers Program is a key deregulation measure that will cut red tape, reduce the compliance burden and support small businesses around Australia to manage their own affairs. It will unify the systems and the data, allowing users to manage their registrations and compliance in one simple location. This will support small businesses and small business owners to save time. It will make it easier to deal with government. It will cut red tape that's a drag on productivity, business owners' time and the resources of government. It is a proud initiative of the former coalition government. So, while we welcome the government's commitment to continue the program, it is astounding that the government is seeking to delay this measure further, not to next year but—to kick it into the long grass—all the way to 2026. So much for improving productivity!</para>
<para>So, while we don't oppose the bill, as it continues a lot of good work that the previous coalition government did, we call upon the government, once again, to outline a plan to address the challenges facing Australia's economy. The government can make choices to address these pressures and they can make those choices right now. The opposition can and will hold them to account for how they respond. And the risk for Australia is that this government will make a bad situation worse.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, although, as senators will be aware, we do have some amendments to the bill, which have been circulated in my name.</para>
<para>I want to speak about the issue of corporate tax transparency. I understand we will get an opportunity to debate these amendments in detail, but I do want to place on the record that the first of these amendments changes the corporate tax transparency requirements by removing the distinction between Australian resident and foreign resident private companies for the purpose of corporate tax transparency. It requires instead the ATO to publish information on the tax paid by private companies with a turnover greater than $100 million, regardless of where those companies are domiciled. The second of the Greens amendments abolishes the grandfathered list of private companies which, since 1995, have been exempt from having to lodge financial reports with ASIC.</para>
<para>Those senators who have been in this place for a while might recall the pretty unusual circumstances that resulted in the corporate tax transparency requirements that we currently have, and I want to be very clear about how we find ourselves in this place. In 2013, the former Labor government, with the support of the Greens, legislated that the ATO would publish the gross revenue, taxable revenue and tax paid by all private companies with a turnover greater than $100 million. That was legislated 2013 by Labor with the support of the Australian Greens. But, in October 2015, before the first of those transparency reports was released by the Australian tax office, the former government—a Liberal government—repealed this requirement in relation to Australian resident private companies.</para>
<para>Shortly thereafter the Greens, in the name of my friend and colleague Senator Whish-Wilson, moved an amendment to another tax bill to reinstate those requirements that the LNP government repealed in October 2015. At that time, former senators Xenophon and Muir reversed their previous support for the abolition of those tax transparency requirements and so the amendment to reinstate corporate tax transparency requirements passed through the Senate. But the Turnbull government rejected that amendment shortly afterwards in the House. Following sustained public and political pressure, in December 2015 the Turnbull government relented and agreed to reinstate the corporate tax transparency requirements for Australian private companies but at a higher turnover threshold. That threshold which was agreed to by the Turnbull government was a turnover threshold of $200 million a year.</para>
<para>It was the Greens who secured this agreement from Prime Minister Turnbull to partially reinstate corporate tax transparency requirements for large Australian private companies that he had repealed only two months earlier. Of course, what we got from Labor at the time was that they didn't like it. What we got from Labor was that they didn't like it—that the Greens were being pragmatic; that we didn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That's what we got from Labor. They got cranky with us because we didn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We got all pragmatic and actually worked to deliver something to improve transparency around corporate tax arrangements.</para>
<para>Of course, Labor didn't like it that we led a successful political, community and public campaign to force Prime Minister Turnbull to back down, so they spent, collectively, a good part of the next four years telling a lie to the Australian people—that the Greens watered down tax transparency for big companies, when in fact not only did we not water down transparency with regard to corporate tax arrangements; we improved it. That was a lie at the time, and it remains a lie today, because you can't water down something that doesn't exist.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brown, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Carol Brown</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim continues to use the word 'lie', and I ask you to rule whether that's unparliamentary in the context that he is using it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKim is referring to a particular party as a whole and not implying that about any individual senator. Senator McKim, you may wish to reflect on your language, but my understanding is it's within the standing orders.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying, it was a lie then and it's a lie now because you actually can't water down something that doesn't exist. That's a pretty straightforward proposition. That's pretty obvious. You can't mount a reasonable argument against the proposition that you can't water down something that doesn't exist.</para>
<para>To sum up, there were tax transparency requirements, then there weren't and then the Greens ensured the tax transparency requirements were brought back. We got what we could out of Prime Minister Turnbull, and we improved tax transparency arrangements as a result. It's just that the Labor Party didn't like the Greens not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, so they told this big fat lie and they repeated it.</para>
<para>Now the Liberal and National parties are out of government—and what a massive sigh of relief, I am sure, many people in Australia heaved when that result became known and was confirmed. With them gone, we are now putting forward amendments, which are on sheet 1596, to restore tax transparency thresholds for Australian private companies to levels that were in place before the Liberal-National coalition repealed them and, importantly, to levels that Labor supported at the 2006 and 2019 elections. I will note that, curiously, Labor did not take that policy to the election that has just been held. I've no idea why. Perhaps someone from the new government might like to address that question in a future contribution on this legislation.</para>
<para>So I do want to be clear about what happened—and I've been clear about what happened—because there has been a lot of misinformation out there, spread by the Labor Party, about what happened, and it's important that folks understand the historical record here. We had tax transparency requirements, then we didn't and then the Greens ensured they were brought back. We didn't water down anything, because you cannot water down something that does not exist.</para>
<para>Very briefly, on our amendment (2), during our debate surrounding corporate tax transparency, the issue of the 1,500 or so private companies who were exempted from filing financial statements with ASIC gained prominence. Basically, at the point at which the Keating government introduced public financial reporting requirements for private companies, a political fix was organised that meant that some of the biggest and oldest private companies were given a free pass.</para>
<para>I'll just pause there to observe that so much of what's wrong with neoliberalism is about the inside track that political donors get and that corporate mates get. That's because we have a system of institutionalised bribery in this country, where companies—and, in many cases, some of the biggest corporations in this country—bribe major political parties to get policy outcomes. That's why, for example, about one-third of the top-100-earning companies in this country pay absolutely no tax whatsoever. It's why the robber barons who run the big gas corporations are laughing all the way to the bank as they pocket their multimillion-dollar CEO bonuses—these corporate psychopaths who are cooking the planet. It's why they get away with that stuff: because they bribe the major political parties in this place. It's why the planet is cooking; it's why it we're in the sixth mass extinction event in the history of this little ball of rock that circles the sun; and it's why people are being reduced to economic units. The pandemic has ripped away the facade and exposed for all to see that, ultimately, people are units in an economy rather than human beings. That's how neoliberalism views them. Part of the reason that the major parties are so beholden to neoliberalism as a philosophical and economic construct is because they bribe the major parties.</para>
<para>Interestingly, I reckon that when they look at their ROIs—their returns on investment—in those corporate boardrooms, right up at the top, with the highest ROI that they achieve on anything, are their political donations. It's the best return on a dollar they ever got, because for every dollar they throw into the coffers of the Labor and Liberal parties they're making multi-tens of millions—hundreds of millions—and, in some cases, billions of dollars in return. And those corporate psychopaths don't care that their actions are cooking the planet. They don't care that there's a chance that billions of people will die this century—mostly brown or black skinned people, and poor people, I might add—because they'll be right. They'll have their little retreats on little islands in temperate parts of the world. They'll be able to buy ongoing survival for them and their kids for a little bit longer than the rest of the world, because they've grown obscenely rich by cooking the planet. That's the story they tell themselves at night and the story they tell themselves in their corporate boardrooms: these are some of the best returns on investment they get from the institutional bribery of political donations.</para>
<para>Back when the Keating government introduced public financial reporting requirements, the political fix was organised and that meant that some of the biggest and oldest private companies were given a free pass. And it's worth placing on the record that since the debate around corporate tax transparency has been up and running the Senate has voted to repeal this exemption on numerous occasions. Finally, now, we've got Labor with the numbers in the other place—in the House of Representatives. So we urge the Labor Party to support our amendments. They deliver a greater level of corporate tax transparency and they're in line with the way that the Labor Party has repeatedly voted on many occasions in this Senate. We in the Greens believe that this is an opportunity for this new parliament, with the balance of power in the Senate and where Labor plus the Greens, plus one other vote, can deliver legislation that, in this case, will improve transparency around corporate tax arrangements. And with Labor with a majority in the house of assembly—sorry, House of Representatives; I was going back to my old days in the Tasmanian parliament there, I'm sorry about that!—we can make these things a reality. Remember: corporate tax transparency is critical for applying political pressure to make sure the big corporations pay their fair share of tax so we can invest that revenue in things like dental health into Medicare, mental health into Medicare and making child care free, making people's lives better.</para>
<para>I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (i) the stage three tax cuts will make Australia's personal income tax system significantly less progressive,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) the benefits of the stage three tax cuts will flow overwhelmingly to high income earners and to men, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (iii) given the stage three tax cuts are not due to come into effect until 2024-25, the repeal of these tax cuts would not cause significant uncertainty, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation to repeal the stage three tax cuts".</para></quote>
<para>I flag that in the committee stage I'll be moving amendments.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. I've been in this place for a while but I remember that when I first got here the technical language of all this could be overwhelming. We've got lots of new senators in the place, and they're going to try to come up to speed with things quickly. And we have people here in the chamber listening; it's a pleasure to see fellow citizens come and see democracy in action. When we say we've got a TLAB, which is the short-hand, people go: 'What on earth is that? Why does this even matter?' Sadly, as a Labor politician in the government, I would say there's been an increase in cynicism in the community over the nine years of the previous government over whether the government is actually listening to them and will do what they require it to do.</para>
<para>I am very pleased today to make my contribution to this debate about legislation that the opposition have indicated they are going to support. They had a little bit of a whinge about some bits in it but that's normal for this place—sometimes that's helpful, sometimes not so. That's where we are: we're in the middle of a debate about something that's going to change.</para>
<para>If you are one of those people who thinks politics doesn't affect you and you can't make a change, you can't have an impact and it'll all just happen with or without you, I want to use this opportunity to indicate why this bill is really important. Some of you might be overwhelmed by the number of disasters that have struck this country in recent times. It's overwhelming when you look at the television and the images that come through of disasters that just seem to be coming one after the other. This particular piece of legislation deals with one of those major events that affected the community in Western Australia: Cyclone Seroja.</para>
<para>I've got an article here that made the BBC news but it was also covered by our ABC. This is some of the sense of what happened with Cyclone Seroja. It tore through the Western Australian town of Northampton:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… one of the school principals stayed on the telephone to the local priest as the house around the cleric fell apart.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, Father Larry Rodillas got out from under his kitchen table and ran for his life to the school next door, sheltering in a classroom until the category-three storm had passed the next morning.</para></quote>
<para>That's just one story of one incident that happened as a consequence of that storm. You can imagine families left without homes—incredible disaster. Everything that people had worked for is all of a sudden all gone. When the storm blows out, and the deafening silence returns, people have to try and pick up the pieces of their life. That article was an ABC article by ABC Midwest & Wheatbelt, by Cecile O'Connor. I'm sure the power of recording that story and putting it on the public record, and the advocacy of the people from the region to parliamentarians, helps make these processes we undertake here very important. Those stories of what's going on do matter.</para>
<para>The actual description the BBC has is that Cyclone Seroja ripped across a 1,000-kilometre stretch of Western Australia. Can you imagine how many people that is? It's not just houses. Often, if we hear this, as people who live in cities or in regional towns, we think about the housing, but the impact is massive on the agricultural sector and indeed the mining sector. Once you've had things ripped up and thrown around, you've got to replace them and try and make things work. It's very, very difficult for the entire community and the economy of that entire community. Kalbarri resident Debbie Major said the storm, which hit the resort town around 7 pm, raged through the night and was 'absolutely terrifying'.</para>
<quote><para class="block">You just thought, this is it. I would have thought that when we opened the door, that there would be nothing around us except that roof.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are a small town. Half of it has been flattened.</para></quote>
<para>The problem that then arises is how quickly a government can respond. In my home state of New South Wales, we've seen very, very different models of how governments choose to respond to the crises that exist. We all saw the images of Lismore, just overwhelmed, and we saw a politically timed non-show by the former Prime Minister—an abandonment of that community. Leading figures in the community who had some wealth on their side, including some of our foremost entertainers and performers, brought in their own private helicopters to winch people off roofs. That's one way a government can choose—not to respond to the reality of its citizens. Then there's the other way, in which I want to applaud the efforts of my newly minted minister, Murray Watt, who's from the great state of Queensland. Of course, we know that there are huge problems with insurance because of all these disasters in the northern part of our country. That problem has been around for the entire time of the previous government and has not been dealt with. So what can we do and what is this legislation doing today to help the people of Kalbarri and the people of the Mid West in Western Australia? What are we going to do?</para>
<para>Currently, the law as it stands says that grants provided under category C of the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 to small business and primary producers with a farm enterprise of any size that were affected by Cyclone Seroja are assessable as income for income tax purposes. Let's break that down. You're running a business. You got smashed by the cyclone. You do get some support from the government, and it's going to be taxed. That makes life very tricky. In addition to the physical tumult, there's a huge emotional burden, and some people just pick up sticks and move. The ones who stay, the ones who keep their businesses going, the ones who keep showing up to work, are people we need to support. We need to make it as easy as possible for them to get on and do what they do best. What we are going to do—and I am hopeful that this legislation will pass this place—is this. The new law says that grants provided under category C of the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements 2018 to small businesses and primary producers with a farm enterprise of any size that were affected by Cyclone Seroja are non-assessable and non-exempt income for income tax purposes, meaning that they are not subject to income tax.</para>
<para>That matters. It matters because it simplifies the way in which a tax return will be prepared for those businesses and those individuals, and I think it also shows to people who have survived Cyclone Seroja that a government can show goodwill and support them in what they do. We all pay our income taxes, and we all get the benefit of that in the services that are provided, the roads that we drive on and all the infrastructure that's there, but I don't think any fair minded Australian wants to see tax coming from somebody who's suffered incredible damage—physically, financially and emotionally—in a disaster.</para>
<para>That's what the very first schedule of this bill will do. There are four sections to the bill, and in the time that I have remaining—we only have limited time to make a contribution—I might go to one that I think will be of great interest to people right at this moment.</para>
<para>Many Australians will be watching, with great joy, the incredible success of our sporting people at the Commonwealth Games over in Birmingham. There have been remarkable performances from individuals and there has been remarkable support from the whole organisation that wraps around it. From the period of 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2028, there are implications for FIFA and its Australian subsidiary from income and withholding tax with regard to the FIFA Women's World Cup. When things aren't organised sufficiently, sometimes there is a cost. The role of government is to make sure that great organisations like FIFA can do what they need to do, can operate in a way that allows us to be successful, and to enable sporting diplomacy. There are amazing people who will be travelling to the country for FIFA, and we want to make sure that it's the best possible experience. For the successful delivery of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, we know that we'll have the benefit of enhancing Australia's reputation as a host of major international sporting events if we can get it right, and it stimulates the other sections of our economy as well. We also want to promote women's sport in a very authentic way. We've had incredible success with our team, so we want to make sure that we support them.</para>
<para>The current uncertainty that exists about the tax arrangements is currently impacting the capacity of the organisers of the FIFA Women's World Cup. They're having trouble putting in place all the arrangements that they need, particularly in relation to a part that faces into the community, which is ticket sales. Those ticket scales for this phenomenal event—the FIFA Women's World Cup, which is going to be a privilege for us to host—need to be ready to be able to advance with ticket sales from September 2022. The third schedule of this bill will be fixing up that problem for the FIFA Women's World Cup to make sure that we can provide the best and most seamless possible opportunity for that organisation to do their job.</para>
<para>The other two schedules deal with very, very important matters, and I'll probably be able to speak only to schedule 2 in the time that is left. It's about superannuation. If you're following, we've got whole lot of different bits of tax law that are getting slightly amended. Schedule 2 relates to transitional provisions relating to the repeal of Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993. People will be aware that in 2017 the government agreed to the recommendations of a very important review—the Ramsay review—to establish the Australian Financial Complaints Authority to replace the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal. Superannuation is a Labor legacy. It's a fantastic asset for our country to have trillions of dollars in funds enabling people to plan for their retirement, to anticipate that they can live a great retirement with dignity, and having the benefit of that saving and its multiplying through investment to a point where they have a really great nest egg at the end of their lives. But sometimes there can be debate between a provider and somebody who has that superannuation, and they need somewhere to go. That is a very important part of what this particular schedule is going to do.</para>
<para>We know that the SCT stopped operating on 31 December 2020. At that time they had six remaining cases that they successfully transferred to the new body, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal finally closed on 5 March this year. What we're seeking to do with the amendments embedded in schedule 2 of this bill is ensure that the necessary administrative arrangements are in place. The Australian Securities Investment Commission, much more commonly known as ASIC—I note that there were comments on the radio from ASIC this morning about budgeting in this climate—talk to us about money, and they are going to have a role in managing people's complaints about superannuation. They need to undertake the ongoing management of those Superannuation Complaints Tribunal records. They will also take over managing any outstanding cases in the Federal Court, and they will be appropriately remitted back to AFCA.</para>
<para>What's good about this is it's an administrative change, in the background, to make sure that records will be kept and the people who need to do the job are authorised to do the job. The great thing by doing that and putting it in this legislation, doing the job of being a government, taking the careful work seriously, is we will make sure, by this action and this schedule, that complainants will benefit from it, they will not be adversely affected, and that AFCA is clearly now the primary external dispute resolution body responsible for handling superannuation related companies, and that it is appropriately resourced to resolve any outstanding Superannuation Complaints Tribunal matters.</para>
<para>That is the business of government that's going on in the chamber today, and I'm pleased to have been able to make a contribution on the Treasury laws amendment bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 in my capacity as the shadow emergency management minister. I note that the shadow finance minister has already put the opposition's perspective on the record, but I rise to talk to this bill because of exactly the case studies that Senator O'Neill was raising, the benefit of the passage of this bill to those communities and businesses that were devastatingly impacted by Cyclone Seroja in April 2021. This was the worst cyclone to hit Western Australia in 22 years.</para>
<para>As Senator O'Neill said, schedule 1 of this bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that the people who were provided grant assistance as a result of Cyclone Seroja don't get penalised through our tax laws. The amendment will confirm that payments provided to these small businesses and primary producers as recovery grants, under category C of the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, will not be treated as tax in the sense of an assessable income. This makes sense because, for anyone in receipt of any of these grants, more often than not they've lost everything. They are given a grant to help them get back on their feet—and then the tax man comes in, with his hand out, to take it back. This is why we particularly support schedule 1.</para>
<para>I also want to take the opportunity to talk about the other side of these grants programs that the Commonwealth participates in. There's no point in having a tax exemption if the money, through the grant program, is not forthcoming or is frustratingly slow at being dispensed. I know that we've heard a lot about our major emergency events over the last few years. We've had floods, we've had cyclone events in Queensland and we've had the bushfires, but Cyclone Seroja was certainly a doozy and it lived up to its category 3 classification. It also hit areas that had never been hit by cyclones, that were just not prepared for cyclones. Therefore, so much of the damage was not just from winds but also from the debris that the winds whipped up and flew around wildly.</para>
<para>Cyclone Seroja started on 7 April as a relatively weak cyclone. But as it started to move towards the south-east it intensified, and within four days it had increased to category 3, a severe tropical cyclone. The impact area was estimated to be 133,000 square kilometres, with maximum wind gusts of around 170 kilometres an hour. There was significant damage to critical infrastructure, including roads, telecommunications and emergency services buildings. Several towns were severely damaged. In Kalbarri and Northampton, it was estimated that around 70 per cent of homes were seriously affected. A later report found that debris, not just winds, was the main cause of damage, and because the buildings in this region were not built to cyclone standards, it increased the extent and breadth of the damage.</para>
<para>In July last year, the coalition government, in conjunction with the WA state government, announced more than $104 million would be made available under the Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements. This was the largest amount of funding made available in Western Australia's history. The DRFA is a joint funding program that we initiated in 2018 under which the Australian government may contribute up to 75 per cent of the assistance costs spread across the four categories. It is then delivered by working with the states.</para>
<para>Category A provides assistance to individuals immediately impacted. Category B provides assistance to state and local government areas for restoration of essential public assets and counter disaster operations, and covers assistance to small businesses, primary producers, not-for-profits and many individuals through concessional loans, subsidies or grants. Category C provides assistance to severely affected communities, regions or sectors, and includes clean-up and recovery grants for small businesses and primary producers. Finally, category D provides exceptional circumstances assistance. Importantly, while the Commonwealth can fund up to 75 per cent, it is a joint program. The states assess the type and level of assistance available. The states go out and assess whether there should be category A or category D funding. The states are also responsible for administering these assistance measures and getting the money out the door.</para>
<para>After Cyclone Seroja, 16 local government areas were deemed eligible for funding. I'm not certain how many have applied, but I know that, through contact with my office, there is general disappointment and disillusionment at the efficiency of getting the funding out the door. In fact, I have been contacted by many councils complaining about the slowness of delivery. They're asking, 'Why, when the $104 million has been announced, are there still people waiting for funding to go out the door?'</para>
<para>Over the last couple of years, we've had a lot of emergency crises arise. The now Minister for Emergency Management would be very quick to constantly deride and criticise efforts of the federal coalition in getting grants assessed and delivered, yet it was our government that actually implemented schemes through Services Australia to enable money to go immediately to individuals after times of crises.</para>
<para>Our government also established the disaster recovery allowance to let small businesses, tradies and employees impacted by emergencies have an ongoing allowance for up to 13 weeks so that they can keep food on the table. But there was no acknowledgement by those on the other side of where the states have to play their part. Now in government, I have not yet heard any comments from the emergency management minister about the slowness of getting the grants out the door. I'm not sure that he's applied the same level of scrutiny and derision to his colleagues in the Western Australian Labor government as he did to our Commonwealth government in previous emergencies. I suspect they've not been hounded at all. I suspect that now the minister, Senator Watt, has got the portfolio he was so expert on in opposition, he's decided that it's either too hard or too uninteresting—or, in his words, not his job, because it's the state government's job. Or has he passed it on to his new envoy, Senator Tony Sheldon? Is it now Senator Sheldon's job to make sure that the states are delivering the funding that we are providing to the states, to get it out the door?</para>
<para>This portfolio is not without its challenges, and it is certainly not the piece of cake to manage that Senator Watt used to make out it was on a regular basis in estimates or in snipes at question time or in his heckling across the chamber, which I do also note he doesn't really appreciate getting when he's rising to answer questions now that he's minister. So, whoever's in charge, whether it is Senator Watt or Senator Sheldon, I ask them to get on the phone to their state Labor ministerial colleagues in Western Australia and ask what the hold-up is. Ask them what they're doing to ensure that the $104 million put on the table by the coalition government, which has been carried forward by the new government—and I applaud them for that. But what is Western Australia doing to make sure that these grants are assessed and processed, and that the money is getting to where it is needed? Otherwise it doesn't make a difference if it's treated as taxable income or not. If it is not in the hands of the people who need it, it doesn't matter whether we treat it as tax or not.</para>
<para>In closing, I want to echo the comments of my colleagues on this side of the chamber about what we are doing here today. There is no reason that this bill needed to be put up for debate. It was a non-controversial bill. It's a mechanical tidy-up that shouldn't have taken time on the Senate program. While I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to highlight the taxation changes for those who may receive disaster recovery grants and while I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the issues of the state and Commonwealth jurisdictions when it comes to administering such grants, I fear that having this debate today highlights the dearth of economic plans from the government and of the economic plan the Prime Minister talked so much about during the election campaign, which we're still to see, and of the business that should be being put before us to help Australians address cost-of-living issues. In saying that, we support the bill, and I commend the bill to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, too, rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. I begin by noting the wide support in the chamber for this bill, including amongst the opposition. I note Senator Davey's support, particularly for schedule 1, which is incredibly important in making sure that people affected by the devastating Cyclone Seroja, which hit parts of WA last year, are able to receive the full amount of relief funding without losing that much-needed relief in their tax returns.</para>
<para>I would also note some of Senator Davey's comments about the government's emergency services minister, Senator Watt, and I would commend Minister Watt for his work in getting straight out to the flood zones in South-East Queensland and northern New South Wales. And, of course, I commend his work in his portfolio, in doing what this government will always do, which is turn up, show up, take responsibility and make sure that people on the ground have exactly what they need in times of crisis like this.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, standing orders require me to interrupt you to go to statements by senators.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Transport Industry</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These contributions where senators are able to actually make a statement about matters of import are really very important parts of the way the chamber functions. Today, I'm really pleased to be able to put on the record a small indication of something that happened here in the building just last week. It was a pretty big thing, because it involved people coming to fight for fairness. It was a delegation from the Transport Workers' Union, who came in to make sure that this parliament understands what's actually going on in the transport sector. I acknowledge many of my colleagues, including Senator Jana Stewart, who have been very active in the Transport Workers' Union prior to coming to this place. They're a vital part—unions are a vital part—of making sure that the voices of those who are so busy working, whether they're driving trucks as owner-drivers, business owners who own large companies or drivers who are now feeling very, very under the burden of the gig economy and the insecurity that is embedded in that, are heard. All of those people were represented in the room.</para>
<para>I did say that I felt privileged; that was because there were so many amazing workers there who were speaking for the people who they know and who they work with. The TWU has certainly been at the forefront in the fight against what they call the 'Amazon' model, which is leading to the continued exploitation of workers in the gig economy and in the road transport industry. We all drive on the roads. I recall—and I'm sure, Deputy President, you've probably spent a few hours on this—doing some driving instruction in the car. It's 120 hours in New South Wales; I have three children and you can do the maths! There were a lot of interesting conversations over the course of that. Now they're out on the roads, I do think that they're safe drivers but I need everybody on the road to be able to operate the vehicle that they're driving safely. That doesn't happen when people are under incredible pressure.</para>
<para>The transport industry, sadly, is the most dangerous industry in Australia. It became much more dangerous when the previous government gutted the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Thanks to the action of the coalition, working with dodgy operators, they gutted workers pay and conditions. That terrible decision has actually cost lives. Government policy impacts on how we live, and when you don't look after the wages and when you don't look after the conditions of people who are on our roads, driving for a living—when you allow their conditions to be eroded and risks to be built in—we are all at a disadvantage. Since the removal of the tribunal there have been over 1,000 truck crash deaths. The surveys I was able to see show a shocking pressure—a pressure cooker—which many transport workers are trying to eke out a living under. One in four drivers has been involved in a crash while at work. Fifty-five per cent of owner-drivers have delayed repairs because they cannot afford them. One in five is pressured to speed illegally to meet deadlines. One in four is pressured to drive past their legal hours and to skip needed rest breaks. And 52 per cent of drivers have experienced wage theft. Those are alarming statistics and they impacted on how I feel about driving on the roads since I heard them and was reminded of them.</para>
<para>What's going on in the sector is a fundamentally unsustainable model. It's imperative on the sector, both the owners and the workers, to find a way forward together that makes it safer for all of us and our families on the road. We certainly need to do more to protect workers, who are the ones who are moving this country and ensuring that our supply chains are as intact as they can be when they've been so profoundly impacted and disrupted. We should not allow a system to continue that puts the lives of truckers at risk. We should not allow a system to continue that forces them out of the industry by increasingly intolerable conditions.</para>
<para>Now, as the Labor Party and the party of government, we support the move for the business to become much more tech savvy and more agile, and for workers to have more flexibility about where and when they work. That's all good. But we do not support a system whose secret source is simply worker exploitation and using loopholes in labour-hire laws to make sure that workers do not even make the minimum wage. That is not the country that I want to stand up and represent. That is not the country that my immigrant parents came to and grew a great life in. Fair wages—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work—are absolutely fundamental. A business model that is as brutal as that cannot be allowed to stand.</para>
<para>Amazon Flex and other models who try to emulate it rely on three key practices: undercutting workers' conditions, outsourcing to labour hire and using other insecure work models so they can pretend that they are not responsible for what's going on down the food chain. It's completely untenable that those who are driving the system, making profits from the system and taking those profits offshore without paying tax get to put Australian lives at risk. That cannot continue.</para>
<para>FedEx is trying to bring in a model like this, where owner drivers are to be paid to deliver 93 parcels in a 10-hour shift or one every six minutes. Give me a break. That is a truly impossible expectation for anyone, and that's while they're being paid less than the minimum wage. It is more work for less money. That is not how you grow a country. That is not how you enhance the lives of Australians. That is not how you grow our economy. The more we shrink the money that goes to our workers, the worse it is, particularly in local economies in regional areas of this country.</para>
<para>At a meeting last week, we saw really incredible leadership by honest business owners who have a lot of experience in this field. They stood shoulder to shoulder with workers, calling for safe rates and an end to this race-to-the-bottom model of doing business that is being imported into this country, brought into Australia to totally remove our proper sense of what fairness is, to exploit the most vulnerable.</para>
<para>Now, under the previous government, business and unions were treated like oil and water, like they couldn't work together. But I was here in this building with great business leaders and workers standing together shoulder to shoulder, saying, 'This model has to change.' We cannot allow the lie that was perpetuated in the time of the previous government's nine long years of decay. We cannot allow the lie that business and unions can't work together and that unions do not deserve their place in the public conversation. Unions are vital. When you're working every hour that god sends, you need somebody who's doing the job of standing up for you. That's what unions do and that's what they were doing here last week. The myth has to be broken and it will be broken in the way that this government responds to it.</para>
<para>I want to put on the record a couple of the quotes that I took down as I was listening. A business owner said, 'I'm here to support reform that allows good business—safe business—to prosper and grow.' Why would anyone stand in the way of that? When good businesses prosper and grow, jobs grow. People's lives are enhanced.</para>
<para>This is from Arthur. With 1,500 employees, he might know a little bit about this sector! 'There needs to be a positive change to sustainable ways, to primacy of safety. The supply chain is incredibly disrupted and it's not viable. We are not in the position,' he said, 'in Australia to allow practices in the USA, Asia and some places in Europe to proliferate here. The damage will be devastating. Workers, owner-drivers, employers, unions: we share concerns.'</para>
<para>I share their concerns. I applaud them for their efforts in coming here and raising these issues, and I want those on the opposite side not to stand in the way of the necessary reform for Australians' safety on our roads.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Federal Election: Liberal Party of Australia</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the first opportunity that I have had in this new parliament, I rise to make a few reflections on the election campaign and the election result of a few months ago, and to pay tribute to the many people in the Western Australian Liberal Party who did so much for our cause, though it was a very tough result.</para>
<para>My first political memory is the Dismissal in 1975. I can remember very clearly my father's excitement about the Dismissal. I also have a very vague memory from December of that year of standing at a polling booth with my dad, and of him handing out how-to-vote cards. Obviously, that was a great result for the Liberal Party of Australia—a great result for the nation, I would also contend. But it doesn't always go that way. But at polling booths across my home state of Western Australia, across Australia, you'll still find supporters of the Liberal and National Party out in force, handing out the how-to-vote cards, standing up for our principles, our values, and doing the right thing by Australian democracy.</para>
<para>The tenacity and commitment displayed by our volunteers, by our candidates and by all members of parliament is remarkable and deserves recognition. That is why I rise today to thank those volunteers and candidates, particularly the unsuccessful candidates, for their time and energy on the campaign trail. Most of our supporters are volunteers. They get little recognition or praise for the work they do, but they deserve recognition and they deserve praise.</para>
<para>We believe in government that limits its interference in the everyday lives of Australian families and individuals, that incentivises success, that encourages equal opportunity and that lets everyone reach their full potential. That is what Liberal governments strive to do. To all the Liberal volunteers who support that: I thank you for setting aside time to fight for those shared values. It was a tough result for those on this side of the chamber and for all our supporters across Australia.</para>
<para>I had the privilege of being involved in two campaigns in particular. One of those was the Swan campaign, where we had an amazing team of volunteers, particularly from the youth wing of our party. The Young Liberals stepped up extraordinarily and did an absolute power of work. I can genuinely say that, even though the result was not what we wanted, it was one of the most energetic and well run campaigns I have seen in my political life. To our candidate, Kristy McSweeney: thank you. Senator Matt O'Sullivan, who is in this place and is a good friend of mine, chaired an absolutely outstanding campaign effort—the doorknocking, the letterboxing, the sign waving, and just making sure that all volunteers were fed and looked after, that everyone knew what their task was and that they performed it to their highest ability. The result was in no way a reflection on the efforts of that amazing team of volunteers. Thank you to everyone: to the supporters of our party who weren't necessarily intimately involved in the campaign but who turned up on election day or at pre-poll to hand out how-to-vote cards; and, in particular, to the clean-up crew—and you know who you are. In those four days, when we knew what the result was, you were cleaning up after the election in icy winds, in the pouring rain, with some dodgy cheese-burgers—and those who were around know what I'm talking about! Thank you so much for your efforts.</para>
<para>There is an amazing legacy in Swan from Steve Irons's 14 years of leadership. He delivered for Swan as a local member should: infrastructure; road upgrades; local community projects—it is a remarkable legacy that Steve has left for Swan and that all Liberals can be proud of.</para>
<para>Now, the second campaign I just wish to reflect on briefly is a very different campaign. It was in the seat of Fremantle, which is obviously one in which we did not necessarily perform quite as well. But what we did do was to fly the Liberal flag very proudly. The Fremantle campaign was very active and alive, and I particularly wish to thank our candidate, Bill Koul. Bill took time out from his own business to run as a candidate to promote the Liberal cause. Obviously, Bill gets nothing in return for this. Bill provided somewhere for Liberal supporters to rally, but he also provided endless enthusiasm and optimism. He stood on pre-poll, handing out those how-to-vote cards, every day. And you'd never talk to Bill without hearing an optimistic word about the people he had met on pre-poll in Fremantle, about the amazing conversations he had had when he was out and about, door-knocking, and about the positive response he was getting from people right across the electorate.</para>
<para>As Bill said in his congratulatory message to the sitting member, Josh Wilson, democracy demands more than one candidate or one party to run. So, right across Australia, right across the nation, we should all thank those candidates who stand in seats where they know that they're very unlikely to even get close but where it is vitally important for democracy that we have individuals who are willing to put their hands up. And that's what the constituents of Fremantle received. Bill Koul put his hand up. He put in the long hours—on the hustings; door-knocking and letterboxing; standing in the rain at voting centres—and those unwavering efforts for the duration of the campaign certainly deserve my acknowledgement, and I certainly do acknowledge them. Again, to all the Fremantle campaign volunteers: it was an outstanding effort from the division. We put in the work that was needed in Fremantle. And we thank Bill sincerely for all his efforts.</para>
<para>So, though the result was not one we wanted, I will remind all Liberal and Nationals supporters out there that our primary vote was in fact more than the Labor Party's: 36 per cent to 32.5. Now, the Labor Party secured enough preference flows to get over the top, in terms of the two-party preferred vote, and that is what is required to form government—we understand that. But there were more people out there who chose our philosophy than chose the Labor Party philosophy, and that is something I would certainly encourage all members and supporters of the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party and the Country Liberal Party to remember as we take the fight up to the government over the next three years.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Federal Election</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 21 May 2022, Australia voted for a better future. For only the fourth time since the end of the Second World War, they voted for the Labor opposition and, in doing so, voted for an Albanese Labor government. The people of Australia voted for a future full of hope over division and for substance over spin; they voted for a future which embraces progress and change and embraces the principle of opportunity for all, not for a few. It was a vote for common sense, compassion and integrity. People voted for a plan to create secure local jobs, to address cost-of-living pressures—something which all Australians are suffering from right now—to bring manufacturing back to Australia, to strengthen Medicare and access to health services—including affordable prescription medications—to make child care cheaper, for action on climate change, to ensure dignity in ageing and aged care—I was so proud our first piece of legislation was about aged care; congratulations to our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and to our ministers—to make access to TAFE and skills more accessible and for integrity within our political institutions.</para>
<para>An Albanese Labor government will embrace the opportunities of the future. As our leader, Anthony Albanese, said on election night, our policies and actions over the next three years will be bettered by the Uluru Statement from the Heart. History is calling:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.</para></quote>
<para>The Uluru statement calls for a permanent forum of representation from First Nations people so they can advocate for their people to the parliament and to government. This voice should be enshrined in the Constitution so it cannot be removed by any government of the day. I call on those in this parliament and across the country to embrace this reform. It will forge a strong and united future for a better Australia.</para>
<para>The election victory was a win for Labor values, which I firmly believe are Australian values. These are the values of hard work, compassion and fairness. But let us not be under any assertion that our politics in this country is not fractured; it is. Australians voted for conciliation, cooperation and negotiation. We now owe it to the Australian people to do just that. If our politics is to be more effective, if we are to be trusted again by the Australian people, if we are willing to listen to us more than our politics, then we must be kinder, less toxic and less divisive. If we are to restore that faith and commitment to the people and to our nation's discourse, the nation's starting point must be a national anticorruption commission.</para>
<para>After almost 10 years of inaction from those opposite, and the fact we drifted, I believe our nation's conscience can now be restored with all the hope it first had. We are a lucky country and we deserve a national government that will put the people of Australia first. To serve them to the best of our ability and to serve all their interests must start with strong economic management as the global economy teeters on the edge of recession. People's wages have been kept low by the former Morrison government by design; that was their strategy. That was their priority: to keep wages low. That must change. We have started this with an increase of $40 per week to the minimum wage.</para>
<para>We must embrace the future and react to the global challenges. Australian sovereignty capabilities must be strengthened and we must ensure we are keeping pace with the rest of the world in terms of what we produce at home and what we export across the globe.</para>
<para>Australia can be a renewable energy superpower, and we can lead the world on climate action which pays economic and social dividends for future generations. A target to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 is a realistic and tangible target we have now set. Business and the Australian people now have a target and a mechanism to work towards this end.</para>
<para>Ultimately, Labor were successful at this election because we were willing to stand up to the former government and say, 'Enough is enough.' Australians deserve better leadership and they will receive it under the Albanese Labor government. We are an intelligent country and everybody has a place in it and a contribution to make. We are at our best when we embrace all Australians, reach for the stars of the Southern Cross and achieve great things as a whole.</para>
<para>Labor has become the natural party of government in Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, the ACT, the Northern Territory and now the federal parliament. And I hope, in the years to come, that we will follow in my home state of Tasmania and elect a Labor government there. Labor will always be the party of working people, of Australian families trying to get ahead, of inspirational Australians doing the very best for themselves, their families and their communities. We will always be the party of compassion, the party that does not leave people behind, the party of a strong and united and resilient people.</para>
<para>For me, the Australian dream is insuring that regardless of where you are from or who your parents are you can make it. You can dream big and you can achieve your goals. We are all contributors, and everyone has that right and opportunity to contribute to our society in whatever capacity they choose. That is the definition of success. We know that Australia is a lucky country but if Australians can't reach their full potential, out of the fruits of their labour, then we're not so lucky.</para>
<para>We as a people have significant challenges facing this country. The cost of living is on the rise, inflation is on the increase, house prices are some of the most unaffordable in the world and wages flatlined under the previous government. No matter what they say, when they come into this place and try to rewrite history Labor will act decisively, in government, to make Australia the lucky country once more, so future generations will not be worse off than the current generation—because that is currently the case.</para>
<para>This election victory does not come without a cost to the people who have campaigned for a better future for many years. Over the years, we have lost some very good people. Yes, some will come back but others will not. I want to thank each and every one of our true believers across the country who have gone beyond what was expected of them. They helped us campaign, as they always do, and their support and their campaigning was invaluable. That's why we are standing where we are now, on this side, and being part of the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Prime Minister Albanese has much work to do, and you know that job is never complete. It is not complete and never will be, because while there exist barricades to opportunities and success Labor will be there to tear them down. While there are gatekeepers of privilege, the Labor story will continue. We will fight the good fight. We don't divide people or try to control what they think through big donor donations or a one-sided media landscape. We are Labor. We are better than that.</para>
<para>We believe in freedom and aspiration, the right of people to make up their own minds with information based on fact. We engage, in good faith, on the basis that we can talk to as many people—and to listen to those people—as possible. We want to listen to their hopes and dreams and try to align our policies to their aspirations, every single day, to make this country even better. All Australians deserve to live in a country that has decent wages, affordable child care and modern infrastructure, to create the economy of tomorrow, including serious action on climate change and emissions reduction.</para>
<para>I've been re-elected in this place and I hear you, I respect you, and I will continue to fight for you every day that I remain in this place and thereafter. During the election campaign Labor committed to many projects, and as a positive future for Tasmania I plan to embrace that future and I urge those opposite to come on this journey, to move away from their 'born to rule' mentality and cooperate with the government to make this country even better. And the way that we can do that is by working together. We need to change the discourse, in this place, to embrace that aspiration and to be the voice of the Australian people. You will get used to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ukraine</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>History is littered with unfathomable acts of evil, acts so vile, when reflected upon, that one is forced to consider the moral deficiencies of mankind. If we do not stand against those who act in the most egregious and abhorrent manner, their disease will infect many nations across the globe. It is why I rise today, once more, to raise the plight of the people of Ukraine.</para>
<para>Since the Russian invasion began 160 days ago there have been 5,200 Ukrainian deaths, 7,000 injured and over 17 million people displaced. Ukraine is currently on the front line of a renewed great power rivalry, one that the West has not had to contend with since the Iron Curtain fell in 1991. The absence of continued support for Ukraine would not only be a moral failure of the highest order but a strategic and security failure on a magnitude not seen since the policies of appeasement pursued some 85 years ago. On 24 February, when the Russian invasion began and Russia sent tanks across the border and rockets hurtling across the sky, it had the aim of denying Ukraine's right to self-determination. But it also threatened the order, with whatever its faults, which the world is supposed to be based on: the viability of this right.</para>
<para>Unable so far to achieve outright success on the battlefield against the Ukrainian military, Russian war doctrine has once again gone to siege warfare, a tactic which has brought about death and destruction to the civilian population. In doing so, they have signalled clearly that they intend to terrorise the civilian population of Ukraine as a means of compelling the government to give ground at the negotiating table. Nothing is clearer in both international law and the ethics of war than the absolute prohibition on precisely what Russia is doing: directly targeting civilians.</para>
<para>This is not the first time that the international community has been faced with such belligerent acts against human rights, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. But how we respond to these acts now will shape the future, and may prevent violations from occurring again in the future. After the failures of the 1990s to prevent the atrocities that unfolded in the Balkans and Rwanda, the international community engaged in a debate on how to react to gross and systemic violations of human rights. The result was 138 countries agreeing in 2005 to the Responsibility to Protect principle. Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, as it is known, gives the international community a mandate to act against gross injustices such as genocide and crimes against humanity. To quote Plato in <inline font-style="italic">The Republic</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… of all the things of a man's soul which he has within him, justice is the greatest good, and injustice the greatest evil.</para></quote>
<para>It is therefore incumbent on the world to look within and to seek justice for the people of Ukraine.</para>
<para>The trials and tribulations mankind suffers from are great, and will continue to burden the globe unless we stand against the injustice being perpetuated by tyrants and dictators such as President Putin. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously argued in his book <inline font-style="italic">Leviathan</inline> that without government life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'. If Russia gets its way and removes the Ukrainian government this will be the reality of all in Ukraine, not just on the battlefield. As foreign minister Wong argued first in 2017, foreign policy must be based not just on national interests or transactional diplomacy but on the values that define the country. Freedom, democracy and justice are all values that define Australia. If the government believes so, then our policy towards Ukraine should reflect such commitment.</para>
<para>The changed geopolitical conditions and the pressure that Russia now places on the rules based order is undeniable. Australia must call on all 138 signatories that their Responsibility to Protect exists right now. NATO's most recent Strategic Concept states that the Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to security, peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, and that it seeks to establish spheres of influence and direct controls through coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation. While it is clear that NATO and many other global leaders understand the threat that Russia poses to global peace and security, it begs the question: why more is not being done to help the people of Ukraine? Europe's—and, in fact, global human—security is linked intimately to the survival of Ukraine. We are already experiencing higher fuel costs and their flow-on inflationary effects around the globe. However, this is only the beginning. As Russia is a major exporter of critical food supplies, we will likely see an increasingly more volatile and unstable world as food shortages increase. One has only to look to Sri Lanka to see the effects that poor economic conditions and food shortages have on a nation's stability. If Putin's war is to continue, economic decline will spread to other poor and vulnerable countries, risking further unrest and violence.</para>
<para>The world must act and act now. It's incumbent upon those who believe in the inalienable rights of mankind to stand against the injustice being perpetuated. The most immediate action required is to convince Russia to allow further grain, seed and fertiliser shipments from Ukrainian ports. There has been one this week, and that's it. If the blockade cannot be kept open to food trade at a minimum then the international community should take appropriate military action. While to many this sounds unpalatable, the cost of inaction now will result in far more disastrous consequences in the future. I make it very clear that I am not proposing boots on the ground. However, humanitarian no-fly zones established by EU or NATO states could be a powerful response to this problem. Such zones could offer greater protection to civilians fleeing a city under siege, and could also further weaken Russia's military advantage by depriving them of what is now their best negotiating tool—dead and injured Ukrainian civilians.</para>
<para>Despite what many say, I believe this is possible. In the first instance, NATO UAVs or drones should be used to knock out air defences in command and control centres. This would provide a much safer theatre for NATO air forces to create air superiority if not air supremacy. If enough nations contributed aircraft and hosted forward bases, using traditional formation of strike fighters, airborne early warning and control planes, and refuelling tankers, enough pressure could be applied to exclude Russia's air force from almost all Ukrainian air space and to hold off Russia's S-400 long-range missiles. This would change the risk calculation for Russia and provide Ukraine with an effective, enforceable no-fly zone. This, along with continued supply of NATO weapons, munition, training and maintenance, would provide Ukraine's military with a fighting chance. It would also contain the conflict to Ukraine, reducing the risk of death and destruction in other EU and NATO nations if Putin decides to continue down this path.</para>
<para>I recognise this option is not risk-free, and that lives may be lost, but what is the alternative? The now depleted military—as we know it is—means a much lower-risk environment than it would be if Russia captures Ukraine and has all its resources in its use. Neither Europe nor the world can have a do-nothing policy. The costs will increasingly amass, more lives will be lost and dictators around the globe will continue to be emboldened to act out against the rights of the most vulnerable. The risk of nuclear escalation is the reason given for not taking this action. However, I contend that nothing other than the loss of Ukraine to Russia will reduce this risk. I think we all agree that this cannot be allowed to occur. The best calculation for the EU, NATO, Ukraine and the world is to take a stand now, before the even more unthinkable happens. Europe and the rest of the international community simply cannot bide their time and wait to pick up the pieces down the road. Slava Ukraini!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, Wednesday 3 August, the Albanese Labor government has introduced its climate legislation. I can understand why a number of Australians are excited and optimistic that we are seeing some climate legislation in this building after nine years of not just inaction but also a government that has undermined climate action. We're going to hear a lot more about this climate bill in this place in the weeks to come. It has been commented on by a number of experts—and those comments are being widely reported on—who say that it is a largely symbolic bill that lacks ambition, substance, and a pathway or mechanism to effective climate action. But, at least unlike the CPRS, which was introduced by the Labor Party back in 2009, it doesn't take this country backwards.</para>
<para>It's fair to say that it's not the main game. For those who voted for climate action from this parliament—and millions of them voted for the Greens to come into this building and do what was necessary to take effective climate action—the main game of this parliament is going to be stopping new fossil fuel projects, stopping oil and gas projects going ahead in offshore basins, stopping new coal projects going ahead. This is what we know to be effective and real climate action.</para>
<para>But there are other things we need to do too. We need to throw the kitchen sink at this problem, and today I want to briefly outline a couple of policies that the Australian Greens took to the federal election. We know our native forests—in fact, all our forests, all our trees—are our first line of defence against climate change, because trees sequester carbon and breathe out oxygen, and we couldn't survive without them. Unfortunately, Tasmania's native forests are still under relentless assault from the loggers, and this is backed in by both the state Labor Party and the state Liberal Party—and, sadly, unless sentiment is changed, by the federal Liberal and Labor parties too.</para>
<para>Here is an original idea from the Australian Greens in the last federal election—and my colleague Senator Janet Rice came down to Tasmania to announce this with me. Given we know the carbon value of these forests is so significant—and they have been studied, studied in detail—why not have the Commonwealth pay the state government, the Tasmanian state government, or potentially the Victorian state government, the emissions reduction value of those carbon sequestration forests. In Tasmania, we took a policy of the federal government paying for a billion dollars worth of carbon offsets to permanently protect Tasmania's forests.</para>
<para>Under the Emissions Reduction Fund—and it may, of course, be subject to change in this parliament—native forests are exempt from payments. Why? There's no valid reason. If we're paying for carbon offsets to farmers or to other organisations or corporations, why not pay to permanently protect Tasmania's native forests? The money would be spent anyway, and we know these forests are significant stores of carbon and are so valuable in a time of our climate emergency. Tasmania would be a winner. We would receive the carbon value of those forests. In fact, a billion dollars is only a small percentage of what the carbon value of those forests truly is. But we know that, from recent studies, it's a fair price to pay to permanently protect those forests. That money would then be used by the state government, and we proposed a task force be set up to spend that money on a number of exciting projects that would help create employment for those in the forestry industry, who would be looking for new employment. However, saying that, of course most of the loggers in Tasmania are private contractors. There have been a number of payouts to contractors in the past, but there'd be very exciting opportunities for new employment, especially in ecosystem restoration.</para>
<para>It's a win-win. We get to take action on climate change, real action on climate change. To give you an idea, a recent report released by Dr Jen Sanger and other scientists shows that native forest logging is the highest emitting sector in Tasmania, emitting 4.65 million tonnes of carbon a year. That's equivalent to the emissions of 1.1 million cars, and is 2.5 times the entire Tasmanian transport sector.</para>
<para>So here we go. We have a state that's essentially 100 per cent renewable energy; however, it's not, on a net basis, because we are still logging our precious old-growth forests. Dr Sanger's report reveals that if all Tasmania's public forests were protected an additional 75 million tonnes of carbon could be drawn down from the atmosphere by 2050. This is equivalent to $2.6 billion in carbon sequestration services. A $1 billion transfer from the Commonwealth to the state government is a very fair price to permanently protect these forests, to take effective action on climate change, to protect biodiversity in an extinction crisis and to give Tasmania—the Tasmanian state government, Tasmanian communities, Tasmanian forestry workers and a whole bunch of other people—funds that can be reinvested in the industries of the future.</para>
<para>There is no future in native forest logging. The Western Australian government has committed to phasing out native forest logging. The Victorian government has committed to phasing out native forest logging. New South Wales has a way to go, and so does my home state. In this day and age of climate emergency, it's actually insanity to be cutting down these beautiful old forests. They are not only important for their biodiversity, for their cultural values to First Nations people and for their carbon sequestration; they are also effective in helping us with fire management in Tasmania. That has also been proven through scientific studies.</para>
<para>Some other forests that I would like to see protected and see the federal government fund are, of course, the most carbon-rich forests on the planet, which are our giant kelp forests. Sadly, 95 per cent of our kelp forests have vanished in recent decades, thanks to warming oceans and a nutrient-poor East Australian Current. We've seen invasive urchins come down and create barrens on our reefs, eating entire habitats. That has impacted commercial fisheries, it's impacted local communities and it's impacted Indigenous communities.</para>
<para>Why not reinvest in ecosystem restoration for our giant kelp forests? There's some amazing work going on within the scientific community in Tasmania. This, by the way, has been backed in by the commercial fishing sector in Tasmania and the recreational fishing groups. Both of those groups, who represent tens of thousands of Tasmanians, asked the Liberal Party and the Labor Party at the last election—as they did with the Greens—to back in federal funding and to have a full recovery plan funded for Tasmania's forgotten giant kelp forests, which are critically endangered and listed, under EPBC law. We need to work hard to bring these forests back from the brink—to protect and regrow our ecosystems that are so important to commercial fishing industries.</para>
<para>That's going to require a coordinated response to remove the invasive <inline font-style="italic">Centrostephanus</inline>, the long spined sea urchin, which is an unwelcome, invasive pest that has come down from New South Wales. It's laid bare our reefs in southern New South Wales and Victoria, as it has in Tasmania. It is one of the biggest issues the fishing industry, as well as local communities, faces in the Great Southern Reef. Unfortunately there's been no federal leadership shown on this issue in the past decade. It's been left to the states to try and raise revenue to tackle the spread of these urchins—to try and remove them or to try and turn them into fishery—but that has been largely unsuccessful in stopping the spread of these invasive pests. If we don't do it now, we will lose our roots. The Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies have released a very detailed research paper on this. Our reefs are at threat if we don't act.</para>
<para>This is the cost of climate inaction, but it's not too late to do something about it. Today, while the media is going to be focused on all the issues around the release of the government's bill and action on climate change, there's so much more that this parliament can do. Here are two good ideas that we could all get behind. You'll be hearing a lot more from me on these issues, as you'd expect. I'm very proud to represent a party that has these policies. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The creation of a voice to parliament will not, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, be a unifying moment. I've already been contacted by elders on traditional lands who say they do not support the voice and had no say in the Uluru statement. This will be no different to the stolen generations apology. Let me remind you of the reason for this apology. We were told it was necessary for us to move forward together as a united nation. How has that worked out?</para>
<para>The Prime Minister's contempt for these dissenting voices, including Aboriginal voices, is very clear. His contempt for those who rightly and justly request details of the proposed voice, such as its powers, functions and costs, has also been very clear. He is not promoting unity at all. The Prime Minister is deliberately stoking division and stoking it on racial lines. As Senator Price noted in her landmark first speech in this chamber: 'Many Indigenous Australians have not been consulted about the voice, and many have no clue what it's about.' This comment has come from an Aboriginal woman. The Prime Minister has dismissed her comments saying, 'They don't stack up.' No. His comments do not stack up. That's because the Prime Minister is listening only to the Aboriginal industry, whose gravy train relies on separating Australians by race and entrenching Indigenous disadvantage. I've been saying this for decades.</para>
<para>There is nothing in this proposal that redresses real disadvantage. There is nothing in this proposal that will end the violence, poverty and failure of service delivery in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There is nothing in this proposal that indicates how much this entire exercise will cost Australian taxpayers. However, I feel compelled to note that the annual funding of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission in its final years was well north of a billion dollars. It's almost certain a referendum alone will cost in excess of $120 million. A better solution would be to hold the referendum at the next election. What's the rush? There is much in this proposal that is open-ended, ill-defined and fraught with peril. The risk is very real that the sovereignty that all Australians have over their land and country will be handed to a racial minority.</para>
<para>Why does this have to be in the Constitution? What is the real ulterior motive? This can only be about power—creating a nation within a nation. This can only be about taking power from whitefellas and giving it to blackfellas. This is Australia's version of apartheid. Are they prepared for the compensation or reparations which will be demanded when the High Court decides that 'traditional ownership' means 'sovereign control'. Where will you stand, given that you acknowledge traditional ownership every day? Do you acknowledge that I, like millions of Australians, legally own my land and worked very hard for it? Do I have rights to my land, too? Can't you acknowledge my connection to my land and my love for my country? I note Lidia Thorpe's racist interjection in the past when she told me to go back to where I came from. She can rest assured that I did, indeed, go back to where I came from—back to Queensland, where I was born and where I raised my children, and where my parents and grandparents were born. There is nowhere else for me to go. Australia is my home. Australia is our home—Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister says the voice won't have a veto power, but he cannot speak for future governments or say what legislation before parliament must be referred to the voice for consultation, who will be eligible to stand for election to the voice and who will be eligible to vote. We need a stronger definition of Aboriginality. From 2016 to 2021, the number of Australians identifying as Indigenous rose by 92,000 or 26 per cent, while our overall population increase, including immigration, was only eight per cent. This is what we call 'jumping on the bandwagon'. There is much in this proposal that reeks of the empty gestures and symbolism which make progressives feel good about themselves but otherwise achieve nothing. It's also reeking of the disgusting, patronising attitudes that privileged bureaucrats and lawmakers routinely adopt towards Indigenous Australians—proud members of a culture which has endured for tens of thousands of years. This is an attempt to rewrite the past, manipulate the present and destroy the future.</para>
<para>Unlike both sides of this chamber, I have listened to Indigenous Australians and their elders. Stop using them as fodder for your own purposes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators to address members of this chamber and other places by their full title.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Transport Industry</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEWART</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a delight to go on after Senator Hanson! On Thursday 28 July, I had the privilege of meeting with a parliamentary delegation led by the Transport Workers Union. The TWU are calling for urgent reform of our transport industry to protect wages and conditions to improve road safety and save lives. In the room we had employee associations, owner drivers, couriers, food delivery drivers, employee drivers and family members affected by road safety accidents. Parliamentarians heard directly about the serious impacts of the evolving Amazon effect and the gig economy on eroding pay and safety across the transport sector. The delegation told us about companies at the top of the supply chains squeezing transport contracts and pressuring workers to drive past legal hours, speed in order to meet deadlines, delay vehicle maintenance and ignore fatigue management measures, all to shamefully put profits before people.</para>
<para>Workers also told us about being exploited by unregulated gig megacompanies such as Amazon, who undercut traditional transport operators from the bottom. Then we have Amazon Flex and Uber push our workers into precarious and insecure work with low rates of pay and no workplace rights or entitlements. Just as I indicated in my first speech, it is, sadly, too common for our migrant workers and communities to undertake the heaviest work for the lowest pay. They are the very people and communities who absorb the unfair brunt of these appalling practices.</para>
<para>Along with the stories of the wage rip-offs and workplace exploitation, we heard about the devastating impact this exploitation has on real lives. The heavy vehicle and road transport sectors are Australia's deadliest industries and deadly in the worst way. With an average of 180 deaths per year and many more hospitalisations associated with heavy vehicles, these workplace injuries, traumas and deaths have immense social and economic impacts on drivers, their families, businesses and the broader community. However, rather than take action to stop the devastation, the previous government in 2016 chose to dismantle the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, the very measure designed to keep our roads safe and workers paid fairly. It was absolutely shameful.</para>
<para>Since this unforgiveable decision by the Liberals, there have been over 1,000 associated truck crash deaths on our roads, with 250 of these deaths being truck drivers. How incredibly devastating for each family affected. We can do better and we must do better.</para>
<para>As identified by the Senate committee inquiry into the viable and safe transport industry, chaired by my good friend Senator Glenn Sterle, there is an immediate need for government intervention to change the practice and culture of an industry that literally carries our entire country, an industry that carried us all through the height of the pandemic and an industry that will be key as we continue to reopen, recover and rebuild.</para>
<para>Along with the inquiry's 10 recommendations, federal Labor's national 2021 platform pledged to introduce a national system of safe rates to lift standards across the transport sector. This included an independent body to lift the safe standards of work, payments and conditions, elimination of economic and contractual practices that place undue pressure on transport workers, fair and enforceable payments for all workers regardless of labels, the capacity to resolve supply chain disputes and appropriate resourcing of supply chain training, auditing and education through an industry fund.</para>
<para>I would like to thank all of the representatives who attended parliament to tell their personal stories, who took time off work, unpaid, to come up here and advocate for the rights of workers like them who aren't even getting the minimum wage, who can't go to work and expect to be able to come home safely like almost every other worker in this country. I want to thank the TWU representatives, including Michael Kaine, Mike McNess and Mem Suleyman, for facilitating the workers attending parliament. I'm proud to stand in solidarity with the Transport Workers' Union, who are fighting to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sudan</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is the first opportunity I've had to rise in this place, in the new parliament, to speak about a very moving community event I attended on 25 June 2022 with members of the Queensland Sudanese diaspora. It's a wonderful community in my home state of Queensland that contributes so much to our state. The purpose of the meeting was to consider human rights abuses that have been occurring in the nation of Sudan since the military coup on 25 October 2021. I should note that there were a number of community representatives from a number of different communities present at that get together, including senior representatives of the South Sudanese community and of the broader Australian African community.</para>
<para>On 25 October 2021, there was a military coup executed in the nation of Sudan and the declaration of a state of emergency. A report was done to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in relation to what occurred on the ground between 25 October 2021 and 10 April 2022, and it is extraordinarily disturbing reading. What occurred on the ground during that period and what has subsequently occurred includes the excessive use of force and unlawful killings. Dozens and dozens of people have been killed, including children. There have been thousands of people injured. Deaths have occurred through the use of live ammunition against peaceful protesters, the use of tear canisters at short range—again against peaceful protesters—and through other excessive use of force.</para>
<para>There's also a recounting of arbitrary arrests and detention, torture and ill-treatment and enforced disappearance of democratic processes following the military coup, sexual and gender based violence of the most egregious kind—including events that occurred on 19 December last year where female protesters were actually gang raped by security forces after they'd been dispersed from a peaceful protest—the shutting down of all forms of communication and freedom of expression, and a range of other egregious human rights violations.</para>
<para>The community in Brisbane got together to draw attention to these human rights atrocities. It needs to be known by those members of the military dictatorship in Sudan that the world is watching. Our Sudanese diaspora is our human bridge between Australia and Sudan. We are watching what you are doing in Sudan. We are keenly interested. We stand shoulder to shoulder with our Sudanese brothers and sisters in terms of watching what is occurring on the ground.</para>
<para>I would like to conclude this statement by reading a few verses from a poem written by an extraordinary young man who is part of the Sudanese diaspora. He is a gentleman by the name of Mr Osman Garelnabi. He wrote a poem called 'Earth' in 2019 following the use of excessive violence against Sudanese protesters. I want to read a few versus of this poem. He's doing amazing work working with young people in our Queensland community. It reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm learning all the lessons I already know,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I've lost a lost a lot of brothers where so many go,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The chances of us rising up were very low,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But love can free the mind from this mental war,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   …   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">You started this war, but we'll never recede,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The blood of my bros are what I wear in my sleeves,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">See I didn't come out of the dirt just to die overseas,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's why our spirits will never decease,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I said I didn't come out of the dirt just to die overseas,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And so our spirits will never decease,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But just look how the system made us enemies,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They're chaining our brothers up without a reason,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And you thought that we'd never see freedom?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Convicting our brothers of treason, how?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When the earth is our land,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's 'cause of our people you're breathing …</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One in three Australian women experience abuse in their lifetime. It's not just a statistic; it's people's lives. When this violence intersects with our broken income support system, we see victims-survivors of domestic violence be further victimised. Successive governments have designed, implemented and defended a punitive system that not only traps people in poverty but in some cases traps them in cycles of abuse as well.</para>
<para>Domestic violence exists in many forms and, like other forms of abuse, is predominantly about control. It is about social, verbal, emotional and financial manipulation, and it is so much harder escape this violence and find safety and support when you're financially insecure. The Greens welcome the government's introduction of 10 days of paid leave for people affected by domestic violence. This has been Greens policy for many years. But domestic violence leave is not enough. It doesn't address the urgent needs of people who are living on income support or who, by escaping domestic violence, will be reliant on income support. The vast majority of people on income support are living below the poverty line. This means making difficult decisions every single day about what you can afford to buy or how many meals you're going to miss that day. Victims-survivors are relentlessly retraumatised by a system that has been shown time and time again to fail them and to keep the cycle of poverty going.</para>
<para>In addition to the 10 days paid leave for domestic violence victims-survivors, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children was developed specifically to address family and domestic violence on all levels. But, sadly, actions to enhance access to income support have been largely missing from the national plan and its associated action plans. We know that First Nations women, women from culturally diverse backgrounds, women in regional areas, older women, LGBTIQA+ women and women with disabilities are even more likely to experience violence. We need a plan that protects all Australians, not just the ones who are fortunate enough to be employed. So, despite Labor's commitment to supporting domestic abuse survivors through this plan, there has been next to no consideration for survivors on income support. We've heard from the government that JobSeeker payments are going to stay at $46 a day. This is while Labor has supported the stage 3 tax cuts, which will see the highest-paid workers in Australia receive, effectively, a pay increase.</para>
<para>I find the plight of the one million single-parent families in Australia particularly distressing. Analysis undertaken by Anti-Poverty Week found that there are 300,000 single-parent families in Australia headed by women, caring for around 600,000 children who are living near or below the poverty line. What are the options here if they are facing domestic or family violence? We've also heard harrowing reports that the income support system has been exploited by perpetrators. The<inline font-style="italic"> Guardian</inline> reported last week about a domestic violence victim-survivor and mother of three who was left without vital Centrelink payments for six weeks after the perpetrator exploited social security rules and the fraud tip-off line. She was denied family payments for six weeks after a false tip-off. In a cost-of-living crisis, no-one should be forced to navigate through such uncaring bureaucracy and left to struggle to survive.</para>
<para>Neither of the major parties seem to have a plan to tackle domestic violence or the poverty crisis in this country. The Greens have committed to a $12 billion, 12-year national plan to end violence against women and children that will comprehensively address issues relating to prevention and early intervention in gendered violence, and appropriate response and support and recovery services for victims-survivors. We're fighting for all government income support payments to be raised above the poverty line, for mutual obligations to be abolished and for unfair restrictions on who can access the payment to be removed to ensure that everyone has the means to cover their basic essential needs.</para>
<para>Our social safety net is broken. It is failing not only to support people escaping family violence but also to protect them from facing further harm. The government must fix our social security system immediately and raise the rate of all income support to above the poverty line. Poverty is a political choice; enough is enough. We have all clearly and consistently received feedback from victims-survivors who have been forced to navigate a brutal system, with many being retraumatised in the process. Now is the time to listen to what they have to say. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note this is not my first speech. I rise here today to speak about the disastrous economic situation we now find ourselves in due to high levels of government debt, which is approximately $963 billion—an absolutely massive amount of money. But how much is a billion dollars? It's a thousand million dollars. These numbers are almost incomprehensible—$963 billion. Unfortunately, both of the major parties have had a hand to play in racking up this debt and will continue to have a hand in racking up the debt, and it is something that must be dealt with and not just swept under the rug. Neither side of politics has discussed a clear plan on how we can pay back this debt, and we cannot keep ignoring the issue. Paying back the national debt was a core part of the policies that the United Australia Party took to the election.</para>
<para>The increasing interest rates and inflation that we are seeing at the moment are as a result of the high levels of debt. There is a clear relationship between high levels of public debt and higher interest rates. There was a publication from the European Central Bank which studied the relationship between long-term public debt and the increasing interest rates of the economies of Germany, Italy and the USA. This publication set out the relationship between high debt and interest rates in those countries over a 10-year period. It essentially concluded that high levels of debt have little impact on interest rates in the short term but that in the years to follow interest rates start to increase, and at a rapid rate. Most economists here in Australia agree that interest rates will continue to rise. Millions of Australian families are already experiencing mortgage stress, and this is only set to increase. ANZ and Westpac are predicting that the RBA cash rate will be 3.35 per cent by the end of this year or very early next year.</para>
<para>Prices for fuel, energy and other basic essentials are increasing, severely impacting Australian families and Australian businesses, and will go on to destroy the independence and freedom of our nation. We cannot ignore the national debt. If we do not act, if we allow it to continue to grow unabated, it will cause Australian families to default on their mortgages and lose their homes as interest rates continue to rise. It will also remove the underlying security for many of our small businesses.</para>
<para>We must act now to save our homes, to save our country's economy and to protect our freedom and independence. We need a solution. Sweeping it under the rug, expanding the debt, will only make it worse. We are simply kicking the problem down the road for future generations to deal with. The RBA cash rate is currently sitting at 1.85 per cent, up from 0.1 per cent only four months ago. That means that, compared to four months ago, the average $700,000 mortgage will cost around $550 more per month. Many families cannot afford this rise. Current inflation is 6.1 per cent, with real wages growing at only 2.4 per cent over the past 12 months. Essentially, that means the purchasing power of your money has been reduced by 6.1 per cent and your wages have not kept up. The government has now confirmed that inflation is set to hit 7.75 per cent by the end of this year, making things even worse.</para>
<para>The UAP took to the election a plan to help pay down our national debt. We suggested introducing a 15 per cent export licence for all iron ore exports from Australia and pledging the proceeds of such a licence to the repayment of our near-trillion-dollar debt. Our modelling showed that this export licence and its proceeds would help reduce the debt level and, in the process, save Australia from high interest rates. Australia supplies over 80 per cent of all iron ore exports to the Asian manufacturing markets. Tens of trillions of dollars are invested in manufacturing in China, Japan, Korea and the rest of Asia. Asia achieves its strong position in world trade by using Australian iron ore. Asian economies have no alternative but to purchase our iron ore. We must leverage this position to the maximum benefit of all Australians. In effect, we can have the buyers of our iron ore pay off our debt, thereby taking the burden off the Australian taxpayer.</para>
<para>The United Australia Party has a clear policy to deal with this debt. It is designed to save all Australians' homes and to increase our living standards and wages, and the best part is that the buyers of our iron ore will pay for it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. As the time is approaching 1.30, we shall now move to two-minute statements.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Games</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today, as we stand here, day 5 of the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham is coming to a close. I want to take this opportunity to recognise all of our amazing athletes competing in Birmingham. Four hundred and thirty Australians are over there, and they include 76 of our incredible and inspiring para-athletes. So far, we have 106 medals, and 42 of those medals are gold. That makes us No. 1 in Birmingham at the moment.</para>
<para>Sport is so important to the Australian lifestyle. It is a quintessential part of the way of life in this country. So it has been absolutely amazing and inspiring to watch these incredible athletes perform on the international stage, because they demonstrate the importance and the benefits of an active and healthy lifestyle, and the physical and mental benefits of sport and good health, as well as the great community spirit and wellbeing they generate back here in Australia. We are a proud sporting nation, and it's been great to see so many Australians getting behind our athletes over there in Birmingham as we cheer them on to ever-increasing levels of success and numbers of successes.</para>
<para>So congratulations, on behalf of Australia, to every single athlete that was selected to go to Birmingham. Supercongratulations to those that have won medals, particularly to Emma McKeon. What an amazing Australian athlete. She is now the most successful Commonwealth Games athlete in history, having broken so many records there. Congratulations also to Jessica Stenson, from my home state in South Australia, who we all remember as Jessica Trengrove, who won a gold medal in the women's marathon. I give a big shout-out to both the men's and the women's three-by-three chair basketball teams—exceptional efforts, taking home a gold and a silver. We encourage all Australians to support our great Aussie athletes over the next few days.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Origin Energy</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I visited Ballina and Lismore at the weekend in my capacity as Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery. I met with mayors and general managers of many local councils from the Northern Rivers, plus unions and businesses and the local community, and had conversations with representatives of the First Nations people, from the Bundjalung nation.</para>
<para>I also heard about people who have been ripped off by Origin Energy. Origin, a company that made a profit of $318 million last year, has been charging Lismore residents for power they didn't even use. Not only did they not use that power; in some cases, their homes were actually uninhabitable and have been uninhabitable for months.</para>
<para>One resident, Ella, was given a quarterly power bill of $460 which included charges for water usage. Ella actually saw her hot water system float away during the floods, but was still charged for hot water usage. Ella tried to rectify the issue. She said, 'It's the chaos of it. It's been going on for months. They ring me, put me on hold. I don't have time for this. It goes on and on.' Another Lismore woman received a bill of $336 from Origin for a house that doesn't even have walls. She said, 'I haven't had the energy to fight. It's a full-time job between chasing down insurance and calling services.'</para>
<para>This sort of predatory corporate behaviour after disasters makes me sick to my stomach. I call on Origin to make it right, to make sure this never happens again and to make sure that those claims are rectified.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Shark Mitigation and Deterrent Measures, Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is the last country left in the world that, to kill sharks, still uses lethal shark nets and drum lines. They are weapons of mass destruction to protected marine life. I hope that in the term of this government, when we review the EPBC Act—which provides exemptions for the New South Wales and Queensland state governments to kill protected marine life indiscriminately—this problem is solved by a change to our environment legislation.</para>
<para>I also wanted to raise the fact that the Senate inquiry into shark mitigation, which took extensive evidence all around the country that shark nets do not make beaches safe and are killing our protected and endangered marine life, and that there are better solutions for protecting human beings and ocean-goers, is the only Senate inquiry under the last government that was never responded to. So I look forward to working with this Labor government to get a response from the federal environment department and actually lay out what the federal government can do to show leadership on protecting our marine life and also striking the right balance in protecting surfers and other ocean-goers off our coastlines.</para>
<para>I would also like today to give a shout-out to the now over 1,000 parliamentarians around the world who have started to take action to free Walkley Award winning journalist Julian Assange. It is a national disgrace and shame that this parliament and this last government have done nothing to intervene actively to free Julian Assange and bring him back to Australia. Let me tell you: there is momentum building all around the world now. This issue is only going to get bigger. The Albanese government have made the right noises, but now is the time to explain to the Australian people what you're doing and to step up and make sure this Australian hero is freed from the UK hellhole— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1347" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are two immediate challenges facing our country. First, no matter where you live, whether it be in our cities, in our suburbs, in our regional towns or in our rural and remote communities, Australians are facing the very real challenge of meeting cost-of-living pressures. Food and beverages are up two per cent, clothing and footwear is up 3½ per cent, fuel is up 4.2 per cent and housing is up 2½ per cent, yet there is no relief in sight.</para>
<para>The second challenge is again being experienced everywhere across our country—on farms, in our cafes and restaurants, in garages and service stations and on building sites everywhere. Australian business is being crippled by a lack of workers. The labour shortages are strangling the enterprising spirit of small and medium-sized businesses everywhere across our continent. Just today, the WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry released its <inline font-style="italic">Regional </inline><inline font-style="italic">pulse </inline>report, which said over 80 per cent of WA's regional businesses cited workforce issues as a significant challenge.</para>
<para>The combination of inflationary pressures and severe labour shortages is real, and it's immediate. At a time when there are almost 500,000 job vacancies across Australia, more than 62,000 of them in Western Australia, the Albanese government should be looking to implement urgent reforms to enable pensioners and veterans to work if they want to. Let people work more if they want to, Mr Albanese.</para>
<para>Australians have waited too long for a plan from Labor. So who does have a plan? I'm proud to say it's the coalition. Today I'll introduce a private senator's bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022, which will remove some of the disincentives that make it harder for older Australians and veterans who want to improve their living standards by working or increasing their hours of work. This initiative will have the added benefit of making it easier for small businesses across Australia to meet the challenges of worker shortages in their communities. This is an important reform.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Transport Industry</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it's timely that we know there are shortages of staff and labour and all that. I've got to bring this to the attention of the Senate. This dropped in my lap a couple of days ago. It is an article from <inline font-style="italic">Big Rigs</inline> magazine. It's headed 'ATO receives 727 tip-offs about dodgy road freight operators'. Isn't this amazing? We've got driver shortages—we are about 22,000 drivers short, according to seek.com only a month ago, and that's before we start talking about forkies, receivables staff, loaders, diesel mechanics, tire fitters, spray painters and auto-electricians. And yet what the ATO can tell us is there are 727 dodgy operators. Well, I've got to tell the ATO: Good on you for letting us know when someone's dobbed someone in. I'll give you another 300,000—piece of cake!</para>
<para>If anyone doubts me, come and join me. Just walk the line at Coles or Woolworths or ALDI or Costco. Walk the line with me, and talk to all these truck drivers who are paid on kilometre rates as they run interstate. Kilometre rates are supposed to be so fan-damn-tastic, but the drivers sit at the DCs for three, four or five hours with no pay. Then, do you know what they do? They don't log the hours they're sitting there—no, no, you can't do that. It's bad enough not being paid, but then they can't log their hours because then they can't get back to Melbourne or Sydney or Adelaide, or even halfway back.</para>
<para>This is well-known. It came up in my Senate inquiry. I didn't make this up; drivers told me. I know there are some very decent employers out there who pay kilometre rates. I know there are some very decent employers who look after their staff and go on hourly rates. Sadly, they're in the minority. I'd say to the ATO: if you've got a spare day or two, come and walk the line with me. I throw that offer out to any other senator, including ones from the other side. This is national wage theft. It's rife. Labor will fix this with an independent body within—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>298839</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sterle. Senator Roberts.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forestry Industry</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our Australian forestry industry is one of Australia's largest manufacturers, employing around 80,000 hardworking people across the value chain and contributing more than $24 billion of economic turnover to our economy every year. A further 100,000 people are in jobs supported through flow-on economic activity. Yet now the people's wealth is under threat. Green ideology working for globalist predators seeking to control people threatens all this wealth going into the pockets of everyday Australians and regional communities.</para>
<para>Timber—look around—is a natural material with great warmth and versatility. In this beautiful building, Australia's seat of government, native hardwoods are used throughout the building, chosen for colour and durability. The Sydney Opera House uses timber in the public areas for the same reason. The use of timbers from all over Australia expresses our national identity. That's probably why the globalist Greens are trying to destroy the Australian timber industry. Under globalist policies, there is no national identity—only unrelenting oppression of individual sovereignty and slavish adherence to a woke agenda that borders on evil. Regional forestry agreements preserve the important principle of competitive federalism and states' rights. Regional forestry agreements protect our timber industry, and One Nation will defend the right of states to defend their timber industry.</para>
<para>One Nation strongly supports the Australian plantation industry and the workers, communities, regions, states and nation that it supports. Timber is the original renewable building product. We will hear about a circular economy in this parliament where the elites that own and use the green movement get to buy expensive new things while everyday Australians are left with second-hand and recycled goods to rent—supposedly in the name of sustainability. Like hell! We are one community, we are one nation and plantation timber is an amazing, beautiful, durable building product that should be available to everyone.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian National Audit Office</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to again address the issue of the Auditor-General's Leppington Triangle report that came out two years ago. One of the criticisms, of course, was the fact that there was a lack of documentation on behalf of the department in regard to the purchase of the land. I spoke about this yesterday, and I pointed out that the land market value was paid for the land in accordance with valuation standards and accounting standards. However, I thought to myself, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So I asked the Auditor-General if he could provide minutes of meetings held with staff and his office involving the audit of Leppington Triangle. Well, well, well. Guess what the reply was? 'The ANAO does not release specific items of audit evidence that were not included in an audit report, as the public interest benefit in the ANAO providing the audit evidence is outweighed by the potential for public interest harm to the operation of the legislative framework for dealing with sensitive information in the Auditor-General Act.'</para>
<para>That's interesting because, first of all, I didn't ask for specific audit evidence; all I asked was for the minutes of meetings. If the Auditor-General wants to criticise the previous government for not disclosing and having minutes of every meeting that they hold every five minutes of the day and wants to criticise people for having meetings in coffee shops—if we're all going to get locked up for having meetings in coffee shops, I think we'd all be in jail pretty quickly. I don't know about you, but I like to have my meeting in coffee shops. I love a coffee in the morning. The point is that I want to know why the Auditor-General isn't disclosing the minutes of the meetings that he had with his staff and what it is that he is hiding.</para>
<para>It should be disclosed that the Auditor-General was a former Labor staffer. It is very important that the Auditor-General remains impartial. I fear that this was nothing but a stitch-up, and it calls into doubt his credibility and whether or not he can continue in this role.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: First Nations Voice</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I start, please note this is not my first speech. I rise to express my support for the Uluru Statement from the Heart and to express my support for voice, for treaty and for truth. I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri elders and knowledge holders who have paved the way for those here now, for those proudly following in their footsteps and for those yet to come as custodians and owners of country. I also acknowledge that my home and electorate office in Western Australia are on Whadjuk Noongar boodjar and I pay my respects to their elders as well. I recognise their resilience and strength and appreciate their knowledge-sharing and stories that influence the lives of new Australians like me.</para>
<para>The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls on all of us here elected to this parliament to rise to the moment to accept the hand stretched out to us by the First Nations people. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's history-making speech on Saturday has given us a path to approaching this work with humility and hope. Like our Prime Minister I believe there is room in the hearts of Australians for the Uluru Statement from the Heart.</para>
<para>The question to support the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice is simple. Let's engage in good faith. Let's live to the Australian values of decency and fairness. A constitutionally enshrined voice to the parliament is significant and practical reform to get long overdue outcomes for First Nations people. This government is looking to bring people together, not to divide them. A First Nations voice on First Nations matters. It's not that difficult. It's not too much to ask for. It's the least we can do. This work will help to close the gap and make our nation stronger. It's time to get this done together.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Asylum Seekers</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's rightly a lot of talk about workforce shortages. For example it's estimated the aged-care sector is now facing an annual shortage of 35,000 workers just to meet the basic care needs of older people. Yet we have a potential workforce right here in Australia—people who want to work but are denied the ability to work. These are people seeking asylum who are waiting for an outcome on their application process. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre estimates 10,000 to 20,000 of the over 60,000 people here in Australia right now seeking asylum lack work rights. These people are ready to work but are denied the ability to work and begin to rebuild their lives because of successive governments' punitive regimes.</para>
<para>I've heard from one young woman who is seeking protection in Australia on gender and sexuality grounds. She has a MBA from an Australian university and prior to her application for protection she worked here, yet once she applied for protection she was denied her right to work and has had to rely on social service organisations to survive. This woman is desperate to work and to return to financial independence, yet she and many other people waiting for their application for asylum to be processed are being denied these rights.</para>
<para>In July this year the National Skills Commission revealed that occupations such as carer, health work and automotive trade work, among others, are in urgent need of workers. The ASRC has reported nearly half the people in its employment program have worked in these industries. So let's help fix the skills and workforce shortage by providing people seeking asylum the right to work. It will cost the government nothing and, more significantly, it is critical to people's human dignity and their social and economic inclusion.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note this is not my first speech. I rise here today to speak of the negative environmental consequences of moving towards so-called green energy, namely solar panels and batteries. Many have been sold a narrative that these technologies are somehow better for the environment. This could not be further from the truth.</para>
<para>Solar panels have a typical performance warranty life of approximately 25 years, after which these panels will surely end up in landfills where they could potentially contaminate groundwater with toxic heavy metals like lead and cadmium. Although around 80 per cent of a solar panel is technically recyclable it is not economically viable to do so, and a widespread use of solar panels is setting us up for a future environmental catastrophe. Batteries have a short service life and are extremely resource intensive to manufacture. Manufacturing a battery for an electric car requires digging up hundreds of tonnes of earth and processing it, with a disastrous effect to our natural world.</para>
<para>To meet demand of the rare earth minerals using batteries and solar panels, we will need to massively ramp up mining operations all around the world. One rich source of these rare earth minerals is pristine and undisturbed habitat such as the seabed of the Indo-Pacific. The International Seabed Authority believes China is set to become the first nation to begin exploitation of the seabed. China currently manufactures 80 per cent of all solar panels produced globally and dominates in battery production.</para>
<para>We all want to protect our environment but current green technology is doing the environment more harm than good, and their manufacture requires us to harvest more from the natural world, not less—not to mention all the fossil fuels used in their manufacture. We are, in effect, transitioning from digging up fossil fuels to digging up rare earth metals. None of this solves any of the issues that we are facing, while at the same time placing us at the mercy of the CCP. We need genuine well-balanced solutions— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Nuclear Energy</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUGHES</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend Senator Babet for his contribution in acknowledgment of what is actually involved when it comes to renewables and solar panels production going into landfill, and the complete lack of understanding about what is being done when it comes to these renewables. But it's not only about using these renewables; it's the fact that we need to build new connectors into the grid. Those opposite don't seem to understand what the national electricity grid is, nor the fact that renewables are unable to be connected at this stage and will require new connections to be built.</para>
<para>This is why I particularly welcome the Leader of the Opposition's announcement yesterday that it is time that we have a grown-up conversation in this country about nuclear power. Everyone over there on the opposite side—in the government and at the end of the chamber—needs to put their big-boy pants on and start to have a conversation about nuclear energy. We've had a nuclear industry for 60 years in this country—ANSTO has been running at Lucas Heights for 60 years—yet we will not look at nuclear energy, which is able to provide baseload, affordable, reliable power.</para>
<para>Those of us sitting here in opposition now actually understand. We're not talking about Chernobyl-sized reactors, like those scaremongers over there. We're looking like small, modular ones, like they use in France—the only country in Europe actually weathering the Ukraine war storm when it comes to energy because 70 per cent of their power is derived from nuclear. Those opposite don't have the intellectual depth or courage to have this conversation, while those at the end of the chamber are more about ideology than they are about reducing emissions. It's all about politics, not producing results. Let's have a big conversation about this. You guys don't even want to talk about it because you're so frightened. It's about time we put the Australian people first and provided affordable, reliable baseload power.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take this opportunity in the few minutes I have to thank our health workers and clinicians across the country who keep us focused on the fact that we are still in a pandemic. In particular, I want to reach out to our Aboriginal community health sector, who are still sending the message across the remote and regional areas of the country, in all sorts of languages of First Nations people, to reiterate the importance of staying safe, being safe and making sure that they are still listening to the requirements in order to keep safe.</para>
<para>Today, the Albanese government accepted a recommendation from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, ATAGI, to make a Moderna COVID-19 vaccine available to children aged six months to under five years in certain at-risk population groups. The primary goal of the Australian COVID-19 vaccine program is to minimise the risk of severe disease, including hospitalisation and death from COVID-19. We are now some years into this pandemic, and one of the things I've heard constantly from health clinicians is the sense of weariness, tiredness and exhaustion. We need to keep going, and that's why it's important that here in the Senate and in the House we continue to acknowledge the ongoing work of those clinicians who are still trying to keep Australians safe.</para>
<para>Around 70,000 young children at high risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19 will be able to receive a vaccination from 5 September this year. The Albanese government has secured 500,000 doses of the specific vaccine for this age group, and initial supplies will be arriving in Australia later this week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Games</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that this is not my first speech. The Hunter region of New South Wales is known for many things—its wine agriculture, it's coal and energy generation, its beaches, and its lifestyle—but what truly sets us apart is the people and their passion in work and play. I rise to acknowledge the people from the Hunter taking part in the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham. At 17, Jesse Southwell of New Lambton is one of the youngest members of the entire team and will be bringing home gold to the Hunter after winning in the Australian women's sevens rugby team. She's also a mighty Newcastle Knight. Rose Davies, from Newcastle, has been running since the age of 12, and boy is she tight—nah. But she'll be competing in the women's 5,000 metres and 10,000 metres. As someone whose fitness struggles to drive that far without being a little bit tired, I'm envious of her!</para>
<para>Sam Fricker is 20 years old and one of Australia's most exciting divers. After his Olympic debut in Tokyo, the men's 10-metres platform, he's one to watch out for in these games, including his signature dive an inward 3½ somersault. Maitland girl Natasha Van Eldik has represented Australia in lawn bowls from a club in Raymond Terrace. Also a shoutout to Maitland swimmer Jenna Jones, who competed in the S13 50-metre freestyle, and to Merewether wheelchair athlete Christie Dawes, a seven-time Paralympian, who finished fourth in the women's T53 and T54 marathon.</para>
<para>These people from the Hunter are doing their very best, playing with passion and doing everything they can to represent Australia. I hope to do the same thing here. With Australia clocking 106 medals, including 42 gold, after day six, I'm excited to see more competition and success.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Great Barrier Reef</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A defining moment for the Great Barrier Reef occurred almost a century ago. In 1975, the Gough Whitlam Labor government made the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, which was established to protect the Great Barrier Reef for many years to come. This legislation gave it special protection against oil and gas drilling, the biggest threat to its survival at the time.</para>
<para>I stand here today, on another day, with another defining moment for our Great Barrier Reef. This week historic legislation reaches this is place to enshrine the 43 per cent emissions target in legislation, a week when we can finally see serious climate action getting underway. Almost like half a century ago, Labor is again on the right side of history when it comes to protecting the Great Barrier Reef from climate change. Today, the Great Barrier Reef's biggest threat is climate change, and it will take a Labor government to fight for the future of this magnificent natural asset.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, precious time has been wasted fighting the climate wars of the last decade, and it has cost us dearly. No-one from this side will ever forget or forgive the former government for putting the reef and the jobs that rely on the Great Barrier Reef at risk at every step of the way. No-one will forget that they vetoed renewable energy projects because it was against their energy policy, projects that would have created jobs. No-one will forget that they actively supported repealing water quality legislation. They refused to commit to an emissions reduction target, and, again, today, they refused to commit to the legislation to reduce these emissions. And they hid power price increases until after the election.</para>
<para>The Labor government's Powering Australia plan will reduce emissions, reduce power prices, create jobs in renewable energy, and it will protect the reef and protect our future for many generations to come.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Arnold, Mrs Julie</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier this week, I spoke about the retirement of the Flinders Council mayor, and today I'd like to acknowledge the mayor of another idyllic Tasmanian island, the King Island, Mrs Julie Arnold. Mrs Arnold recently announced that she would not recontest her position as mayor and councillor in the October council elections. Julie and her husband, Charles, have sold their property on the island and plan to build a new home on King Island in the near future. But, first, they'll spend an extended period travelling Australia and researching alternative construction options, like pods or containers for their new home.</para>
<para>Elected to King Island Council in 2018, Mrs Arnold was initially appointed as deputy mayor. She took on the role of mayor in 2019 after being elected unopposed, and she was the first woman to serve as King Island's mayor. Mrs Arnold's term as mayor was punctuated by COVID-19 and the impact of this pandemic on the small island community, but she is confident she leaves the council with processes in place for King Island to successfully live with the virus.</para>
<para>The aspect Mrs Arnold considers her main achievement is restructuring the committee work of councillors to match their individual strengths. This work was matched to the key issues councillors championed, like shipping, youth, sport or tourism, and she hopes the framework will continue in successive councils.</para>
<para>I met with Mrs Arnold in May, and she spoke about her desire to see a shipping solution develop for King Island's future which includes a wharf for roll-on roll-off ships, a direct route to Victoria and a plan for small cruise ships that extend beyond day trips. She's also hopeful of positive results from the reopening of the King Island Scheelite tungsten mine and the council's $830,000 telecommunications investment to improve connection on the island.</para>
<para>Enjoy your well deserved break and travel, Julie. We look forward to welcoming you back to Tasmania to build your new King Island home soon.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>47</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interest Rates, Fuel</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. How much extra will an average mortgage holder be paying in monthly repayments as a result of the recent interest rate increases?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We went to this yesterday, I think, in question time but I'm happy to repeat it. Essentially, depending on the loan—the size of the loan—people will be paying a couple of hundred extra dollars a month in payments.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An opposition senator interjecting</inline>—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I can go exactly to it if you want to break it down. Of course, these increases that they'll be paying are on top of the increases that have occurred over recent months from when the RBA started increasing interest rates on 1 May. If you'd like it by state or by size of mortgage, I can I give it to you, but essentially the cumulative increase in monthly repayments for an average mortgage holder in New South Wales is, I think, about $330 extra per month. There is a significant impact on households, no doubt, and we know this stings households, absolutely. But we are living in a highly inflationary environment and the RBA are increasing interest rates. They are increasing interest rates to deal with higher inflationary costs across the economy.</para>
<para>The factors that led to this occurred prior to the last election. As to the factors that led to this, we inherited an economy with an inflation issue and rising interest rates, and these are hitting mortgage holders, without a doubt. That's why our economic plan is more important than ever: to invest in the productive side of the economy to put downward pressure on cost-of-living impacts for households.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Askew, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, on top of the cost of interest rate increases, how much extra will it cost a family to fill a 60-litre tank of petrol once the government ends the reduction in fuel excise?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was your policy!</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Sterle</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's an idiotic question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Sterle and Senator Wong!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Talk about leading with your chin again! This is a policy that the former government put in place to expire, the former Treasurer saying it was targeted and temporary—and made it very clear—because of the significant costs to a budget that is already heaving with a trillion dollars in Liberal debt.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Askew?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Askew</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance: it was actually a question about a dollar figure; it wasn't asking about consideration of previous policies.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Askew. The minister is being relevant to the question but I'll continue to listen and ensure that relevance continues.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The former government, at the time when they designed the policy to be a six-month exemption, noted the significant cost to the budget—$3 billion over a six-month period. I've heard Senator Hume talking about the need to be fiscally responsible, while on the other side, depending on who you're talking to in the coalition, it's all about spending more and adding more to the budget problems that we have inherited. The petrol excise changes were for six months. The budget cannot afford to continue these concessions at a time when we are dealing with the increasing cost of— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Askew, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese government was elected on grand promises to fix the cost of living. What precisely is the government's plan to help senior Australians, young Australians and Australian families, including the majority, who do not have children in child care, with the cost of living?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to talk about Labor's economic plan. Our plan is a comprehensive plan that does include cheaper child care for 1.2 million families.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume you seat. Order! Minister Wong. I'm waiting for quiet from both sides of the chamber. Minister, please resume.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's economic plan is about making sensible investments into the productive capacity of the economy, including cheaper child care for 1.2 million families. It is important. Talk to anyone with children. That is a huge impact on your household budget. That is what we are doing. Cheaper medicines—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about people without children?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why do you hate children?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, resume your seat. Senator Watt, it's disorderly to make comments across the chamber. Order on my left! Senator Henderson. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> For those families without children—but this helps families with children as well—cheaper medicines. For skills and training, helping those with children and those without children, free TAFE and more uni places. Investing in cleaner and cheaper energy—again, helping all households across Australia. This is a core part of Labor's economic plan and we'll implementing it as quickly as we can. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Can the minister outline steps the government is taking to ensure Australia's security?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the minister—I thank the senator!—for his question and for his interest in international relations and foreign affairs and security. Today the Prime Minister and the defence minister announced details of the Defence Strategic Review. In 2020, the <inline font-style="italic">Defence Strategic Update</inline> identified that changes in Australia's strategic environment were accelerating far more rapidly than was predicted in the 2012 Force Posture Review. So, to meet these challenges, the Defence Strategic Review, which was announced today, will examine force structure, force posture and preparedness. It will also examine investment prioritisation. The objective, which I would hope is shared across the chamber, is to ensure that the Defence Force, the Australian Defence Force, has the right capabilities to meet the growing strategic needs Australia faces.</para>
<para>The government has appointed two eminent leads to conduct the review: former minister for defence and for foreign affairs Professor the Hon. Steven Smith, and former CDF Air Chief Marshal Sir Angus Houston (Rtd). This work will help ensure that the ADF is well positioned to meet the security challenges we face over the next decade and beyond. You see, the Albanese government understands well that Australia's security, in a more complex and contested world, means we have to use all elements of state power, and we have to ensure all elements of state power are fit for purpose—that is, strategic, economic, social and diplomatic. The purpose, of course, is always the advancement of Australian interest and Australian values.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, we do know there was a great deal of damage done to Australia's international relationships by the previous government. But we have made a strong start since the change of government. <inline font-style="italic">(Time ex</inline><inline font-style="italic">pired) </inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for a comprehensive answer. Can the minister outline the government's engagement with regional partners, including ASEAN?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, again, thank the senator for a very important question. Of course, South-East Asia and the focus on South-East Asia is just so important for Australia's security and something that we, on this side of the chamber, have always understood, which is why, if you look at the history of government in this country, it is Labor governments which have brought such a strong focus to South-East Asia. We recognise, on this side of the chamber, that our future is tied to the future of the region we share. So deepening our partnership with ASEAN is one of my top priorities as foreign minister. Australia's interests lie in shaping a strategic equilibrium in the region, where countries are not forced to choose, but can make their own sovereign choices, and ASEAN is central to that.</para>
<para>I am, today, departing for Phnom Penh for ASEAN meetings.</para>
<para>An opposition senator: Another junket!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'A junket'? Well, I'll take that interjection. It just shows the disrespect for ASEAN and the importance of security in our region from the other side, and I suggest you should speak to Senator Birmingham about that interjection.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Your time has expired, Minister. Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How is the government working to shape a region that is peaceful and predictable and where disputes are not simply guided by power and size?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the senator for the supplementary. He phrases the question in a way that is really important. Others have described it differently: 'We want a region that is non-hegemonic'; 'We want a region where sovereignty is protected'. But it is in Australia's interests—and this I do think is a bipartisan objective, even if, on how we get there, we may differ. We want a region where disputes are not simply guided by power and size, and central to that is working with the countries of our region, including ASEAN, as well as the Pacific, ensuring we have relationships that are deep and trusting and relationships where we are able to be a partner of choice.</para>
<para>Partnerships matter because it's how we build the kind of region we want. It's how we build the kind of region that serves—that is in accordance with—the interests of the Australian people and the interests of the nation: a region at peace, not in conflict, which is why we will continue to work with partners to promote peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Will the level of government spending in the Albanese government's first budget be higher or lower than was projected in the pre-election fiscal outlook?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You'll have to wait and see.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Order! I'm going to wait for quiet on both sides. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The short answer to the question from Senator Smith—and I thank him for the question—is: you'll have to wait and see. That's what happens when you're in opposition. The budget will be published and you will be able to see.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I think anybody who followed Labor's very comprehensive fiscal plan—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators McGrath and Hughes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's plan for a better budget and a better future—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Order! I'm aware that you're standing, Senator Smith; I'm waiting for quiet. Senator Smith?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Dean Smith</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, Madam President: standing order two one one—I'm just wondering whether Senator Gallagher could let us know how many pages are in the plan.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That might be a supplementary question you may wish to pursue, Senator Smith. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, that was tried in the campaign and it didn't go very far, I must say! It's more about the content, I think, than the number of pages. This is a very successful plan that we've outlined—very successful, as evidenced by this. That's how successful this plan was.</para>
<para>The budget will be released in the normal way, with the papers that accompany it. I would say, because I do respect Senator Smith: we are going through a process, which we are being quite clear about, of looking at previous budget measures from the March budget, as to which ones of those should go ahead and which ones might not need to go ahead. We're looking at savings, where they can be sensibly found; we're implementing our savings on consultants and contractors—the audit of waste and rorts, indeed, that we are looking at—and we're going through it, program by program, with a big red pen—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, we are going to be fiscally responsible. We are not going to be the vandals that you were, where you would just get billions of dollars and go: 'You know what? Barnaby Joyce wants some money somewhere, so here we go! We'll chuck it over there. We'll chuck it over here—Building Better Regions Fund. Oh, sorry, Barnaby; here's some more money!'</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're not going to do that—we're not going to do it, it's not right!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, resume your seat. Senator Henderson.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam President, I have a point of order. I ask that the minister refer to members by their proper names.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will draw that to the minister's attention, thank you, Senator Henderson. I remind all senators that people in this chamber and the other chamber need to be referred to by their correct titles. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The point I was making is that we will be fiscally responsible. We want to build a budget for a better future for Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, a first supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will decisions of the Albanese government in its first budget add, in net terms, to government spending and debt, or reduce government spending and debt?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we've been clear—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister, resume your seat. Senator Wong and Senator Henderson: exchanges across the chamber are disorderly.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">An honourable senator interjecting—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I beg your pardon if it wasn't you, but it is very hard with the level of noise to work out who is making the noise. But comments across the chamber are disorderly. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer to that question is contingent on a number of decisions that are yet to be made through the budget—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">An honourable senator interjecting—</inline></para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, what do you expect? I'm being honest with you! I'm being honest—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, resume your seat please. Senator Bilyk?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Bilyk</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam President, I'm having huge trouble hearing Senator Gallagher's wonderful response so could you quieten people down?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Bilyk, I'm trying my very best, which is why I keep sitting the minister down, sadly.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Th</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senators Wong and Birmingham! Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The very clear answer is that the decisions that will be made—to answer his question—are going to be made during the budget process, which is underway now. But I can tell you that they will end the rorts, they will end the waste and they will make the savings we promised in reducing advertising. Remember all those advertising campaigns that were always ready to go before the actual programs were ready? They were out the door pretty quickly. The budget will be handed down on 25 October.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, a second supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If government spending will be higher—and I notice that Senator Gallagher didn't rule that out—under the Albanese government, won't this see fiscal policy work against monetary policy and mean that the Albanese government's spending will place further upward pressure on interest rates?</para>
<para>Opposi tion senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not going to call the minister until there is quiet.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath and Senator Wong, I am waiting. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think they've set Senator Smith up here, because, on the one hand we've had arguments to spend $3 billion more over six months for petrol excise and, on the other hand, I'm being asked that if we're spending more whether that's going put pressure on interest rates.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please assume your seat. Senator Dean Smith, a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Dean Smith</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam President—it's on standing order 211. I was very, very specific: I wanted to know whether or not there was a risk that the government's spending would mean that its monetary policy would end up working against fiscal policy here.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Smith. I believe that the minister is being directly relevant, but let's continue with her response. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLA</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. Well, the opposition's policies would be working against monetary policy, I'd have to say—or, as I understand them. I'm not sure who's got the power at the moment. But this question comes from the highest-spending, highest-borrowing government in Australia's history. That's what you guys were. My job is to try to fix that: to rebalance the budget, end the rorts, tidy up the waste, get rid of the waste, find the savings where I can find them and invest in the productive side of the economy, which is absolutely in line, hand-in-hand, with monetary policy if you are investing in the productive side of the economy and putting downward pressure on the inflation and interest rates that we inherited from you lot!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Uibo, Ms Selena Jane Malijarri</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to acknowledge that we have Minister Uibo, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory, in the gallery.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>52</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Minister Wong, representing both the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water. Four hundred and fifty gigalitres of water was promised under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan for South Australia and the environment, but the Liberal and National parties have monumentally stuffed up the delivery of this water, at the expense of taxpayers and the health of the river. In the election campaign, the Albanese government promised and committed to delivering the 450 on time and in full. Is this still your government's commitment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hanson-Young for the question. I think one thing that we can all say is that every South Australian in this chamber should—and certainly those on this side of the chamber, and I include you in that—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong, address your comments to the chair please.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am a senator for South Australia, and so is Senator Hanson-Young. I apologise for the Constitution, Senator! But the reality is this: the Minister for the Environment and Water tabled the second <inline font-style="italic">Review </inline><inline font-style="italic">of </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">Water for the Environment Special Account </inline>report and, just like the member for Hume, who hid a price rise for electricity, this was also hidden to the Australian people before the election. You know why? It was because what it showed was the decade of sabotage that those opposite have engaged in when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.</para>
<para>They promised 450 gigs. You know how many they delivered? Two out of 450! We know why: they never wanted to deliver it. They never wanted to deliver it, and we know that because the National Party are still saying that and came into the chamber, whilst in government, and tried to blow up the Murray-Darling plan.</para>
<para>I invite Senator Birmingham, as the most senior South Australian, to rein in—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will get to it—to rein in those on that side who continue to want to sabotage this important reform.</para>
<para>We have made clear that Labor is committed to delivering the basin plan in full. It's what we signed up for. The minister has made it clear that that remains the approach. But I would say this: it has become a great deal harder now that it has been disclosed that you delivered two out of 450. Why did they think it was okay to hide that before the election? I'm not surprised you take a point of order.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Davey</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise on a point of order. Senator Wong is actually misleading the chamber with her claims that only two gigalitres were recovered when 23.3 gigalitres was—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is a debating point, thank you. Senator Davey, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The environment report makes it clear that two out of 450 was delivered.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that the minister did not answer the question about being on time. Given the legal requirement to deliver the 450 and given the promise to South Australians, what is the government's plan to make sure that 450 gigalitres is delivered, is used to save the river and is not stolen by those upstream?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I again hear the interjections from the National Party. We wonder why the coalition never delivered on this. I remember, when I was water minister and I bought a lot of water, how angry they were that we actually bought water for the environment from willing sellers. Oh my goodness! Isn't it dreadful to use the market to deliver an environmental and social outcome! It's a dreadful thing, isn't it?</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I am unable to hear Senator Wong's response. Please remain quiet and show courtesy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for the Environment and Water confirmed yesterday she has written to and is speaking to basin water ministers because, obviously, we have to work with the states in order to deliver this. Minister Plibersek has also tasked her department to consult widely on creative and collaborative approaches on how we can deliver the plan in full. I say this: nothing is off the table, including voluntary buybacks, because it is clear that the approach that was taken on the other side did not work. <inline font-style="italic">(Time ex</inline><inline font-style="italic">pired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to hear that voluntary buybacks are on the table because it is clear from the government's own report that this is the only way 450 gigalitres will be returned to the river. Will the government commit to working with South Australia, the South Australian government and the South Australian people to make sure it is delivered?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to Senator Hanson-Young for her question. I might pick up two parts of her question. She talks about the need to change the policy settings effectively, and she's right.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The report commissioned by your government, which you hid prior to the election, says these targets cannot be met under the settings you put in place. You can't meet them under the settings you put in place. It is the easiest thing, isn't it, for a politician to go upstream and downstream and say different things to different communities and pretend they're going to do something. At least tell people the truth. I accept you don't agree. I accept you don't agree with our position—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I draw to your attention the need for Senator Wong to direct her comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Henderson. I would also draw to the chamber's attention the general disorderly conduct in here. I would ask all senators to be courteous to one another, and I remind senators that comments are directed to the chair. Senator Wong, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is fair enough; I do like to respond to the misinformation provided by the National Party and I shouldn't take the bait, because they've been doing it for years. They've been pretending for years.</para>
<para>The report indicates there are not enough off-farm projects to reach the 450 gigs even with unlimited time and money. So clearly a different approach has to be taken. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Productivity</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is not my first speech but it is my first question! My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister outline the findings of the Productivity Commission's inquiry <inline font-style="italic">5-year productivity inquiry</inline><inline font-style="italic">: key to prosperity</inline> interim report that has been released today?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I congratulate Senator White on her first question. Thank you. It's an honour to be the answerer of your first question.</para>
<para>The report out today paints a dismal picture of recent productivity growth. Over the last decade growth has been the slowest than more than a century.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Who was in power then?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes—no surprises there. Gross national income was $4,600 lower per person than what it could have been if productivity growth was in line with the long-term average. This is important because 80 per cent of income growth in the past three decades has come from productivity gains. We should not be surprised, sadly, that the past decade we've seen with real wages is largely due to the poor decade we've also had on productivity.</para>
<para>The report said very clearly:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Almost all sustained increases in real wages are underpinned by improvements in labour productivity growth.</para></quote>
<para>Being more productive means Australians can consume higher-quality, and access new, goods and services.</para>
<para>Getting productivity moving again is a huge challenge that has been neglected under those opposite. It's a challenge that we take seriously, which is why Labor's economic plan is so important. Investment into the productive side of the economy, the productivity agenda, is at the heart of our economic plan—childcare reforms, skills and advanced manufacturing, and, of course, the opportunities that are going to come in the energy sector. The report is yet another scathing assessment of the former government's failure to drive reform or grab the opportunities for jobs and growth they should have, and Australians have paid an enormous price for that.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister advise the Senate on what has caused the slow pace of productivity growth, as outlined in the report.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's very quiet over there on the opposition benches. The Productivity Commission's report states that most OECD countries—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on both sides!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should ignore me.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know about that. The Product Commission's report states that most OECD countries have experienced a productivity slowdown. However, we know that the productivity challenges we face have been made worse by a decade of wasted opportunities and wrong priorities by those opposite. And there is no starker example of this than the coalition's wasted decade on energy. Their 22 different energy policies over their term in government have seen the opportunities for investment, innovation and jobs go begging. We paid the price for that. This really was the Morrison government—a government that spent more, borrowed more and delivered less, including in the productivity agenda, which has been outlined in the public release today. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator White, a second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister further advise the Senate what the government's plans are to boost productivity in the Australian economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I can, Senator White, and I thank you for the question. The Albanese government's economic plan is a plan to boost productivity, take the speed limit off the economy and create the right kind of growth. It will be a key focus of our upcoming jobs and skills summit. Our plans include: investing in cleaner and cheaper energy; better training our workforce through fee-free TAFE and more university places; investing in cheaper child care; boosting GDP through higher workforce participation; upgrading the NBN to begin capturing digital economic opportunities; and creating a future made in Australia with procurement and co-investment plans through the National Reconstruction Fund to stimulate billions of dollars in private investment. This is in line and in step with the direction of the PC's report released today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. We are constantly hearing from businesses, farmers and industries that they can't get workers. In the meantime, almost 950,000 people are collecting unemployment benefits. Something has to give, and the answer is not higher immigration, which will only put a greater burden on our hospitals, doctors, schools, nursing homes, roads and infrastructure, and, especially, housing. How do you intend to address this crippling shortage of workers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hanson for the question. She is right that labour shortages and skills shortages are identified by the private sector and business leaders as being a handbrake on the economy and on the profitability of many businesses. We know that from the data. We also know that from talking to small and medium enterprises as well as business leaders. Obviously, there is no quick fix to this. Firstly, what the government can do is implement its policies, which include establishing fee-free TAFE places in areas of skills shortages, and additional university places, to try to ensure we give Australians the skills that are needed for the jobs of today and tomorrow. That is a very important part of our investment in people.</para>
<para>The senator raised migration. The view the Labor government takes is that you have to address labour shortages through a balanced approached, which includes efforts to train and upskill Australian workers but which also recognises that there is a place for migration, whether that's through permanent or other forms of migration. From Labor's perspective, we don't want to see a situation where, as it was under the previous government, migration is used as a stopgap, as a fill-in or a way of dealing with a skills shortage which in great part arose because there was a failure to properly fund and support Australians to get the skills that are required. Equally, we're the Labor Party and we don't want workers being exploited. You might recall that in the previous parliament there was quite a lot of focus on the exploitation of migrant workers, particularly in the agricultural and other areas. My answer is a balanced approach. Obviously, our priority is to invest in the skills— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, a first supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Actually, Minister, I do have a quick fix for you. With thousands of people having been on long-term unemployment benefits for decades, even passing it on as a family tradition, will you move legislation to ensure that no-one can receive unlimited dole payments for more than two years out of five if they are capable of doing a day's work?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson. Obviously, I am sure the minister representing the Minister for Social Services, or for Employment and Workplace Relations, might be able provide a more detailed answer on mutual obligation. Both parties of government at different times have had different approaches, but have had obligations and frameworks in relation to receipt of social security benefits. That is obviously an approach which is taken, bearing in mind the need to be sensible, balanced and responsible through that.</para>
<para>I would make the point that, actually, at the moment, we do have a participation rate that is quite high. The participation rate is at 66.8 per cent and the employment-to-population ratio is at 64.4 per cent. So, actually, there are a great many Australians who are participating in the economy and participating in the labour market.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, a second supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is why I have asked the question of the Prime Minister. In the lead-up to the election he said that he had answers for these problems with the Australian people. This is why I want a direct answer from the Prime Minister with regard to this, through you.</para>
<para>We have a vast, untapped workforce of older Australians on the age pension who are more than willing to work to supplement their income in these difficult times. Will you legislate for age pensioners to be able to take on more work without penalty to their benefits, and give independent retirees, who are no burden on the taxpayer, the same opportunities to fill our critical work shortages?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson. I'll answer what I can and I'll ensure that if there is more information that can be provided to you that it is provided to you. I was a member of a government previously which put in place the work bonus in 2009 for precisely the reasons that you've outlined—that there were people who wanted to do more work without it affecting their pension. Obviously, there was a disincentive—just as there is in relation to child care, but that's a slightly different issue—for pensioners to work if it's going to affect their income. So when last in government we did introduce measures which enabled people to earn more before their pension was affected.</para>
<para>I think that, obviously, the Jobs and Skills Summit, which the—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, actually having people talk to each other sometimes isn't a bad idea! I know that seems unusual, but— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. I refer to the Treasurer's statement that you will be going through the budget line by line and making sure that spending is about building value and not buying votes. In light of this, will the government be honouring its pre-election promise to spend $20,000 building a 'frog bog' at Malmsbury Primary School, announced in the Labor electorate of Bendigo just 15 days before the election?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Henderson for the question. I thank her—</para>
<para>Hon ourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson has asked a specific question, which the minister has stood to answer and there's disorderly calling out on both sides of the chamber—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sterle! Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Henderson for the question and for reminding the chamber of the fiscally responsible way that we are going about managing a broken budget, heaving with a trillion dollars in Liberal debt after we inherited a budget from a government that has spent more, borrowed more and delivered less than any other government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm waiting for your own side to be quiet, Senator Henderson. I assume it's a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it is. On a point of order of direct relevance, it was a very specific question relating to a pre-election promise to spend $20,000 building a frog bog. Yes or no: will that be delivered? Including: is it fiscally responsible?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGrath</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about the toads?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator McGrath! Senator Henderson has raised a point of order. She is entitled to a response. You did ask a general question. You talked about line by line, and then you asked specifically in relation to a budget measure at a particular school, so the minister is being relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. I will get to the substance of the question. But, as you said, the senator did go to the fact that we are auditing the budget and going through it line by line, and it is really important work. It's essential work, if we are going to reprioritise within existing funding to shift the budget from political buyoffs that plagued the previous government—</para>
<para>Op position senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for New England seemed to get a lot of attention. The price of zero wasn't zero, was it Senator Birmingham? No. And we saw that in the budget with billions of dollars. The government made a range of election commitments. They're all contained in this plan, which I'm sure you all have, because it's a very, very successful plan that we took to the last election. The election commitments as outlined in this plan—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I regret to have to raise a point of order on direct relevance again. It was a question specifically about the frog bog. Whether it is fiscally responsible is very questionable—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, please resume your seat. There is no point of order. The minister is being relevant.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This document outlines all of our election commitments and their fiscal impact, and it is the government's intention, as the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, to do what we promised we would do before the election if we were successful. So the answer to that is: where we have made election commitments, we will be delivering on them.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I again refer to the Treasurer's statement that she'll be making sure that spending is about building value and not buying votes, and I'm quite confused by the last response because it sounds like the minister is contradicting herself. One minute it's assessing, and the next minute it's—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sorry, Minister, I haven't finished my question.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's no point of order. I haven't finished my question.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, resume your seat! Senator Henderson, please sit down. Minister?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not a question. The standing orders don't contemplate a speech instead of questions.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order, earlier this week, President, you provided some advice to the chamber in relation to supplementary questions, having been asked to do so by Senator Wong and those opposite. In that advice you did encourage those making supplementary questions to ensure their supplementary question drew a link to the answer that was provided previously, which is precisely what Senator Henderson was just doing.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, I'm going to rule on the point of order, unless there's a different point that you wish to make.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: I'm not sure that the confused state of the senator's mind, as she described it—her state of confusion—is something that is necessarily an important part of a question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, please resume your seat—unless it's an entirely different point of order, which I will come to after I've ruled on your first point of order. I haven't yet ruled on your first point of order, so please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On the point of order—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I said I would come to that after I've ruled on this point of order. I draw senators' attention to rules for questions 106 which simply say—and this has been reinforced by a number of presidents—that questions should not be prefaced by a statement. Senator Henderson, you have a second point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In relation to Senator Wong's derogatory statement about my state of mind—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, there was no point of order there.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I make the point of order, Madam President?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. I've ruled on it; there is no point of order. Please resume your seat.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>May I also remind senators that points of order are not opportunities for group discussions; that was Senator Parry.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I am not entertaining a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, may I draw your attention to the fact that I am the President of the Senate, not you, and that, when I ask you to resume your seat, that is what I expect to happen. I don't expect you to continue to try and debate an issue. Minister Wong?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thought I was referencing Senator Henderson describing herself as being confused by the minister's answer, but, if it was offensive to her, I'm very happy to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No. Senator Henderson, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I've just drawn to your attention that it's not a debating point. The question is live. Please resume your seat. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Gallagher</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>She was only halfway through the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies, Senator Henderson. There's been so much disruption that I was confused. I thought the minister was answering.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Could I just get some clarification. Could I start the question again and start the clock at the top?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I again refer to the Treasurer's statement that you'll be making sure that spending is about building value, not buying votes. In light of this, will the government be honouring its pre-election promise to spend $11,000 on painting a mural at the Kingsway markets, announced in the now Labor electorate of Pearce just seven days before the election?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Birmingham, Senator Wong! Order! Senator Henderson has asked a question to which the minister rose, and she's entitled to give her response in silence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer is the same as the previous answer, in that, where we have made election commitments, we intend to deliver upon those election commitments. We are ensuring—</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are building value. And all of those community programs that we—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Minister, please continue. I believe the minister is still continuing.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We made a range of commitments across a number of electorates around small community programs and sporting infrastructure programs. They were detailed and outlined ahead of the election and in our election costings. They are modest and they are important to local communities. It stands in stark contrast to the approach that those opposite took when you embezzled funds in the car park rorts. Remember that? You established them, told everyone they were eligible for them, and then, when you put it in their— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>From frog bogs to murals, sandpits, splash parks or even a 'wall of friendship', can the minister confirm the—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order, Madam President: Senator Wong is making disparaging comments across the table about me, continuously. Could I ask you to ask her to cease this behaviour.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, there is so much noise in the chamber it is impossible for me to hear. Please resume your seat. Would Senator Wong like to consider the comments she made, which I did not hear, and withdraw them if necessary.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you asking me to withdraw my comment that you've lost Corangamite twice? Is that what I'm asked to withdraw? I think people know in this place that I'm always happy to withdraw if it assists the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Henderson, you don't have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm being asked to withdraw. What am I being asked to draw, Senator?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What—that you lost Corangamite twice? That's what you want me—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong. Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a fact. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to withdraw it but, if it assists, I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>From frog bogs to murals, sandpits and the wall of friendship, can the minister confirm that, contrary to the Treasurer's lofty statement about not buying votes, the Albanese government went on a massive pre-election vote-buying spree across Labor and marginal electorates? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my right! Order! Senator Marielle Smith, order on my right!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The first point I'd make is that I will not be lectured about buying votes by a former government that spent nine years and billions of dollars doing exactly that in every single budget. Where we made local commitments, important community investments in local infrastructure and sport that were supported by local communities, at the election—very modest programs—we made those commitments before the election. In case you didn't notice, we won the election, and we will be delivering on those election commitments in full—in full!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Abortion</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women, also representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Gallagher. Polling released today by Fair Agenda confirms that there's strong public support for improving abortion access, with 72 per cent of Australians agreeing that governments should make abortions more readily accessible. Fair Agenda, Marie Stopes and Children by Choice have all proposed solutions, including expanding Medicare coverage, nurse-led abortion care and better access to long-acting reversible contraceptives. Will the health minister support including medical and surgical abortions as an MBS item number to ensure that no-one is denied the procedure because they can't afford it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for her question on this very important subject. In terms of the work that is underway at the moment—and this is work that the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Kearney, will be doing alongside the Minister for Health and Aged Care—it is looking at, essentially, access to health services for women and putting together a plan around that. I have had some discussions with her already about this.</para>
<para>We also had discussions at the first meeting of women's and women's safety ministers a fortnight ago, where there was some discussion about looking at whether legislation that regulates access to termination of pregnancy services around states and territories could be aligned better—harmonised. That's work that we'll leave to the states and territories, as that's the appropriate place. But I did say that access to health services is really important to the Albanese government—making sure that we are looking at those areas, particularly for women living in rural and remote communities, who have less access to termination of pregnancy services or, in some cases, no access. Those issues will be discussed and examined through the work that the assistant minister for health will be doing.</para>
<para>So I'm not in a position to answer your question directly, but the answer I give you is that there is work underway, consultations that will happen at the appropriate level, and then we'll go through a further process around that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The polling also showed that 69 per cent of Australians agree that the government should address barriers to access in rural and regional areas. As few as one per cent of GPs in rural and regional areas are currently registered to prescribe medical abortions. What is the government doing to increase the number of GPs who are able to prescribe medical abortions and do you support nurse-led models of care to increase access?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think those really are questions that will come up through the stakeholder consultations that Minister Kearney will do, will undertake, so, again, it is too early for me to answer that question directly. But the work where it will intersect with my work is around the national gender equality strategy, and women's health will be a focus of that as well. Essentially, we are doing further work, both on the gender equality strategy and the work that Minister Kearney is dealing with, in terms of access to health services, and further consultations will be held. I know this is an issue that has been raised with me, and it's appropriate that we allow those discussions to happen.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Second supplementary, Senator Waters?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Research released today also shows an increase in women being subjected to reproductive coercion, including from partners or from counsellors that they seek pregnancy advice from. Will the government address reproductive coercion in the new national plan to end violence against women and their children, and take action to ensure that all pregnancy counselling is unbiased?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The issue of coercion is dealt with in the national plan. I would have to go back and check. We are currently in the process—minister Rishworth is leading that work and finalising the details, of that plan, after our meeting with state and territory ministers. But the broader issue of coercive control is, absolutely, part of those discussions. I think part of your question would fall into that area, but I'm happy to take further advice on that and come back to the chamber, if I can provide an update.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tourism Industry</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Can the minister provide an update on the condition of the tourism sector and tourism jobs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Polley, an excellent senator from the great state of Tasmania; she always asks very good questions.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Handouts, handouts.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You can talk about handouts, Senator McKenzie!</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, address your comments to the chair and not across the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies, President; I will direct the answer to you. The tourism sector has suffered terribly over the last 2½ years, and, I regret to say, a lot of that suffering was brought about and exacerbated by the actions of the former government. Just one example: right when closings and outbreaks were underway, in a whole range of key tourist areas, what did this former government do? It took away the JobKeeper. Now the JobKeeper—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you should have spent better! You should have—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. When there's silence I will go to Senator Henderson who's on her feet. Senator Henderson.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just ask the minister to direct his comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would also ask senators, particularly those on my left, to give the minister the respect to which he is entitled and to listen quietly. Minister, please direct your comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President, and I was directing my comments to you following your earlier exhortation. Maybe you could have saved some money by not spending $5.5 billion on submarines that never, ever got built. But, getting back to the topic—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
<para>O pposition senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! You've got one of your own senators on their feet. Wait for the call, Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The ministers are on their training wheels, but I would again remind them to direct their comments through you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister was doing that. There is a lot of noise on the left-hand side of the chamber. Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've continued to direct all of my comments to you, President, just to be clear about that. Throughout this period, these tourism operators held on to their businesses, sometimes by—</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">An opposition senator interjecting</inline>—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I beg your pardon. It's time, Senator Farrell. Senator Polley, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been nine long years since I've asked a question that a minister has been able to answer. How has this workforce and skills shortage led to challenges for tourism businesses and higher costs for consumers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">S</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>enator FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Polley for, once again, an excellent question.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I like all my colleagues, unlike you, Senator Birmingham.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's going to be a fun question time tomorrow, I can tell you that. Businesses were forced to let go of staff, and they've struggled to get them back. Why is that? Unfortunately throughout this period, people who really liked working in the tourism sector suddenly found that their employment was no longer secure. Every time there was a lockdown, they lost their job. So, when the labour shortages occurred in other parts of the economy, of course, what was the— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Polley, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to address the mess left by the former government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Another excellent question from Senator Polley—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am looking for the answer—along with Senator Polley—to her last two questions, but my point of order is, having listened very carefully to Senator Polley's supplementary, I don't know how it's related to her first question on Tasmanian tourism.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I believe it's relevant. I will just double-check with the Clerk. I am advised that it is relevant, as long as Senator Farrell restricts his comments to the tourism area, which he actually has been doing. Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Look, I know you don't like hearing these answers, but I've got 49 seconds to do it. The Labor Party is committed to working with the tourism sector to address these skills shortages. The Albanese government will put real money on the table to support the industry, including money—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, promises that we took to the last election to support this industry which you failed to do for the previous—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please resume your seat, Minister Farrell. Senator Henderson.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Henderson</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam President, you didn't fail to do anything. I would again ask the minister to make his comments through the chair and to be mindful of the error that he's making continually.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Henderson. The minister is making his comments through the chair. There is a fair amount of joking going back and forward across the chamber. I believe, generally, the minister is making his comments through the chair, and I would invite him to continue his remarks.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for that protection. We're prioritising the backlog of migrant working visas to increase labour supply. We're opening up, as Minister Wong previously said, new fee-free TAFE places to skill up works, which will include 45,000 places across— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm tempted, President, to move an extension of time, but I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>, and wish everyone well for the question time I won't be at tomorrow.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday in question time, in response to a question from Senator Pocock, I undertook to provide some further information in response to his question on housing and homelessness. I understand the senator is due to meet with the minister, where he will be able to raise the matters directly.</para>
<para>In line with my commitment yesterday, I've also written to Senator Pocock to provide some additional information regarding the government's priorities on housing and homelessness. I now table my response to him.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care, Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also have two matters to follow up from question time this week. On 1 August, during question time I undertook to come back and provide further detail to Senator Ruston in relation to questions asked to the Minister for Health. I'm pleased to be able to provide further detail to the Senate now. Labor is committed to supporting patients to navigate the health system, including through nurse telehealth initiatives, particularly for those patients with rare, genetic and complex conditions. We recognise the role of telehealth nurses in assisting patients who are facing enormous life challenges in navigating the web of complex health services. That's why the Albanese government committed to providing $2.47 million to address this through the next budget. The government remains committed to implementing the election commitment to fund a program of supports for patients with rare and complex diseases to better navigate the health system. Minister Butler has directed the Department of Health to identify the best way to deliver these services, working directly with a range of organisations supporting people with rare genetic and complex conditions.</para>
<para>Yesterday, during question time, I undertook to come back and provide further detail to Senator Lambie in relation to questions the senator asked to the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services. I'm pleased to provide further detail to Senator Lambie and the chamber now. The government is currently in the process of considering consulting on draft regulations related to superannuation annual members' meeting notices. Superannuation funds are required to provide certain information in AMM notices to members to support them in effectively engaging with trustees during the meeting. The question and answer process during the meeting remains the primary mechanism for members to obtain information from their fund that is directly relevant to their interests. The government's aim is to promote a high level of meaningful transparency for superannuation members by streamlining disclosure requirements for superannuation annual members' meeting notices. Regulations issued by the previous government did not align with the national accounting standards and led to double counting and other misleading information. Under the draft regulations funds will still be required to provide written notice to members that detail fund performance, their outcomes to the period, the total payments they make to industrial bodies, employer or employee, marketing and advocacy. There are no proposed changes to the disclosure of remuneration details.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy, Tourism Industry</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) and the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to questions without notice asked today.</para></quote>
<para>What we've heard in question time today is a good opportunity to reflect upon the economic management of the nation and the statements that were made in the last parliament about expenditure and where we go from here. There were questions about certain components of the government's commitments to spend taxpayer funds. Of course, in the last parliament people who have short- or even medium-term memory will recall that it was the then opposition that was wanting JobKeeper to be paid to foreign nationals, foreign students and foreign corporations, and had a range of other expenditure proposals around paying Australians to go and get vaccinations even though we were in fact pretty much the most vaccinated nation on earth.</para>
<para>I understand that people like to make these statements when they're in opposition; I'll try and restrain myself while I'm here! But certainly it is a matter of public record that the Labor Party wanted to spend too much money. There will be analysis done over this period of time. We have gone through a historically high period of public expenditure. As someone who values intergenerational equity I would say that we spent perhaps more money than we should have, but it was a very significant crisis; it was a very significant economic shock. The talking point you hear from the government that there's X number of Liberal debt, or whatever else they say, ignores the fact that every reasonable person expected that the government of the day would put its hand in its pocket to protect and preserve the economy in large part as we knew it, as we tried to address the significant health and economic shock. So, yes, there was money spent. There may have been some wasteful spending on the margins, but the now government is in a very weak position to lecture the Liberal Party and the National Party, now the opposition, on expenditure, given its attempted expenditure of funds on foreign students, foreign corporations and the like in the last parliament. I think we will long remember the idea that we should pay Australians, the most vaccinated people on earth, effectively, to go and get a shot.</para>
<para>That's on the expenditure side. What we need to do in this parliament and future parliaments is improve the budget position. I don't think it's a fair approach for future generations that we are going to have a significant level of debt that will make it harder for us to prepare for future shocks. One of the issues we have in this place is that we have too few young people in the parliament. I think if we had some more younger people in the parliament—I'm not casting aspersions here or saying anyone should try and solve this problem today—we would take a longer view on the build-up of debt that has occurred over the past decade. At 35 per cent of GDP, our debt to GDP, it is a historically high position for the country, and we need to find a way to get that down. If we go above 50 per cent it would be very difficult for us to deploy the same economic measures that were deployed in the last parliament—and I say that many of those measures were deployed with bipartisan support. It is a challenge for us to try and look at the findings of the <inline font-style="italic">I</inline><inline font-style="italic">ntergenerational report</inline>. We have a significant issue with the tax base, a pretty adverse dependency ratio, so we want to try to improve that over the long term.</para>
<para>The other thing that was said today that was important was in relation to the tax side of the budget. We also want to, over the medium term, have a good look at how we can improve the sustainability of the tax base. We of course are too reliant upon direct taxation. We should over the long run look at how we can have a more sustainable and a more competitive approach to taxation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Bragg for the opportunity to contribute and to talk about the answers given by Senator Gallagher—and Senator Farrell, although we asked Senator Farrell that question. I'm a big fan of tourism, so I'm glad to be able to have that opportunity; thank you, Senator Bragg! Yes, it would be good to have more young people in parliament, and I congratulate Senator Payman on her election at 27 years old. She's going to make a fantastic senator, hopefully for many years to come.</para>
<para>The answers given by Minister Gallagher around our cost-of-living issues are important. We know that people in this country are hurting, and we know that this is a difficult economic time. It is a difficult set of economic books that we inherited from the previous government. These questions gave Minister Gallagher another opportunity to update the Senate on the economic situation that we are facing. It is very important that Australians understand—and I believe that they do understand this and that's why the members opposite are sitting on those benches now—that we inherited $1 trillion of Liberal debt. We are committed to fiscal responsibility, unlike those opposite.</para>
<para>Those opposite will tell you that that debt was incurred at a time when they couldn't possibly have not spent that money, but we know that they doubled the debt before COVID-19. They had doubled the debt before the COVID-19 crisis. We've inherited high inflation, rising interest rates and historically low wages because those opposite were not invested in lifting real wages and not interested in making sure that the minimum wage would rise. That's why we've got a situation now of high inflation and low wages. Those opposite were the highest-spending and highest-borrowing government in Australia. This is the really important point that Senator Gallagher made today, and those opposite would do well to listen—maybe before their next tactics meeting! It was how they spent their money that Australians really noticed. They spent that money in rorts, in colour coded spreadsheets and in buying off the National Party, and they did that in a systematic way. All they cared about was themselves, not delivering for all Australians.</para>
<para>That's not what the Albanese Labor government will be doing. We've already started the really hard work of dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. The Albanese Labor government secured an increase to the minimum wage—finally. Finally, for minimum-wage workers, we've increased the minimum wage by putting forward a genuine and sympathetic proposal to the Fair Work Commission. It was our first step in our plan to get real wages moving. On top of that, we've got a plan to reduce the cost of vital medicines to make them cheaper, cutting the maximum co-payment under the PBS by 29 per cent. We're also making it easier to get access to bulk billed health care, with the establishment of 50 urgent care clinics.</para>
<para>And, of course, as we know, we are improving access to and affordability of early childhood education. We know this will be instrumental for our economy. I'm always interested by the response from those opposite in regard to Labor's childcare policy of investing in child care and making child care cheaper. This is possibly not a view shared by everyone on the other side, but on this side we know that investing in child care is an economic policy. It's an economic policy because it saves families money and it gets people back to work. More affordable child care means more opportunities for families to increase their weekly pay. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, this is a plan for reform that will deliver economic potential. It just makes sense.</para>
<para>Australians can also be assured that we are addressing the skills crisis. Senator Farrell today addressed the skills crisis that we have in our tourism industry right now, something that the former government refused to acknowledge or address in their time. The very first piece of legislation we introduced was to create Jobs and Skills Australia so that we could get on with the work of getting Australians into work. Jobs and Skills Australia will be pivotal for the economy and our economic recovery as we recover from 10 years of neglect, mistakes and mess, from $1 trillion of debt and from the rorts and waste that the previous government left behind for every Australian.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting. I'll just take off from Senator Green's comments about the skills crisis. The former coalition government spent $100 million on subsidising TAFE apprenticeships by 50 per cent. That was a fantastic scheme. It just goes to show that this is the party of the battlers now. Don't kid yourself. The party on the other side is the party that wants to throw money at the big end of town. Make no mistake about that.</para>
<para>What's interesting about question time is: whenever questions were put to Senator Gallagher, she had absolutely no answers for the way forward—absolutely no answers for the way forward. And I'll tell you what: you won't see anything from Senator Wong, either. I well remember when she turned up to RRAT and was trying to have a crack at us on the Leppington Triangle, claiming that we'd paid $30 million for a $3 million block of land, and Senator Sterle couldn't understand why I was being so quiet. Of course, I was just sitting back and letting Senator Wong show how little she understood about finance, because, had she actually understood accounting standards and valuation standards and prior case law, she would have known that you pay the best use—AASB 13, paragraphs 29 and 30. And if Senator Wong or anyone else on that side of the chamber would like a lesson in finance, I'm more than happy to help.</para>
<para>I won't just sit here and bag you out; I'll actually give you some free solutions. First of all, you've got to have identified the problem. And of course the problem was none other than Paul J Keating, who, under the Hawke government, basically ripped the guts out of the manufacturing sector in Victoria with the Button plan, and commoditised higher education with the Dawkins plan, where suddenly education was treated like just another commodity—'Anyone who wants a degree can get a degree'—and of course that gutted the TAFE sector. So we were throwing all this money into the university sector at the expense of the TAFE sector.</para>
<para>Now, let me get this very straight—and I want this on the record. This country was built by the battlers. It wasn't built by the blowhards. And you've got to put your primary industries in front of your secondary industries in front of your tertiary industries. We've got to get people back into those workshops, back into the manufacturing sector and back onto the farms and value-adding to our primary production. That's where we've got to go back to.</para>
<para>The way to do that is to cut taxes—and that is something that the coalition government has a proud record on—and also not shut the economy down. They like to bag out the former coalition government for the money that we spent. Well, let me assure you that, before the COVID crisis had broken out, we had balanced the budget. In 2018-19, the budget was balanced, for the first time in a number of decades—since, actually, the prior coalition government. But what happened was this. We had the state premiers just wrecking the economy. Now, I disagreed with the former Prime Minister on this, but he tried to set up a national cabinet in the best interests of the country. The country was sabotaged by Labor premiers, who continually locked down, who continually ran a fear program, who continually wanted to throw more money at it. Even when we pulled JobKeeper, Labor—the opposition at the time but now the government—wanted to keep spending money; they wanted to keep it going. This is the sad thing. And they're still going to pursue spending more money. They're going to drop $20 billion on building transmission lines for all these unreliables that aren't going to go 24 hours a day; they're not going to work when the sun isn't shining or anything like that.</para>
<para>If we want to get this country back on track, we need to invest in baseload energy. That's why I'm so pleased that the opposition leader, the member for Dickson, has now said that the coalition will look into nuclear as well. That's a fantastic idea. We can have coal, as well as nuclear, as well as gas. With cheap reliable energy, that is how we will power this country.</para>
<para>But, going forward, I'm still yet to hear anything about what the RBA does. This was another big stuff-up by the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, when he gave the RBA independence. Anyone who has followed monetary policy as closely as I have for the last 30 years would know that all the RBA governors basically graduated from university and started work at the RBA. They are hoodwinked by RBA groupthink. They are more focused on inflation. And it is the tail that wags the dog, because let me tell you this. If you got washed up on a desert island, would you, (a) go to the bank, or (b) look to control the means of production? I'll tell you what you'd do: you'd look to control the means of production. You wouldn't go: 'Oh, well, we can't build any infrastructure because we might have too much inflation.' No, no, no. What we would do is: we would go out and we would actually start building, which is what we need to do.</para>
<para>And you should be listening to this, Senator Wong. I'm happy to walk you through it, because I know it's baby steps with you at the moment, but I'm more than happy to. We have to build. You guys have got to build if you want to get this economy back on track.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to respond to the answers from senators Gallagher and Farrell. I find interesting the constant referral to the fact that questions aren't being answered when just a brief, cursory glance at the transcript shows quite clearly that there are plenty of answers coming. There may not be sufficient listening occurring to understand those answers and then perhaps ask some further questions that may have a bit more relevance than what we have seen today.</para>
<para>Labor has a comprehensive fiscal plan. The Albanese Labor government has come forward with a comprehensive plan in a time of extreme uncertainty. We come in on the back of nine long years of rorts and wrecking, and our plan will start to give the country hope and start to turn that around into a productive economy and into further and better opportunities for the people of Australia. We have been clear with our approach to the October budget. We've been clear about the work that is going to be undertaken to review the waste and the rorts that have been occurring over the last nine years and that are evident in the March budget. We will trawl through that to find those rorts, to find that waste and to get rid of them. We will deliver on savings and we will then invest in the productive side of the economy. We will actually look to build things for the future, to build a pathway for the future in our manufacturing and in other industries that we know are critical to the future of Australia, rather than what we have seen from the current opposition when they were in government, where they borrowed more, oversaw a significant decline in productivity, spent more and taxed more. We've seen this over the last almost decade. But our plan to invest in the productive side of the economy will show that hope and will show that future pathway.</para>
<para>We will address the skills and training shortages, and that is going to start right now. Those conversations are on foot right now. The jobs and skills summit on 1 and 2 September will see that open, transparent and clear conversation, consulting with the critical people for whom this impacts and for whom we will take it forward. That includes the community. That includes business. That includes the unions. That includes the skills and training providers. These are the people who will make a difference as we build a productive future for Australia. We have procurement and co-investment strategies that will help business invest in those industries of the future that will build a better future for everyone in Australia.</para>
<para>We have a clear plan for cheaper, better energy. Yes, we will indeed look at the transmission lines. And, no, it is not a waste. These are the things that are going to ensure that we have an efficient and effective energy system into the future. We will look at developing further renewable energy because that is the way of the future and it is cheaper. We just need to stop having these attacks on areas where we know that renewables are cheaper. We know that for a fact. We know that there is a pathway to get them fully implemented into the system.</para>
<para>If you were to go down the path of nuclear energy, what would you do for the next umpteen years while you tried to develop that system? We don't need those things. We need to look at what we have on hand right now, and that is renewable energy as the cheapest, best way forward for the country. We have a plan to pursue that.</para>
<para>In addition, we care deeply about the people of this country. We care deeply about the economic future of this country, and the budget that will be delivered in October will chart that pathway. We are in a really, really difficult situation created by the opposition, the previous government, over nine long, wasteful, rorting years.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is fascinating to understand in greater detail each day the difference between those on this side and those on the other side and their understanding of what makes an economy work—what makes cost-of-living pressures work, what makes the cost of electricity work and what levers of government you can pull to make an economy successful. It doesn't matter how many times those opposite say words; it doesn't make them true. It just makes them tediously repetitive.</para>
<para>What I want to talk to you about, Mr Deputy President, is what it's really like to run a business and run a nation, and how proud I am of the legacy that we've left from the last nine years. We are one of only nine nations in the world to maintain a AAA credit rating following COVID, the greatest financial shock to the globe since the 1920s. I want to talk about how proud I am of the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. That means people are at work in purposeful, meaningful work. That is incredibly important. We have left an economy that is ready to take advantage of the resources boom and the demand for Australia's agricultural industry. We are poised to take advantage of all of that, and we'll just have to see what Labor are going to do with the good fortune they have been left with.</para>
<para>The Treasurer has said that the point of his statement was to paint a picture of the economy. That is a gorgeous kind of description, but the economy is not an abstract painting. It requires a plan. It requires tough decisions in tough circumstances. What we are facing now, the tough circumstances of today, are higher costs of living faced by Australians. We know what that looks like. It looks like pain for small businesses, who are working 18 hours a day and struggling with not being able to find workers to help them to do the jobs which, in regional Australia, mean delivering the services that make everybody else's lives possible. It means families counting cents as they fill up the car, wondering whether, if they have to drive some distance to training, they can still have their children enrolled in sport. It looks like pain for Australians trying to build their first homes and students trying to create a better life for themselves. So the economy is not a mystery. The economy is made up of some very practical pieces. And I can tell you, Mr Deputy President, that the cost of power prices is one thing that today is crippling small businesses right across the country. I know from the days of running my business that there would not have been enough margin left to continue running it with the prices we have today. That is terrifying, because my business was providing food to families.</para>
<para>With regard to these power prices, we have to understand that the conversion to renewable energy takes time. It took a hundred years for oil to come in and take over from the horse, from horse power, and yet we want to change our economy within 15 years. Laugh if you will, Senator Hanson-Young, but it's not a laughing matter for those people who are going to pay the cost of transmission lines. Renewable energy projects that are being built in my part of the world are not being hooked up to the power lines, because they cannot take the intermittent voltage that is the result of renewables. In Queensland we don't even have reliable power now in renewable places, yet we're hooking up solar farms and wind farms that are just rusting away because nobody bothered to figure out whether or not the Queensland government would ever plug them in. That is why it is so important that we bring more gas supply to the market. We need to keep electricity reliable and dispatchable, an affirmed energy system, because it is not a laughing matter and it is not a fantasy. We cannot change our energy supply as fast as those opposite would like us to. I have no criticism of their aspirations, but we live in the real world where the absence of reliable transmission lines and firmed power means that we'll end up with no power at all. We'll end up without power to take ore out of the ground for the minerals that will reduce emissions.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Wong to my questions in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the 450 gigalitres that was promised to South Australia, that is legally required to be delivered under law and that to date has only had two gigalitres returned. As we know, under the last government, the Liberal-National government, there was a desire to slow down, to sabotage and to stop that 450 gigalitres being delivered. There was never a genuine commitment from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government in relation to making sure South Australia got that water, or that the water was made available to save the river and to look after the environment.</para>
<para>I must say, as a South Australian, it is just absolutely galling to find out again that it has been mismanaged so appallingly and that money has been wasted, with billions of dollars spent on bogus infrastructure projects. So the money has been poured down the drain, the water hasn't been secured and we are edging towards the deadline by which this plan is meant to be fulfilled. We are now staring down the barrel of this plan being in breach of the law, and South Australia and the lower reaches of the Murray suffering as a result.</para>
<para>Of course, this was failure by design—failure by design from those opposite, who never intended to make sure that that water for the environment was secured. They're too interested in looking after the interests of their big corporate irrigator mates than in doing what is right by everybody else—upstream, downstream, the small farmers and, of course, the environment, and those of us who live at the end of the river system, who desperately need a living river, a healthy river, for our own water supply.</para>
<para>It is now a challenge for the current government, the Labor government, which promised also to make sure this water would be delivered in time and, I might add, in full. It is now a challenge to the Labor government to get out there and start buying the water, because it's the only way it's going to be secured. I'm not a huge fan of the Productivity Commission. I think that from time to time they come up with some good ideas, but their analysis on this is crystal clear. The Productivity Commission themselves have said over and over again that the most economically efficient and environmentally effective way to ensure this water is secured for South Australia and the survival of the river is to buy it—to buy it. But despite that advice, we still have, after a decade, minister after minister sitting on their hands and refusing to go into the market to buy off willing sellers and return that water to the river. The challenge is now on. After a decade of mismanagement and failure by design, water thieving, scratching the backs of their big corporate mates from the Liberal-National Party—and let's not forget that when Mr Barnaby Joyce was water minister it was his great big idea to make sure that this plan would fail—we now have a challenge to the current government, that they have a responsibility to fix it. And the clock is ticking.</para>
<para>I've heard the response from the minister today, and I welcome it, that voluntary buybacks are on the table. Don't wait any longer. Get out there now and start buying the water, because we are running out of time. We need the water bought, secured and delivered, because our Murray River is the lifeblood of our nation's food bowl. It is the lifeblood particularly in South Australia. And if the Labor Party wish to continue to hold that new seat that they have in South Australia, the seat of Boothby, then bet your bottom dollar they're going to have to make sure they secure that water for South Australia, and secure it now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. We shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>70</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Senators' Interests Committee</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ANTIC</name>
    <name.id>269375</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following proposed amendment to the resolutions relating to senators' interests be referred to the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests for inquiry and report:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Resolution 3 — Registrable interests</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After paragraph (m), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ma) any association or involvement with domestic or international political, activist or lobbying organisations, non-government organisations or other bodies, international societies, charitable foundations, not for profit organisations, or advocacy groups in the previous ten (10) years including but not limited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) employment by such bodies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) membership of such bodies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) office(s) held with such bodies;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) participation in, or receiving of, training or other educational programs or material with or from such bodies; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) prizes, awards or commendations sought or received from such bodies.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to make a short statement.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted for one minute.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens support increased transparency, and we believe that people should know who is influencing the decisions made by their representatives. But this proposal doesn't seek more transparency about politicians' relationships with all groups—only some groups. It doesn't seek disclosure of senators' relationships with religious groups or industry lobby groups—no, it's just another in a very long line of thinly veiled attacks on charities and the not-for-profit sector. The previous government consistently tried to silence the voices of organisations fighting in the public interest, whether they were refugee advocates, environmental groups or welfare organisations. They threatened the tax-deductibility of environmental charities, they cut funding to NGOs, they gagged charities from engaging in public debate, they tied charities up in red tape, and they tried—and, thankfully, failed—to remove charitable status of organisations involved in protests against unconscionable laws. This motion isn't about transparency. If you were actually serious about that, you'd be calling for donations reform and stopping the revolving door that will set people like you up for a future job— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 1, moved by Senator Antic, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:47]<br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>34</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Bilyk, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Taxation Office—Fit-out of newly leased premises at 6 Parramatta Square, Parramatta, Sydney.</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement in relation to the work.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Department of Defence—AIR7000 Phase 1B remotely piloted aircraft system facilities.</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement in relation to the work.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works Committee Act 1969</inline>, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Institute of Marine Science—Remediation of AIMS Cape Cleveland Wharf, Queensland.</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement in relation to the work.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1345" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Legislation Amendment (Medicare Compliance and Other Measures) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to health, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Labor Party has no prouder legacy than our contribution to universal health coverage in Australia. Most importantly through Labor's establishment of the two key pillars in the Medicare and the PBS. The Albanese Government is committed to protecting and strengthening our world-class Medicare system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's universal health care system, Medicare, provides free or subsidised access for all Australians to most health care services. This Bill strengthens Medicare compliance powers and will assist with the investigation and recovery of debts associated with inappropriate Medicare billing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Medicare, including the Medicare Benefits Schedule, or MBS, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS, continue to provide Australians with access to free hospital care, and more affordable health care and medicines, and the Child Dental Benefits Scheme, or CDBS, provides access to dental services for children.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Government expenditure on the MBS, PBS and CDBS is projected to be nearly $44 billion in 2021-22.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As stewards of this investment in the health of Australians, the Government is committed to protecting the integrity and financial viability of Medicare, ensuring that Australians may continue to have access to our world-class health system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the vast majority of health care providers do the right thing when claiming Medicare benefits, there is unfortunately a small number that do not. In most cases, these are a result of mistakes and administrative errors, but in some cases, it is as a result of incorrect or inappropriate claiming and, at worst, fraud.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Department of Health and Aged Care supports practitioners, healthcare organisations and peak bodies to correctly claim health payments with a clear focus on education, engagement and consultation. However, ensuring rigorous, effective health practitioner compliance and identifying health care practitioners that are not doing the right thing are vital to protecting the integrity of Medicare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Historically, compliance activities have concentrated on the behaviour of individual practitioners, on the principle that practitioners are ultimately responsible for what is billed under their Medicare provider numbers. While this principle remains critical, the Government needs to adapt its compliance arrangements to an environment where corporations are employing or otherwise engaging practitioners, and are increasingly involved in, and influencing the provision of, health care services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The primary intent of the Bill is to both strengthen the compliance powers of the Professional Services Review, or the PSR, and to add a degree of flexibility to the PSR's ability to address the inappropriate practice of corporations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill is in four parts: Part One amends the PSR scheme; Part Two amends certain debt-recovery decisions; Part Three amends miscellaneous debt recovery arrangements; and Part Four amends the giving of false or misleading information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PSR addresses the behaviour of practitioners that may have engaged in inappropriate practice through review by the Director or by Committees comprised of professional peers of the person under review. As an alternative to lengthy, resource-intensive reviews by a Committee, the Director may enter into written agreements with practitioners who are prepared to acknowledge their inappropriate practice and agree to specified actions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PSR may also review the practice of corporations that have knowingly, recklessly or negligently caused or permitted their practitioners to engage in inappropriate practice. Currently, such conduct by a body corporate may be reviewed only by a Committee. The Bill amends section 92 of the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline>, which authorises the making of agreements with the Director, to ensure all persons under review have the opportunity to negotiate an agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There can be significant consequences for an individual or body corporate referred to a Committee, including publication of findings. However, agreements made under section 92 are confidential and this encourages co-operation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In essence, the Bill extends provisions for written agreements, currently applicable only to individual practitioners, to include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a practitioner who personally renders or initiates services;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an individual (who may be a practitioner) who employs or otherwise engages practitioners;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an officer (who may be a practitioner) of a body corporate which employs or otherwise engages practitioners; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a body corporate which employs or otherwise engages practitioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The new provisions allow the Director to come to an agreement with a person under review, including a body corporate or non-practitioner, who acknowledges inappropriate practice and agrees to specified actions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The specified actions for bodies corporate may include:</para></quote>
<list>repayment of Medicare or dental benefits paid for services that were rendered or initiated during the review period;</list>
<list>reprimand by the Director;</list>
<list>counselling by the Director; and</list>
<list>a requirement for the body corporate under review to provide remediating education to persons that it employs or engages.</list>
<quote><para class="block">To be clear, a corporation's acknowledgment of inappropriate practice has no bearing on the practitioners it employs or otherwise engages. Individual practitioners will not be named in agreements with corporations or other persons who employ or otherwise engage practitioners (and such agreements are themselves confidential).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In entering into an agreement with the Director, a body corporate or other person who employs or otherwise engages practitioners would acknowledge that they engaged in inappropriate practice by knowingly, recklessly or negligently causing or permitting one or more of its practitioners to engage in inappropriate practice. That acknowledgement is not binding on any individual practitioner nor does it result in any findings being made in relation to individual practitioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">If an individual practitioner is the subject of a separate referral, the practitioner would have the option to seek an agreement with the Director or to proceed to review by a Committee. The acknowledgement by the person who employed or otherwise engaged the practitioner would not be put before the Committee and a finding of inappropriate practice could be made only following an examination of an appropriate sample of clinical records and evidence from the practitioner or any other witnesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a consequence of the new provisions relating to corporations, and to maintain its peer review function, the Bill adjusts the composition of the Determining Authority so that it may include additional members of the same profession as the relevant practitioners engaged or employed by the person under review.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's commitment to improved compliance is embodied in new sanctions against behaviour that stymies the Government's ability to review inappropriate practice and to recover Commonwealth debts created by agreements between persons under review and the Director.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill creates an exception to the general rule that agreements made under section 92 are confidential by giving the Director the discretion to publish details of an agreement, where the person under review has not fulfilled their obligations. The person under review will have an opportunity to make submissions about their compliance or otherwise. To further protect the integrity of the scheme against persons, particularly corporations, reneging on agreed terms, the Government will have the ability to garnishee bank accounts, bringing repayments under section 92 agreements in line with other debt recovery provisions currently permitted under the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline>. Garnishee notices will only be issued if persons under review do not promptly engage with the Department on repayment or breach an agreement to pay the debt by instalments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Access to information is essential for the PSR to carry out reviews. The Bill introduces offences for persons under review that fail to appear at Committee hearings or fail to give evidence or answer questions where required by Committees. Maximum penalties for non-compliance will be fines of 150 penalty units, or $33,300 at current rates, for bodies corporate and 30 penalty units, or $6,660 at current rates, for non-practitioner individuals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also provides for an offence where a person, other than a person under review who is a practitioner, fails to respond to a notice to provide documents to the Director or to a Committee with fines of up to 30 penalty units. The PSR will also be able to take court action seeking a civil penalty of up to 30 penalty units (currently $6,660) for each day that a body corporate contravenes the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline> by failing to respond to a notice to provide documents. Further, the Director will be able to apply for court orders for a body corporate to comply with notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Following recent observations of the Federal Court regarding jurisdictional fact, the Bill also clarifies that a referral to the PSR may be made where it appears that there is the possibility that a person may have engaged in inappropriate practice in the provision of services. Under the PSR scheme, it is ultimately a matter for the PSR to investigate whether a person has provided services, and whether the conduct of the person under review in relation to the rendering or initiation of those services amounts to inappropriate practice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill also addresses inconsistencies arising from the introduction of legislation in 2018 to improve debt recovery powers under the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline>, the <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Dental Benefits Act 2008</inline>. The Bill introduces amendments clarifying:</para></quote>
<list>the application of debt recovery provisions;</list>
<list>the use of financial information powers;</list>
<list>the recovery of Commonwealth debts from estates;</list>
<list>the recovery of interest on Commonwealth debts; and</list>
<list>the administrative penalties for debts under the Shared Debt Recovery Scheme.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, the Bill amends the <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Dental Benefits Act 2008</inline> to mirror recent changes to the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline>. The December 2020 amendments to the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline> clarified that the Commonwealth may recover incorrect payments made as a result of the giving of false or misleading information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Maintaining universal access to health care through Medicare is a priority for this Government. The Bill protects the integrity of Medicare for all Australians.</para></quote>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Australia Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>74</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the chamber that Senators Green, McGrath, Roberts and Dean Smith will also sponsor the motion. I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 10 in the terms circulated in the chamber.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senators McKenzie, Davey, Nampijinpa Price, Canavan, Caddell, Green, McGrath, Roberts and Dean Smith, move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the development of Northern Australia as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The committee consist of ten members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) The committee elect:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a Government member as its chair; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) At any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) In the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) The committee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) At any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) The committee or any subcommittee have power to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) sit in public or in private;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) report from time to time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) The committee or any subcommittee has the power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing and Select Committees on Northern Australia appointed during previous Parliaments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) The provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) A message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Notice of motion altered on 28 July 2022 pursuant to standing order 77.</inline></para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Government Services, by no later than 10 am on 4 August 2022, a statement outlining the following information in relation to claims for deaths and injuries arising from COVID-19 vaccines:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the number of claims for deaths and injuries that have been paid out;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the number of claims for deaths and injuries that are currently outstanding;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the number of claims for deaths and injuries that have been dismissed; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) whether a non-disclosure agreement is a condition of any successful claim.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>76</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1347" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and veterans' entitlements, and for related purposes. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the bill and move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian economy is grappling with inflationary pressures and many industries continue to suffer severe labour shortages following the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in regional areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">At the same time, those older Australians and veterans wanting to improve their living standard by working, or increasing their hours of work, are being actively discouraged from doing so by existing pension regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In a period of economic uncertainty and rapidly rising living costs, each represents a practical solution to the other.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Pensioner and Veteran Workforce Participation) Bill 2022 reinvigorates, and builds upon, the initiatives contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reflecting the targeted, well-designed policy being pursued by the coalition to address current economic conditions, the bill makes workforce involvement as attractive and worthwhile as possible for Australian pensioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Around 80,000 age pension recipients are employed at present, or around three per cent of Australia's 2.5 million pensioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They make a vital contribution to the economy, passing on experienced knowledge and skills, and may already live or work in a town, or region, that is struggling to meet its labour needs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The extra income received by working pensioners means they are better able to support themselves and their dependants in the face of increasing food, fuel and other living expenses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, they enjoy enhanced social connectiveness, mental and physical activity, and other non-financial benefits that a host of publicly funded programs are otherwise required to deliver.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pensioners can currently earn $300 income per fortnight and still receive a maximum pension payment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill doubles the Age and Veteran Service Pension Work Bonus Scheme, the amount that can be earned without impacting pension payments, increasing it to $600 per fortnight, or $1,200 for a couple.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Working pensioners will also continue to accrue unused work bonus scheme income up to a $7,800 cap, exempting future earnings for pension income test purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Increasing the amount pensioners can earn every fortnight so significantly has the potential to make a meaningful difference to their household finances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Crucially, it also makes the prospect of returning to work, or working additional hours, an economically viable option where it previously has not been.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Like its predecessor, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022, the bill also removes other disincentives for working pensioners and provides them greater flexibility.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Current policy dictates that age pensions are cancelled where a recipient's total income exceeds the income test for a 12-week period, with pensioner concession card (PCC) access subject to the same test and timeframe.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This acts as a barrier to those working pensioners who want to avoid losing their pension or PCC, whose work might last for varying periods, or who are deterred by the requirement to complete a full new application every time they become eligible for the pension.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under the bill, their pension will be suspended for up to two years instead, during which time they undergo a simplified process to resume the pension if their income falls to the prescribed level.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Both age and disability support pensioners will be able to keep their PCC for two years under these circumstances, as an acknowledgement of the enormous importance of the concessions the PCC offers working pensioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Pensioner partners of working pensioners will also enjoy the same pension resumption and PCC arrangements for a two-year period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The policy changes outlined in the bill align with calls to encourage and support working pensioners from advocacy and industry organisations, including COTA and National Seniors Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Opposition Leader Peter Dutton announced the work bonus scheme component of the bill in June of 2022, stating that older Australians should keep more of what they earn, and that it was needed to relieve pressure on a very tight labour market.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Both these justifications are, in fact, more pressingly true now than they were then.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The bill is good for our pensioners, it is good for our economy, and it is good for Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend it to the Senate.</para></quote>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Hanson, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) That the Australian Education Legislation Amendment (Prohibiting the Indoctrination of Children) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the stage reached in the 46th Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) That the second reading of the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 be restored to the Notice Paper.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Hanson, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) That the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the stage reached in the 46th Parliament.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Work and Care Committee</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>77</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Work and Care, be established to inquire into and report on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the extent and nature of the combination of work and care across Australia and the impact of changes in demographic and labour force patterns on work-care arrangements in recent decades;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the impact of combining various types of work and care (including of children, the aged, those with disability) upon the well-being of workers, carers and those they care for;.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the adequacy of workplace laws in relation to work and care and proposals for reform;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the adequacy of current work and care supports, systems, legislation and other relevant policies across Australian workplaces and society;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) consideration of the impact on work and care of different hours and conditions of work, job security, work flexibility and related workplace arrangements;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the impact and lessons arising from the COVID-19 crisis for Australia's system of work and care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) consideration of gendered, regional and socio-economic differences in experience and in potential responses including for First Nations working carers, and potential workers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) consideration of differences in experience of disabled people, workers who support them, and those who undertake informal caring roles;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) consideration of the policies, practices and support services that have been most effective in supporting the combination of work and care in Australia, and overseas; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) any related matters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) That the committee present an interim report by 18 October 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) That the committee present its final report by the second sitting Tuesday in February 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) That the committee consist of seven senators, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) three nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) That:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) That the committee elect as chair the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the Senate at 8.30 am today, 35 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 35. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Fawcett:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The need for the Government to adopt immediate action to ease pressure on cost of living for Australian families and small businesses.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAWCETT</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to talk about this matter of public importance because, whilst the cost-of-living pressures can be traced back, in many cases, to international affairs—I think it's important to acknowledge that upfront—and many countries around the world are struggling with the crises—for example, in Ukraine—that are causing pressures, there are two important things that people should consider when they look at the response of a government. Part of it goes to how governments design their economy and the long-term frameworks they put in place. But the other question that people should ask is: what are governments doing in the short term to ease pressures in terms of cost of living?</para>
<para>The coalition, in its time in government, took a number of actions, and people have seen those: cost-of-living support for pensioners, veterans and others; easing things like the cost of fuel; and a number of measures particularly around employment and training. One of the clear indicators is that people who have a job, who have the skills, find it easier to cope with the pressures of cost of living. A lot of Australians, it has to be acknowledged, are doing it incredibly tough at the moment, particularly with the rising interest rates which are impacting on those who are seeking to purchase a home, but also those people who are in the rental market and struggling to afford rent and bills, whether they be food bills or other cost-of-living bills. The question we should ask is: what is the government actually doing?</para>
<para>The coalition government recognised that jobs are really important to help people. That's why, despite the rhetoric we've heard in this place over the last couple of days, which is all about rewriting history and trying to claim there's been a crisis, for example, in training and apprenticeships and work, it's really important to see that, as of last year, there were more apprentices in training in Australia than since 1963. I made this point yesterday in a brief contribution. The $6.4 billion that has been invested in skills and training is a record amount and has had real outcomes in terms of training. There were specific measures, for example, when employers were struggling with the concept of retaining apprentices in the face of rising costs and also the crisis that COVID brought about. When other nations were laying off apprentices, Australian apprenticeships grew. Why did they grow? Because the government took positive measures to put in place support for employers to the value of 10 per cent of an apprentice's wage in the first year and five per cent in the second year. It's meant that employers have been able to take on apprentices and keep them on, and we've seen completion rates increase. Those very tangible, real measures are responsive in real time to the pressures people are facing definitely help.</para>
<para>The other thing that I would like to highlight is that we took very positive measures to support industry, particularly the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, to bring back manufacturing here in Australia. We got co-investment from industry and investment in from the taxpayer in the areas of space, defence, critical minerals, medical products and advanced manufacturing so that employers had the confidence to invest in productive capacity, to invest in intellectual property and to invest in employing people, giving people the jobs which helped them to cope with the rising costs.</para>
<para>When we compare that approach to responding to a crisis to the approach of this government, the reason it's so important to look at what the government is doing or not doing is that on the jobs side they're planning a talk fest. We're not talking about supporting employers. We're not talking about supporting small businesses' need to move ahead, employ people or keep them on the books. The big-ticket item is a talk fest.</para>
<para>On the manufacturing front, I'm being approached by people in Adelaide from the defence and space sector who are concerned that the razor gang, the budget-cut gang, from the Albanese government has put modern manufacturing grants that were awarded by the coalition on hold, which puts in doubt these projects that have been the basis for companies to expand and look at giving people those jobs. So, as we look at the cost of living, we need this government to act now on things that will enable people to cope with the high cost of living, through having a job.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is amazing, an MPI—it's been said before but it's worth saying again—where we've had now two weeks of 'leading with your chin'. This is a government now in opposition that, when they were in power, turned around and saw the standard of living for hardworking Australians collapse. We saw, for the first time in the history of this country, the middle class shrink under these people. That's what happened. Working people, wages, declined under their watch. And, as they see quite clearly, that was part of their inherent strategy, on how they would move forward, in making sure the economy was more successful. But for who? For hardworking Australians? No, of course not.</para>
<para>Quite clearly, the cost-of-living crunch—we had nine years of the Liberal government that were the worst period for wages growth in Australia's history. When the Liberals left office, real wages were lower than they were when they entered office in 2013. And they want to stand here and give everyone else a lesson—a lesson about how to do it wrong. That's the consequence of what the opposition did when they were in government.</para>
<para>Just today, I heard from Toby Priest who was a casual academic at Flinders University and a member of the National Tertiary Education Union. Toby made headlines a few months ago when he was a test case for the previous government's failed casual conversion clause. Why do they want people to be casuals? Why don't they want them converted? Because that's how you keep wages suppressed. That's how you stop wages increasing.</para>
<para>Toby had worked at Flinders University for 16 years as a casual. Sixteen years! He wanted a conversion to a permanent part-time position. He said, 'There's constant uncertainty. I'm a father of three teenage kids and I work really hard and have pride in my job. I just want to be permanent.' But the university refused to give it to him. So he went to the Fair Work Commission. Here is what the Fair Work Commission ruled in May. I'll read from the media coverage at the time:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the industrial umpire upheld the university's stance that higher pay and a professional pathway was too much to ask of his employer.</para></quote>
<para>That's how weak the former government laws are, in an area and an industry where we need to have people encouraged—platforms and programs and arrangements to make sure that they're encouraged to work in these vital industries. You can keep people in insecure work for decades at a time because you don't want to pay them fairly, under the previous government. That's their program. That was their intention.</para>
<para>You wonder why we had record low wages under the former government. Toby called today and said that Flinders University has now reclassified its classes, with the effect that he will now only be paid two-thirds of what he earned before, for the exact same work, because that's the environment they encouraged under their watch. That was the opposition's plan for the future. That was the opposition's plan for the last nine years. And it hasn't changed. A third of his pay gone—just months after he was locked into casual work forever by the last government. That sums up the problem we have in this economy.</para>
<para>And I have a message for Flinders University: under Liberals, you're allowed to cut wages and keep people forever on casual contracts. In fact, the Liberals encouraged it, as we've seen. But this is a new government and we expect better from our universities. You are funded through federal funding, and we will be looking very closely at the way federally funded entities behave towards their workers. That's essential.</para>
<para>Let's move to another area of high exploitation under this former government's watch, where they did nothing—the gig economy. We know the Select Committee on Job Security heard that gig workers earned as little as $6.67 an hour—no workers comp, no sick leave, no annual leave and providing all their own tools of trade, with no compensation. Former Attorney-General, Christian Porter, said it was too complicated to provide those workers with minimum standards. Surprise, surprise, surprise! It was another recipe for driving wages down. But the real kicker was when former Senator Stoker went even further, saying, if people only earned $6.67 an hour, then that was okay because that's what they'd signed up for. Let's go back to the 1800s! Let's just take this whole thing and stop pretending, because that's what the previous government was trying to do under the gig economy.</para>
<para>Even Uber and DoorDash have said that we need minimum standards, signing agreements with the Transport Workers Union, supporting Labor policy. A food delivery worker, Esteban Salazar, told the job security inquiry:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I didn't have a minimum wage for an hour, which meant that, at the end of the day, I had earnt $15 after six hours of standing outside in the cold and the rain.</para></quote>
<para>Let's look at some areas, feminised industries, like the care industry. Ninety per cent of aged-care workers are on casual or part-time contracts with little or no guaranteed hours. Worse still, gig platforms, like Mable, are infiltrating aged care and the NDIS, paying below the minimum award wage. The previous government turned around and funded Mable to have their exploitative model further enhanced through the NDIS and the aged-care system.</para>
<para>Just today I spoke to two aged-care workers with the United Workers Union who shared their stories about the horrid conditions of work they endure. Grace Gavley, a 24-year-old care worker, said to me: 'I get paid so little working in aged care that I also have to work in the retail sector. I earn more for working in retail than aged care, but what keeps me in aged care is my heart. That's all. It's demanding emotionally and pays less. It's also clear,' she went on to say, 'that management just doesn't care, and the aged-care system is broken. I don't know that this is sustainable for me. I get very emotional even talking about it.' Glenda Jenson, another aged-care worker, told me earlier today: 'Most people I know are stuck doing low minimum hour contracts but then they constantly work excessively long days, day after day after day to make up the shortfall in numbers. Because less and less people want to work in aged care, you end up having to perform a range of roles outside your main job of being a carer. It's all just piles up. It's too much.'</para>
<para>The experience of these workers in aged care, in higher education, in the gig economy, are examples of the problems faced by workers across the economy. Like Renee McBride, a TAFE nursing teacher I met with earlier today as well. She told me: 'I worked for 8½ years as a casual teacher. I won a scholarship'—this is a real clanger! 'I won a scholarship from the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, for the quality of my work, and yet I had all of my hours taken away from me when I finished my arrangements for that scholarship. We are in the sector,' she said, 'where 70 per cent of the workforce is casual. That means people can't get mortgages, can't get home loans. I've recently got permanent work, but now I have to spend hours each day driving to get to my job. I'm a single parent with two kids. It's exhausting.'</para>
<para>It's exhausting because the previous government allowed the culture of the bottom is the best, wages suppressed, casual jobs, no job security, can't get home loans, can't look after your family, can't look after yourself. It was all part of the model that they encouraged in this economy. One thing is very clear: we're going to make a change to that.</para>
<para>Now, in some areas money is rolling. And it's literally rolling in the casino in Canberra. Bryan Kidman said to me earlier today, 'I was disciplined for raising concerns about workers rights at the casino in a newspaper interview. I was speaking as a union delegate during a prospective sale of the casino, and I should not have been targeted the way I was. I went of the Human Rights Commission and the civil Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which found in my favour, but it was a terrible thing to go through.' He later told me that the company in the negotiations for an enterprise bargaining agreement— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, we are indeed in a cost-of-living crisis in Australia, and it's worth pointing out that that crisis is making life much, much harder for an ever-increasing number of Australians. There are many reasons for this crisis. Inflation is certainly one of those reasons, and the Greens absolutely accept that some of the reasons we are seeing such a spike in inflation in Australia are international issues. But it is worth pointing out that one of the global reasons that we are seeing pressure come onto prices is climate change, and this Labor government is one of the most fossil fuel addicted governments in the world. They want to open up 114 new coal or gas developments in Australia, and the Greens will fight them all the way on every single one of those proposals.</para>
<para>But domestically, in terms of pressures on inflation, we cannot have this discussion without accepting the role that corporate profiteering is having on driving prices up in this country. And it's worth having everyone in this place understand that when you overlay climate change on top of 40-plus years of turbocharged neoliberalism in this country you are starting to see our very social fabric being torn. The social contract that keeps us, in the main, as a peaceful and coherent society is starting to crack. If you can't feel it cracking under your feet now, colleagues, then I can only say, you are not paying enough attention, because that social contract is starting to crack. Unless we actually take action on things like the breakdown of our climate, unless we take action on things like the sixth mass extinction event in the history of our planet, unless we start to reverse the turbocharged neoliberalism in this country—where people who are deliberately left without work in an attempt to suppress wages are forced into poverty and starvation, in some cases—the social fabric will continue to crumble.</para>
<para>There used to be an understanding in this country that if you worked hard and got yourself a good education and a reasonable job you could prosper, get ahead and make a good life for yourself and your family. Through collective bargaining and through industrial action, workers demanded and won better pay and conditions. Governments built public housing and provided a roof over the heads of people who could not afford homes of their own. But that understanding, that social contract, between the people and the government is being taken apart piece by piece by the neoliberal parties in this place.</para>
<para>For young people in particular, hard work matters far, far less than the wealth of their parents. And we are seeing the new class division in this country. That class division is whether or not you own property. If you own property, you're doing very nicely, thank you very much, and you have been for decades. If you don't own property, or your parents don't own enough property to bequeath to you at some stage in your life, you are condemned. That's the new class divide in this country. We've got wages flatlining. The Treasurer was up in the House just last week telling Australians to brace for their real wages to fall. The cost of renting is skyrocketing; the cost of buying a new home is skyrocketing.</para>
<para>This is a rigged game, and it's rigged in favour of the super wealthy, the billionaires and those who profit from the big corporations. What governments have done is design a system where the only hope of social advancement is through property investment, and now that ladder is being pulled away as well by rampant interest rate rises from a RBA governor who told people that rates wouldn't rise until 2024. Those people who believed him and bought a home are getting smashed because they believed the RBA governor.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to make a contribution on the MPI today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The need for the Government to adopt immediate action to ease pressure on cost of living for Australian families and small businesses.</para></quote>
<para>It is a little ironic that if you google the Australian Labor Party's website the first three words you will see as it pops up on the screen are, 'A better future'. If you then explore it a little further, this is what it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Anthony Albanese and Labor have a plan for a better future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australians deserve a leader who is not afraid to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work needed to get things done.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government is focused on tackling the spiralling cost of living that is making life tough for too many Australians.</para></quote>
<para>Then you click on the Powering Australia policy. Despite the fact that one of their first actions as a government was to completely backtrack on a commitment they took to the election, which was that Labor:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year for homes by 2025, compared to today.</para></quote>
<para>that is actually still on the Australian Labor Party's website. It's a little strange because what they state is they are focused on tackling the spiralling cost of living that is making life tough for far too many Australians. You have an admission by the Labor government that there is a spiralling cost of living. You have an admission by the Labor government that that is making life tough for Australians. But then you have a failure to back these admissions in with any sort of plan.</para>
<para>What we saw yesterday just adds to the increasing cost-of-living pressures that Australian families and small businesses are now facing. Without a doubt it was a tough day yesterday for the around 3.5 million families that have a mortgage. Today we saw the Minister representing the Treasurer, when asked how much more the average family would pay on the average mortgage, be quite dismissive: 'A couple of hundred bucks.' A couple of hundred bucks means a lot for families across Australia. A couple of hundred bucks means a lot for small businesses out there, in particular when that figure is not just a couple of hundred bucks; it's a couple of hundred bucks month after month after month. In fact Australians with an average mortgage of $610,000 will soon pay over $500 more per month on their repayments than they were in May.</para>
<para>When you look at what the Australian Labor Party under Anthony Albanese says—they have a plan for a better future, they acknowledge there is a spiralling cost of living, they acknowledge this spiralling cost of living is making life tough for Australians—you would think that when asked a question in the Australian parliament they would be able to clearly articulate what their plan is to tackle the spiralling cost of living. Yet there isn't one. The government has no plan. Despite being in opposition for nine years, they come into government and have no plan to address the cost-of-living pressures. That should disappoint all Australians.</para>
<para>All Australians who have a mortgage are going to be paying more. See the interviews that were conducted with Australians in the streets today: some of them are actually saying, 'I now have to choose whether I spend money on food so I can eat or whether I pay my mortgage.' And what do the Australian Labor Party say? In the first instance, they blame the former government. Well, the bad news is they are now in office. Then they walk away from their election commitment to cut power bills by $275 compared to what they were when they came into office. People actually listened to that promise. They listened to it, and they said, 'I actually like it and I'm going to vote for it,' and Labor have already broken that promise to the Australian people.</para>
<para>They also have no plan, as I've said, to address the immediate cost-of-living pressures. One of the ways that you could address the immediate cost-of-living pressures has been put forward by the opposition leader, Peter Dutton. He's been very upfront: if Mr Albanese and Labor wanted to adopt this plan, we would actually welcome that. That is, of course, our policy so that older Australians can keep more of what they earn. You have a government that says, 'We are focused on tackling the spiralling cost-of-living pressures that are making life tough for Australians.' You have a government that does not have a plan, but you have an opposition leader in Peter Dutton who, within but a few weeks of being the opposition leader, releases a policy that will actually help older Australians keep more of what they earn, and he says to the Labor government: 'We would welcome it if you adopted this policy.' Why? Because it's a sensible policy. It's been welcomed by stakeholders, in particular those stakeholders—small businesses—who are facing a battle to get more people to work at the moment with the skills shortage.</para>
<para>The change itself, of course, would make it more worthwhile for older Australians to pick up an extra shift or work extra hours. It is a plan that would help small businesses and regional businesses deal with labour shortages. We know, in particular, in certain industries employers in small businesses—in fact, in all businesses, but in particular in small businesses—cannot find staff. If Mr Albanese and Labor were to adopt the policy put forward by opposition leader Peter Dutton, this would ensure that thousands of jobs across hospitality, agriculture, tourism and the retail market remained open. As I've said, Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, has been very, very upfront. He is more than happy for Mr Albanese to adopt this problem, because we actually want Labor to have a plan.</para>
<para>They have a recognition that there are these spiralling cost-of-living pressures. They have a recognition that Australians are doing it tough. We saw only yesterday the increase in the interest rates. As I said, with the average mortgage of $610,000, that means the average family, month after month, is now going to be paying $500 more. Then we have a policy that they could adopt that would actually go directly to ensuring that they did have a plan, or at least part of a plan, that would address the spiralling cost of living and that would address in particular what is making life tough at the moment for so many Australians. This is a well-targeted policy. It is a well-targeted policy that is designed to increase labour supply. It is designed to ease workplace shortages—we all know there are workplace shortages—but also to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates.</para>
<para>What have we heard from the Labor government so far? Absolutely nothing. What we do have before us, though, is a government that told Australians that, by voting for it, they'd get a better future. It tells Australians that it acknowledges there's a spiralling cost-of-living issue. It tells Australians: 'We know that you're doing it tough.' But then, when those opposite are questioned on what they are going to do now—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Substance.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What is the substance of your plan? Today we saw Minister Gallagher stand up, hold up a few bits of paper and say, 'Here is our plan.' As I said, that is a great shame for the Australian people, who actually are doing it tough.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STE</name>
    <name.id>299352</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>WART () (): I rise to speak on the matter of public importance in relation to the cost of living for Australian families and small business, and I'm delighted to do so. I'm proud to be standing with my Labor colleagues, who are being honest with the Australian people about the economic and cost-of-living challenges we are facing as a nation. I'm also proud to be standing up as part of the Albanese Labor government, which has a real plan, an economic plan that recognises these issues, many of which were totally ignored, sugar-coated, swept under the carpet or neglected during the wasted nine years of the previous coalition government.</para>
<para>Nine years of mess cannot be cleaned up in nine weeks. It will take time. Australians know this, but it appears that the opposition do not. In very stark contrast to the former government, we have committed to building a fairer economy and a better future for all Australians. But as we embark on this important work, we must start by being honest, open and transparent with the Australian people about our current economic circumstances—unlike the former Liberal government. This doesn't happen by hiding reports and cupboards or changing regulations until after an election. It starts with transparency and integrity.</para>
<para>As outlined by the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, on 28 July through his ministerial statement on the economy, Australians know their government has changed hands at a time of instability, uncertainty and volatility around the world and at home. However, Australians also know that the former government's approach has already given our country a wasted decade of missed opportunities and messed up priorities, and everyday Australians are picking up the bill. Australians are already paying too much for that in the form of high and rising inflation, falling real wages and $1 trillion of debt that will take generations to pay off without a generational dividend to accompany it. While Australia continues to outperform much of the world, we know that this doesn't make it any easier for families to pay the bills at home, but whether it be in relation to inflation or real wages, the Albanese Labor government's economic plan will respond to the growing pressures left by our predecessors on the economy.</para>
<para>We acknowledge the impact that high inflation is having on people's living standards. Families see this every day, whether it be at the supermarket, in pay packets, through interest rates or when the electricity bill arrives. In an environment where for many years workers have not been getting wage rises sufficient to match price rises, the Albanese Labor government is proud to stand with workers to secure better wages. In contrast, what did the coalition do in office during their wasted nine years when it came to prudent spending and financial management to help keep inflation contained? What did they do to help? The fact is that the previous government have a lot to answer for when it comes to inflation. The coalition left us with a legacy of $1 trillion in debt with literally nothing to show for it. The coalition wasted over $2 billion of taxpayer funding on French submarines that will never be built, let alone delivered. The coalition treats the Australian people with such contempt that I think that if it had actually got back in to government it would have told them that they were the super high-tech invisible kind of submarines that we could expect to have delivered to our shores. The coalition allocated $660 million towards their car park rorts program, with numerous projects revealed to have been announced via press release, not assessed and undercosted, with many projects subsequently shelved. The coalition spent almost $30 million on a piece of land for the new Western Sydney airport which was estimated to have been valued at only $3 million. We have seen tens of millions of dollars on blatant pork-barrelling through sports rorts, regional rorts and grant programs, all guided by colour coded spreadsheets. So, when the coalition talk about the cost of living, inflation and financial management, they do so with a record that is tainted by mismanagement and has no credibility, and with a record that actually fuelled inflation. The coalition should be ashamed that they were a government that spent more, borrowed more and delivered less than any other government in Australia's history. In very stark contrast, Labor's economic plan will provide for a deliberate and direct response to the growing pressures left for us in the economy.</para>
<para>When it comes to the cost of living, we must also talk about real wages. When it comes to real wages, I'm proud to be part of an Albanese Labor government that supports workers to secure fair pay rises. Just today my office was proud to welcome a delegation from the ACTU consisting of workers who are grateful and thankful for Labor's position on supporting real wage growth. Just last week, I was proud to have met with a delegation from the Transport Workers Union in their efforts to get safe rates across the transport industry. On this side of the chamber, we don't just talk about it; we take action.</para>
<para>Many of you may recall the pre-election commitment made by Anthony Albanese who committed to our government making a submission to the Fair Work Commission to support a rise in the minimum wage. I'm sure it sticks in everyone's mind because everyone can remember the dollar coin that he held up at almost every press conference. It was an announcement that was met with absolute opposition and outrage by the Liberals, who have never stood on the side of the working people and never will. Yet they have the gall to move an MPI in this chamber calling on the Labor government to take immediate action to ease the cost of living, while at the same time they oppose, and continue to oppose, every effort to raise wages for real working people. This is particularly the case for the transport sector. Rather than stand with the transport workers to maintain good wages, conditions and road safety measures, the Liberal-National coalition government, in 2016, chose to dismantle the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal—the very measure designed to keep our roads safe and workers paid fairly. Shame!</para>
<para>The hypocrisy of those opposite is a disgrace. Every time they're in government, they attack workers. Whether it be Work Choices under John Howard, abandoning our proud Victorian automotive manufacturing sector under Tony Abbott or excluding dnata transport workers from JobKeeper, workers are always under attack by the Liberals. When it comes to real wages, the former coalition government also did nothing to help workers secure fair pay rises. Under the coalition government, real wages growth over the past decade has averaged just 0.1 per cent. Under the last 12 months of the Morrison government, real wages went substantially backwards. Any grade prep can tell you that, when you've got the cost of living rising by 3.5 per cent in 2021 and wages rising by just 2.3 per cent, that's a pay cut. Good, secure work should pay the bills, but, for too many, it's simply not the reality. There are 1.7 million Australians either unemployed or looking for more hours. Real wage growth relies on moderating inflation and getting wages moving again. Based on current forecasts, real wages are expected to start growing again in 2023-24. There is a key difference now. Australian workers now have a Labor government with an economic plan to boost wages, not to deliberately undermine them.</para>
<para>Another issue Labor is serious about tackling, which the Liberals did nothing about, is the gender pay gap for women. Our country has a gender pay gap that sits at 13.8 per cent. For First Nations women, when you compare that with non-Aboriginal men, it sits at 37.2 per cent. This government—the Albanese Labor government—will lead a national push to help close the gender pay gap and increase the pay for women workers, particularly those in caring jobs, by strengthening the capacity of the Fair Work Commission to order pay increases for workers in low-paid female-dominated industries; legislating so large companies will have to report their gender pay gap publicly; prohibiting pay secrecy clauses and giving employees the right to disclose their pay, if they want to; and taking action to address the gender pay gap in the Australian Public Service.</para>
<para>Labor's economic plan is a deliberate and direct response to the growing pressures left for us in the economy, beginning with budget repair for the trillion dollars for debt so waste and mismanagement doesn't grow bigger and bigger for future generations. The PM says we've got two ears and one mouth for a reason, so maybe those opposite should listen a little bit more when I say we are going to strengthen Medicare and create secure jobs. We are going to make child care cheaper. We're going to make more things in Australia. That's how you ease the cost-of-living pressures for Australian workers. They have done nothing but kick Australian workers when those workers are on their knees. We're a government that's going to— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to this matter of public importance—and it is a crucial and real matter of public importance. Well may a former assistant minister in the previous government debate the cost of living. This cost-of-living crisis now facing everyday Australian families and small businesses rests on the shoulders of both sides of this chamber. For more than two years, the Liberal and National government and the then Labor Party opposition were on a unity ticket to conjure money through electronic ledger entries and spend for short-term electoral benefit. They conjured up $500 billion and spent it on recurring government expenditure. These turned out to be handouts to Liberal, Labor and National party sponsors. Much of it went into corporate profits, not job support. Now we have runaway inflation. Who pays for the government's mistakes, the Labor Party's mistakes? The people, as always.</para>
<para>Let me be clear. It's possible to conjure up money through electronic journal entries and not create inflation. It's been done for centuries. In these cases, the spending must be on something that will grow the economy, grow our productive capacity and absorb the extra money—something like infrastructure. It's impossible to get the tired old parties or the new climate mafia to talk about important infrastructure projects like the Bradfield Scheme, Copper String 2.0, Tully-Millstream hydro, Big Buffalo dam, the national rail circuit and the boomerang steel project, amongst other One Nation priorities. Meanwhile, the climate mafia are setting out to destroy our standard of living through many ill-conceived policies not based on science, contradicting the evidence.</para>
<para>Let me start with high electricity prices. Electricity prices are an input to business costs right through the production cycle, from the farmer running a cold room to the manufacturer running a factory to the wholesaler running a warehouse to supermarkets trying to keep their fridges cold and their lights on. When the cost of electricity rises, the cost of everything rises. Food, clothing, hardware, consumer goods, services, energy, and service sector examples such as optometrists, hairdressers, solicitors—pick a service, any service. All have electricity as a business expense. The cost of living is going up because the price of electricity is going up. Australian wholesale electricity prices are up 300 per cent in the last year. And what is the reason? It is unsustainable, unreliable wind and solar paying subsidies to billionaires in the Chinese Communist Party who are running these things. They're the owners. The majority of large wind and solar complexes are owned by foreigners, including China and the Chinese Communist Party. Those who laugh are ignorant and condemned to suffer more.</para>
<para>This is combined with manipulation of the energy market by unscrupulous energy companies that should never have been allowed to buy important infrastructure. The National Electricity Market is actually a national electricity racket run by bureaucrats; it's not a market at all.</para>
<para>The third element of higher electricity prices is the cost of transmission lines, poles and wires, to bring power from where the industrial solar and wind blight complexes are located to where the electricity is needed.</para>
<para>Our immigration rate affects prices. The more new Australians arrive, the more electricity, water, medical care and education they consume. These things are supply and demand. The more demand, the higher the price. Of course, governments can plan ahead and build out extra power generation, extra hospitals, extra dams and schools, but we don't. Long-term planning in Australian politics means the next election, or nowadays, in the last decade or so, it means the next budget. This is no way to run a country. When One Nation talks about reducing immigration to net zero, we mean bringing in around 100,000 new arrivals each year to balance out the 100,000 who leave. Net zero is zero total immigration, easing the strain on infrastructure. This takes pressure off our economy, reducing demand and inflation, and making the essentials of life cheaper.</para>
<para>The climate mafia do not want to allow new dams and new electricity generation to be built, while at the same time wanting to bring in half the world as immigrants. Talk about inflation! You haven't anything yet. Agriculture is under threat. A 43 per cent carbon dioxide reduction means culling livestock and shutting down cropping, returning that land to nature in a process called rewilding. What they call rewilding One Nation calls 'starving people'. The less food that gets grown, the higher the price will be. One Nation will stop the madness and return Australia to good government. We are one community, we are one nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is the most pressing and important issue facing the country today. When I travelled around during the election and since, the most important issue facing Australians is the crushing increases in living costs that have occurred over the past year. We've obviously seen, this week, interest rates going up further. That is making it very tough for those homeowners seeking to pay back their mortgages. And we've seen electricity prices go through the roof in the last few months, although most of that hasn't yet flowed through to people's power bills. That will hit their fridge magnets later this year.</para>
<para>It is very tough for Australians. We've seen stories of people having to bring charcoal barbecues into their houses to heat their homes and ending up in hospital from carbon monoxide poisoning. I've heard stories of families living in their cars because they can't afford the rent. There has to be action here to bring down the nation's living costs. When the Albanese government was elected, I and all of us in Australia—I'm sure those Australians who voted for them—thought they had a plan to bring down the costs of living.</para>
<para>They were loudly and proudly saying: 'I'm going to bring down your electricity bills. I'm going to help you with your living costs.' Anthony Albanese, the now Prime Minister, said many times on the election trail that he was going to slash people's power bills by $275 a year. Indeed, there was a bit of scepticism on whether he would be able to deliver that. It was such a very bold and very precise promise, $275 a year. He was very confident about it. The media did question him on it. They asked, 'How do you know that?' He said, 'I don't think I'm going to deliver it; I know I'm going to deliver it.' He said that. He proudly put that on his Facebook page. You can go back and have a look on Anthony Albanese's Facebook page. He put up a post saying, 'I know that I'm going to save all Australians $275 a year off their electricity bills.' Well, we learnt just weeks after the election that the Labor Party had dumped that promise, and they won't repeat it ever again. They're not mentioning that figure. There is no mention of $275. In the Governor-General's address last week, instead of $275, the Labor Party made the Governor-General say that it will save families hundreds of dollars a year, a very vague, non-committal type promise which belies what they actually told the Australian people to get elected. As I said, that was the most important issue for people.</para>
<para>It's very tough right now for families on fixed incomes. They thought they were electing a government, a party, the Labor Party, to help them deal with these issues, but all they've got since is blame and distraction. It would be much better if the newly elected government came up with a plan to help people's living costs, came up with a clear idea about what they want to do, but we have seen through question time in these first two weeks that all they have done is sought to tarnish those who came before them. They have sought to blame everything that's going on in this country on a government that's no longer in power. That is their only plan, their only response, seemingly.</para>
<para>To be fair, there has been the odd mention of child care. We are apparently going to see legislation to help people with childcare expenses later this year. What the Labor Party don't say is that those childcare benefits, which they're apparently bringing forward in the coming months, are massively skewed to high-income earners. Indeed, modelling from the Department of Education showed that for two families, one on $360,000 a year and the other on $70,000 a year, the family on $70,000 a year would have be 85 per cent fewer benefits than the family on $360,000 a year. The Australians listening to this would be gobsmacked that they have elected a so-called Labor Party that is providing massively more benefits to a family on $360,000 a year. Good luck to the family on $360,000, but I don't think they need taxpayers' money to help them bring up their children. The family on $70,000 deserve it, but they're not getting much from the Labor Party. They're hardly getting anything.</para>
<para>The modern Labor Party has become the party of the rich, the elite, the well educated and the well connected, not those of the working classes, who are suffering in this country right now. They deserve to have a voice in this place. They deserve to live in a country that's blessed with energy resources and have cheap energy. Why can't we give people cheap energy in this country? We've got coal, we've got gas and we've got uranium. The other day, when the Treasurer was pushed on this, he blamed Vladimir Putin. He said your energy bills are going up because of Vladimir Putin. Hang on—in a country that has the best black coal in the world, is the largest liquefied-natural-gas exporter in the world and has the largest uranium reserves in the world, how come Vladimir Putin stops us from getting cheap energy? I don't think it's Vladimir Putin that's stopping coal and gas companies from getting ahead. I don't think it's Vladimir Putin that's putting forward radical climate legislation in this place that's going to push up people's power bills.</para>
<para>It's about time this government gets back to basics and helps people with their budgets and their cost of living rather than focusing on these trinkets, which will do nothing to help out average Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to make a contribution to this MPI on cost-of-living pressures. In my home state of Western Australia the rising cost of living is a huge issue. People are struggling every day with the costs of groceries, fuel, bills, rent and housing. Inflation in WA is the highest in the country— regardless of the $5 billion surplus that we got in our last budget—with Perth topping the capital cities at 7.4 per cent. Fresh, healthy food is more expensive than ever. The latest ABS living-cost indexes show that the cost of fruit and vegetables is increasing the most, and we all know the story about the lettuce.</para>
<para>It's clear that we are facing cost-of-living and wages crises, and WA families have never done it so tough. We know that rising rents and house stress are pushing households to the brink. Rents have increased by 9.1 per cent in WA in just the last 12 months—9.1 per cent, in a 12-month period. So if you are on income support, like JobSeeker or DSP, the disability support pension, the rent is completely unaffordable. Anglicare's Rental Affordability Snapshot for 2022 found that less than one per cent of available properties are affordable for people on income support payments. These rents continue to skyrocket alongside interest rates, which are squeezing people into housing insecurity and homelessness while we're putting homeownership continually out of reach of young people.</para>
<para>We need real solutions and we need them now. If the government want to address the cost-of-living pressures, there are two things that they can do in the October budget, because we, on this side of the chamber, here in the Greens, are solution focused. Firstly the government could make child care free. The government's promise to reduce childcare costs in July next year is simply too far away. Families need cost-of-living relief today, not in 2023. Secondly, the government could put dental into Medicare, and that would deliver real cost-of-living relief to everybody. Getting dental into Medicare and making child care free could save a family of four up to $7,000 per year. This would deliver real and immediate cost-of-living relief. These would be long-lasting changes that would absolutely deliver real relief to everyday people who are battling with high inflation and lower wages and incomes—better than the short-lived fuel excise cut, from the now opposition, that could be wiped out by the profiteering petrol corporations. These measures would mean that people are better off not just right now, not just next month but next year and the year after that.</para>
<para>It's time for us to look for bold solutions to these cost-of-living crises. When I was re-elected to this chamber, I assured the people of Western Australia that I would stand up for them here in Canberra. Why can't we axe the stage 3 tax cuts, which will deliver nothing for working families and those on minimum wages, who are absolutely struggling to make ends meet? Why can't we introduce a superprofits tax that will tackle inflation and cost-of-living pressures? The oil and gas companies of this place are making record profits; 96 per cent of the gas industry is foreign owned. These corporations don't even pay royalties for the gas that they produce and export, so they're getting their produce for free. I don't know any business in this country that gets their produce for free and sells it on and makes a profit from it. But these gas companies do, all the while wrecking the planet.</para>
<para>These are the solutions that are going to relieve the cost-of-living crisis, and we need a government that are going to be bold enough to put this vision into practice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Times right now are bloody tough. The cost-of-living pressures are unprecedented, inflation is soaring at a rate we have not experienced in decades, and wages are stagnant and unliveable. Health care, education, housing, fuel and basic groceries are all increasingly out of reach for so many in our community. People of my generation have seen opportunities get scarcer and scarcer, life getting harder, and our entire worth determined by how much we can contribute to a capitalist system that does not work for us. And we are now watching in real time as things get worse while people get richer than us and sit back in their mortgage-free houses chastising us for eating avo on toast.</para>
<para>During the election campaign and for my entire time in this place I've heard from so many people in WA who feel increasingly despondent, particularly young people, about what lies ahead of us. The decisions that are made in this place are setting young people up to fail. Young people are paying higher rent on average than ever before. And that is if they can even secure a rental in a ridiculously competitive market with fewer and fewer options for low-income earners every year. Many young people are staying in their family homes for much longer than we would like. Where this is not an option, young people are either relying on cramped, overpriced housing, wondering whether there will be a place for them in six months time with a roof over their head or worrying whether their vindictive landlord will soon kick them out.</para>
<para>Young people are experiencing negative mental health impacts at higher rates than ever before and at higher rates than any other age demographic. When we seek health support, we are so often confronted with a system that doesn't have the capacity to see us in a timely manner or simply costs too much. Young people are being forced to boycott or cut their studies short, because constant fee hikes are creating huge HECS debts that loom over their heads for decades. For most young people living in Australia right now, it is hard not to feel like we are being stretched in every direction.</para>
<para>Where we should have a solution to all of these issues from this government, unfortunately we have a bit of a howling void. However, the Greens have a vision and a plan. Young people have shared with us clearly that they support our vision and plan to create university and TAFE free for all. They want to see higher education funded properly so that it is once again a place that is fun, sets us up for our future and does not saddle us with insurmountable debt.</para>
<para>We have a vision and a plan to solve the mental health crisis and the crisis in healthcare services that exist in our community by bringing mental health fully into the Medicare system, and do this at the same time as we expand free dental coverage to every Australian everywhere in the country. At the same time we are proposing that one million affordable homes are built throughout our community and that rents are capped at affordable rates so that people know that they will be able to afford to keep a roof over their heads for themselves and their family members. These solutions are unashamedly bold and, at the same time, devilishly simple.</para>
<para>When I've knocked on doors, when I've talked to people at unis and TAFEs and in high schools about our vision and plans, they have enthusiastically endorsed them, urged us to come to this place to make change, and asked why the major parties are not on board. Well, we have seen in these first two weeks the commitment to corporate power from the other side, a power we will continue to challenge in this place.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>FIRST SPEECH</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>FIRST SPEECH</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pocock, Senator Barbara</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Barbara Pocock to make her first speech. I ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to her. I call Senator Barbara Pocock.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Hello everybody. It's wonderful to be here. I pay my respects to the Ngunawal and Ngambri people and their elders past and present, on whose land we meet. I pay my respects to all First Nations people in this place, and especially my fellow senators Dorinda and Lidia. I acknowledge that I and my forebears—immigrants, farmers, from Scotland and England—arrived in this country 184 years ago and occupied land which First Nations people had lived on for tens of thousands of years.</para>
<para>I grew up in the beautiful sandy paddocks, clay flats and scrub of Ngarkat country, 200 kilometres directly east of Adelaide, on a Mallee sheep and grain farm near Lameroo. I recognise the members of my family who shared childhoods on that farm, some of them here today and some of them watching at home. They're still farming that beautiful country. I owe a great debt to that community and especially to my own parents, Marie and Jim, whose ashes are laid in that sandy soil in Jane and Gary's regenerated scrub. I now live on the beautiful land of the Red Kangaroo Dreaming of the Adelaide Plains, long occupied by the Kaurna people. I pay my respects to the traditional custodians of all these lands. They never ceded sovereignty.</para>
<para>I was a lucky country kid who grew up in open paddocks. As a child I knew a lot more sheep and dogs than I did people. I had a great public primary education at Lameroo Area School, but that education was of its time. It did not include study of the history of my own place. At school and uni I studied the French, American, Russian, Chinese and industrial revolutions. I studied World War I, World War II, the Great Depression, the history of India, the unification of Italy, American slavery and, of course, the history of England. When my sister Jane and I went to name the big trees on our farm—and there weren't many; this was the Mallee—we chose names like 'the Queen Tree' and 'the King Tree'. We were raised on British history but we have a deep connection to country which continues to this day for all of us, a connection born of only a century of occupation and three generations. I am in awe of the kind of connection to country that exists for First Nations people from their custodianship over thousands of years and hundreds of generations. I did not know until very recently that, when we were both 11, my Greens Senate running mate, Uncle Major 'Moogy' Sumner, lived just 120 kilometres away and, while I was enjoying all the freedoms of farm life, his family were required to have a pass to travel by bus from Raukkan at the Coorong to Adelaide, where their movements were tightly constrained as they collected clothes and blankets. I acknowledge and thank Uncle Moogy and his Ngarrindjeri and Kaurna community—indeed, all South Australia's First Nations communities—for their great generosity in telling us of this painful and unequal history. It is never too late to understand the truth of our past.</para>
<para>This legacy is, of course, not behind us as we engage in an important new conversation about truth, treaty and voice. In my state, as I speak, First Nations people are in the Federal Court contesting a decision by the previous government, now being implemented by Labor, to build a nuclear waste dump on the land of the Barngarla people, near Kimba, without their consent—indeed, without the consent of most South Australians; they have yet to be consulted—a decision that compounds the awful history and intergenerational trauma of British nuclear testing at Maralinga, on country then actually occupied by First Nations people. To a person, the Barngarla people oppose this dump, and to a person their voices have not been heard.</para>
<para>We talk about voice, but we must listen to First Nations voices now and do no fresh harm by ignoring their wishes and their connection to country. We are not honestly facing the truth of our past if we fail to act respectfully now. We're a better country for telling the truth of our history and hearing the invitation at the heart of the Uluru statement, which I'm proud to say my party was early to support and which so many South Australians tell me so often that they passionately support: telling the truth; creating treaties; ensuring a First Nations Voice to our parliament's rooted in that truth.</para>
<para>On that Mallee farm of my childhood, at Lameroo, my parents' politics were a long way from mine. Marie and Jim probably wouldn't have voted for me. But, in our house, it was your responsibility to pay attention—to weigh the science as you planted a crop or bred a merino. My parents often said that people get the government they deserve. So pay attention.</para>
<para>When I was small—less than 10—I asked mum why everyone in South Australia didn't put all their money in the middle and share it out so that everyone had enough. That conversation sticks in my mind, I suspect, because my family were not natural socialists. I wanted to know what made some people rich and others poor. While it was said that hard work was the road to independence, I knew some poor people who were not bad and not lazy; they sat next to me at school and on the school bus.</para>
<para>Later, after leaving school and working for a couple of years on farms and in shearing sheds and going to secretarial school to learn typing and shorthand, I went to uni, still pursuing that question: what explains inequality? I enrolled in economics. I love the clarity and elegance of economic analysis. However, my economics training conveniently ignored questions of inequality, focusing instead on the more superficial question of distribution, where the market is the favoured tool of choice. This form of economics ignores the problems of market failure—things like the concentration of corporate power, the capture of political institutions, the reality of imperfect information and competition, the fact that many aspects of a good life are not measured in the dollar value of GDP, and the existence of all kinds of discrimination, not to mention the economy's impact on the environment and climate, seen as mere externalities to the main game: the economy.</para>
<para>We're now paying a big price for treating our environment and our climate as mere fuel for the economy. Such economics focuses on the world of production, beneath which lies a great iceberg of social reproduction—that is, the world of care. One of the great lies at the heart of economics is the pretence that economic production is not wholly dependent upon social reproduction. If there are no kids, and no carers, there's no economy. It's that simple. Too many of our mostly male leaders, including in this place, are, in Keynes's words, 'the slaves of some defunct economist' and have shaped economic policy upon that great lie: that our economy is not built on care, most of it done by women. How else can we explain the great inequities like the 22 per cent pay gap, the failure to meet the rise in women's workforce participation with free child care, or the price of job insecurity that working carers pay to get the flexibility they need?</para>
<para>So much public decision-making has occurred without the vital contribution of women and carers and without careful consideration of the ecological impact. We are overdue for a thorough renovation of the limitations of dominant, defunct economic theory and the worship of markets. Markets make good servants but bad masters. They deny care. The logic of the market—cost minimisation and profit maximisation—creates childcare deserts. It makes gender and racial discrimination profitable. It drives the greedy exploitation of new reserves of coal and gas, even as the science tells us that it will make our world unsafe.</para>
<para>My road through economics led me to a focus on fairness at work. What is fair pay? Why is a shearer paid so much less than my economics professor, Geoff Harcourt, who, as he pointed out, loved his job, didn't sweat, had a good back, had predictable pay and was safe at work? Why is a car park attendant paid more than a childcare worker? These questions loomed when I left the farm and all its security behind and arrived with my suitcase to work at the Reserve Bank in the early 1980s—and a shout-out to my old friends in the bank who made contact with me this week.</para>
<para>I met workers on much lower pay than mine who were doing much harder jobs. Sadly, the exploitation of women was everywhere. When I worked in the bank, I had a rubber stamp made that said, 'This exploits women'. I used it on pictures of 'bikini-clad women draped over photocopying machine' advertisements in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline>, which circulated around the international department in the early morning. This exploitation, now in different forms, is far from over, even in this building. It is a fact that is deeply shocking to people like me who wrote our first sexual harassment policies—in my case—40 years ago. When will it stop? It must.</para>
<para>I've spent much of my life studying how work affects men, women and children. I have lived the reality myself, as a working mother with two kids. Work can unwind inequality and give independence or it can reinforce and widen it. I have interviewed and surveyed thousands of Australians, and I carry some of those interviews in my heart: a father in the building industry interviewed on his phone in his shed about his long hours of work that had already cost him his marriage and now threatened his health; the kids of taxi drivers, mortgage brokers and fishermen—and, dare I say, also politicians—who love their dads but have given up on being close to them because they're away such a lot and who planned, they said, to raise their kids differently; the childcare workers puzzled and angry about what was asked of them even as they love their jobs; those in every occupation who have fought off or experienced assault, put-downs, unequal pay, sackings or discrimination because, well, they are women; those casuals and gig workers—too many of them now—who, without a parent, a partner or a pension as back-up, cannot make ends meet; a third of workers, now insecure, whose casual loading just gets them to a liveable income if they're lucky but does not stretch to a holiday or sick leave; the women who have learned to work every machine on their farm from spray seeder to computer, but whose husbands struggle to find, let alone use, the vacuum cleaner or the toilet brush; and the thousands of Australians who put together jobs with all kinds of caring work, ingeniously contorting themselves around outdated norms, in a country that once prided itself on being a working man's paradise—the first country to win an eight-hour day for building workers, through the collective efforts of unions, but one that didn't give workers a good lie-down when they had had a baby until 2011, when our very meagre—and it remains meagre in international comparison—paid parental leave scheme was born.</para>
<para>In the past 30 years, so many women have joined men in paid work. They've gained the independence of a pay packet. However, without the redistribution of housework and unpaid care, getting a job has too often meant the right to exhaustion, an epidemic of guilt and relentless work-life collision, so we need to fix the work and care regimes that we labour under in Australia. Those in ongoing work deserve secure work. They deserve to receive the legal wages and conditions our labour law promises them, without wage or time theft. They should be able to join, and be active in, a union without risking the sack. In smaller workplaces where enterprise bargaining is now impossible, they should be able to bargain on an industry basis so their wages and conditions stay up to date. And, just as all workers, including casuals, need access to paid domestic violence leave, all workers need access to paid sick leave.</para>
<para>Working carers need free, accessible, quality childcare. It is as essential to working life as the road that gets us to work. We need to repair our work and care system so that it's fit for purpose in the 21st century. That's why today we have established a Senate select committee for a national inquiry into our work and care system, which I will chair, to create an economy that is care inclusive and a system that narrows inequality rather than widens it.</para>
<para>So I've spent my life fighting for fairness at work and against inequality, and my hunger for that still burns very bright, but that is not the main reason that I'm here. I'm here because I made the mistake of reading the 2018 IPCC report and listening to the scientists studying climate change just as I was asked to think about running for parliament—bad combo. This is the greatest challenge of our time. My generation have had the great privilege of living on a safe planet. We now see every day that that is changing, and more quickly than predicted. Alongside a safe planet, I had free university education; affordable housing; and a decent, secure job, as you were just talking about, Jordan. A lot of my generation didn't, lots of women didn't, but I was one of the many lucky ones who had those four things. Very few of the young people in my life can now count on those four things. My generation had every advantage. Thirty years of continuous economic growth means our kids deserve the same. So I'm here so that I can look future generations in the eye and say I did everything I could.</para>
<para>We know the solutions on climate change, and we have the tools we need to implement them. Our Pacific neighbours are clear. The UN is clear. The science is clear. We must stop opening new coal and gas fields. We must act on climate change. We must put the future of our kids before the interests of a small group of fossil fuel profiteers, mostly foreign owned, paying too little tax, who are determined to wring their last fortunes out of its extraction while putting our future at risk. And we must restore confidence in our democracy by excluding fossil fuel money from politics and rooting out corruption. South Australians are clear in their instructions on this: get it done.</para>
<para>We are a wealthy country, we can do many things, and politics is about choice—choice between tax cuts for the rich and a visit to the dentist or free child care. The stage 3 tax cuts will cost $240 billion in their first 10 years and give $9,000 a year to those earning over $200,000, and nothing to those on minimum wage. They flow mostly to men and to older people. These cuts were wrong when they were crafted a few years ago, and I think Labor knew it. They are completely wrong now. It is wrong to implement them and at the same time tell people living on $46 a day that we can't help them put food in their fridge.</para>
<para>We've seen a massive shift to profits in this country over the past decade, while real wages have fallen. The election result and growth in the Greens vote are proof that you can go to an election and talk about taxing billionaires and the profits of big corporations, to fund a fairer world, and people will vote for it in their millions. It is wrong to talk the economics of inevitable austerity while suppressing wages, implementing tax cuts and refusing to tax the superprofits of industries like gas. We need a different conversation about economic justice and inequality. These are choices we can make, and I've been sent here by the voters of South Australia to stand for them.</para>
<para>I'm deeply honoured to be here representing the people of our state and as a Green. I love our state. It's a place of great beauty and of lively, robust, innovative democracy. I was sworn at only twice over the six months of our recent three elections! It shocks me! People in deep disagreement with me, on the hustings, were frank and funny but rarely mean. Many people out there know that the behaviours they see in this place—all that theatrical shouting and disrespect—are not acceptable in their jobs, in their homes, in their schools. I am shocked by the bullying—there is no other word for it—in question time in this place. To those of you at home: it is much worse in the flesh than on the telly. It has to stop. We need parliaments that are as good as our people. I will say, however, that I will stand up for my state. Being respectful does not mean being a pushover, and I'm glad to say I've had very good training in the shearing sheds and central banks of this country!</para>
<para>South Australians are practical people. They were clear in their instructions to me in giving me and the Greens their vote: 'Go there and make a difference. Carbon is putting our world at risk; act on that. Do the things that science tells us are essential. The price of inequality is clear; it breeds bad politics and vulnerability. Fight for a fairer world.'</para>
<para>Finally, I have some people to thank: so many Greens voters, volunteers, members, officeholders, candidates and staff. I salute you for your time, your sweat and for the great fun that we had: my Green's political running mate, Uncle Moogy Sumner, for your powerful politics and your hard work; Emma Pringle and the fabulous campaign team who smashed two elections—Emily, Lucy, Isaac, Nicola, Bonnie, Alicia and Bailey; my fellow candidates, Melanie, Jeremy, Katie, Emma, David, John, Patrick, Rosa, Beck, Tim, Greg and Rob Sims; thousands of volunteers, and I'll just mention Andrew, Di, Kay, Natalie, Mary and so many others—all our young Greens—I can't name you all, but I thank you so much. This is your victory.</para>
<para>To my South Australian political sister, Sarah Hanson-Young, and my wonderful supportive expanded party team, thank you. To my partner, Ian Campbell, with me for this interesting part of our lives, while living your own—thanks, Ian. I thank my kids, no longer kids, Jake and Indi, for all your advice and laughs. Don't worry, Jordie, it's not much further to go! So many unexpected turns in our lives for all of us, but we're writing them together. And to their families, India, Zan and Jordie. Thanks for arriving in your spectacular way, mid-campaign, Jordie and for making us smile, no matter what.</para>
<para>To John Wishart, past partner, now co-parent and grandparent, a hard working Greens leader and a long-term campaigner for justice—thank you, John. To my LGBTQI friends and family: I love you and I thank you for your courageous example of being fully the people you really are—strong, loved—especially to our trans mob and especially in the face of the recent campaign by elements of the Morrison government that attempted to whip up hatred and fear in the election for political gain. I'm so happy that that transphobic attack fell flat because Australians are better than that. And we have so much further to go. To the powerful women in my life: my blood sisters, Jane and Kay; Sue Outram; my bad mothers group—still bad; the sewers; my GG pals; and so many other dear friends and supporters. To my brother, Michael, and to Lisa and my extended family: fabulous nieces, nephews and grandies, in all our political diversity. It's not easy to be related to a public figure you don't always agree with but thanks for being in my family, where blood and love are so much thicker than politics.</para>
<para>To my beloved and ever-reliable 'friends-of-Barbara' group who keep me on track and would never miss a speech or a party, thank you. There are union friends over many decades; my sisters in the women's movement; all the extraordinary academics who give places like this the research and graduates we need—people like John Buchanan and Elizabeth Hill—and experts in places like the Australia Institute who build the social science we need for a better world. Thank you all, and especially Anna Chang, Evelyn Bennett, John McKinnon and my dear friends Richard, Dennis and Ben Oquist.</para>
<para>As Ian and I say quite often, life is short, let's have fun and lets change the world along the way. This is what I'm here to help do. South Australians voted in historic numbers for a politics of hope. People who grow up in the Mallee are extreme optimists. Those watching this will know that is true. They have to be, to be ready for drought, hard work, extreme heat and the many assaults that can arrive in that country that is beautiful, but demanding. I'm a proud child of the Mallee in these ways, and I want to offer hope to all the people who put me here to fight for our planet and for economic justice. We can do the things we need to do and, like a sturdy mallee bush, I'm here to thrive and fight to reward the hope that's been placed in me. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Babet, Senator Ralph</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Babet to make his first speech, and I ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to him.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm proud to say this is my first speech, and it feels damn good! I stand here in this great place honoured and humbled to have been given an opportunity by the people of Victoria to represent them and to be their voice here in our nation's capital. I'm most grateful, very grateful, and I will serve with fervour, passion, and an unwavering commitment to them and our great nation. I'm proud of our country. I'm proud of our flag. I'm proud of our traditions and, most importantly, I am proud to be Australian. Victoria: thank you.</para>
<para>I stand here as someone who has not been groomed in the political machine. I was not a staffer. I was not a long-term member of a major political party. What I am is a regular Australian who decided it was time to put my hand up and have a go, a regular Australian who felt like I needed to do something to have my voice heard. I'm a staunch patriot. I love our country. I love our freedoms. I love that in Australia you can be anything that you want to be. There is nothing and no-one stopping you from achieving your hopes, your aspirations and your dreams. If you only put in the work, if you only roll up your sleeves, if you only come in early and you leave late, we live in a country where effort leads to opportunity, it leads to reward and it leads to success.</para>
<para>I want to give thanks to the brave young Australians who have sacrificed so much, many of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice in conflicts around the world both recent and past so that we can all stand here today in a safe, prosperous, sovereign, independent and plentiful country where we want for nothing. When our diggers went overseas to defend our country, to defend our way of life, to defend the values that we hold dear, they did so as Australians—not as the Left, not as the Right, just Aussies. To our diggers, I salute you now and forever. You are better men and women than what we could ever hope to be here in this place.</para>
<para>My family and I arrived in Australia in 1990. I was only seven years of age. I was born on the small island of Rodrigues, which is part of the Mascarene Islands, east of Mauritius, which is itself east of Madagascar. It's a beautiful island. It's approximately 108 square kilometres in size. Now, to put that into perspective, Greater Melbourne is about 10,000 kilometres in size and Greater Sydney is about 12,400 square kilometres in size.</para>
<para>So why did my parents decide to come here to Australia? Why here? Why not somewhere else? Well, they decided that with two young children they needed to do something to give their boys the opportunities which they knew that Australia could provide—the opportunity to grow up, to have a decent life and, most importantly, to pursue their dreams and their goals no matter what those might end up being in the future.</para>
<para>When we arrived here in Australia, my parents had nothing, not a thing. Like many others who have come before, my parents worked hard for everything they had. This is a story which is not dissimilar to the many other migrants from all over the world who now proudly call Australia home. Back in Rodrigues, my father worked in a hospital and my mother in a government office in administration on the island. They had great jobs. When they came here they started from scratch. They rebuilt a life in a new country with two young kids. That is not an easy task in a world before smartphones and the internet, I can assure you. Imagine turning your phone off and never turning it back on again.</para>
<para>Although I was only seven years of age, I remember that time clearly. When we arrived, I spoke no English. I only spoke French. As you can imagine, starting primary school was nerve-racking, much more nerve-racking than even this first time speaking in this great house—much more nerve-racking. Unable to communicate, and being the new foreign kid, wasn't easy. It was a struggle, to be sure. But, luckily for me, another boy in the class spoke both English and French. And, when the teacher would give us instruction to complete our class work, he'd take me outside into the hallway and he'd translate from English to French. I'd then complete my work in French—a difficult time for both me and my teacher, who had to grade my work in a language she didn't even speak. She didn't even speak the language! Luckily, I quickly learned to speak and write in English. But those early formative years taught me that I could do anything if I applied myself, if I worked hard. They taught me not to be afraid and to believe in myself. I eventually went on to complete a bachelor's degree and I started a very successful business with my brother.</para>
<para>When we arrived here in Australia, my father took on a full-time job, working full time in nursing homes while he put himself through university. Eventually, he graduated with a Master of Business in international trade. My mother also took up a full-time job—hard work, long hours, early starts. I remember early starts. But, no matter what was going on, I could always count on my mother to be home, to greet me after school and be there with a snack when I got back. Every time. I remember it very, very clearly. We have a very strong and very close family, and through my experiences growing up I believe—I believe—that the family unit is the bedrock of our society, the bedrock. My parents showed me through their actions every single day—every single day—that working hard, being disciplined and sticking to my principles would see me do well in life. To my parents, I obviously will be forever grateful that the challenges that they have worked through as a team have given me the tools, the know-how and the work ethic to be standing here today in this place.</para>
<para>In 1993 we officially became Australian citizens. I was a little bit too young to understand, but what I could understand was how important and significant that moment and that day was for my parents. We went to the ceremony, and at the end we could officially call Australia home. I still remember that ceremony. I remember how happy and how proud my parents were, and I'm glad that I can stand here today with my mother and father watching on in the gallery. Australia has given us so much. To say that I'm a patriot is an understatement. To say that I love our Southern Cross and the red, white and blue is not even close. We are lucky, all of us, to live in the greatest and the best country in the world.</para>
<para>President, to be standing here in this most important and dignified of places fills me with pride. I'm truly honoured. I wish to extend my congratulations to all the other senators who were elected to the 47th Parliament, and I wish to say that, even though the time may come where we will disagree, when we do make these important decisions, we do so for the benefit of Australia and all of her people, that we put aside minor differences for the benefit of nation first. Nation first! That must be at the core of everything that we do here in this place. We should cooperate with all. We should trade with all. But we should avoid entanglements which do not benefit Australia or her people.</para>
<para>We live in a world where powers beyond our shores seek ever-increasing levels of control and influence over the direction of our country and our people. We must temper this with a staunch, patriotic attitude. For strength of self-determination and the love of country, we must not allow unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable international groups of organisations to exert undue influence over the future of Australia. We must be the masters of our own destiny. More than ever, everyday Australians are struggling due to the decisions handed down by unelected global bureaucrats. We are facing cost-of-living pressures not seen before, in many of our lifetimes, with the cost of food, energy and the rest increasing at alarming rates. The average Australian is struggling and will continue to do so until we start to make decisions that put Australia first, once again. We must cooperate and trade with all. We must extend a hand of friendship to all. But we also must exit international agreements which would disadvantage Australia and her people.</para>
<para>We must go back to the values that made us one of the greatest countries on earth in the first place and re-embrace the entrepreneurial spirit, the free-market economy and respect for the individual. Let us re-embrace capitalism, not crony capitalism where the business class colludes with the political class to stitch up the average Australian. I speak of unfettered capitalism, where companies will compete for the dollar in your pocket and the best amongst them will rise and the worst will fall. Let us discourage monopolies, while focusing on supporting business growth and encouraging healthy competition. With healthy competition comes reward for the Australian consumer.</para>
<para>For too long, we have allowed our country to march towards collectivism. History has shown us this does not end well. We need not repeat the mistakes of the past. We need to, instead, look towards our future, where individualism, entrepreneurship, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the free market are, once again, placed back in their rightful place as beacons of hope in an increasingly darkening world.</para>
<para>We must become a nation which makes things again. Our manufacturing sector has been decimated and sent offshore, once again, at the behest of unelected global bureaucrats. Let's take the brakes off our businesses and entrepreneurs. Let them work. Let them produce. Let them create wealth, not wealth for a few but wealth for all. We will all be better off for it. We need to ensure that we give Australian businesses strong support and an unencumbered legislative pathway so they can grow, compete and become major players on the world stage. Let's eliminate disadvantages, bureaucratic red tape and green tape and unfair international agreements where the only choice some businesses have to survive is to move offshore.</para>
<para>Particular attention needs to be placed on our small and medium businesses. Small businesses are essential to our economy. They are our nation's largest employer and they employ almost half of all Australians in the workforce. We must do everything we can to ensure that they can compete and operate and simplify and restructure the system to make their lives easier not harder. The Australian government is the main petitioner of bankruptcy and company liquidations. Let's stop driving businesses to the wall. Our small businesses are the backbone of our economy and they are struggling. Let's do all we can to help them survive and prosper.</para>
<para>Our world and our position within it is becoming increasingly uncertain, make no mistake, and the reality is that foreign authoritarian powers are posturing for supremacy and have adopted evermore expansionist policies. These powers seek to reshape the current world order. We need to recognise this and we need to be ready to act. Let us reinforce our strong and longstanding relationships with our friends and international partners, and forge closer ties with our neighbours. Let us continue to build robust relationships with other democratic nations, with long-term regional and global stability in mind.</para>
<para>The reality of our world means that we must be ready to defend not only ourselves but our friends who share similar values as we do, should they require our help. We must be ready to defend liberty and defend democracy itself and do whatever is required to ensure we are ready to deal with any challenges the future may bring. We should not seek out said challenge but instead be ready to meet it, should it present itself. A great man once said, 'We shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.' But those who threaten the security and the prosperity of our world are not just, and the sooner we recognise this fact and the quicker we act, the better off we will be.</para>
<para>We live in an Australia where our strategic and national assets are being sold off to the highest overseas bidder. Billions of dollars worth of our assets have been traded away. Too much of our critical infrastructure is effectively under foreign control. This is not the Australia that we should want to leave for the next generation—one where people who are not citizens, who have not sworn allegiance to our nation or to the Australian people, go on to own assets of strategic significance such as power companies, ports and prime agricultural land. This trend must be reversed. Critical infrastructure must never be in foreign hands. It must always be in the people's hands. Many critical infrastructure assets, like power companies, are monopolies. They are not subject to the market forces a business would traditionally face. As such, placing these assets into private hands—into foreign hands—all but guarantees manipulation, to the disadvantage of the average Australian.</para>
<para>The longstanding policy of the United Australia Party is to bring Australian super back home to grow Australia. Currently, a minuscule amount of Australian super is invested here in Australian infrastructure. Australia is the fourth-largest holder of pension fund assets in the world. Australian super funds have around $3.5 trillion and are one of the largest sources of capital, but much of it is invested overseas and does not provide economic growth and employment for our citizens right here at home. This super can be deployed to benefit our country and our people. We do not need to sell off our infrastructure assets to the highest bidder, and we do not need to rely on foreign capital for our infrastructure requirements.</para>
<para>We are at war, make no mistake, but this war is a war which does not conscript men, planes, tanks and weapons to its cause. This war is an economic and financial war, and we are losing. The outcome of this war will be the same: we will be subservient to foreign powers, to foreign interests, in our own lands. We cannot and must not allow this to continue.</para>
<para>We are witnessing the steady decline of our traditional institutions, such as family, marriage, religion, the sanctity of life, patriotism, borders and education, to name a few. This is not an accident but rather by design. Radical Marxist ideology has been marching through our institutions for some time. Terms like white privilege and gender fluidity have now become commonplace.</para>
<para>Marxists see the world as being inherently unequal. They seek to address this apparent inequality by tearing down the very fabric of our civilisation so that it may be rebuilt in their faux-utopian vision. It is a vision which would seek to destroy the very systems that have made us one of the greatest countries in the world and turn us into a shadow of our former selves—a nation which bows to the whim of big government, where the individual is snuffed out in favour of collectivist ideology and where freedom of speech, thought and religion is a thing of the past.</para>
<para>This is classic divide-and-conquer strategy, and it is nothing new. History is full of examples of this. For too long we have allowed those who would seek to control and subvert the democratic process to divide us. Let us instead draw focus to what unites us rather than to what makes us different. Let us rediscover a love of individualism and a love of freedom and remember always that the best welfare is a job, the best security is a home, the best life is a family and the best country is Australia.</para>
<para>If we had more political parties, we would have a greater diversity of ideas, and that could only be a good thing for our country. Politics, after all, is about ideas. It is about the great contest between different points of view. It is not and should never be an exercise in public relations where the only thing some politicians seem to be concerned with is the next election and getting back into this place. Politics, of course, has no tangible reward. The only reward is history and doing what is right and sticking by your convictions no matter what the cost. It's about standing strong in the face of adversity.</para>
<para>I, and many tens of thousands of others, joined the United Australia Party because it stands for something. We stand for family values. We stand for small business. We stand for limited government. We stand for a fair go for all. We stand for you to have the freedom to live your life how you choose, without interference. We stand for democracy. We stand for personal responsibility and self-determination.</para>
<para>The United Australia Party took to the election many policies which will benefit Australia and her people, such as policies to deal with our high levels of national debt, which have now resulted in ever-alarming increases in interest rates and inflation. We call on the government to approach us to discuss these policies in order to help the average Australian. Let us work together for the benefit of Australia. Let us cast aside minor differences.</para>
<para>Members of the United Australia Party come from all walks of life. Young, old, rich, poor, white, black, brown—it doesn't matter, because at the end of the day we are all Australians. We're Aussies, and from whatever land we come, we must speak with one voice to save our country. We must be united in one belief, and that belief is freedom and a fair go for all.</para>
<para>To the members and supporters of the United Australia Party and the people who voted for us: I want to say thank you. I stand here to represent you, and I will never stop fighting for you and for our great nation. To my fellow candidates: thank you for the tireless work you put in throughout the campaign. To the volunteers who stood out in the cold, handing out how-to-vote cards: I am most grateful. To my family in the gallery: thank you for believing in me and thank you for being by my side for many months of campaigning. To my brother and best friend, Matt: thank you for absolutely everything and for always being there by my side. To Clive Palmer: Thank you for believing in me and for your commitment to Australia and its people. Thank you for leading by example and for having the courage to step up and do something about the direction of our country and challenging the status quo. You have given a voice to tens of thousands of disconnected Australians who did not have one before. To Craig Kelly: your advice both now and into the future will be invaluable, and I thank you for your dedication and the passion that you have shown towards advancing Australia both during your time as a member of parliament and now in your new position as a national director of the United Australia Party. To everyone at UAP head office: thank you for your tireless work. Most importantly, to the people of Victoria: The issues that we are experiencing were created by men and women, and they can be solved by men and women. We must work together for the benefit of our country and our people. The challenges that we face are many, but we can do something about them. You are, in fact, doing something about them right now, by taking a greater interest in the political process and by ensuring that I was elected to parliament to represent you. You are doing something about them every time you volunteer your time to keep Australia free. To the people of Victoria: Together we will make a difference! Together we will stand up! Together we will create change! Together we will make a better tomorrow! And yes, together, we will save Australia! Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">An incident having occurred in the gallery—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Aussie! Aussie, Aussie, Aussie! Thank you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Babet, that's disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>95</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I present to the Senate a petition relating to the Australian governments' climate change policies, which is not in conformity with the standing orders.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>95</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin Authority</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>Despite what we've been hearing for the a number of weeks about the failure of the coalition government on delivery of the Basin Plan, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's Basin Plan report 2020-21 categorically proves that wrong. This reports shows that, under the coalition government, we have continued water recovery, despite the focus of the last few weeks on one clause in one section of the Basin Plan. We now have a long-term average yield of 2,100 gigalitres of held entitlements. We have ensured that, when sustainable diversion limits came into play in 2019, the first year of monitoring of those sustainable diversion limits—this is before even old water recovery targets and additional targets have been met. This report shows that we are 97 per cent compliant with the sustainable diversion limits. There were three zones or valleys which were found to be non-compliant but two of which had valid, reasonable excuses. All three have implemented make-good actions to bring that back into line.</para>
<para>I pose the question: if we are already compliant with sustainable diversion limits, why do we need to race forth and pursue continued water recovery at the expense of the social and economic stability of our communities? That's not to say that we shouldn't continue to consider sound, strategic and ecologically sustainable projects that will deliver environmental outcomes. Thirty of the 37 supply measures, or SDL adjustment mechanism projects, are on track. Our government was investing in new knowledge to understand the risks of the basin, including risks associated with climate change.</para>
<para>We invested in this new knowledge. We were working with the CSIRO. I note I applaud the new government's commitment to continue to look at new science under the basin plan. Ninety-eight per cent of the surface water recovery targets under the basin plan have been recovered if we meet all of our obligations. That is a lot different from the view that has been pursued over the last couple of weeks that the coalition government turned its back on the basin plan—far from it. What we did do, however, was turn our faces to the communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. We listened to those communities and we adjusted our programs in response to what the communities were telling us. They were telling us that buyback hurts. Open-tender buyback hurts communities. So we moved away from that.</para>
<para>We focused on, at first, on-farm efficiency measures and then off-farm efficiency measures. We delivered an awful lot of water entitlements to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder as a result of that. In the last year's reporting from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, we saw, in this same period that this report covers, 10 years of continuous connection between the Murray Lower Lakes and the Coorong. That is 10 years despite going back to a very significant drought that saw New South Wales general security irrigators on zero water allocations—that's zero; no access to water—for two years running. The Coorong and the Lower Lakes remained connected.</para>
<para>Far beyond what has been asserted—that the basin plan is failing because our government failed on the basin plan—I assert that the basin plan and this report shows that the basin plan is achieving good outcomes, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's reports also show that and our pathway of listening to communities was the right pathway to be on.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I join the senator in moving that the Senate take note of document No. 2 Murray-Darling Basin Authority and I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Hanson-Young, I seek leave to continue the remarks on this document.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Building and Construction Commission</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>96</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Australian Building and Construction Commission.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the documents.</para></quote>
<para>It's very interesting when you look at the documents that have been provided by the minister on behalf of the minister for workplace relations. What is very clear from these documents—or, should I say, from the lack of documents but in particular in relation to the redactions and the public interest immunity claims that have been made, plus everything else that has been said on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in the chamber this week—is there is no question whatsoever that the Albanese government did not in any way consult with key stakeholders in the construction industry and in fact did not consult with the Australian Building and Construction Commission itself before making the snap announcement on 24 July 2022, in the media, that the Australian Building and Construction Commission, via the Building Code being stripped back to its bare legal minimum, would be neutered.</para>
<para>That doesn't surprise anybody. But what it shows is this: when Mr Albanese went to the election he went on a platform of integrity and transparency—and, in fact, when you look at the code of conduct in place for Mr Albanese's ministers it says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people.</para></quote>
<para>When you then turn to key principles, 1.3(ii) states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Ministers must observe fairness in making official decisions—that is, to act honestly and reasonably—</para></quote>
<para>and here is the part that becomes interesting—</para>
<quote><para class="block">with consultation as appropriate to the matter at issue, taking proper account of the merits of the matter, and giving due consideration to the rights and interests of the persons involved, and the interests of Australia.</para></quote>
<para>You then go to public interest and fairness, in part 2 of the document:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Ministers are expected to conduct all official business on the basis that they may be expected to demonstrate publicly that their actions and decisions in conducting public business were taken with the sole objective of advancing the public interest.</para></quote>
<para>You see, this is where the minister fails. This is where the Albanese government fails. Despite the code of conduct, despite the fact they had a platform of transparency and integrity, they have failed at the very first hurdle. The documents that have been tabled in response to my order for the production of documents show that.</para>
<para>Despite Mr Albanese saying 'I expect my ministers to consult', the only consultation that took place—this was confirmed by Minister Watt, who represents the minister for workplace relations in this place. This was confirmed by Minister Watt in response to a question I asked during Senate question time. Minister Watt confirmed on behalf of the minister that no consultation had occurred with the actual regulator, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That, quite frankly, shows a complete lack of respect, regardless of whether or not you are ideologically opposed to the building regulator. The fact that you do not consult with them and the 150 employees employed by the regulator—they instead have to find out they are effectively being neutered and pulled back to their bare legal minimum—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Gutted!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I like that word, 'gutted'—on a media show, on <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline>. That is an absolute disgrace and, quite frankly, is completely in contradiction to these high standards that the Prime Minister of the Australia (a) took to the Australian people and (b) demands of his ministers, which are set out quite clearly in the Code of Conduct for Ministers.</para>
<para>When the code of conduct says 'behaviour worthy of the Australian people' and making decisions 'taken with the sole objective of advancing the public interest', let's look at the consultation that did occur. Minister Watt, on behalf of the minister, confirmed that the only consultation that did occur, the only public interest that was advanced by Mr Albanese and the Labor government, was in relation to the interests of the relevant unions. Minister Watt actually confirmed that the consultation that was had in relation to the neutering, or the gutting, of the Building Code was with, and I quote, the CFMMEU. That is interesting because, as we know, they are one of the Australian Labor Party's greatest financial donors. Almost $1 million a year has flowed from the CFMMEU into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party. So what you are seeing is this: money goes in and policy favours come out. This clearly shows there is now only one accord in Australia: the accord that the Albanese government has with the CFMMEU based on the almost $1 million a year that flows into the Australian Labor Party, and then the policies flow out at the behest of the relevant union.</para>
<para>Consultation did occur with the CFMMEU. The consultation didn't stop there, though, as Minister Watt confirmed. There was also consultation with the AWU and with the ACTU. Again: consultation with unions. I go back to the Code of Conduct for Ministers. It clearly does state, under public interest and fairness, that decisions are to be:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… taken with the sole objective of advancing the public interest.</para></quote>
<para>The public interest, I hate to tell Mr Albanese, now Prime Minister of Australia, is not just the public interest for the CFMMEU, it's not just the public interest for the AWU and it is certainly not just the public interest for the ACTU.</para>
<para>I think that any objective observer would ask, 'How about the construction industry?' How about the in excess of, I don't know, 1.1 million employees that the construction industry employs? How about the relevant stakeholders in the construction industry that are not unions? What about, even as a matter of courtesy—nothing more and nothing less; that's what the code of conduct talks about—do you think maybe even a call before you went on Insiders and made the announcement about 150 employees? Those on the other side always talk about the rights of employees. What about the common decency in relation to the around 150 employees employed by the Australian Building and Construction Commission who were effectively told by this Labor government, 'You don't have a job,' and they found out when they watched a media program on Sunday.</para>
<para>Another irony in relation to the consultation is this: one of the meetings Minister Watt put on the record on behalf of the minister from the other place happened on the same day the most militant union in Australia—and that's not me saying that; that's court after court. Minister Watt did say, in response to a question from me, that he and the Labor Party respect the independence of the judiciary. That is the judiciary in Australia calling them the most militant union in Australia. Get this: the consultation that the Albanese government and the minister had with the CFMMEU occurred on the same day that the most militant union in Australia received a record fine—this is a fine by the courts—of $840,000 for threatening unlawful strikes on Brisbane construction sites.</para>
<para>What we see is that they talk big on integrity, they talk big on transparency and they wave around their Code of Conduct for Ministers. And guess what? When they are asked about consultation with relevant stakeholders, when they have to produce documents—I do want to say to the chamber that over the break I will be going through these documents very carefully, because it's often not what the documents say, it's what the documents don't say that is actually a reflection on the government. The amount of redaction in these documents is actually astounding for a government that went to the Australian people on the bases of a platform of integrity and transparency. Well, guess what? When it comes to the Australian Building and Construction Commission, when it comes to the construction industry, there is none.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Consultation: do you know who I think should have been consulted? I think the safety inspectors who were scared off worksites by CFMMEU violence should have been consulted. What an irony, what an absolute irony, that the situation is so bad on Queensland construction sites because of the activities of the CFMMEU. In my home state of Queensland, in Senator Watt's home state of Queensland, the situation got so bad that the Together union had to take protected industrial action so that their members, workplace health and safety inspectors, did not have to attend 17 construction sites in Queensland because of the violence, the intimidation, the bullying, the thuggish behaviour of the CFMMEU construction division. That's how bad it got. That's how bad it got in Queensland. The union representing the workplace health and safety inspectors had to take action to protect the workplace health and safety inspectors. That is how bad it got.</para>
<para>Maybe they should have been, Senator Watt, consulted. Maybe they should have been allowed to put on the public record what they've gone through in terms of dealing with this thuggish, brutish, bullying behaviour of the CFMMEU. But, of course, when the minister put out his media release on 24 July 2022, he didn't even mention the CFMMEU. It's not even mentioned in three pages. He couldn't even bring himself to mention the CFMMEU, because they're an embarrassment. They're an embarrassment for the Australian Labor Party because the ALP is institutionally incapable of dealing with their thug behaviour. Unlike former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who dealt with the BLF, the current day Labor Party is institutionally incapable of dealing with the construction division of the CFMMEU.</para>
<para>I asked the minister representing the relevant minister this week some questions arising out of what is referred to as the Boggo Road Cross River Rail case. For senators who don't come from my home state of Queensland, one of the most significant infrastructure projects occurring in Queensland at the moment, a multibillion-dollar construction project is the Cross River Rail. On 28 July 2022, the Federal Court brought down a judgement, last week, in relation to the CFMMEU. This is what the judge said. These aren't my words; these aren't a politician's words. These are the words of a member of the independent judiciary. 'I've take into account both the circumstances of the contravention itself and of each of the contraveners. There is clearly a persistent adherence to a strategy of noncompliance by all three respondents.' His Honour then quoted the High Court in the Pattinson case, which I referred to in this place last week: 'The greater financial incentive will be necessary to persuade a well resourced contravener'—that is, the CFMMEU—'to abide by the law rather than to adhere to its preferred policy and will be necessary to persuade a poorly resourced CFMMEU that its unlawful policy preference is not sustainable. The more determined a contravener is to have its way in the workplace and the more deliberate its contravention is, the greater will be the financial incentive necessary to make the contravener accept that the price of having its way is not sustainable.' That's what our High Court said. Maybe those opposite should have consulted the High Court or, at the very least, consulted the decisions of the High Court and the decisions of the Federal Court.</para>
<para>When I look at the history of these decisions, I have pages and pages of this stuff in relation to contraventions of the CFMMEU—pages and pages! I'm going to read out some—just some—of the Queensland infrastructure projects which have been impacted by unlawful behaviour of the CFMMEU. If those opposite had engaged in that reasonable consultation of the court decisions, they could have read it. They still can. The projects include the Enoggera army barracks, QUT Kelvin Grove campus, Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, Queensland's institute of medical research, the Bruce Highway Caloundra-Sunshine Coast upgrade, Legacy Way, Port Connect, Cairns Performing Arts Centre, Queensland Performing Arts Centre and Ronald McDonald House—even Ronald McDonald House, for goodness sake!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Disgraceful! They help kids with cancer!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exactly, Senator Cash! How do you defend this sort of stuff?</para>
<para>I've said this before: I know that amongst the number of those opposite are people who have held senior positions in the trade union movement. I don't think any of those opposite, including Senator Sheldon, would have engaged in any sort of conduct which came within a bull's roar of that which was documented in the Federal Court case brought down last week. I can't imagine my colleague Senator Sheldon would have engaged in that conduct. I can't imagine Senator Sterle would engage in that conduct, or Senator Walsh or Senator Ciccone—all well-respected members of the Australian trade union movement. But the Labor Party seems incapable of dealing with this issue from an institutional perspective. It is just going to get worse.</para>
<para>Do you know, Madam Acting Deputy President, that what was said in that Boggo Road Cross River Rail case was so bad that His Honour added an annexure to the judgement—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Which judge?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>His Honour Judge Vasta added an annexure to the judgement—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Which judge?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Watt? Are you making an interjection?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> No, I was just asking if it was Judge Vasta.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was. Do you have anything to say about Judge Vasta?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Scarr, please take your seat. Senators, this shouting across the chamber at each other is disorderly. I instruct senators to direct their questions through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: Minister Watt is very close to making a reflection on the judiciary. Senator Scarr made it very clear which justice he was talking about.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Brockman</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He kept repeating his name—three or four times—and you kept asking, Minister Watt.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On Senator Brockman's point of order: I wanted to clarify the name of the judge. I missed it when Senator Scarr apparently said it the first time. I just wanted to confirm that it was Justice Vasta, as I understand.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You know exactly who it is, and we know the point you're trying to make.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just trying to get some clarity about which judge we're talking about.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are a lot of judges who've said a lot of things about the ABCC, and I'll refer you to them as well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRE</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, please resume your seat. That was a debating point. There are other points in time for us to have this conversation. Right now we are debating the ministerial statement that Senator Watt has provided. I would ask that we not shout across the chamber at each other. I am listening very carefully, and I would appreciate it if, if senators are going to say things that might be perceived as particularly inflammatory, they try and do it when they are making a contribution rather than doing it across the chamber at other senators. Senator Scarr, please continue your remarks.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The conduct was so bad in that case that the judge actually added an annexure. He was so disgusted with the homophobic slurs that were used against Queenslanders in their workplace that he had to include it in an annexure. That's how bad it was.</para>
<para>I've got dozens of cases here. How about Justice Logan in the case of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the CFMMEU—the Titan Cranes case? How about that case? This is what Justice Logan said, Senator Watt:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The time when enough was enough in relation to compliance with the law by this union, its immediate predecessor and, for that matter, others in history, and its officials, has well and truly passed …</para></quote>
<para>That's what Justice Logan said in Queensland in dealing with the Titan Cranes case—another case involving unlawful conduct undertaken by the CFMMEU. There are pages of this. And if Senator Watt wants judges names, how about Chief Justice Kiefel, Justice Gageler, Justice Keane, Justice Gordon, Justice Edelman, Justice Steward, Justice Gleeson, the members of our highest court, the High Court. What have they said? What has the highest court in the land said? Maybe they should have been consulted or, at the very least, the judgements they've written should have been consulted. The High Court said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Full Court's approach in this case is apt to undermine the primacy of deterrence as the objective of the civil penalty regime in the Act is amply demonstrated once regard is had to the failure of previous penalties to have any deterrent effect on the CFMMEU's repeated contraventions of s 349(1) of the Act. The circumstance that the CFMMEU has continued to breach s 349(1), steadfastly resistant to previous attempts to enforce compliance by civil penalties fixed at less than the permitted maximum, is a compelling indication that the penalties previously imposed have not been taken seriously because they were insufficient to outweigh the benefits flowing unlawfully to the contravenor from adherence to the "no ticket, no start" policy. To the contrary, the CFMMEU's continuing defiance of s 349(1) indicates that it regards the penalties previously imposed as an "acceptable cost of doing business".</para></quote>
<para>Maybe those opposite should have consulted the judgements of the highest court of this land.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this ministerial statement regarding the Australian Building and Construction Commission. There's been a lot of hot air from the opposition from recent changes to the building code. Let's set aside all the rhetoric and look at what the minister's instrument actually does. It amends the building code to remove some of the most inappropriate and absurd provisions.</para>
<para>Let's start with 13(2)(j), one of the most ideological and ridiculous sections of regulation in Australian history. That section has been used by the ABCC to run hugely expensive High Court cases about flags and stickers. Let's start with the Eureka flag case, where the ABCC spent half a million dollars on a case to stop the Eureka flag from being displayed on a crane at a building site. Where do I even start on this one? How about the fact that the ABCC was prosecuting this case on behalf of no-one? There was no-one complaining to the ABCC about the Eureka flag being displayed. The developer of the site, Lendlease, was on the same side as the CFMMEU in this dispute. Either Lendlease didn't care about the flag or, more likely, actually recognised that the workers on the site have a little thing called freedom of speech.</para>
<para>So the ABCC spent half a billion dollars to obtain an ideological outcome that no-one—not the union, not the employers, not the workers—actually called for or supported. I think this is the very definition of a waste of money. And it doesn't stop there. The ABCC applies the same ridiculous section to other materials—for example, COVID-19 safety posters in break rooms on worksites. You might think that, during the pandemic, when construction sites were kept open to support our economy, the construction regulators would be focused on keeping workers safe. But, no, rather than support employers and unions to keep worksites COVID safe, the ABCC was investigating the COVID-19 safety posters in break rooms, not because there was any issue with the content of the poster, but because employer associations and union logos were both displayed in the bottom corner of the poster. It is just absurd that anyone can come to this building and say that. Just when we are fighting against COVID-19 safety posters. Just incredible. Half-a-million dollars on this nonsense. Then there's the women's bathrooms case. It's not enough to spend half-a-million dollars fighting about flags and stickers. Even by the standards of the former government, that's a colossal waste of money. So the ABCC is fiercely opposed to COVID-19 safety posters and to women's safety because they opposed and spent half a million dollars trying to stop a women's toilet being installed at a worksite in Melbourne—half a million dollars!</para>
<para>What else in this building code was struck out by this instrument? Let's look at the provision in the code that prevented employers and workers making agreements on a whole range of issues. For example, an agreement that contained clauses on matters dealing with safety—that's out; on clauses dealing with same job, same pay for labour hire workers—that's out; or clauses dealing with requirements for apprentices to be used onsite—that's out. Wow, what a surprise that we've got a problem with a lack of trained people, in this country, within the construction industry—because that's out; you can't train them, you can't come to an agreement; or clauses dealing with female participation in the workforce—that is out; or clauses dealing with sham contracting—of course, that's out.</para>
<para>The favourite thing is, they talk about labour productivity. The construction sector declined every year since the ABCC was established and before the pandemic. In 2017-18, the first full year of the ABCC, productivity was down 2.4 per cent. In 2018-19, productivity was down 2.6 per cent. And in 2019-20, productivity was down 2.6 per cent. Here's the real kicker. In the period between when the ABCC was abolished, by the former Labor government, and when it was re-established, productivity was actually better. Surprise, surprise, surprise! That's what happens when you interfere with the processes there. And, of course, when you see such things as sham contracting—no prosecution was done on sham contracting.</para>
<para>This was clearly an abuse of power and time by this previous government. It's laughable. Their incapacity to turn around and deal with wage theft and inappropriate payments that haven't been paid to workers is absolutely deplorable.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Sheldon. I know that there's much more that you would have liked to have said about the ABCC but I do just want to get a couple of things on the record, specifically about the motion that we're dealing with here and regarding the order to produce documents. We will obviously be speaking further tonight about the disallowance motion, on the same matters that Senator Cash as lodged, and I'll have a bit more to say there.</para>
<para>Specifically on the order to produce documents, I want to make the point that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has identified documents that were in scope for the Senate's order to produce documents that was moved by Senator Cash last week, and he presented those documents to me for tabling.</para>
<para>Senator Cash asked for correspondence between the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations with the ABCC and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Those documents have been provided by the minister, except where they reflect deliberations of cabinet, refer to legal advice that is subject to legal professional privilege or refer to current proceedings before a court. Senator Cash also asked for briefings from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in relation to the changes to the building code and the potential abolition of the ABCC.</para>
<para>In-scope briefings on the approach to amending the building code and abolishing the ABCC were provided by the minister and had been tabled, except where they reflect deliberations of cabinet, refer to legal advice that is subject to legal professional privilege or refer to current proceedings before a court. Information that is unrelated to the specifics of the Senate order was either redacted or not provided, if it was a full page, and personal information and contact details that are not public have also been redacted.</para>
<para>I don't know whether there were any other speakers, particularly, on the OPD, but in the 50 seconds I have left I might just respond very briefly to a couple of things that have been said in this debate by members of the government. As I said the other day, the irony of Senator Cash, of all people, lecturing anyone about the need to consult or show courtesy—I'd like Senator Cash to advise us whether she or her office ever consulted the AWU before her office leaked a police raid on the AWU. Did they show courtesy to the AFP before their office leaked information about the police raid on the AWU? And we have consulted the Australian population, the entire Australian population, about our plans to abolish the ABCC. It's called an election. We took this policy to an election. We won the election and we now have every intention of delivering on that promise that we took to the election.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for the debate has expired. Therefore, I'll put the question. The question is that the Senate take note of the statement as provided by Senator Watt.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>101</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6884" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>101</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.</para></quote>
<para>I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The statement read as follow—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2022 SPRING SITTINGS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT) BILL</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill will respond to recommendations of the United Nations Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), by (among other things) amending federal human rights and anti-discrimination law to require that appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) be made through a publicly advertised merits-based selection process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In early 2022 the SCA deferred re-accreditation of the Commission as an 'A'-status National Human Rights Institution for 18 months due to concerns that recent selection and appointment processes for statutory Commissioners did not fully comply with the United Nations General Assembly <inline font-style="italic">Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions</inline> (the Paris Principles). The SCA will re-consider the Commission's accreditation in October 2023, with the Commission required to submit a written statement of compliance by 1 June 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Passage of this bill in the 2022 Spring sittings will implement changes to the selection and appointments process before the expiry of three Commissioner terms in early 2023 and demonstrate that Australia has addressed the concerns raised by the SCA before the deferred consideration of re-accreditation in late 2023.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>102</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 will ensure appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission are made through a merit-based and transparent process. This Bill will contribute to the Government's overarching integrity agenda and will support the Commission's re-accreditation as an 'A'-status National Human Rights Institution, which is essential to its institutional independence, legitimacy and international credibility.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill legislates a merit-based and transparent appointments process for members of the Commission by amending relevant provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Age Discrimination Act 2004</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Disability Discrimination Act 1992</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Racial Discrimination Act 1975</inline> and the<inline font-style="italic"> Sex Discrimination Act 1984</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In addition, the Bill amends these Acts to clarify that the total term of appointment for the President and Commissioners is 7 years, inclusive of any reappointment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will also ensure consistency for President and Commissioner qualification requirements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Government's commitment to integrity and transparency</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill implements the Government's election commitment to restore integrity in appointment processes in the Commission. Through legislating transparent and merit-based selection processes, the Bill strengthens the Commission's institutional independence and integrity, ensuring the Commission can undertake its statutory functions as an independent statutory body and engage in public debate impartially. These amendments will give the Australian public confidence in the Commission, allowing any qualified Australian to put up their hand to represent their community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">International accreditation o</inline> <inline font-style="italic">f the Commission</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commission's international accreditation is at risk, which has obvious implications for Australia's international reputation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commission has been accredited as an 'A'-status National Human Rights Institution since 1999 when accreditation of National Human Rights Institutions began. However, in March 2022, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions deferred the Commission's re-accreditation as an 'A'-status National Human Rights Institution on the basis that the selection and appointment processes for Commissioners did not comply with the Paris Principles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Sub-Committee's primary concern was three direct Commissioner appointments that were made to the Commission without a merit-based and transparent selection process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions' accreditation process assesses a National Human Rights Institution's compliance with internationally recognised standards. If Australia's status is downgraded to 'B'-status, the Commission's capacity to engage in international forums would be significantly diminished.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For example, the United Human Rights Council and treaty body processes restrict access to 'A'-status National Human Rights Institutions. Further, Australia would receive international scrutiny and criticism from across multilateral organisations and civil society.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commission's re-accreditation has been deferred until October 2023 to provide Australia with an opportunity to address the concerns raised by the Sub-Committee. Accordingly, this Bill responds to the concerns raised by the Sub-Committee to ensure that the Commission can engage with international fora and continue its critical leadership role promoting the existing international rules-based system in our region.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Merits-based appointment processes</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill amends existing appointments provisions for members of the Commission to require that, before making an appointment, the Minister must be satisfied that the selection of the appointee is the result of a merit-based selection process that was publicly advertised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments will require vacancies in Commissioner positions or in the President position to be advertised nationally, such as through newspapers and government websites.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These legislative provisions will be supported by comprehensive policy guidelines to provide further guidance on what constitutes a merit-based selection process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These amendments will remove the ability to appoint the President or Commissioners directly without a merit-based and publicly advertised selection process, and ensure that these positions are open to all qualified members of the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Limitations upon tenure</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will insert amendments clarifying the term of appointment for the President and all Commissioners is for a maximum of seven years, including reappointments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This addresses a concern of the Sub-Committee that the relevant Acts are silent on the number of times Commissioners can be reappointed, creating the possibility of unlimited tenure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This amendment codifies existing practice whereby Commissioners are appointed for an initial five-year term, and then may be reappointed for one or two years to complete particular projects.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Qualification requirements</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, the Bill will ensure that the provisions setting out the qualification requirements for the President and Commissioners are consistent across the relevant Acts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Unlike the other Commissioners, there are currently no qualification requirements for the President of the Commission. The Bill will insert a provision requiring the President to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience to be appointed by the Minister, consistent with existing qualification provisions for the Commissioners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, and importantly, this will not change the distinct qualification requirements for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, which requires appointees to that position to have significant experience in the community life of First Nations people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conclusion</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The effectiveness of our anti-discrimination system is dependent upon the proper functioning of, and support for, the Australian Human Rights Commission. An independent Human Rights Commission is fundamental to Australia's human rights agenda—both internationally and domestically. This government strongly supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission and is committed to restoring integrity to the process of President and Commissioner appointments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will support the Commission's re-accreditation so it can continue to have independent participation rights at international fora, and maintain its international legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, this Bill re-affirms and supports the Government's broad commitment to restoring integrity to government, as well as our commitments to the international rules-based order.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>103</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6887" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>103</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>104</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is introducing the first legislative requirement to abolish the Cashless Debit Card—the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill delivers on the Albanese Government's election commitment to abolish the Cashless Debit Card, and is the first product of ongoing and sincere community consultation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Cashless Debit Card has been operating across Australia for six years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The former government introduced the Card in Ceduna in 2016 but over time it was expanded to include the East Kimberley, Goldfields, Bundaberg and Hervey Bay areas, and most recently—the Northern Territory and Cape York.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The former government claimed the Card would help to address some adverse behaviours relating to drug and alcohol misuse in communities, by quarantining a proportion of a person's welfare payment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite this intention, there has never been evidence to show that the Cashless Debit Card is delivering on its objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Numerous evaluations, inquiries and audits have never rendered clear, unequivocal data that demonstrated the Card was working.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Just last month, the Australian National Audit Office released its latest audit on the performance of the Cashless Debit Card, highlighting once more the lack of evidence available to demonstrate the Card's success. There were no key performance indicators, evidence or evaluation conducted to support the former government's scheme—and despite this message being delivered twice, in the ANAO's first report in 2018 and the second last month—the former government refused to listen.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Service providers on the frontline of helping those who interact with the card, have been scathing of its existence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">St Vincent de Paul said the card had "unintended and expensive consequences across government and the community, including social exclusion and stigmatisation, increased financial hardship, and the erosion of individual autonomy and dignity".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In a policy briefing back in 2019, the group said: "ultimately, this is a punitive and paternalistic measure that is driven by ideology rather than evidence".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Put simply, the Cashless Debit Card is not delivering on its long-promised outcomes. And no one is buying it anymore—certainly not this government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recent consultations in Ceduna and the East Kimberley region have only reinforced the findings and views of others—as have visits to Bundaberg and Hervey Bay by the Assistant Minister for Social Services, the Honourable Justine Elliot MP.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has been told of tragic stories relating to the inadequacy of the Cashless Debit Card. Stories in communities like Kununurra in the East Kimberley region where the introduction of the Cashless Debit Card has not stopped alcohol misuse and instead encouraged workarounds which have made people worse off overall, with less money in their accounts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Minister for Social Services has listened to First Nations community leaders, service providers and Cashless Debit Card participants in these communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">CDC participants have told us the Card stigmatises them and makes their lives more difficult because they cannot access the cash economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In some cases it even blocked the rent payments of users, making housing stability an extra issue they had to face.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Users also described the shame and anguish the card brings—it makes them feel like they are being punished for being on welfare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Today, our government is saying enough is enough—we are calling time on the Cashless Debit Card.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is a better way. And it's why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said removing this card would be central to our priority agenda if we were elected into government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are moving decisively to abolish the CDC in the first week of the new Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And we're doing it in a considered, deliberate manner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is critical that the transition away from the Cashless Debit Card is smooth, and people and communities continue to have access to supports that they need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And that is exactly what this Bill—the first step to transition participants off the Card—will do.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will:</para></quote>
<list>Remove the ability for any new entrants to be put on the Card;</list>
<list>Enable the more than 17,000 existing Cashless Debit Card participants to be progressively transitioned off the Card as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, which we aim to be from September this year, allowing them to regain the financial freedom they have been asking for;</list>
<list>Enable the Family Responsibilities Commission to continue to support their community members by placing them onto Income Management where the need exists:</list>
<list>Allows for the Minister for Social Services to determine, following further consultation with First Nations people and parliamentary colleagues, whether people in the Northern Territory who moved onto the Cashless Debit Card will return to compulsory Income Management if eligible; and</list>
<list>Finally it will allow for the repeal of the Cashless Debit Card on a day to be fixed by proclamation or a maximum of 6 months after Royal Assent—allowing for the necessary time to support a staged transition off the card. It also makes consequential amendments to a number of other Acts and effectively removes CDC from all social services legislation.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Our absolute priority is to ensure participants are supported through their transition off the Card in a safe and structured way.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will be done through extensive communication and an outreach strategy so participants are well informed about the changes and what it means for them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Information and education sessions will be held in each Cashless Debit Card site over the transition period with culturally appropriate information and support.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Services Australia will conduct individually targeted transitional support interviews for those who need it, or want this additional assistance, to make sure exiting participants are well informed on the options available to them. Not everyone will need this level of assistance—but this approach will ensure no one is left behind due to being forced onto this card by the former government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a government we will deliver on our positive, clear plan for a better future for our country guided by two fundamental principles:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No one left behind—being we should always look after the disadvantaged and vulnerable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And no one held back—because we should always support aspiration and opportunity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I want to be clear on two points. Firstly, there will be no requirement for a CDC participant to prove anything in order to move off the card. Second, every CDC participant will be transitioned off the card once this Bill passes the Parliament, and that the CDC will be abolished—it will no longer exist in any way, shape or form. The engagement with Services Australia is to ensure people have the support they might need to assist them with their transition.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Where participants require continued assistance with budgeting, transferring direct debits from their Cashless Debit Card or referrals to further support services—there will be help available including options for voluntary income management.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is not only the first step in the transition journey away from the Cashless Debit Card, but it is a significant milestone in the reform of cashless welfare in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Any measures we put in place as a government we want to ensure will help the people we are assisting.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Welfare support should not be seen as punitive. But should always return to our core principles of no one left behind and no one held back.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a Labor Government, our government will aim to support the most vulnerable in our community and through income support, education, health, public housing and childcare we will make Australia a better place than when we came into government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Extensive community consultation will continue on the broader question of income management, to explore the future of this and other support needs in communities in line with our core principles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We will continue consulting with, and listening to, a wide range of stakeholders, including First Nations leaders, women's groups, service providers, communities and—importantly—people receiving welfare payments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These diverse perspectives on local needs will strongly inform our next steps. Consultation is central to everything we as a government will do. We want to ensure changes or measures we implement are helping those who need it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our focus and our objective as a Government remains clear—to empower people and communities, and provide individuals in need with a range of supports that they can choose to use when, how and in a way that suits them best.</para></quote>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to 5 September 2022, in accordance with standing order 111.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>105</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6889" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>105</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>106</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to 5 September 2022, in accordance with standing order 111.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>106</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022</title>
          <page.no>106</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Disallowance</title>
            <page.no>106</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022, made under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, be disallowed [F2022L01007].</para></quote>
<para>Madam Acting Deputy President, with rising inflation, rising interest rates and Australians under pressure from the cost-of-living increases, you have to ask yourself: why would the Albanese Labor government move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission? We all know the answer to that question: it's because they're beholden to the CFMMEU. As we've said, donations come in to the Australian Labor Party and the CFMMEU's policy wants are then delivered to them. But, given the current economic situation and the importance of the construction industry to the Australian economy, in May of this year economy-wide modelling undertaken by EY showed this: there could be an overall economic cost over the next decade should the ABCC be abolished. Why wouldn't any government, given the current economic circumstances, the continuing global headwinds, the interest rate rises that we saw yesterday, and rising inflation, pause for just one moment and ask: 'Is handing over Australia's construction industry to the most militant union in Australia—as said by the independent judiciary time and time again—actually the right move to make? Is that actually in the best interests of the Australian people?'</para>
<para>I want to share this with you because it is very important. This economic modelling was undertaken by EY and handed down in May of this year. Let's just have a look at it. Regarding key economic costs to the Australian people—ultimately, it's to mum and dad, it's to the Australian taxpayer—this is what EY have said:</para>
<list>Output in the construction industry could fall by around $35.4 billion by 2030 as higher cost inflation makes fewer projects possible, and capital is reallocated to other economic activities.</list>
<list>Overall economic activity could decline by $47.5 billion by 2030 as higher costs and lower productivity act as a handbrake on other sectors.</list>
<para>This is the reality for Australians who currently have a job in the construction industry:</para>
<list>Lower economic growth could see the loss of around 4000 full time jobs across the economy.</list>
<para>You need to ask yourself, despite the ideological hatred of the tough cop on the beat—and we all accept that, because the Labor Party's position in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission is clear—why would you disregard modelling done by EY that tells you that the whole-of-economy costs between now and 2030 could be $47.5 billion? Not only that but also the lower economic growth that Australia will go through because of the impact on the construction industry will mean 4,000 Australians won't have full-time jobs. Despite every time those on the other side say that that they stand up for the worker and that they need to be doing more to get Australians into jobs, they're about to take out—according to the modelling undertaken by EY—4,000 Australians who won't have a job. And why? Because the Labor Party are beholden to the most militant and thuggish union in Australia.</para>
<para>Then there are the employment and labour cost impacts. Again, this is modelling undertaken by the respected firm EY. The construction industry is, as we know, without a doubt one of the largest employers in Australia. It employs around 1.15 million people. But what we also know is that the construction industry directly supports jobs in other Australian industries—for example, the timber industry, the cement industry, the steel industry and manufacturing. So when you hand over the construction industry to the most militant union in Australia, when you actually take into account the whole-of-economy economic impacts that EY has mentioned, those 4,000 jobs are just the start.</para>
<para>For a government that stands up and says: 'We put the interests of Australians first. We put the interests of Australian jobs first,' they are actually condoning the loss of up to 4,000 jobs in the construction sector. Again, you have to ask yourself: why would a government facing rising inflation, a government facing rising interest rates, a government that openly admits it is facing rising costs of living then move to destroy the fifth-largest industry in Australia, which we know will then have flow-on impacts, downstream impacts, on other industries in Australia? What are you saying to those who work in the timber industry? What are you saying to those who work in the steel industry? What are you saying to those who work in the cement manufacturing industry? This is what you're saying: 'You actually don't matter, because, you see, unless you're part of the CFMMEU, unless you are donating around a million dollars a year to the Australian Labor Party, you do not count.'</para>
<para>But one of the biggest concerns that have been raised with me, with the neutering of the building code and the abolition of the ABCC, is who is going to protect workers in the construction industry from thuggish behaviour. But, what is more, who is going to stop the harassment—and worse—of women by officials within the CFMMEU? That is one of the biggest concerns that have been raised by stakeholders.</para>
<para>What the Labor Party is doing by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission is effectively condoning the CFMMEU's vile record of appalling treatment of women. And I'm going to build on what Senator Scarr has already put on the record, because, as he said, there is page after page after page of vile behaviour that CFMEU officials have been found guilty of when it comes to the harassment of women on building sites in this country. What does the ABCC do? It's dismissed by those on the other side, but it actually takes action. It takes court action to protect the rights of women in the construction industry. And what does the Australian Labor Party say? 'We don't care what the Australian courts say. All we care about is the CFMMEU.' That is the same John Setka that has been found guilty of domestic violence on multiple occasions, including incidents where he bashed his partner's head against a table repeatedly and another where he pushed her down a staircase.</para>
<para>But let's also go to some of the behaviour that the courts have found repulsive that those on the other side are effectively condoning by abolishing the ABCC. These are just a few examples. A CFMEU official jailed for assault once told a female inspector she was an 'F-ing slut', asking her if she had brought knee pads, as—I quote—'you are going to be sucking off these F-ing dogs all day'. The Australian Labor Party effectively condones that behaviour. The <inline font-style="italic">Courier-Mail</inline> revealed a CFMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant on a Gold Coast construction site and said this: 'Go on, off you go, you F-ing dog C, go get your police.' He then allegedly called her an 'F-ing dog C' twice more that day.</para>
<para>Some of the sexist incidents recorded in the files of the Australian Building and Construction Commission include a CFMEU official threatening to gang-rape a woman after she inspected their site. One of the union officials also spat at a female workplace inspector during one visit—a female workplace inspector, someone who was just doing her job. She was called an 'F-ing slut' and a 'dog' by the union officials. And do you know what she was doing, Deputy President? She was just doing her job.</para>
<para>It gets worse. CFMMEU delegates, when they picketed a worksite, were accused of harassing the daughter of a builder. Why would you harass the daughter of a builder? Why? The picketers were accused of harassing the daughter of the builder, when she entered the site in her car, by commenting on her breasts and her bottom. Seriously? Young girls have enough issues today—let alone having a thug from the CFMMEU commenting on her breasts and her bottom.</para>
<para>It gets worse, though. A CFMMEU official made three phone calls late at night to a female inspector's mobile phone. The last call logged at 11.23 pm. An anonymous flyer was then circulated referring to the woman as a dog who wanted to become a pole dancer. The flyer gave the name of the woman's husband, her home address and her home phone number. A number of threatening calls were made. One caller said, 'You're an effing rat.' Another caller said, 'Me and my seven mates are going to come and eff you.' A former Fair Work Building Commission employee was subject to intimidation by John Setka and another CFMMEU official. Mr Setka and Mr Reardon made a number of sexually derogatory remarks. She found three missed phone calls from Mr Reardon and one missed phone call from Mr Setka, who left a sexually derogatory message on her telephone. So that's just a snippet of the behaviour that is condoned by those on the other side.</para>
<para>Let me follow up on what Senator Scarr was referring to, in the recent case where the CFMMEU and two of its officials were given the maximum penalty, $151,200, following right-of-entry breaches—get this—which included disgusting slurs on an individual on the $5.4 billion Queensland Cross River Rail project. The judge in that case said—and it was Judge Vasta—he had 'absolutely no doubt' that CFMMEU official Luke Gibson called the safety adviser 'a pumpkin eater', which was meant as a homophobic slur. And guess what? Senator Scarr was right; they had to add an annexure to the judgement to explain what that term meant. Any person who reads it should be utterly disgusted at the words that were uttered by CFMMEU official Luke Gibson, saying that to a safety adviser. What an absolute disgrace! Where is Anthony Albanese in standing up and fronting the Australian people and actually saying the words, 'I condemn CFMMEU official Luke Gibson for saying those disgusting homophobic slurs'?</para>
<para>The judge also says this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The belligerent response and subsequent behaviour of—</para></quote>
<para>Mr Blakeley and Mr Gibson—</para>
<quote><para class="block">speaks of a sense of entitlement and a recalcitrance to behaving as ordinary decent human beings.</para></quote>
<para>He goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The behaviour of uttering quite disgusting homophobic slurs has been consigned to the chapters of the dark history of Australia where the hurling of vitriolic insults which targeted a person's sexuality, race or religion were unfortunately tolerated as if such belittling and bullying was something that a victim just "had to cop". Those days are thankfully gone and only troglodytes would attempt to resurrect them.</para></quote>
<para>For Mr Blakeley and Mr Gibson, who are—get this—allegedly:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… fit and proper persons to hold an entry permit pursuant to s 512 of the FW Act) to utter such slurs to bully and belittle a person simply must be deterred by all means available to a Court.</para></quote>
<para>I would also argue: by all means available to any Australian government, and that includes by ensuring there is a tough cop on the beat. Where is the Prime Minister in standing up and saying any person, in particular a CFMMEU official who utters disgusting homophobic slurs—you have no right to be found a fit and proper person and given a right-of-entry pass, which, quite frankly, is a privilege, to go onto building sites in this country. But what does Mr Albanese do? Nothing. Crickets. I dare him to stand up and condemn and say the name of this official in the same sentence.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Sena</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>tor ROBERTS () (): The sanctity of work. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I want to make a plea to support workers. I've worked in canneries, in manufacturing, in restaurants in the kitchen. I've worked in the vineyards, I've worked under the sun, I've worked underground, I've worked in open-cut coal mines. But my greatest joy was working underground as a coalface miner. That's where I got my proudest time at work.</para>
<para>People spend around eight to nine hours, on average, per day, working. It's an extremely important part of our lives. The sanctity of work is extremely important. That is being destroyed by negligent managers across sectors, but also, sadly, by rogue union bosses in some large unions.</para>
<para>I've been a member of the coalmining union, the predecessor to the CFMEU. I've dealt with them, as a manager. Not only was I a member, as a coalface worker, underground, for three years, I also dealt with them later—and I enjoyed dealing with them, because they treated miners with respect back in the seventies and eighties. And I dealt with the CFMEU later, as a general manager, when they took over the coalmining union. But, sadly, today, many union bosses do not look after workers. Miners, I found, were great people—are great people—and I loved that work underground, but I have become disgusted with some union bosses in some very large companies. I'm very proud to support unions in this country. They're necessary. I'm very proud to support workers in this country; they are fabulous people—the salt of the earth. But I am disgusted with some union bosses in some large unions—not all; 'some'.</para>
<para>I have concerns particularly with the CFMMEU. The CFMEU was one of the founding donors of the GetUp organisation. Imagine that: the CFMEU at the time donated $1. 3 million to the foundation of GetUp. And what's GetUp's No. 1 project, their No. 1 campaign? To shut down the coal industry. So the CFMEU, supposedly representing miners, was paying GetUp to shut down the coal industry. I'm disgusted! They want to kill coal.</para>
<para>Then I became aware of the Hunter Valley CFMEU and what it was doing to miners, not for miners—working against miners. I've spoken about that for almost three years now—well, it is three years now. I introduced into the Senate in the previous parliament, and reintroduced, just last week, my bill for equal pay for equal work, because union bosses have done grubby deals with multinational labour hire companies—including an offshoot from the largest labour hire company, a foreign-owned multinational from Japan—that have gutted workers' pay in the Hunter Valley. Miners in casual employment are being paid 40 per cent less than miners in permanent work at the same mine, right beside each other, doing the same job with the same responsibilities—paid 40 per cent less, thanks to union bosses agreeing to enterprise agreements that do not favour the miners.</para>
<para>Miners have lost their basic leave entitlements and basic protections. We know of miners who've been almost killed and have been totally and permanently incapacitated—disabled. They've no workers' compensation—none. And the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley knew about it. I know that the CFMEU in the mining industry and the CFMEU in the construction side merged. Then I think they split apart again very quickly because they couldn't see eye to eye with each other. Safety has been neglected; pay has been neglected; leave has been neglected; basic entitlements have been neglected—and not only neglected but exploited and stolen from these workers. The Labor Party neglected them for many, many years. It wasn't until I came along that we pushed their case. And we have had some wins for those miners. But I was staggered that the CFMMEU, which used to protect miners in the eighties, is now exploiting miners.</para>
<para>Then we saw construction workers in Melbourne attack John Setka and the other union bosses in the CFMMEU construction division in Melbourne late last year because they didn't stand up for workers who were being mandated with an unproven injection. Then we saw the Heydon royal commission, around 2014 or 2015, come up with all those comments about the thugs operating at the senior levels of the CFMEU construction division.</para>
<para>Unions were formed, back in the late 19th century, to protect workers' pay rates, security, seniority, safety, retirement, benefits, entitlements and protections. And they were absolutely necessary. One of the things that has destroyed some unions is that they have become monopolies, and when you have a monopoly you have people not willing to face up to competition. They no longer have to provide a service that's competitive.</para>
<para>I'll take you back to my experience as a general manager in Central Queensland, dealing with a CFMEU vice-president, Jim Lambley. We were negotiating, and eventually agreed on, a landmark business enterprise award—the first of its kind in the coal industry, the first radically different. We protected workers with that because we lined up what workers wanted and what shareholders wanted. We had a fabulous agreement. We had the lowest turnover of any mine in Central Queensland at the time. We weren't paying excessively or less; we were paying what was about typical of the industry in Central Queensland but we had the lowest turnover, one per cent, despite vigorous recruiting of our miners from other competitors. Why? Because we had that agreement in the interests of the workers and the shareholders. Both are needed to provide security and performance for a business and for ongoing employment. We also had the best safety performance of any large underground coalmine in the country, way ahead of any other mine in the country, because we worked with miners as managers. It is no longer; as Jim Lambley told me back then—this was back in the nineties—the CFMEU had lost sight of the workers and the CFMEU needed to get back to providing a service.</para>
<para>But it does haven't to provide a service when it's a monopoly. That's what is hurting workers in this country. Workers are being shafted because union bosses in some large organisations, including the CFMMEU, are looking after their own interests. They're feathering their own nests, they have political ambitions and they have control of money and control of a whole industry sector. We know that's what's going on with the Construction Division of the CFMMEU, and it is disgusting.</para>
<para>I've been told by miners in the CFMMEU and I've been told by construction workers in the CFMMEU that they are tired of giving their money to the union to give to the Labor Party, because the Labor Party doesn't stand for workers anymore. The CFMMEU doesn't stand for workers anymore. The CFMMEU stands for control. The Labor Party has lost sight of workers. The Labor Party is against workers. I had to beg and plead with the Labor Party in the Hunter Valley and all they did was misrepresent what I was doing. But we persisted and persisted. They weren't interested in supporting the workers. I look across at Senator Sterle, and I'm in admiration of his genuine concern for workers, his genuine service to workers and his genuine support for workers—I really am. Senator Sheldon and the late Alex Gallacher: impressive people, doing their job. But some other unions are not doing theirs.</para>
<para>The problem is that we have found unions were formed to protect workers but they've lost sight of it because they're monopolies—no competition, no accountability—and so we have exploitation of the people they're supposed to protect, their members. I'm very strongly in support of unions and union members, and very strongly in support of workers, whether or not they're union members. But I'm against thugs that run intimidation rackets and control rackets, and that's why we need the ABCC to remain.</para>
<para>I point again to the Labor Party's lack of consultation on this topic. They just abolished it, with minimum consultation. I've listened to small companies in the construction field and I've listened to workers in the construction field, and they don't want to go back to the lawless jungle. They do not want that, they want protections and some security. I serve the people of Queensland and Australia, and thousands of workers all over this country. That's who I serve, and that's why I want to retain the ABCC.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a lot I could say, but out of consideration for the other speakers who I know want to speak on this, I'll keep my remarks quite brief. I won't go on at length, as I could, about the utter shamelessness of Senator Cash, of all people, coming in and lecturing anyone about consultation, about lawlessness and about courtesy—or, for that matter, anyone from the former government wanting to lecture anyone about sexist behaviour and homophobia. I think everyone understand the utter shamelessness of anyone from the former government lecturing anyone about those matters. There are any number of judicial comments I could refer to—and I referred to some in question time yesterday—which point out the trivial nature of so much of the activity of the ABCC, run up at taxpayers' expense.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Trivial, is it?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I do think it's trivial to pursue building companies over the fact that they allow their workers to put stickers on their helmets. I think that is pretty trivial. I think it's a waste of taxpayers' money, to spend half a million dollars pursuing construction companies over matters like that or about flags that they display.</para>
<para>As I said in question time yesterday, and I repeat now: there is no place for thuggish or sexist or homophobic behaviour in a workplace, whether it be a parliament—something that certain people might need to reflect on—or a construction site. There is no place for that kind of behaviour in any workplace. But that is not what this motion is about, as much as the opposition might try to make it about that.</para>
<para>Let's be very clear what this motion is about. With this motion, Senator Cash and her coalition colleagues seek to lock in low productivity in our construction industry, introduce more red tape for employers and workers, and remove freedom of expression—things that I thought were hallmarks of the modern Liberal Party. They want to bring down productivity. Anyone who looks at the statistics about labour productivity in the construction sector since the ABCC was introduced can see that it has actually fallen. It's about tying firms up with more red tape—things like whether union posters can be displayed, and whether stickers or flags can be put up. It's about banning companies from coming to agreements with their own workers about the employment of apprentices.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We hear this chorus yet again from the opposition who, all of a sudden and despite everything we know that happened before the election, have this confected outrage about the position of women in workplaces. What this code that the opposition wants to keep in place does is it stops employers and employees reaching agreements about things like women's participation in the workplace. If you want to be serious about how women are treated in workplaces, why would you not get rid of a code that tries to stop employers and employees coming to arrangements with their unions about how women are treated in a workplace? I note the utter hypocrisy—the rank hypocrisy—of the opposition, who despite everything that we know that happened before the election in terms of the treatment of women in this very building, have all of a sudden become converts to the idea that women need to be protected in workplaces. They are trying to do this by keeping a code that stops companies and employees coming to agreement about women's participation. There is so much more I could say in response to the opposition senators, but out of respect for my colleagues I'll make sure that there's enough time for them to add to it as well.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Here we see on display the highest example of a protection racket that has been run for the thuggery, the abuse and all the examples of the worst parts of the union movement. As my colleagues have said, and as Senator Roberts said, there are some wonderful examples of unions that are organising appropriately, that represent their workers and that, frankly, do a good job. My wife has worked as a nurse for many years, and she was part of the nursing union over there in Western Australia. She was represented well by that union, I must say.</para>
<para>But we're hearing no mention at all—or even the utterance—of the CFMMEU. You can't bring yourself to recognise that organisation because you're ashamed of it. Any time there's a photo put up you say, 'Quickly, hide it away, I don't want to be seen with these people.' You don't want to be seen with these sorts of people. The utter shame of the examples that are being set here in this place is absolutely terrible. The lack of shame on this topic is genuinely unmatched.</para>
<para>I thought that we might see the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, slowly stripped of its powers, maybe over a few years or even a few months, Senator Brockman—through you, Chair. But what we're seeing is rapid progress towards its abolition. They are getting rid of this cop on the beat that would have served an important role in preventing the incidents that Senator Cash was speaking about. Those examples weren't just anecdotes; they were found to be true, having come through the courts. Even the highest court in our land has found that these cases of gross thuggery, abuse and intimidation in workplaces are real. These are not just anecdotes brought up by sectional interests. This has actually been found to be true by the High Court. We thought we might see the ABCC slowly stripped of its power, bit by bit and be quietly whittled away to become a much smaller body over time. How wrong was I?</para>
<para>The members and senators involved in the ABCC—senators and members among those opposite—want to strip the ABCC of its power and of its role in ensuring that workplaces are safe in our construction industry. They don't have a plan to deal with inflation. They don't have a plan to deal with the cost-of-living pressures. We heard from Minister Watt, the agriculture minister last week—and he tried to explain his way through it this week—that they have no plan to deal with the FMD situation which poses a real threat to farmers across our country. They have no plan for FMD, but they do have a plan to allow lawlessness to continue in this country on building sites. They have a plan to have lawlessness continue to occur on building sites, where thuggery occurs and where there's abuse of workers. That continues to go unfettered. That can continue to go on in workplaces because they want to strip away the powers of the ABCC and, in fact, abolish it.</para>
<para>They don't have a plan to deal with the economy or a plan to deal with inflation, but they've got plan to get rid of the ABCC. They have a fully formed plan to hand the CFMMEU a free rein on building sites again—an unbelievable, yet somehow totally unsurprising, set of priorities from the ALP. When it comes to the union movement, it seems that crime really does pay. What we know is that the CFMMEU, in particular, is one of the biggest donors to the ALP, feeding their election campaigns. Is this why we're seeing that crime does pay? You've got an example here of a protection racket that's being run.</para>
<para>On the day after the announcement of the ABCC's abolition, a CFMMEU official was called out for appalling abuse and intimidation of workers, yet they're persisting. You might think they would check themselves. After making an announcement about getting rid of the ABCC, you would have thought they might check themselves, but no. It becomes clearer and clearer that the ALP doesn't stand up for workers. They stand up for the unions—unions that cover less than one in 10 private sector employees. Workers don't want to be physically intimidated and abused at work. They want to go about their jobs safely and, importantly, without intimidation. Imagine going to a job and thinking: 'Is today going to be the day when I'm going to get abused again? Will today be the day when I'm going to be confronted by someone who will intimidate me, pull me down, ridicule me and make me feel unsafe in the workplace?' That's what, sadly, too many of our workers across this country have to put up with, particularly on construction worksites.</para>
<para>The Labor Party is stripping back the very watchdog that is working to prevent this thuggery and these shameful acts that occur on these worksites. Do you know who is standing up for workers? It's the ABCC. While the unions run around racking up fines and disrupting workplaces, the ABCC, since it was re-established in 2016, has recovered over $5 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for construction workers. Funny—you'd think that would be the something a union should be doing. But, no, it's actually the ABCC, and this is only since 2019. Since 2019, over $13½ million in progress claims for subcontractors have been recovered.</para>
<para>Prime Minister Albanese and Labor talk a big game. They come in here and talk about wage theft. They voted against our bill when we were in government to criminalise wage theft and now they want to abolish the ABCC, who have recovered millions of dollars in wages and entitlements for Australian workers. I don't have time today to go through every egregious example of the CFMEU's abuse of power and people. Even if I only focused on the last few weeks, I wouldn't have enough time to uncover all that. I'd have to come in here with volumes to be able to cover the full extent of what we're seeing. We know that some of these unions are prepared to do anything; in fact, they'll justify breaking the law.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Anything it takes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Anything it takes, in fact, that's what we know—Sally McManus, thank you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, actually my darling friend Graham Richardson. Anything it takes.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, you're being disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I take that interjection. You can justify a law. Sally McManus, the head of the ACTU, said that she doesn't see a problem with breaking the law if the law is unjust. It doesn't matter that it might be the law of the land, but if, in their opinion, it's unjust, you can break the law. The union movement sees legal fees and fines as a cost of doing business, not to mention the thuggery that happens on site.</para>
<para>In recent years over $16 million in fines have been imposed on the CFMMEU. Judges have observed that these penalties are not enough for a union that treats them like parking tickets. Of the 1,661 contraventions of industrial law brought against the CFMMEU, 91 per cent were upheld. Clearly this body is not being frivolous but is playing a genuine role. Those opposite want to remove this body that's actually playing a genuine role in ensuring that workplaces are safe, and people can go to work and do their jobs and be happy about their work.</para>
<para>We talk about the cost of living and the impact that this would have. Studies by EY and the Master Builders Association found that the economic loss from the ABCC's abolition is estimated to cost $47.5 billion as the cost overrun from the construction industry spills over into other sectors. There is pressure on the economy, and there's a lot going on globally. We accept that. There are a lot of international pressures. So why would you want to impose a greater hit to the Australian economy? The construction industry makes up 10 per cent of the economy and you want to impose even a greater cost and a greater impact. That's not just for the workers but, importantly, for those paying for construction projects to be delivered. Whether it's taxpayers, employers, customers or mums and dads, those seeking the services of that industry end up paying for it. Ultimately, the Australian taxpayer pays. That's not to mention the misery, shame and difficulty that is caused to an individual who has to go to work and face the intimidation and thuggery of unions and officials. It might just be sections within it, but you need a cop on the beat to make sure that there are protections there, that someone doesn't need to go to their workplace and be under any threat of their livelihood and their enjoyment at work.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to echo the comments of Treasurer Jim Chalmers about what the Australian economy is facing right now and what Australians are facing, including increased cost-of-living pressures being felt at the supermarket and the petrol pump. There's a lot of concern about the state of the global economy, concern out of the US, China, the Ukraine situation. The entire world is experiencing high rates of inflation, rising interest rates, and a consequence of that is slow growth trends across sectors.</para>
<para>Food and energy security is also placing great pressure on the demand side of the economy, and, as we know too well, governments are somewhat hamstrung in their ability to respond to these issues because of the high debt incurred during the pandemic, debt which equates to $1 trillion, a legacy of the former Liberal government, 10 long years of drift and poor economic policy.</para>
<para>Australia is facing these economic headwinds, but we're going into these difficult set of circumstances with historically low unemployment. This is a huge boost to our position, but we must have the right economic plan for this set of circumstances. It is up to the Reserve Bank to make decisions around the level of interest rates based on the condition of the high and rising inflation we are witnessing across the economy.</para>
<para>Pressure on people's cost of living comes from the supply side of the economy. Therefore it is crucial that we, as a government, provide appropriate cost-of-living relief in the October budget but also put in place a policy framework for lifting the Australian economy. We have delivered in that respect with a historic wage increase for people on the minimum wage. This is where the Albanese Labor government plans for cleaner and cheaper energy, childcare reforms, investment in skills and the digital economy, advancement in manufacturing and the care economy are so important. This is the plan our nation needs now to help deal with the complex set of circumstances emerging within the global economy.</para>
<para>Now, all Australians understand what we have inherited from the previous Liberal government: $1 trillion worth of debt which is costing more and more to pay off because of the increasing interest rates. We have to prioritise, and we will always prioritise what is important to the Australian people, what benefits Australian families.</para>
<para>The paid pandemic leave payment for casuals is something that the government, along with state and territory leaders, are supportive of, which is why the government has extended this until the end of September.</para>
<para>We, as a government, and the Treasurer have made it very clear that we must deal with the legacy of rorts and waste under the previous Liberal government. Big buckets of taxpayer money handed out at ministerial discretion occurred for years under the previous Liberal government. Now we must manage the economy based off what we have inherited, what we face today and the context of the Australian economy on a daily basis. Every dollar that the previous government borrowed is now more expensive to service because of the increase in interest rates. The Liberals left a legacy of nine long years of economic mismanagement and missed opportunities.</para>
<para>Now we must not be under any illusion about what we are facing in this country. Inflation is increasing and interest rates with it. The argument that wages in Australia are putting pressure on inflation is incorrect. It's basically wrong, because wages have been going backwards. Of all the circumstances that are contributing to inflation, wages is certainly not one of them, no matter what those on the other side of this chamber like to say. Lifting interest rates is aiming to deal with the demand of the economy.</para>
<para>One of the reasons we have high inflation is due to the choked-off supply. We must have more resilient supply chains, and Labor has a plan to deal with this. We talked about it during the election campaign. We must, with urgency, improve Australia's sovereign capacity by supporting local manufacturing. We must let the country thrive. We must give them the opportunities to increase wages and invest in the productive capacity of the economy. Creating more resilience is the primary objective of the Albanese Labor government. This Labor government will invest in the capacity of Australian people, and we will support them to train and skill-up. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Early Childhood Education</title>
          <page.no>113</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>People are doing it really tough. Many are left with the choice of putting food on the table, paying rent or going to the dentist, and all the while they are still trying to cope with the pandemic. There is no question that people need cost-of-living relief. This is the time to make some monumental changes to do exactly that by investing in essential services. Early childhood education and care is one of those public services that needs urgent attention.</para>
<para>After many years of being considered a third- or fourth-order political issue, early learning is pretty close to front and centre of the political agenda, as it ought to be. A radical rethinking of early education and care has been a long time coming, and in no small part it is due to the advocacy of so many in the sector and the community who have fought hard for recognition of early learning as what it really is—an essential service that is critical for children in the early years of their development. It should be well funded, universal and fee-free.</para>
<para>In his address last week, the Governor-General stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ultimate goal is to add affordable child care to the list of universal services—alongside Medicare, the NDIS and superannuation—that Australians cherish.</para></quote>
<para>The Greens welcome the aspiration of delivering child care as a universal service. We have been saying for many years now that early childhood education and care should be free and universal, an essential service. We took to the election a bold, fully costed plan for free and universal early childhood education and care across Australia. As the Greens spokesperson for education, I am so proud to lead this work. I want to highlight, however, the urgency of the task ahead and the need for the new government not only to get on with the job of raising the childcare subsidy but also to deliver a far more ambitious agenda that tackles affordability; workforce, including pay and conditions; and the terrible reliance on for-profit early education providers.</para>
<para>Education should never be for profit. Gap fees are going through the roof, while there are thousands of staff vacancies in our childcare centres across the country. Alarmingly, short-staffed services are increasingly relying on staffing waivers just to keep their doors open. Centre staff and children suffer when this is made more and more common. The United Workers Union has announced that its workers will go on strike in September. I give my full solidarity and support to those educators who are demanding a better deal. The union has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Educators are leaving the sector in record numbers every week due to burn-out, workload and low pay.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Centres across the country are having to limit enrolments, close rooms and cancel staff leave.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Children and families are suffering due to the strain.</para></quote>
<para>After nearly a decade of inaction on early learning, educators have had enough.</para>
<para>In just the last few days, several critical new reports have been released which further highlight the need for swift and systemic reform of early learning. The Centre for Policy Development's <inline font-style="italic">Starting </inline><inline font-style="italic">now</inline>, the Australia Institute's <inline font-style="italic">Childcare review </inline><inline font-style="italic">&</inline><inline font-style="italic">strike require systemic solutions</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Thrive by Five early childhood education and care workforce action plan</inline> are calls to action for the incoming government variously on affordability, a well-treated workforce, excellence in early learning, tackling private provision—the list goes on. The treatment of early childhood educators is a national shame. Early childhood educators continue to be paid well below what would be expected of those with their responsibilities and skills. A proper workforce strategy must be delivered and actually implemented with the early learning sector and unions to achieve higher professional pay and better working conditions.</para>
<para>The childcare scams simply cannot be quick-fixed down the road by this government. This should be a top priority. The billionaires and the tax-dodging, profiteering fossil fuel corporations that are driving the climate crisis must be made to pay their fair share so we can have the public services everyday people living in Australia need. While I have no doubt that there is much careful work to do, I do not want to see the government deferring much of its work on child care until after a drawn-out review or acting only following the release of its vaunted Early Years Strategy. We need free and universal early education and care now, with educators who have the best pay and conditions. We need action now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Young Australians, Western Australia</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I start, please note this is not my first speech. I've learned that the hard way! I'm honoured to be here in this place as the youngest member of the Senate in the 47th Parliament. Under the previous government, young Australians were shunned and locked out from policy decisions that impacted their lives and futures. As a young Australian, I know that our voices were not heard, and as a result the policies of the previous government raided our retirement savings, made it harder to access education and training and did nothing for accessible housing.</para>
<para>Young Australians are diverse, they are engaged in politics and they want to be listened to. When an issue is present in society, it is often young people who are affected most. It is young people who are mostly feeling the pinch in rental markets or in trying to buy a home. It is young people who are most disadvantaged by the casualisation of the workforce. It is young people who are most acutely impacted by the previous government's attacks on higher education and TAFE. I am proud to be a young Labor senator elected to this place, because I know that this Albanese Labor government will engage the youth. We are committed to establishing a framework to engage with young Australians and establishing an Office for Youth, and we have an incredible Minister for Youth in Dr Anne Aly.</para>
<para>On the campaign trail, I often heard from young people who wanted change. They were sick of the rorts and wanted a national anticorruption commission with teeth. They were tired of their universities and TAFEs being attacked. They wanted to see a parliament that truly reflected their community, and they wanted a government who would end the climate wars and take action on climate change. Labor listened, and the Albanese Labor government will deliver a better future for young Australians. As the youngest member of this parliament, I'm committed to continuing to listen.</para>
<para>On 1 July I began my term as a senator for my home state, Western Australia. It is an honour to stand here representing WA. During the election campaign, the previous government threw out everything they could to try and hold on to power. They bought buses and trucks, they were supported by minor fringe parties and they made hundreds of promises. But Western Australians remember. We remembered the promises that were broken time and time again. We remembered that they used taxpayers' money to support Clive Palmer against our state. We remembered the political games played during the height of the pandemic. We remembered when the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison called us 'cave people'. So Western Australians made a choice for a better future, and we voted out a government which had taken us for granted for far too long. I am so lucky to be representing my home state, and I'm committed to making sure that the voice of Western Australia is heard here in Canberra.</para>
<para>There is a feeling in WA that we are not heard or respected enough in this place. We saw it time and time again with the last government. We are essentially, if I may, the nation's breadwinner, and yet often national discussions seem to treat the eastern states as the centre of the universe or the gold standard. As a senator for WA, I will not let this be the case. In every committee I am on, the meetings I have, the interviews I give and the speeches I make in this place, I will always be fighting for WA. I will always stand up for my beloved home state of WA, and I'll never take it for granted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Secret Intelligence Service: 70th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to recognise the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS. In May 1952 the horrors of World War II were fresh in the minds of many Australians. The Korean War was underway and the Cold War presented an ever-present risk of going hot. Australia has always benefited from the trusted relationships of our most important allies.</para>
<para>Our like-minded partners were as important in 1952 as they are today. However, the then Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, knew that Australia could not simply rely upon friends to share important information. He knew Australia needed to develop its own ability to collect foreign intelligence and conduct covert operations in our national interest. Working closely with cabinet minister Richard Casey, it was Menzies who drove the creation of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, through a then secret order of the Governor-General's executive council.</para>
<para>The new agency was to be led by Alfred Deakin Brookes, a former Army intelligence officer. The new agency took much inspiration from Great Britain's MI6 and was charged with two key priorities: the collection of foreign intelligence offshore and the execution of special operations. These operations were envisaged to be very much like the type undertaken in the Second World War, where brave men and women risked their lives to uncover secrets, cultivate critical knowledge and engage in clandestine activities to disrupt or deter an enemy.</para>
<para>These two priorities remain the core mission of the modern Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and they remain as relevant today as we confront our own dangerous geopolitical reality. By its very nature, Australians will never know the names or much of the work undertaken by ASIS officers in defence of our national interest. Other than the director-general, Paul Symon, and his deputies, Fabio Meloni and Catherine Burn, they cannot even legally be named. But there are many station chiefs, officers, analysts and data scientists, here in Australia and around the world, whose work makes us safer every day.</para>
<para>We do not have to look far to find significant threats to peace, stability and prosperity in the world today. Our European friends face significant hostility from an aggressive and expansionist Russia. Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has implications for the whole world and presents a real threat to the free and democratic institutions we seek to defend and uphold. Closer to home, the Chinese Communist Party continues to embark on a military build-up of historic proportions, while the PLA air force routinely harasses the people of Taiwan and engages in increasingly aggressive tactics, in an attempt to prevent free transit in the Indo-Pacific.</para>
<para>We have been warned by our own security agencies, including ASIO, of industrial-scale espionage, foreign interference and cyberattacks against our universities, research institutions, government departments and commercial entities. Meeting these challenges requires all elements of statecraft, including soft-power tools like diplomacy and hard-power tools like a potent and capable Australian Defence Force. We must not, however, see the domain of the shadows to adversaries who would seek to do us harm, as Paul Symon said in his address to the Lowy Institute, which I was honoured to attend in May.</para>
<para>In that insightful speech, Mr Symon acknowledged that our adversaries are spying on us, that they are seeking to weaken our institutions and bend our values. As we have become increasingly interconnected and reliant upon technology and personal devices, we have also witnessed the significant uptick in electronic surveillance, which demonstrates the importance of signals intelligence collection. Australia has rightly invested in those capabilities and provided those collection agencies, including the Australian Signals Directorate, with appropriate legislative tools to combat cyberthreats. But the current strategic environment underlines the ongoing contemporary relevance of and significant need for a well-resourced human intelligence collection agency.</para>
<para>The challenges posed by technological advances, including ubiquitous technical surveillance, means that human intelligence collection is becoming increasingly difficult as the risk of exposure grows that much higher. But that does not reduce the value of the unique insights that only human intelligence can provide into the plans, intentions and capabilities of our potential adversaries.</para>
<para>I have every faith in our intelligence officers and their leadership, but as policymakers it is our responsibility to listen and consider the best ways that we can equip them with the necessary tools and sufficient resources to carry out their vital work in some of the most dangerous places of the world. So as we thank ASIS and its dedicated people for their 70 years of service in the national interest, we must also reflect what they will need from us to meet the contest in the decades ahead.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Transport Industry</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BILYK</name>
    <name.id>HZB</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight on adjournment to discuss the important issue of safe rates for the transport industry. The last couple of years have highlighted in particular just how important the transport industry and our nation's truck drivers are. Being a truck driver is a highly dangerous industry. In fact, road transport is Australia's deadliest industry. There are long hours and dangers of fatigue, weather and other road users acting inconsiderately or dangerously. But we owe it to those in the transport industry to do everything we can to keep them safe at work so that they can return home to their families after they deliver the goods we require. We owe it to the community to ensure their safety on the road as well. Safety on the roads is every road user's business.</para>
<para>This is why I was horrified when the previous government rolled back the independent body that ensured safe rates were paid in the industry. The government were warned at the time by drivers, by the Transport Workers Union, by employers and by Labor's members and senators how dangerous this move was and how it would negatively impact safety. Since that independent body was abolished there has been a total of 1,098 truck crash deaths, with 27 of those in my home state of Tasmania. That's just shocking. And the majority of these deaths are not the truck drivers themselves—this is what people need to understand—but other road users.</para>
<para>In August 2021 the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, chaired by former truckie Senator Sterle, handed down its report <inline font-style="italic">Without </inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">rucks Australia </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tops: the development of a viable, safe, sustainable and efficient road transport industry</inline>. Sadly, the former Liberal government didn't even bother to produce a response to that report. There have been another 169 truck crash deaths on Australia's roads since the release of that report. We're facing a very dangerous time in the road transport industry, and the power balance in the industry was completely upset by the removal of an independent rate setting body.</para>
<para>While many people think of the big freight companies when they think about trucking, the industry is largely made up of small players. The committee found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Overwhelmingly, the industry's some 51000 businesses are numerically dominated by small businesses, 'of which 53 per cent are non-employing owner drivers and 45 per cent are small businesses with 19 or fewer employees'.</para></quote>
<para>However, these small firms are being placed under ever-increasing pressure.</para>
<para>I met with employers, drivers and the Transport Workers Union when they in parliament last week, and I took great pleasure in signing yet again the safe rates pledge. On the weekend there was a truck convoy with drivers and their trucks outside this place standing up for safe rates and safety on our roads. While I was meeting with the drivers, the employers and the TWU I heard how the gig economy companies are undercutting the industry, paying drivers well below minimum rates and making road transport unsustainable and unsafe. Continual shrinking margins for transport companies and their employee drivers, owner drivers and small fleet operators increases the pressure on drivers to take risks to make up the difference. Drivers working in freight, construction and oil and gas face constant pressure to cut corners on safety and to drive to exhaustion. And what's the result? The result is an industry-wide race to the bottom that is crushing the sustainability of road transport. In these circumstances drivers are more likely to drive fatigued, cut back on safety and maintenance, overload or speed.</para>
<para>I thank the drivers, the union representatives and the industry representatives for meeting with me during the week of action at Parliament House. It's clear we urgently need to lift standards in road safety, and the industry-wide problems need an industry-wide solution. The Senate inquiry which brought together road transport's fractured players shows what is possible when the parliament works constructively with industry to achieve solutions. The <inline font-style="italic">Without </inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">rucks Australia </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tops</inline> final report's 10 recommendations are part of the solution. Central to the report's recommendations is the establishment of an independent industry led body to create enforceable and fair standards for all road transport workers. Regulations of this kind would stop the rampant undercutting in road transport in its tracks, creating an effective safety net across the industry to protect transport operators and workers.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget, Sri Lanka</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Se</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>nator McGRATH () (): Fellow taxpayers of Australia, I bring you some breaking news from Canberra, where it was confirmed today in the Senate by the Minister for Finance of this new Labor government that one of their priorities is spending $20,000 on a 'frog bog'. Now, it's not about toilets for tadpoles or cairns for cane toads or anything like that. One of the key spending priorities of this new Labor government is $20,000 on a bog for frogs.</para>
<para>What's happening in Canberra at the moment is that the Expenditure Review Committee are sitting in a darkened room and going through all the spending commitments of the coalition, and they're actually putting a red line through all of them. So if you're in regional Australia, there's a giant solar powered, wind powered, coal powered vacuum cleaner above regional Australia, sucking all the money out of it, with it going to Labor's preferred projects. So if you're in regional Australia, well, you're not even going to get good luck from the Labor Party; you're just going to get a ta-tah while money goes to some really bizarre projects. The one that was confirmed in the Senate today was $20,000 for a bog for frogs.</para>
<para>I don't think that is a good use of taxpayers money. I speak as someone who has a patch of dirt outside Warwick. I like it when we're not in drought and we get a bit of rain there; I get the singing crescendo of frogs. I don't need $20,000 for a bog for frogs. Indeed, I went on the <inline font-style="italic">Gardening Australia</inline> website and I reckon you could probably get a bog for frogs for about a couple of hundred dollars. So this must be what we're seeing under the modern Labor Party: a gold-plated bog for frogs. If you're a taxpayer, you're paying for it. If you're in regional Australia, well, you're a second-class citizen, because the Labor Party is prioritising frogs over you. In fact, you're a third-class citizen: you have frogs and then people who vote Greens because Labor needs their preferences.</para>
<para>So, good luck Australia with this new Labor government and their spending priorities. When they should be focusing on cutting taxes and when they should be focusing on what is going to grow Australia, instead it's all about bogs for frogs. By the way—and I just want people to know this—this is just the first of many projects that we're going to find out about. This was something that my good colleague Senator Henderson told us about in the Senate today: this is the first of many projects. It's $20,000, ladies and gentlemen—$20,000 for a bog for frogs. I'm worried, you should be worried and we all should be worried about what the spending priorities of this new Labor government are.</para>
<para>On a very serious note—and I'll declare a conflict of interest here in terms of a friendship with Ranil Wickremesinghe, the new President of Sri Lanka—I think we should all be grateful that someone of Ranil's intellect and someone with his ethics and his approach to the importance of a liberal democracy has become President of Sri Lanka. Ranil is someone who has been a member of parliament in Sri Lanka since the 1970s. Last time I saw him over in Sri Lanka was at Temple Trees when he was prime minister—I think for the third, fourth or fifth time. What I found fascinating about that particular meeting with Ranil was that on the coffee table in his office he had a book titled, 'Ethics in Government Decision-Making'. To me, that summed up the measure of the man in terms of wanting to make sure that the decisions he made as Prime Minister, and that he will now make as President, of Sri Lanka are in the best interests of the Sri Lankan people.</para>
<para>It particularly hurt me, and it should particularly hurt all those who love a good book and who love to read, that when his private residence was burnt to the ground his library of over 4,000 books was burnt with that. I should advise the Senate that I will be sending some books across to President Wickremesinghe to help him rebuild his library. There will be some classic Australian books. And, for those who are listening, you may wish to email senator.mcgrath@aph.gov.au with any suggestions you may wish to make, or you may wish to send some books to me and I'll send them on to President Wickremesinghe, but also to the school system in Sri Lanka.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 19 : 50</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>