﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-03-22</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, 22 March 2023</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 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></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>09:01</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>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>1</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="s1368" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to One Nation's Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023. Medicinal cannabis has only been legally available since 2016. Since it was down-scheduled through measures like the Authorised Prescriber Scheme, the number of Australians prescribed medicinal cannabis products has increased from a few hundred in 2018 to more than half a million in 2022. This growth clearly shows there is a prominent place for medicinal cannabis products in Australian health care. However, a system which worked quite well for only a few thousand scripts a year is under strain from hundreds of thousands of scripts. Patients have more recently encountered increasing problems with accessing these products, along with other issues like product quality, availability and pricing. These difficulties have resulted in a small drop in prescriptions. We consider this legislation to be a timely response.</para>
<para>Our bill cleans up the poisons schedule listings for medicinal products derived from cannabis and makes them available under schedule 4, meaning they can be prescribed by any doctor or veterinarian. In addition, the bill provides for low-strength preparations to be made available over the counter at a pharmacy or veterinary practice for purchase by adults. The strength of these products is determined by the level of tetrahydrocannabinol¸ or THC, in them. This is the intoxicating compound. All states in Australia now have a one per cent limit on THC in these products, which is still well below the level that could produce intoxication. Such products are commonly called hemp.</para>
<para>Our bill harmonises Commonwealth law with state laws, increasing the level at which products are considered hemp from 0.1 per cent to one per cent. Previously, a hemp classification was based on the species of the plant from which the product was derived: <inline font-style="italic">sativa</inline> or <inline font-style="italic">indica</inline>. However, growers overseas have bred new varieties of these plants which are much lower in THC but have higher levels of other beneficial healing compounds. Our bill reflects that a hemp product can only be determined by its THC level.</para>
<para>Perhaps the most important benefit of this bill is that it will help to significantly reduce the cost of medicinal cannabis. By moving it to schedule 4, more doctors and vets can prescribe it, so economies of scale will work in the patient's favour. More crucially, moving it to schedule 4 opens the pathway for listing medicinal cannabis products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. A successful PBS listing application usually requires a sponsor with deep pockets who can later recover costs from its patent on the listed product. However, you can't patent a natural plant. There is a solution to this, and One Nation will soon introduce proposed legislation which will enable the listing of medicinal cannabis products on the PBS.</para>
<para>Another important element to increasing access is to ensure doctors, pharmacists and vets are educated about medicinal cannabis so that they are prescribing or selling the appropriate product for a given condition. It would be wise for the Therapeutic Goods Administration to maintain the requirement that medical professionals complete an appropriate medicinal cannabis course before they are able to start prescribing it. This isn't a criticism of doctors, who can only prescribe what's available, but one of the reasons for the recent reduction in medicinal cannabis scripts is that patients feel the product did not work for them. However, this is usually because the wrong product was prescribed for the health profile of the patient.</para>
<para>Our legislation supports Australians who are seeking more natural medicines and medical treatments. The cannabinoids in cannabis are as natural as any other product available. They're found in other plant species and in spices like black pepper and turmeric. They are manufactured by our own bodies and play an important role in the human body's capacity to heal itself. They are also manufactured in the bodies of the pet animals we keep. The full range of these cannabinoids are available in cannabis plants, but that's not all that's in these remarkable plants—there are around 500 other health-promoting compounds, antioxidants, dietary fibre, minerals and trace elements.</para>
<para>As more Australians access medicinal cannabis to treat a wide variety of conditions, state and territory governments will need to have another look at the way they test motorists for intoxication. The purpose is to ensure that motorists are not impaired or present a danger to themselves and others on the road. This should be based not on a chemistry test but on whether a driver is actually impaired, as it is evident that medicinal cannabis products can result in a positive drug test while not actually impairing the person being treated with them.</para>
<para>A final point: our legislation very strictly does not allow children under 18 to access any of these products. With clear evidence that medicinal cannabis is effective in treating a wide range of conditions and with clear evidence that it is in high demand in Australia, it is time to elevate it as the primary healthcare option it should be. One Nation has always put Australians first, and in this spirit I commend this legislation to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Australia we have a national classification system that controls how medicines and chemicals are made available to the public. Medicines and chemicals are classified into schedules in the Poisons Standard according to the risk of harm and the level of access control required to protect public health and safety. This bill, the Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023, is an attempt to down-schedule substances contained in medicinal cannabis products. Furthermore, the bill attempts to remove any requirement for medicinal cannabis products to be accessed via the Special Access Scheme or Authorised Prescriber Scheme.</para>
<para>The Therapeutic Goods Administration are the Australian government authority responsible for evaluating, assessing and monitoring products that are defined as therapeutic goods. The TGA have advised they have serious concerns with both proposals put forward in the bill. It seems that the impacts of the proposed bill have not been carefully considered. It leads me to question how much research and consultation went into the drafting of this bill. The government considers this proposal to be inappropriate, as the current scheduling of these substances is the result of a long and well-considered process based on clinical evidence and expert advice. I am a supporter of the well-considered use of prescribed medicinal cannabis in appropriate circumstances and have been involved in Senate committee hearings inquiring into this matter. I've met and spoken with people who use medicinal cannabis on prescription to treat medical conditions, with positive results.</para>
<para>In late 2019 through to the tabling of the committee's report in March 2020, I was an active participant in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia. Subsequent to that inquiry, I worked hard in my home state of Tasmania, along with my colleague Senator Bilyk, to encourage the state government to adopt the recommendations of that inquiry and improve access to medicinal cannabis products for Tasmanians who are suffering and to bring the state into line with other states and territories.</para>
<para>This bill has the potential to undo much of the good work that is being done to give those who suffer from medical conditions access, where the use of medicinal cannabis products is deemed appropriate, to those products by medical prescription. The scheduling of substances contained in medicinal cannabis products is the result of a very careful and considered assessment of the most appropriate pathways to access medicinal cannabis products, based on available scientific knowledge, input from scheduling committees and expert clinical advice. I'm a great believer in science, and we should always look at the science closely.</para>
<para>The impacts of this bill have not been carefully considered and do not reflect expert clinical views. Cannabis, the plant, and THC, a psychoactive component of cannabis, were historically included in schedule 9, prohibited substances, of the Poisons Standard, which severely restricted patient access to medicinal cannabis for many years. A decision to amend the scheduling of CBD to a schedule 4 prescription-only medicine in March 2015 and to amend the scheduling of cannabis and THC to a schedule 8 controlled drug in August 2016 enabled prescriptions of both CBD- and THC-containing products for therapeutic purposes, subject to state and territory requirements.</para>
<para>But this bill proposes to down-schedule medicinal cannabis products from schedule 8 to schedule 4, which would conflict with the scheduling policy framework for psychoactive drugs that has been agreed by all states and territories through the then Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council. The proposed down-scheduling would not in and of itself have the claimed effect of permitting access to medicinal cannabis products through any medical practitioner. This is because Authorised Prescriber Scheme and Special Access Scheme approvals are required for most medicinal cannabis products, as they are not included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.</para>
<para>To lawfully supply a therapeutic good that is not included in the register, one of the pathways for accessing unapproved goods, such as through the Special Access Scheme, Authorised Prescriber Scheme or Personal Importation Scheme, must be used. The rescheduling of the products would not change this in any way. So, even if this bill were to pass the chamber, it would not have the effect its proponents seem to believe it would. It's important to understand that the Special Access Scheme and authorised prescriber pathways were specifically designed to ensure both medical expertise and TGA oversight over the use of unapproved therapeutic goods for patients.</para>
<para>These safeguards and this level of medical oversight over the use of unapproved therapeutic goods allow safety concerns to be quickly identified while balancing the importance of ensuring patient access to new treatments. Therapeutics goods that are not on the register can be lawfully supplied only under an exemption authority or approval. This is to strike an appropriate balance between ensuring that therapeutic goods available to Australians are safe and of acceptable quality and making therapeutic goods available to Australians who need them.</para>
<para>The current scheduling of substances contained in medicinal cannabis products was the result of a very extensive process to ensure that the scheduling of substances is appropriate. The proposals in this bill have not undergone such extensive consideration. Another matter to consider is that, because we are a federation, the states and territories play a major role. Each state and territory has its own laws that determine where consumers can access a particular drug and how it is to be packaged and labelled. The standard is given effect through state and territory legislation, and it remains with the state and territory governments as to how they give effect to any decision to down-schedule a substance in their own jurisdiction. This bill includes a down-scheduling proposal to allow cannabis products with THC below one per cent and CBD below 10 per cent to be sold over the counter in a pharmacy or veterinarian practice to a person aged over 18. This is much greater than international practice.</para>
<para>Article 30 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the 1972 protocol, which is a treaty that Australia is a party to, requires drugs, including cannabis and extracts regardless of THC concentration, to be under medical prescription. So the proposal in this bill would not be consistent with Australian's obligations under the single convention.</para>
<para>Medicinal cannabis is a very fast-developing therapeutic product, not just here in Australia but across the world. There remains much to be done in this emerging area to improve access to safe, affordable and effective medicinal cannabis products, but this bill does not provide for a coherent way forward. It is not the solution to improve access to safe, affordable and effective medicinal cannabis products. It fails to take into account the processes our country uses, the nature of the Federation, the treaties we are signatories to as well as the safety mechanisms we have in place when it comes to the prescription of medicinal cannabis products that are unapproved by the TGA.</para>
<para>It is possible that this bill is the result of frustration as to what some may see as the slowness of the processes that allow the approval of products and their scheduling on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Therapeutic goods are assessed according to their level of risk against acceptable standards of quality, safety and efficacy or performance. The scheduling of substances contained in medicinal cannabis products is the result of a carefully and considered assessment of the most appropriate pathways to access medicinal cannabis products based on available scientific knowledge and input from scheduling committees and expert clinical advice. Those processes and assessments are there to ensure medicinal cannabis products are safe, effective and meet specific manufacturing and product quality requirements. These processes and assessments take time.</para>
<para>Progress is being made however. At this time two medicinal cannabis products have been evaluated and approved by the TGA and are included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods—Sativex, which is used to treat certain patients with multiple sclerosis, and Epidiolex, which is used for patients with certain epileptic conditions. I have heard firsthand of the great benefits that these have brought to some sufferers of epilepsy and certain multiple sclerosis, and I'm excited by the science and the discoveries that are being made.</para>
<para>As our medical practitioners are increasingly finding, access to medicinal cannabis products in Australia is straightforward and almost 300,000 prescriptions for medicinal cannabis have been written in recent years. Most of these medicinal cannabis products are unapproved therapeutic goods. Through the special access scheme the TGA can approve any medical practitioner to supply an unapproved medicinal cannabis product for an individual patient, typically within just a few days. In addition, under the Authorised Prescriber Scheme, a suitably authorised doctor can prescribe products without obtaining patient-by-patient approvals from the TGA, and, as the evidence base is increasing, more prescribers are accessing unapproved medicinal cannabis products for their patients through these access pathways.</para>
<para>As we learn more and as the science and research is done, more products will become available both as unapproved medicinal products and as medicines on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. I have no doubt there is a lot yet to learn about the possibilities and benefits of these products, but this bill will do nothing to advance them, make them safer or more available.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand and make a brief contribution to the Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard—February 2023) Instrument 2023. This particular bill seeks to reschedule medicinal cannabis to schedule 4, allowing prescription by any medical practitioner. Adopting a definition of cannabis that allows higher levels of THC—up from 0.1 per cent to one per cent, which is below the recognised level for any hallucinogenic response and harmonises common law with state law—allows whole-plant cannabis product with a limit of one per cent THC and 10 per cent cannabinoid to be sold over the counter at a chemist or by a veterinarian to persons over the age of 18 and retains soliciting for hemp as a product with existing limits unchanged.</para>
<para>As I said, this bill provides for medical practitioners to be allowed to prescribe medicinal cannabis for human and animal applications, with supply made through any chemist for humans and through veterinarians for animals. The bill offers three categories. If the product is hempseed and hempseed oil containing 75 milligrams per kilogram or less of cannabinoid oil and 10 milligrams per kilogram or less of THC, it is a food product and excluded from the schedule. If the product is above the allowable levels for food and below one per cent THC and 10 per cent CBD, it is a chemist- and vet-only product. If the product is above one per cent THC or 10 per cent CBD, the product is a prescription product only.</para>
<para>In government, the coalition delivered the biggest reforms to medicinal cannabis, which have changed the lives of so many Australians, through the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill in 2021. The bill amended the Narcotic Drugs Act to support an innovative Australian medicinal cannabis industry for the benefit of Australian patients. It did so by reducing the burden of regulation in the licence assessment process by providing for a single medicinal cannabis licence to replace the previous suite of licences required for cultivation, production, manufacture and research. It also provided greater certainty to businesses and reduced duplicative processes by providing for the majority of licences to be permanent. It also reaffirmed our commitment to patient availability for safe, legal and sustainable supply of cannabis-derivative medicines.</para>
<para>The coalition's medicinal cannabis bill replaced the obligation for separate licences for any cultivation, production, manufacture and research activity with a single licence. Significantly, the majority of these single licences are perpetual, thus reducing the regulatory burden. The coalition's bill maintained the current specific supply pathways for medicinal cannabis, including for clinical trials under the Therapeutic Goods Act and approvals or authorities under the act. They were supplemented by additional powers for medical and scientific research and additional clinical trials, provided that they did not involve administration to humans, and the development of a reference standard.</para>
<para>The coalition also introduced a separate regulation-making power to prescribe additional supply pathways anticipated to ensure compliance with the goods manufacturing requirements under the Therapeutic Goods Act. Reminding us all of the reasons for the medicinal cannabis regulatory scheme, our bill also included a clear statement of its purpose and an assurance that medical cannabis products would be available to patients for therapeutic purposes. These changes maintained the careful balance that the act strikes between facilitating cultivation, production and manufacture of a cannabis drug and implementing Australia's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to safeguard against illegal practices to provide for safe and sustainable pathways for patient access to medicinal cannabis therapies.</para>
<para>Whilst the coalition appreciates the work that One Nation has done with this bill and the intent of this bill, there remain some serious concerns around the details that would allow the scheduling of a medicinal cannabis product to a schedule 4 item. The coalition has some further concerns about how this rescheduling would allow access through a medical practitioner, so at this time the coalition is not in a position to support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens have a long history of campaigning for medicinal cannabis to be accessible and affordable to the Australian community and we welcome reforms that assist in achieving that goal. We're very proud to be here in the Senate as a party and as a political movement that has worked alongside advocates for the greater access to medicinal cannabis for decades, as well as campaigners who are working right now to bring us to where we need to be in relation to the broader based legalisation of cannabis more broadly as part of proper drug law reform. The Greens were part of the push in this place to start treating medical cannabis as a therapeutic drug, and I want to pay a really heartfelt tribute in my contribution today to our former leader Richard Di Natale, who championed medical cannabis and drug law reform more broadly.</para>
<para>We know that medical cannabis is an important drug. It is an important drug that is used to treat or alleviate mental health conditions. Let's say this really clearly: medical cannabis is a medicine, and it should be accessible in an affordable way for people who need it. It is not good enough to say, 'This is theoretically available, if you can jump through the many hoops that exist and if you can afford the many additional charges that come with it.' That does not, in fact, constitute an actual framework that is accessible to the people who actually need it. We also clearly know from the evidence that has been given by so many in our community that this medicine is used to relieve serious health conditions, such as epilepsy in children and adults; to treat the symptoms of multiple sclerosis, chronic pain and chemotherapy, particularly chemotherapy-induced nausea; and, of course, to ease the various symptoms and experiences of those during palliative care.</para>
<para>We in the Greens knew that Australia needed to make this drug available as a therapeutic drug, but most Australians who need medical cannabis still have no real way to access it. It was very clear, from the work that Richard did and that advocates have done for a very long time, that we needed to make this available as a therapeutic drug. Yet we sit here in 2023 in a reality where most Australians who need medical cannabis still have no real way to access it. As I said, if there is a theoretical legal pathway, that is fine, but, if that legal pathway to access a medicine is full of institutional and administrative barriers and is, critically, very expensive, then it is not practically available to the broad swathe of the community that actually need it. This is resulting in a reality where there is still a black market in Australia for medical cannabis because the government has not taken the necessary steps to make it fully available and to treat it as a legitimate therapeutic drug. I'm very happy to be joined in the chamber by Senator David Shoebridge, who is doing fantastic work on the broader question of the legalisation of cannabis in Australia and the ways in which the federal government must engage itself in that work.</para>
<para>The Senate enquiry that examined access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, which reported in 2020, made a series of landmark recommendations to significantly improve the lives of Australian patients. The Community Affairs References Committee, which was led by Dr Di Natale in his former role as our health spokesperson, heard many of the failings of the current arrangements for accessing legal medicinal cannabis products in this country. The committee recommended that, if current arrangements were not sufficiently improved in the next 12 months, the government should consider establishing an independent regulator for medical cannabis. It has now been 36 months since that recommendation was handed down. The arrangements have been improved in that period of time, but they do not go far enough. People are still relying on a black market to access medical cannabis simply because they cannot afford it—not because they don't need it, not because they don't qualify for it, but because they simply cannot afford it, this critical medicine that they may need in the management of their epilepsy, in the management of their multiple sclerosis, in the management of the terrible nausea that comes with chemotherapy and to ease them in that palliative phase of health care. They can't access it, because they can't afford it. The government must provide a pathway for medicinal cannabis to be supplied under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We in the Greens know this, and the community knows this. The current pathway through which people are required to travel is too expensive and too complicated.</para>
<para>In the previous sitting week, I moved a second reading amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, which we considered. This amendment called on the government to ensure that affordable medicinal cannabis products are made available to all patients who require them for therapeutic use and to consider and implement the outstanding recommendations of the Community Affairs References Committee's 2022 inquiry. I put that amendment to the Senate at the previous sitting, and what was the result? Both parties voted it down. This is really not good enough, folks. We've got a situation where people need access to medicine, and those people have taken the time to give evidence to a Senate committee. That evidence is often given in the context of really serious health conditions. They shared with this place what needs to change, and that committee said these changes need to come into place in the next 12 months or the government needs to act. Thirty-six months on, we have had a little bit of action but not enough, and we have seen no leadership from the government in this place on that issue, when there are recommendations sitting before them which they could so easily enact.</para>
<para>It is far past time for the Labor government to ensure that medicinal cannabis is affordable for the Australian public. The lived experience and the research support it. So do all the families who actually need to access it and who have cried out during so many of these investigations and reports. The Greens will continue to fight for access to and affordability of medical cannabis, alongside our broader work to legalise cannabis for all Australians, which Senator Shoebridge will shortly outline for the chamber.</para>
<para>Lastly I will say this for everybody who may be watching this debate feeling a bit frustrated by the inaction of this government: I think there is deep, deep cause for hope here. We saw many community campaigners across the country push for years to see the rescheduling of MDMA and psilocybin for the treatment of PTSD and depression. The TGA and the government of the day dug their bloody heels in on that one, year after year. The Greens worked with the community—and I particularly want to give a shout-out to the wonderful campaigners, scientists, advocates and mental health professionals at Mind Medicine Australia for their continued advocacy on this issue—and we won. In February, we won. The TGA was forced to do a 180 degree turn on this and to reschedule psilocybin and MDMA for the treatment of PTSD and depression, opening up an incredible field of practice for the treatment of those really, really debilitating conditions. So this can be done. Continued pressure will see change. By continuing to work together with the community, the Greens are committed to seeing an accessible and affordable pathway for medicinal cannabis for everyone.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to commend the words of my colleague Senator Steele-John and the work that he's done in this space over a number of years. The Greens firmly believe that recreational and medicinal cannabis should be legalised. I note that this Improving Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2023 is seeking to provide greater access to medicinal cannabis. The Greens are on record as repeatedly pushing for greater access to medicinal cannabis, and I commend the senator for bringing the bill to the house. The truth of the matter is that this parliament and different state and territory parliaments have legalised access to medicinal cannabis, but done so in a way that only people with wealth can access legalised cannabis through the current rules. So, yes, if you have chronic pain, if you have untreatable nausea, if you have untreatable depression, if you have a variety of extraordinarily debilitating illnesses where medicinal cannabis has been proven to be of enormous benefit and you have money then you can access legalised cannabis in Australia. That's the combination. But if you have untreatable chronic pain; untreatable, ongoing nausea; terrible effects, potentially, from an array of traditional medicines to deal with pain and nausea, you go to your doctor and your doctor says, 'I think you could be best served by cannabis. Here's a prescription for cannabis.' You then go to the pharmacy and you realise it is $500 a month. You are on Centrelink. You're not getting legalised cannabis. You are not getting the medicine you need to help you. That's the state of the law in Australia at the moment. It's the state of the law and it's a reality, and that's the reality we need to fix.</para>
<para>In my work as the drug law reform spokesperson for the Greens, the issues with medicinal cannabis have kept coming back and back to my office as we have been moving to legalise recreational cannabis in this country. Indeed, I was at a public rally, only in the last few weeks, in regional New South Wales and a woman came and saw me and said that she had had a cannabis prescription from her doctor for the better part of two years. She had had one round of cannabis prescription. She'd gone to the pharmacist and paid the $300 to $400 to get the cannabis prescription. It was amazingly beneficial. It was everything she wanted. It took her off a variety of prescription painkillers. It was amazingly effective but she could only afford it once. Since then she had had to go back on the drip of the highly addictive, deeply troubling traditional painkillers under a traditional prescription, which she felt dumbed her down, gave her nausea, affected her appetite, affected her life, because she couldn't afford the legalised cannabis. Then she said that, in fact, on occasion she had just been getting black market, recreational cannabis and that had been really helpful and had been having the same effect. She lived in regional New South Wales. She had a choice then. She could get the black market, recreational cannabis, which was having the same health benefits as the legalised cannabis at a fraction of the cost, but then she couldn't drive. And if she couldn't drive she couldn't go see her doctor, she couldn't go shopping, she couldn't catch up with her family. So, again, because of the ways the laws operate, she then stopped taking the recreational cannabis and went back onto the prescription medicines again.</para>
<para>There's this toxic mix of broken laws in relation to cannabis that are all founded on this damaging political consensus amongst the Labor Party and the coalition—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Big pharma.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and big pharmaceutical; I accept that interjection—that say we need to continue to criminalise cannabis in order to drive the profits of the pharmaceutical industries and in order to drive the moral agenda of the ALP and the coalition. And who's paying the cost of that? People who desperately need access to medicine, that's who's paying the cost of that.</para>
<para>So, yes, let's get on and radically reduce the cost of legalised cannabis. Let's come to this position that no matter what's in your wallet, no matter who your mum and your dad are, no matter what property you own, if you go to a doctor and a doctor says you need legalised cannabis then you should be able to get it, afford it and treat your chronic pain, treat your health conditions. That's the way the world should operate in a country like Australia.</para>
<para>Then when we do that, let's also legalise cannabis. Let's get the police, the courts and the criminal justice system out of something like 80,000 Australian's lives a year, who are being prosecuted, criminalised, dragged through the criminal justice system, because they are caught possessing one or two joints. Let's do that. Let's take what is perhaps a $25 billion-a-year market out of the hands of criminals and organised crime and bikie gangs. According to the National Criminal Intelligence Commission and the data they have about the prevalence of cannabis use in the country, that's the size of the annual market for recreational cannabis at the moment: $25 billion a year. Let's take that out of the hands of the wrong people, who use it to corrupt our political system, to corrupt our police and to corrupt our courts. Let's take it out of their hands; let's legalise it; let's put safety controls on it; let's put truth-in-advertising controls on it; let's put advertising controls on it; let's deal with it like we're rational human beings. Then we could also reap some $28 billion in tax revenue in the first decade of doing that. Let's maybe deal with this like grown-ups.</para>
<para>I note Senator Steele-John's comments on how we've finally got the TGA to permit MDMA and psilocybin to be used from 1 July to deal with otherwise untreatable depression and PTSD, and that's a major step forward. But it's almost as though we haven't learnt from the legalise cannabis debate. We're seeing reports today that getting access to MDMA or psilocybin under the system that has been set up by the TGA is going to cost patients something like $25,000 a year because of all the restrictions that apply to those drugs. Because they remain class 1 drugs, patients have to set up all of these additional checks and balances and further reporting protocols every time they seek to get access to a medicine that could save their lives. Again we're going to see that, yes, this medicine is available, but only for those with the wealth to access it.</para>
<para>Think about the veterans with chronic PTSD who don't have that money and who will be going to their psychiatrists with the hope that they can get one of these prescriptions come 1 July. Psychiatrists will write out the prescription and give it to them, and then they'll say: 'By the way, have you got $25,000? Because that's what it's going to cost you,' with them on a veteran's pension, surviving with all their troubles. By legalising this in such a narrow way for medicinal purposes and then putting all of these constraints on it and making it unaffordable, you're offering false promise. So let's get on and legalise medicinal cannabis seriously. Let's make it available to everyone who needs it, regardless of what's in their wallet. Let's try and come together as a chamber and as a parliament and actually legislate for good.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to make some comments and add my support to the excellent contributions from Senator Steele-John and Senator Shoebridge. I'd also like to start by acknowledging the work of many advocates over many years to get medicinal cannabis to where it is today—particularly Senator Richard Di Natale, who was a drugs and alcohol doctor before he went into politics. He's continuing his work in that area, post politics. I remember him speaking about it relentlessly in this chamber and having meetings for all parliamentarians in the committee rooms with people who were suffering terrible illnesses and calling for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis. I would like to acknowledge the LNP for taking their first steps in this regard, especially in relation to the limited access to medicinal cannabis we have today.</para>
<para>I remember, as the agriculture spokesperson for the Greens at the time, the irony of seeing former minister Hunt removing restrictions for the growing of medicinal cannabis in Australia solely for the export market. We were able to grow cannabis to create CBD products and THC products, and to sell into this massively burgeoning export market. But we weren't able to sell those Australian-grown products to Australian patients, which was obviously a ludicrous position to be in. I remember his media release specifically saying that this is one of the biggest growth markets in the world in terms of high-value agricultural products. At a very similar time we were seeing Canada and other countries remove restrictions and legalise cannabis, and it seemed so ironic that Australian patients couldn't access it at all, legally. But that has changed. There is limited access.</para>
<para>For those Australians who don't understand how it works—it's still remarkable how many don't know that you can access cannabis legally—you need to go to your GP, and your GP needs to then, essentially, recommend you to a specialist group of doctors, who often do their consults online. An example company would be Tetra Health. A number of specialist doctors around the country have done what's required by the TGA to be able to prescribe cannabis, but many GPs just don't know about it. I've had discussions with a lot of really good GPs, a couple of whom are close friends, and they say: 'Peter, we don't have time. We are under the pump every day, with waiting lists of up to six weeks just for common colds, COVID and a whole range of things. We don't have time to go and do the course to be able to prescribe this.'</para>
<para>If you get a GP that is even onside, they will recommend you to a series of specialists. The GP has to provide a very specific medical reason as to why you should have access to medicinal cannabis. If you get that referral, you then go through a process where you're assessed, usually by a nurse, and you have to fill in a number of forms. Then that assessment gets passed on to a doctor who is a specialist in the area. Then what happens is the doctor will work with you over a period of time in an assisted therapy. They'll prescribe cannabis to you based on their consults with you, which can be quite extensive, and they will then have regular catch-ups with you to make sure that the medicine that they're prescribing is working for you. That's the feedback loop.</para>
<para>But it is really expensive. These doctors will charge a one-off fee just to start the process. I think it's at least $300, and that's without even paying for your cannabis. As Senator Shoebridge so eloquently put it, it's not accessible. It's not accessible to ordinary, everyday Australians. Senator Steele-John or Senator Shoebridge—it may have been either one; they're both doing fantastic work in this area—asked the TGA at the last estimates how many Australians are currently legally on medicinal cannabis. Over 300,000 Australians have accessed the scheme, but we know that it's estimated at least 800,000 Australians are using cannabis products. There's a massive gap there of half a million Australians who are using black-market products that aren't regulated, and the sole reason for that is they don't have the money to afford the medicinal cannabis scheme. We've seen good first steps, and I do thank the previous government for the work that they've done on getting it to this stage.</para>
<para>I would also like to throw my support behind the comments made by both my colleagues in relation to MDMA and psilocybin. This has been a long road. I would also very much like to thank Mind Medicine and a number of other advocates for their leadership on this issue. Australians shouldn't be denied the treatments and therapies that they need. The thing about this is that it's very similar to medical cannabis in that, if you're lucky enough to be eligible for this treatment now, it's very specialist and very expensive. There are a number of bottlenecks that we need to get through. I was recently on a conference call with Mind Medicine, with 300 or 400 other Australians who are interested in this trial—many of them doctors, by the way. They did recognise there would be bottlenecks, for example, around who could prescribe these products, how much they would cost and what that would look like. It's very early days, and I would urge the government and the TGA to get through these as quickly as possible, because we know there are people who desperately need this treatment.</para>
<para>What Australians don't understand around MDMA and psilocybin is that the results have been so stunning in trials overseas in showing how quickly this treatment can work. It's also an assisted therapy. You don't get given an MDMA medicine script from your doctor. You go and work with a psychotherapist, usually a highly trained psychiatrist, who, at the moment, under the current TGA rules, which were announced in February, needs to register with the TGA, which is another process in itself, and we're not quite sure what it looks like. These trials have been so stunning in their success that often it takes only two assisted therapy sessions for people like veterans with severe PTSD or for people with end-of-life illnesses who are suffering significant anxiety. Thankfully, many of us are not in that cohort of Australians who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and are suffering pain, but the mental pain and stress, not just for them but for their families who are dealing with this, can be extraordinary and significant and debilitating. A couple of assisted therapy sessions for people with these illnesses can make a significant difference.</para>
<para>We are not quite sure how it works, but there is a lot of evidence that psilocybin, for example, and MDMA can essentially rewire the synapses in your brain that are failing. This is also for another cohort of people who are classified as terminally suicidal people, people who have got to the point in their life where they are literally going to take their own lives—all existing therapies have failed. These drugs have an incredible ability to rewire your brain. It involves the plasticity of how your brain works. For some people, parts of their brain have literally switched off. They do not work. These drugs can connect those synapses. I have seen videos of it, using medical technology and looking at scans of brains. It literally lights up parts of the brain that have died in many people. Working with a trained psychiatrist, they are able to literally bring people's brains to life.</para>
<para>There has been a lot of stigma around the use of these drugs for many years. The whole war on drugs—crikey, we could talk for many, many hours about what a waste of money, time, energy and human life that has been. I want to make this really clear. If you look at the Greens policy on drugs and you go to our website—I invite all Australians to do that—where we talk about decriminalising and legalising drugs, the very first sentence says, 'We recognise drugs can do harm.' That is why we need to take a harm-minimisation approach to the use of drugs. We also recognise they can do a lot of good, such as in the correct application of things like psilocybin—magic mushrooms—and MDMA, but this whole stigma around the war on drugs has essentially cut off the head of the medical application of these drugs for so many years. It is great that we are at least taking the first baby steps to explore the potential of these drugs. It is a whole new frontier of medical science and a very exciting one. I know my medicine—many of their followers are budding graduates in psychology, psychiatry or medical who want to get into this field because it offers so much promise.</para>
<para>We are talking about people with very severe illnesses for whom nothing else has worked, and that is essentially why the TGA approved this. If you read the announcement on their media release, they said, 'We accept that other therapies have not worked, and by definition, we need to give this a go.' Of course, that raises the problem that, because there haven't been phase 1 to phase 3 trials of some of these drugs in Australia, we do not have the information. We can learn from the trials that are happening overseas, which are very promising, but because of the inertia and inaction in this country for so many years, we do not have that data. These trials will be a live social experiment to provide that data for us. I think this is going to be extremely valuable. The same applies to medicinal cannabis. The 300,000 Australians out there on this medicine and working with doctors who are trained in this area will provide us with valuable information that, I hope, will propel us to the next stage.</para>
<para>The other thing that we very rarely talk about is the potential for our agricultural communities. I am sure there are senators in this room who know producers currently of medicinal cannabis or hemp. Hemp is generally used for industrial applications and productions and has been used for thousands of years, as has cannabis, but hemp can be used for CBD products. Basically, your brain has cannabinoid receptors. I don't know whether senators know that, but it's actually the most common receptor in the human brain. Why do our brains have cannabinoid receptors? Obviously we've evolved that way. We know these drugs can actually light up parts of our brain, and we can use the CBD from hemp. However, the higher-value applications are in the growing of cannabis for either CBD oil, which has no THC in it—you can take it and you're not going to get high, but it has very valuable properties for people with a number of illnesses—or THC products.</para>
<para>These are high-value products for our agricultural communities. We have a number of growers in Tasmania. I think Tasmania is currently the biggest producer of cannabis. Much of it is still exported overseas. Senator Urquhart knows some of the producers in her area in the north-west of Tasmania. I've been down and visited the compound of Tasmanian Botanics, outside Hobart. When I sat down with them they had a number of complaints about how the process works, which I don't have time to go into today. Clearly we're still getting this right, and there are things we can learn from overseas about the legalisation of drugs. Tasmanian Botanics produces products that are now available through the Australian scheme, but the company admits that these products are really expensive and hard to access. And of course if we do legalise these drugs completely they obviously will be able to grow these as well. But we do see overseas that there are a number of growers in northern California who were growing illegally for many years and the government essentially sat down and worked with them to feed them into the legal scheme, and they became regulated. I think it's been a big success.</para>
<para>It's very encouraging that we're having a discussion today about how we can continue to advance this very exciting frontier of medicine that I think's going to open up huge possibilities. I hope also, for human development, that we can start seeing our world differently, that we can start seeing each other differently and that we can start exploring this frontier, but it's got to be done the right way. I think the bigger debate is about legalising cannabis and finally walking away from this terrible war on drugs that has literally achieved nothing. It's available on every street corner. We have people going and buying cannabis and other products in car parks or in dodgy circumstances. We have people who are on highly addictive drugs and have addiction issues, which is a health problem, and they are dying because we're not assisting them in the way we should. These people need our help. They don't need to be put into a criminal system where essentially they're condemned for the rest of their life—not being able to get a loan, not being able to get a job. We're creating a subclass of people in our society. So the Greens are very pleased to be debating this bill today.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>9</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="r6965" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I continue my remarks from last night regarding the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I had started speaking about the history of pamphlets and the ability for the government to provide information on a 'yes' and a 'no' case to the Australian people. It would have been the first time since 1928 that a pamphlet was not supplied to Australians. That sets a dangerous precedent. The pamphlet has been required since 1912, and there have been three referenda that have not had a pamphlet: in 1919, when there was insufficient time to produce one; in 1926, when there was no agreement on the 'yes' argument, so a pamphlet was not produced; and in 1928, when there was agreement between parties and the government that there was no requirement for a pamphlet to be produced. Now, in 2023, none of those circumstances apply. It is important that Australians have a document produced that allows a neutral civics education program on the 'yes' and 'no' arguments for this important decision, which will change the Constitution. We have to get agreement on how to argue the cases.</para>
<para>I've heard it said that there shouldn't be a pamphlet produced, that it's just creating a whole lot of material to be pulped. I think that's a really strange argument, to say that the government shouldn't produce an important document because the paper that it's written on will need to be recycled. I think that's really short-changing Australians and their ability to have an informed decision. Official material is important. The AEC says that 40 per cent of voters use mailed material as information when they come in to vote. All of us who stand on booths, handing out how-to-vote cards at elections, would know that to be true because each time we see more people coming in with their material from the Australian Electoral Commission, or from the state electoral commissions if it's a state election. That's because official material has weight and gravitas. Misinformation is incredibly dangerous, and in this modern world of social media it's very easy and very fast for misinformation to be spread. Official documents give voters peace of mind that this is something which has been weighed and considered; it's being put to them and they can trust it. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that Australians are well informed, because constitutional change is not a minor thing. Referenda can be life-changing, and the onus is on government to remain the single reliable source of information in this regard. The ACCC has highlighted public concern about online information and journalism. It has also published data, reporting:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… around 92% of the respondents to the ACCC news survey had some concern about the quality of news and journalism they were consuming.</para></quote>
<para>That is a major risk to the integrity of this debate. Official material increases trust in government and increases trust in the process.</para>
<para>A simpler regulatory environment and better conduct of the referendum are two other issues that would make it easier for people to feel confident in the process. It would be a terrible failure of this government not to have enacted a transparent and trustworthy process for this referendum to go ahead. In the absence of that, Australians will feel that they have no choice but to vote against it. That's the responsibility of the government, to ensure that Australians are provided with suitable materials and that they feel well informed—that they can trust the process and have confidence in it. The official campaign should bring structure and clarity around the guidelines</para>
<para>It's very important that this education about electoral processes and enforcement of the law are carried out. That's why, with the disclosure and donation regime—the most complex part of the Electoral Act—it's important to have good disclosure for the integrity of the process to stand up. It's incredibly important that we don't risk influence by unseen players, overseas players, who may seek to influence the outcome of this referendum. So the disclosure of donations is also incredibly important. It may be that people will fall under the electoral law without their knowledge. People may be breaking the law without realising it, because they don't understand this complex part of the guidelines for disclosure of donations under the Electoral Act. That's bad for integrity, but it's also not right that people could be breaking the law unintentionally. Even the most well-informed people and political parties, who have to understand this process, don't always get it right. An official campaign reduces the risk of this happening.</para>
<para>Equal funding is also important, and the coalition has requested assurance of equal funding if any government funding is going to be provided. That's because equal funding provides equal footing for both campaigns. Australia is the land of a fair go, and I don't think that Australians would like to think that one side of the argument is being supported with government funding, government institutions and other processes, while the other side of the argument is not being equally supported. That doesn't seem fair. It's not right. Equal funding levels that playing field.</para>
<para>I've touched on the concern about foreign interference. ASIO has raised these concerns. We are facing our greatest level of interference yet. It is a serious risk to national security, to the strength of government, to online safety and to misinformation. There are simple steps that we could be taking to alleviate those risks. There are global examples of interference in elections around the world, and Australia is not immune. Despite being an island nation a long way from other places, in this digital world we are not immune to that kind of interference, and so we must guarantee integrity and trust in government processes.</para>
<para>I have been on the record that I do not support the Voice, but I absolutely support this referendum. I absolutely support the right of every Australian to be able to go to a voting booth and have their say. But I do think that it is equally important that this machinery-of-referendum legislation that we're talking about now does include these critical elements: having a pamphlet with the 'yes' and 'no' cases provided in an independent and impartial manner by the government, provision for both a 'yes' and a 'no' campaign, and equal funding. That is the fair thing to do. That is the right thing to do for Australians who are making this very important decision to change our Constitution—a document that has served us incredibly well and that has allowed us to be a very stable nation for the last 100 years.</para>
<para>I'm not speaking against this bill, but I'm raising the very real concerns that I have, and I will wait for the government's responses on these important points. I hope that they work constructively to strengthen the referendum process, because, as I said previously, the government will fail to have a successful referendum if they do not provide a transparent, trusted process of integrity that allows Australians to vote with confidence. In the absence of confidence, Australians will have no choice but to vote no. They will have no choice, because that is the conservative, cautious thing to do.</para>
<para>It is in the government's best interest—as they've clearly stated, as they support the Voice referendum and the change to the Constitution—to make sure this process is as fully fleshed out as possible, because I have to tell you, as I get around my parts of the country, northern Australia in particular, most people have never heard of the Voice. They've never heard that there's going to be a referendum within the next 12 months. It is not something that is on people's minds and lips, particularly given that we've just had flooding right across northern Australia. The government seems to be treating it fairly lightly. There's been a very poor response. We had floods in northern Australia in 2019. I've just had mayors from local councils in my office, and they're telling me the response then was faster, more effective and more comprehensive than this response now. I hope that, given all the advice Minister Watt has provided to government in the past, he has now learnt from his experience.</para>
<para>I look forward to further amendments to this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>M56</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In speaking to the bill before the chamber this morning, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022, I want to start by recognising the importance of this bill and the importance of the issues that will be considered, should this bill be successful and a referendum bill brought back to this parliament. I acknowledge that this is a machinery bill; it's not the substantive referendum question. But I have to say, as a number of my colleagues in the chamber have commented—and may I commend Senator McDonald for her very good remarks here this morning—I am somewhat mystified by the approach of the government, who, apparently seriously and genuinely, want to progress a referendum on this matter to a successful outcome. Personally, I'm not seeing from the government an approach to achieving that successful outcome that I find persuasive and that I think Australians find persuasive. That, frankly, concerns me, because it needs to be a constructive and positive process. I do think governments, when they are in a position of advancing a change to the founding document of our nation, need to be prepared to listen, to engage and to take on board constructive suggestions on—even criticism of—the substance of what they intend to put before the Australian people, so that it has the best chance of success.</para>
<para>One of the mystifying aspects of this process was even the reference of this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the first place. It was referred on 1 December 2022, the day the parliament rose for the year. We were prepared to work and we did. The committee's deputy chair, Senator McGrath, is here in the chamber with me this morning. We had hearings on 19 December and 9 January. But really? A reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters of a bill as important as this over the Christmas break and the new year doesn't smack to me of seriousness from government and of government wanting it genuinely considered. But I particularly want to thank the members of the committee, including the chair and the deputy chair, and those who took the effort, notwithstanding the time of year, to make submissions and to participate in that process, because their insights were very valuable to the committee.</para>
<para>It is important to look at the referendum act. As the committee report observes, that act has not been substantially updated to reflect the modernisations in Australia's federal electoral framework, let alone the other challenges that we face. A number of speakers in the chamber have adverted to those, particularly in terms of misinformation, disinformation, manipulation of electoral processes, social media, technology advances and all the things that go with them. The act hasn't been updated for many years, certainly not since the last referendum was held, in 1999. I was substantially involved in that referendum in 1999, for better or for worse, and I do acknowledge that changes need to be made to contemporise the legislation. My involvement in that referendum, at the time, was as, particularly, former deputy chair of the Australian Republic Movement. I know what a negative referendum outcome feels like if you are a strong proponent of the case being put before the Australian people, and I know how important it is to try to take a constructive approach to avoid that, I would say, Madam Acting Deputy President.</para>
<para>One of the key matters that has been of concern to the opposition is the provision of an official pamphlet, and it was certainly a concern to the coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters as well. We produced a dissenting report to that committee report, which made certain observations about the importance of the official pamphlet. The evidence on the official pamphlet that was given to the committee was in many cases compelling. Not everybody agreed—I absolutely acknowledge that—but I found the evidence that came before us from a number of witnesses and a number of submitters to be persuasive and very strong. The Australian Human Rights Commission, for example, submitted that, while it may be appropriate to modernise the form and distribution of the pamphlet, it remains a valuable document which provides electors with the views of their elected officials. The Central Land Council, a very important body in remote Australia for Indigenous Australians, expressed their concern that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… not providing a physical, posted pamphlet in remote areas would leave some people, particularly older people and Elders, without reliable access to information about the referendum, especially given the barriers to telecommunications access in some communities.</para></quote>
<para>That is from paragraph 1.32 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on this matter.</para>
<para>We heard a range of arguments in that committee process for improving rather than suspending the official pamphlet to address concerns about its content and method of distribution. It was not part of the government's plan when they initiated this bill in December last year to include a pamphlet, but I note that we have made progress on that. I think it is very important.</para>
<para>The explanatory memorandum for the bill originally said that there might be a 'more effective way to engage and inform the Australian public about the Constitution and proposed constitutional change'. I didn't find the explanatory memorandum particularly informative about those ways. That is the problem with the government's current approach to the referendum question itself as well. I don't think that Australians feel particularly well informed about the specific amendment to the Constitution that is being proposed. So the pamphlet, while not always perfect—and certainly some of the historic imperfections were highlighted in evidence given to the committee—has been an important tool.</para>
<para>To try to understand the government's approach to these matters of considerable substance in terms of the operation of the referendum the committee's coalition members and senators sought to ask the relevant ministers, Minister Burney and Minister Farrell, to meet with the committee and provide evidence to the committee. I will stand corrected, but to the best of my knowledge the letter sent by the deputy chair in relation to that to the chair of the committee, Ms Thwaites, did receive a response from Ms Thwaites, but I don't believe that Senator McGrath received a response to his correspondence from Minister Burney or from Minister Farrell. So they remain outstanding. I don't understand that. I don't understand why ministers with a positive disposition to try to achieve a successful outcome for this referendum question would not be prepared to talk to a committee of parliamentary colleagues.</para>
<para>That request was declined by the committee chair, Ms Thwaites, and we were pointed to the second reading speech. We were told by Ms Thwaites, 'The government's rationale for the proposed legislative changes is contained in the second reading speech of the bill.' Taking that advice, I went to the second reading speech. I would say that it was a remarkable speech in at least one way—not for its content but rather for its absence of content. I reread it, as directed by the chair, to try to determine the government's rationale for some of the changes they are making in this bill. But, after rereading it, I was indeed none the wiser.</para>
<para>There are other issues of concern to the coalition in this bill, and they have been well articulated by a number of my colleagues, particularly by Senator Hume, the shadow minister. Senator Hume said in her speech in the second reading debate yesterday that we 'should treat the changes to the machinery of referenda without consideration of what the referendum question might be' and that the rules that are established under the act and that will be established through this bill should be 'rules that keep balance, fairness, legitimacy and trust in how we change our founding document'. I absolutely concur with Senator Hume's words. Our founding document is important. It is precious to many Australians.</para>
<para>There are some aspects of the bill that we have supported, including in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters process, as I have outlined. I don't underestimate the importance of the substantive matter which will be the subject of this referendum—not for a moment. I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton; and the shadow Attorney-General and shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Julian Leeser, for the considered way that these matters are being engaged with within the coalition. For my own part, I come to these matters with goodwill. I have a generally constructive disposition to this bill and on the substantive issue. But I hold very deep, serious concerns in relation to the approach being taken by the government.</para>
<para>In the broad, Australians respect our Constitution. We amend it rarely and sparingly. Many a referendum question has gone down, notwithstanding the best, most well intentioned efforts of its strongest advocates—and I refer again to the referendum on Australia becoming a republic. I was the deputy chair of the Australian Republic Movement before I entered the Senate. I was the strongest supporter of that constitutional change, of the formation and operation of Liberals and Nationals, for an Australian head of state. But it failed. We went everywhere. We did everything we could. We stood alongside all of our colleagues from across the parliament, Labor and coalition colleagues together, to campaign. But it failed.</para>
<para>From those standing in that position now, from those strongest advocates of the proposition that will be put forward through this referendum—and, again, seeking clarity on that proposition from the government is, I think, very important—the Australian people do want clarity. They want to know the answers to the sorts of questions that the opposition leader has posed to the Prime Minister. They want to know the clear wording proposed to be used in changing our Constitution. For Australians to be able to have the opportunity to express their views—we don't want to stand in the way of that process. But I do think that it is so important that those concerns that are being raised by genuine, committed Australians be taken on board by the government if it is genuinely seeking a successful outcome to a substantive referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Of the 44 referenda held in this country, only eight have passed. The last referendum proposal to pass was in 1977. This shows not only that Australians take referenda very seriously but also that, as Robert Menzies said, 'to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules'.</para>
<para>It is of the essence in any referendum that the Australian people are presented with a question to which they answer yes or no. This seemingly simple set-up belies the complex sets of reasons people might have for choosing one answer over the other. This is why it is crucial to present voters with clear and comprehensive 'yes' and 'no' cases—so that all Australians can make an informed decision. Every government since 1928 has agreed with this and has provided pamphlets to voters.</para>
<para>If the referendum on an Indigenous voice to parliament succeeds, it will be one of the defining political moments of our time. The Voice has the potential to change the way our federation is governed. It does not represent a merely procedural amendment to our Constitution.</para>
<para>This referendum deserves fairly funded 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, and I am deeply concerned about the consequences if that does not occur. This referendum deserves 'yes' and 'no' pamphlets. It deserves the full attention of this parliament and this government. Instead, very regrettably, what this government has given the Australian people reflects a process which is undermined by a profound lack of fairness. The government has declined to fund 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, setting a dangerous precedent for future referenda and of course most significantly undermining the integrity of this referendum process. The Australian people deserve better.</para>
<para>It is patronising to assume that Australians do not need to receive official material associated with referenda. The Australian Electoral Commission reported that 40 per cent of recipients use its mailed material—a pamphlet setting out the 'yes' and 'no' cases—as a main source of information in casting their vote. That said, we are encouraged by indications from the government that it will reverse its decision and will agree to a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet. This is not just a matter of fairness but critical to our democratic process. I put on the record very strongly that it is deeply concerning, however, that the government thought it could get away with a smoke-and-mirrors approach to this referendum. I hope and trust that, on this point, common sense will prevail and there will be a 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet received by all Australians.</para>
<para>We know—and this is a very important point to make in relation to ensuring that all Australians receive appropriate information—that electoral events are opportunities for bad actors to use misinformation to influence voters. The ACCC reports that 92 per cent of the respondents to the ACCC news survey had some concern about the quality of the news and journalism they were consuming and that analysis has identified concerning consumer and competition harms across a range of digital platform services that are widespread, entrenched and systemic.</para>
<para>Only weeks ago the director-general of ASIO told Australians that we are currently experiencing the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. Let me just say that again—the greatest level of foreign interference in Australia's history. It would be naive in the extreme to think that foreign actors who desire to disrupt and undermine our democracy will not seek to spread misinformation in relation to the referendum on the Voice. We have seen foreign interference very openly at work in Canada and in Europe, and we know that we are not immune.</para>
<para>So in the name of fairness, integrity and democracy the Albanese government must fund official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. This will give Australians confidence that the referendum is being conducted transparently, fairly and with integrity. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will minimise the risk that the referendum process is undermined by any sort of misinformation campaign, no matter the source of that misinformation campaign.</para>
<para>The government has said it will fund a facts campaign to the tune of $9.4 million. I am concerned that this may be an underhanded attempt to ensure that its own view on the Voice prevails. The Prime Minister, reportedly, recently told the Labor caucus that the government needs to minimise scare campaigns in relation to the Voice. Instead of doing the right thing and funding both sides equally, the government has arguably decided to fund the 'yes' case via proxy through its facts campaign. That's why it's so critically important that any factual campaign is delivered in a way that is completely neutral.</para>
<para>How can we trust the government to ensure a fair referendum process when—and I say this respectfully—the government has already broken so many of its promises to the Australian people: promises on power prices, on interest rates, on mortgages, on superannuation and even on registered nurses in aged-care homes. Australians deserve to have absolute, crystal-clear clarity in relation to the machinery of how this referendum will be conducted. All Australians have a right to have their say, and that's why getting this machinery bill right is so important.</para>
<para>Unlike the government, we do not want to stand in the way of Australians having their say with fairness and integrity. We want Australians to be free to exercise their free will and their free choice, free of foreign interference, free of foreign influence, free of government pressure and free of misinformation. This freedom is fundamental to the maintenance of our democracy and the integrity of our Constitution. Democracies are measured not only by what their citizens vote for but also by how they vote. The framers of our Constitution understood this, which is why they inserted section 128: the referendum provision. Referenda represent the soul of representative democracy in this country. They are a means by which Australians are meant to express their true view on matters of fundamental importance. It was with a referendum in 1967 that Indigenous people were counted as Australians. Once again, Australians are being called to vote on a matter of fundamental importance: the establishment of an Indigenous voice. Why does the government continue to insist, by denying the creation of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, that Australians not be able to make an informed decision about this?</para>
<para>There is no doubt that the legitimacy of the referendum result will depend heavily on the manner in which the referendum process is conducted by the government. The government needs to ensure that, especially on a matter as important as the Voice, the referendum is conducted with complete impartiality and unquestionable integrity. Why does it hesitate to do this? Surely this is counterproductive. Surely there is the risk that the government may in fact harm its own case for a 'yes' result in the referendum. Regrettably, ever since the government announced its intention to hold a referendum, it has tried to wriggle out of its responsibility to ensure a fair referendum process. I think this says a lot about trust and the way the government trusts the Australian people to make their own choices. This is too important for the government to attempt to make the choice for Australians.</para>
<para>I also want to flag my deep concerns about other matters concerning the referendum such as the refusal of the Prime Minister to answer 15 very reasonable questions put by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. It is also deeply concerning that, with only a number of months before Australians are meant to vote on this referendum, we still don't know the proposed wording that will be put to the Australian people. There is also a very live debate which continues about the scope of the powers of the Voice along with many other questions. I have to say that in many respects the government has made a real mess of this and undermined this process, because it has not been able to address so many fundamental questions. The bottom line is that Australians do have a right to know the answers to those questions. Australians should not be required to answer yes or no until those questions are answered.</para>
<para>I stand here today to defend the right of all Australians to be presented with a real choice at this referendum, a genuine choice informed by fair and balanced information from 'yes' and 'no' campaigns that have received fair and equal funding. Like my colleagues, and, most recently, Senator Payne in her contribution, I too want to adopt a constructive approach to this bill. But the government must establish a level playing field. Getting this bill right is so important. If this this bill is not right, this is going to do this whole process fundamental damage. It has never been more important to ensure that our referendum machinery provisions are fit for purpose. Again I say to Senator Farrell, who is in the chamber: we really need to get this right.</para>
<para>I call the government to do the right thing by the Australian people. Let them have their say in a manner which is fair and in a manner which does not undermine the integrity of this very important process and the decision that all Australians must make.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As colleagues have noted, Australians do not change the Constitution of Australia lightly. Only eight of 44 referenda conducted in Australia have been successful, and the last successful referendum was conducted in 1977. Many members of this parliament and many voters were not alive at the time the last successful referendum proposal was put to the Australian people.</para>
<para>Nor should Australians change our Constitution lightly. It is our foundational document, as a nation, that brought colonies and states together as states of the Commonwealth of Australia, a new and independent nation. We have been an incredibly successful nation—a successful nation that stands tall in the world in terms of the success of our democracy underpinned by our Constitution. We have been successful in terms of the harmony of our nation. We're not perfect, and indeed we have many lessons in our history that we should learn and we that we should seek to address continuously throughout our efforts as leaders.</para>
<para>But this important foundational document doesn't just have a proud history, it also has profound legal implications. It is the document upon which our High Court ultimately determines a range of different factors about the validity of laws passed through this parliament and their application in Australia, and it makes those determinations critically against the fundamental foundational document of our nation, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.</para>
<para>So to be able to change that Constitution against the backdrop of such a limited embrace of change by Australians over such a long period of time, a successful referendum has many prerequisites. The first of those is confidence: confidence in the process of that referendum. That is where this bill comes in. This bill comes in in ensuring that we have a process—if we are to approach a referendum later this year—that has integrity and that Australians recognise has integrity; a process that is fair and that Australians consider to be fair; and a process that will underpin respectful debate during the conduct of the referendum. It is against those pillars of ensuring the integrity, the fairness and the respect in the conduct of this debate that the coalition and the opposition have engaged in the debate about the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill before this chamber. We've engaged through the process of committee work, which my colleagues Senator McGrath, Senator Payne and others have spoken about and engaged so comprehensively in. We've engaged through this chamber and, indeed, we've engaged, under the leadership of Senator Hume, directly in dialogue and discussions with the government to seek to ensure that integrity, that fairness and that respect through the conduct of the referendum.</para>
<para>We've asked particularly for there to be restoration of the traditional means of communication of a formal 'yes' and 'no' case through the pamphlet that has been part of, a feature of, those 44 previous referenda. We've asked for there to be official recognition of 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations, and we've asked for an appropriate level of funding in relation to those organisations. It's my understanding, from the comments of the government, that they have accepted the import of providing the official 'yes' and 'no' case through the traditional means of communication with the Australian people. That is important, because it provides particularly for greater confidence that the debate will be respectful and confidence around some the guardrails that may exist around that debate. From my perspective, the fact that there will be a proper process for proper arguments to be laid out in a considered way and shared with all Australians for the 'yes' case and the 'no' case hopefully can ensure that the debate is conducted with the greatest degree of respect and the greatest degree of consideration for opposing views and in a manner that leaves the worst, sometimes, of political and democratic debate outside of this important issue and the way in which it's considered.</para>
<para>In terms of campaign organisations, of course there are many seeking to engage in this campaign. Some are doing so through the establishment of separate organisations, and I know the government has already provided deductible gift recipient status to an organisation committed to advocating for a voice, and I trust that they will work in an equitable way to provide the same status to a deductible gift recipient organisation who is committed to campaigning for the 'no' case, all in the interest of fairness and equity in relation to these matters.</para>
<para>In relation to the third of those requests that we have, around the question of funding, I am on the public record as saying I don't wish to see many millions of taxpayer dollars committed to massive television advertising campaigns for the 'yes' and 'no' case but that I do believe that some element of, at least, seed funding for organisations to be able to meet basic requirements would be sensible. I continue to urge the government to think about that carefully. But I also urge them to ensure that, in relation to the expenditure of public funds, they maintain the integrity of our electoral systems, where the government does not spend taxpayer dollars favouring one side of a debate or the other. It is important for them to do that in relation to any aspect of public spending on this matter, and it is important that they approach this in a way where, if government funds are to be spent, they are spent solely on the conduct of the referendum, on the turnout for the vote and on the basic facts that apply to this referendum, not on favouring one side or the other through this campaign.</para>
<para>I hope that we can, through the committee stage, hear the government address those issues and that we can reach a point where there will be bipartisan support for the terms on which this referendum will be conducted. It may not address absolutely every point that my coalition colleagues have made through this debate and in the public arena prior to the legislation entering this chamber, but I hope we can reach a point where there will be sufficient confidence that, going forward, the process has integrity, is fair and will help to enhance respect for the debate.</para>
<para>While speaking on this topic, I wish to touch a little on the substantive issue of the Voice to Parliament, which, of course, was a proposal put in the Uluru Statement from the Heart that grew out of initial proposals for constitutional recognition of First Australians, of our Indigenous people. I'm somebody who's long supported the concept of constitutional recognition. The Voice adds another layer to that, and—we should be honest—it adds complexity to the debate that will be had in terms of the referendum.</para>
<para>As I've indicated, change to our Constitution is not made easily, and change will not be easily achieved in relation to this referendum. There's that history of failure in relation to constitutional change that we should be mindful of. Australians are more likely to say no than yes—history tells us that—and that is because of a cautious approach that they bring to changes to our Constitution, changes to that foundational document.</para>
<para>We should not see this proposal for the Voice, and the constitutional change for it, to be directly analogous to the very successful 1967 referendum. That referendum was a remarkable point in Australian history, but, if we look carefully at the detail of it, it was a referendum that sought to remove specific aspects of discrimination against Indigenous Australians. It was right; it was proper. We as a nation can be proud that it was embraced as comprehensively as it was.</para>
<para>This referendum, though, will seek to apply a form of affirmative action, if you like, in relation to Indigenous Australians which, by its very means and by its very nature, will mean that fair-minded Australians supportive of equal treatment of each and every one of us will require slightly greater persuasion and slightly greater convincing to support that type of affirmative-action principle to establish a unique, differential voice—a constitutionally enshrined voice—that will provide for Indigenous Australians to have that particular right enshrined within our Constitution. That's not to say that it shouldn't occur, but it is to acknowledge that, unlike the removal of a form of discrimination, that type of approach of enshrining a form of affirmative action will require greater persuasion and convincing of Australians as to the merits of doing so and greater reassurance against any risks in doing so.</para>
<para>This referendum will also not be analogous to the more recent same-sex marriage plebiscite, one that we all lived through and that, indeed, most of the members of this chamber participated in in one way or another. There is an obvious difference between those, and that, of course, is that the plebiscite did not propose a change to the Constitution but was simply a legislative proposal. It was not a referendum in the full sense of the meaning of that but a postal-vote plebiscite. There is also a fundamental difference between the two in that the question of complexity is different. Changing the Marriage Act was easily understood by Australians. They all either are married or know plenty of people who are married, and there was nothing complex about the concept of enabling two people of the same sex to get married just the same as we enable two people of opposing sex to get married. People had strong views and differences of opinion, absolutely, but it was an easily understood change.</para>
<para>The Voice, however, raises many questions—questions of its scope, questions of its structure, questions of its construct and questions of its powers—and Australians will consider those questions during the debate on the Voice. The challenge of this referendum is shaping up to be more akin to the challenge that Australia faced in the last attempted Constitution change, which was for a republic. My friend and colleague Senator Payne spoke about her involvement in that, and I was also involved in that debate. Both of us were unsuccessful, so we recognise, as others should, the difficulty and complexity that comes with achieving that type of constitutional change, in persuading Australians to make the change. Therefore, governments and advocates need to do everything they can to make this proposal succeed. I say that as someone who has long supported constitutional recognition and I say that as someone who doesn't wish to see a referendum put to voters and fail, because I believe there would be negative consequences of that occurring.</para>
<para>So what does the government need to do to give it the maximum chance of success? Firstly, they need to ensure fairness in the conduct of the referendum—hence the debate we're having in this place about the way in which the referendum is structured. Secondly, they need to ensure they pursue constitutionally minimalist change. The government should be seeking to ensure that the most conservative of constitutional scholars accept the narrowness of the constitutional change that is proposed and the fact that it will purely, solely empower the parliament in the establishment of a voice, the scope of that voice, the powers of that voice and the construct of that voice so as to provide maximum confidence that, whilst this question will achieve recognition and will establish a voice, it will in absolutely no way create other legal challenges or considerations in relation to the power of the parliament or the operation of government.</para>
<para>Thirdly, the government needs to make sure that it provides details to give Australians confidence that those questions have been answered and that, when they vote, the details have been considered in advance. Yes, it will be a voice established by the parliament; but, in being provided the details in advance, Australians will have greater confidence than if they simply hear answers that say, 'Those are matters to be resolved later.' I urge the government to act on all three pillars, because I don't wish to see this put and fail. I do wish to see us achieve constitutional recognition, and it starts with getting this bill right.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome those comments of Senator Birmingham and hope that in the course of the next few minutes or hours—hopefully not days—I can answer all of the issues that you have raised in a satisfactory fashion that will result in this chamber passing the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill with very strong support from the chamber. I would like to thank all of those in this chamber who have contributed to the debate on this Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. I would especially like to thank Senator Hume and her staff for the terrific engagement that we've had about this legislation over the last few days and weeks. I would also like to thank Senator Waters and her staff for their very constructive contribution to the debate and also thank Senators Pocock, Senator Thorpe, Senator Lambie, Senator Babet and Senator Roberts and his team for their constructive engagement in this bill. I think it's an example of how we get the best out of the Senate with as much consultation as we possibly can and as much engagement with all of the relevant groups as we can.</para>
<para>I would also like to thank my staff, who have worked very diligently, particularly overnight, to get the best possible result for the Australian community out of this very significant change to the referendum legislation. I also take the opportunity to recognise and thank the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for their review of the bill and for their continued consideration of matters relating to electoral laws and practices, which we hope to bring back to the parliament later on this year.</para>
<para>Referenda are an integral part of our democracy; however, the last referendum was held over 22 years ago, Mr Acting Deputy President, as you will recall. Since that time the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 has not kept pace with the changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The bill makes amendments to replicate current electoral machinery provisions into the referendum context to ensure that the voting processes and experiences are similar to that of a federal election. The bill will also ensure that integrity and transparency measures that currently apply to federal elections will also apply to referenda. This includes the establishment of a financial disclosure framework for referenda to support transparency and accountability with respect to the funding and expenditure.</para>
<para>The decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event, and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. It's therefore important that the government fund a civics education campaign in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice. I can also confirm that a 'no' campaign application for DGR status will be treated under exactly the same processes as those that will apply to the 'yes' campaign.</para>
<para>The government notes the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the bill and intends to further consider the committee's recommendations relating to increased enrolment and participation, and the provision of information to voters. The amendments in this bill are important and necessary to deliver a modern referendum in which the voting processes and the experience are similar to those of a federal election. I once again thank my colleagues for their contribution, and I commend the bill to the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hume be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [10:59]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</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>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</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>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>36</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</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. (Teller)</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>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</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><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is a further second reading amendment, but I understand that it has not yet been moved. I am now going to move on to the question that the bill be read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a second reading amendment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson, I did call you twice. You need to pay attention. The bill has been read a second time. I'll seek advice from the Clerk. I am happy to seek the indulgence of the Senate, Senator Hanson. We have agreement. You can now move the second reading amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move the amendment on sheet 1857:</para>
<quote><para class="block">At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that holding referendums separately to a federal election costs the Australian public more than holding referendums simultaneously with a federal election; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) calls on the Government to manage the process to ensure that if the Voice to Parliament referendum is to proceed that it is held in conjunction with the next federal election".</para></quote>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:07]<br />(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>3</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>54</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</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>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</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>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Original question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>19</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>FARRELL (—) (): I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you confirm that, if a 'no' campaign organisation sufficiently applied for deductible gift recipient status, it would be granted?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, Senator. The rules applying to the 'no' case are the same as those applying to the 'yes' case.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also want to be very clear in my understanding that, while there is no funding provided for campaigns for or against the proposal, there will be equal treatment to the campaigns for or against the proposal.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, that's correct, Senator.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also note that, while there is a prohibition on government expenditure that is included in these amendments, that prohibition on government expenditure will not preclude expenditure on a neutral civics education campaign and activity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, that's correct, Senator.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can I also confirm that any activity in a civics education program or activity is in fact going to be neutral?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's correct, Senator.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to note that the opposition will be supporting the amendment. We would very much like to thank the government for the constructive way in which it has engaged with the opposition to ensure that this bill, in its final form, is presented in such a way that the opposition can support it. Minister Farrell, in particular, and his staff have demonstrated good faith and have worked very hard with me and my office on this bill. We have many more questions that we will be asking of the government throughout this process, but I can confirm that we will be supporting this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hume for that confirmation and, again, reiterate my thanks to her and her staff for the constructive way in which they've engaged with the government on this legislation. I think it's an example of how the government and opposition can work together constructively to get the best result for the Australian people.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to clarify, Senator Farrell, I might need you to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet QE100, if that's what you're talking about.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to be clear, we're not proceeding with the amendment on sheet ZD205. I seek leave to move government amendments on sheets PX149, PX150, PX151, QE100 and ZB195 together, noting that Senator David Pocock has circulated an amendment to the amendment on sheet ZB195.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<para>Sheet PX149</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 26), after item 6, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6A Subsection 89(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6B Subsection 89(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre in that State", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre in that State, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre in that State".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6C Subsection 89(3A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Territory", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Territory, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Territory".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6D Subsection 89(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "one person to act as a scrutineer during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Northern Territory", substitute "persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Northern Territory, but the number of scrutineers appointed under this subsection must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre in the Northern Territory".</para></quote>
<para>Sheet PX150</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, item 8, page 41 (before line 3), before subitem (1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) For the purposes of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">disclosure threshold</inline> in the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery </inline><inline font-style="italic">Provisions) Act 1984</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, the amount for an indexation year is not replaced if the indexation year begins during the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) beginning on the day after this subitem commences; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ending on polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of this subitem.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) Subitem (1A) applies despite section 321A of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>Sheet PX151</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 6 (after line 13), after Schedule 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1A — Mobile polling</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 51(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) A day notified under paragraph (4)(b) must be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the voting day for the referendum is the same as that fixed for the polling at an election—any of the 12 days before voting day; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the voting day for the referendum is not the same as that fixed for the polling at an election—any of the 19 days before voting day; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) voting day; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a day to which the taking of votes of the electors at the referendum is adjourned.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After subsection 73AA(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) Without limiting paragraph (1)(a), a place specified to be a pre-poll voting office for a referendum may be a place that has been determined under paragraph 51(4)(a) to be a place that teams will visit for the purposes of taking votes under section 51 at the referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, item 4, page 7 (line 15 to 17), omit subsection 73AA(1AA), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AA) The day, or the earliest of days, declared under paragraph (1)(b) must not be earlier than:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the pre-poll voting office for a referendum is also a place that teams will visit for the purposes of taking votes under section 51 (about mobile booths) at the referendum—the day that is 19 days before the voting day for the referendum; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the day that is 12 days before the voting day for the referendum.</para></quote>
<para>Sheet QE100</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 12 to 19), to be opposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Page 17 (after line 15), after Schedule 3, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 3A — Commonwealth expenditure</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of paragraph 11(4)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add ", including salaries, remuneration, allowances and expenses payable under the Constitution, the <inline font-style="italic">Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017</inline> and agreements for employment or engagement referred to in the <inline font-style="italic">Members of Parli</inline><inline font-style="italic">ament (Staff) Act 1984</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 At the end of section 11</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection (4) applies in respect of expenditure incurred on or after the end of the day on which a proposed law to alter the Constitution passes the Parliament, as referred to in subsection (1) or (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (4) does not prevent the Commonwealth from expending money in relation to neutral public civics education and awareness activities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) To avoid doubt, activities referred to in subsection (6) must not address the arguments for or against a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Subsection (4) does not prevent the Commonwealth from expending money in relation to meetings of the Constitutional Expert Group, the Referendum Engagement Group or the Referendum Working Group.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Subsections (5) to (8) and this subsection are repealed at the start of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of this subsection.</para></quote>
<para>Sheet ZB195</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Advertising blackout period</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Broadcasting Services Act 1992</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">referendum advertisement</inline>, in relation to a referendum, means an advertisement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that contains referendum matter (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>) that relates to that referendum; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in respect of the broadcasting of which the relevant licensee has received or is to receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subclause 1(1) of Schedule 2 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">relevant period</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the definition, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">relevant period</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in relation to an election—means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the polling day for the election and ends at the close of the poll on that polling day; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in relation to a referendum—means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the voting day for the referendum and ends at the close of voting on that voting day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After clause 3A of Schedule 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3B Broadcasting of referendum advertisements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) In this clause, <inline font-style="italic">broadcaster</inline> means:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a commercial television broadcasting licensee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a commercial radio broadcasting licensee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a community broadcasting licensee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a subscription television broadcasting licensee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) a person providing broadcasting services under a class licence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A broadcaster must not broadcast a referendum advertisement in relation to a referendum during the relevant period for the referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Paragraphs 7(1)(j), 8(1)(i), 9(1)(i), 10(1)(i) and 11(1)(d) of Schedule 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "3A,", insert "3B,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Paragraph 24(1)(a) of Schedule 6</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "3A,", insert "3B,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subclause 24(4) of Schedule 6</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "3A,", insert "3B,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Subsection 45(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "section 70C", substitute "sections 70C and 71".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 After section 70C</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">71 Broadcasting of referendum advertisements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The SBS must not broadcast a referendum advertisement in relation to a referendum during the relevant period for the referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">referendum</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">referendum advertisement</inline>, in relation to a referendum, means an advertisement:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) that contains referendum matter (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>) that relates to that referendum; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in respect of the broadcasting of which the SBS has received or is to receive, directly or indirectly, any money or other consideration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">relevant period</inline>, in relation to a referendum, means the period that commences at the end of the Wednesday before the voting day for the referendum and ends at the close of voting on that voting day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>These government amendments seek to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. In respect of the pamphlet, the bill will retain a requirement for the Electoral Commissioner to distribute an official 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet containing arguments for and against a proposal to alter the Constitution—authorised by parliamentarians—to all enrolled Australian households. This change has been made following consultation, and it reflects a bipartisan approach to electoral reform.</para>
<para>In relation to the amendment to the expenditure restrictions in section 11(4) of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act, a decision to change our Constitution is a significant national event, and it has been more than two decades since a change has been proposed. In order to make an informed decision, the Australian people must have access to relevant information about our system of government. It is therefore important that the government can fund civics education activities in relation to the upcoming referendum on the Voice. To enable such activities to be funded, the bill temporarily suspends expenditure restrictions in section 11 of the referendum act.</para>
<para>However, following further consultation, the government has decided to amend, rather than suspend, section 14(4). This amendment will leave the expenditure restrictions relating to funding 'yes' and 'no' arguments in place but will ensure that these restrictions do not prevent funding of neutral civics awareness activities to provide the information needed to ensure that all Australians can cast an informed vote. Neutral civics education activities are an important way to assist in combating misinformation about the Constitution, Australia's system of government and the referendum process.</para>
<para>Importantly, this amendment also ensures that the government can continue to support consultation with the Referendum Working Group, the Referendum Engagement Group and the Constitutional Expert Group. The referendum act does not provide for public funding of 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, and the government has confirmed on many occasions that it will not provide public funding for either a 'yes' or a 'no' campaign. These exemptions will automatically be repealed at the end of the current parliament.</para>
<para>On the expansion of the mobile polling period, the government supports the committee's recommendation to strengthen opportunities for enfranchisement and participation in the referendum, particularly of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including in remote communities. To support this outcome, the bill will expand the mobile polling period for referendums from 12 days to 19 days. Mobile polling is the primary voting mechanism for people living in remote locations. This will support the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct voting services in remote parts of Australia over an additional time period to increase participation and ensure that all voters have the chance to exercise their right and obligation to vote.</para>
<para>The government also made the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment Enfranchisement) Regulations 2023 to expand the forms of identification a voter is able to produce in order to enrol or update their enrolment to include Medicare numbers and Australian citizenship notice numbers. This will allow those individuals who have previously faced barriers to enrolment as a result of not having the required evidence of identification documents to participate in elections and referenda.</para>
<para>On the broadcasting blackout, the bill will be amended to extend the broadcasting blackout period of political and election advertisements during referendums in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. This will ensure that there is consistency in the blackout of advertisements across television and radio in the three days prior to polling day access, consistent with arrangements for federal elections. Consequential amendments will also be made to the Special Broadcasting Services Act 1991 to extend this broadcasting blackout to the SBS.</para>
<para>On scrutineers: scrutineers play a significant role in supporting the integrity of a referendum and trust in Australian democratic processes. The bill will be amended to align the number of persons that the Governor-General, state governors, chief ministers of the Australian Capital Territory and the administrator of the Northern Territory may appoint as scrutineers at a counting centre during the counting process, with the entitlement of registered political parties. This will support public confidence in the outcome of a referendum and is consistent with the entitlements of registered political parties.</para>
<para>On the issue of the disclosure threshold indexation, the bill introduces a transitional provision to freeze the financial disclosure threshold from the time the bill commences until the next general federal election. This will mean that the referendum entities and donors can have certainty that the disclosure threshold for this referendum will be $15,200.</para>
<para>Finally, Australia's electoral system is one of which we can be proud. This bill will modernise the legislation that will govern how this referendum will be conducted. The bill will advance the Prime Minister's commitment to hold a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution through a voice to parliament. I commend this bill to the Senate.</para>
</continue>
</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>Can I just confirm, Minister, that you said you were going to amend, rather than suspend, section 14(4). Did you in fact mean section 11(4)?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a good pick-up, Senator Hume! Yes, that was what I meant.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make some comments in relation to the Greens' position on the government amendments. As we said earlier this week, we will be supporting this bill. We support modernising the conduct of referenda and, in particular, we want the Voice referendum to succeed.</para>
<para>In relation to the government amendments which have been moved together: we're comfortable with the most recent amendment, which clarifies that the civics campaign will not be a de facto 'yes' or 'no' campaign but will be a neutral campaign. So we're happy to support QE100. But we note that there's a real need for truth in political advertising law and that, in fact, that should also have been addressed in this bill. There will be some amendments by our crossbench colleagues in relation to the drafting of the pamphlet, which we'll support, but the Greens' position remains that we want truth in political advertising laws, which we have advocated for for decades now and which we'll continue to pursue that through various other means.</para>
<para>We strongly support the extension of remote mobile polling from 12 to 19 days. Too many voters in the 2022 election, particularly those in remote areas, were effectively disenfranchised because the remote mobile-polling services didn't actually make it to their communities. Bad weather, large distances, mechanical issues and limited resources meant that some remote communities were only visited for a few hours by those remote-polling units and that some missed out altogether. We heard about poor communications, meaning that people didn't know when the polling station would be in town. It's clear that we need to do better, and I welcome this amendment to extend the remote-polling period from 12 to 19 days as an important step.</para>
<para>I note that in the recent JSCEM hearing, the AEC responded to some questions from me by confirming it was aiming to attend 100 remote areas during the referendum polling on the basis of the extension that the government has proposed. But I also want to note that it will be critical to make sure that referendum material is available in language and that interpreters are available at polling places for the duration of their time in the community. We need to facilitate people in remote areas participating actively in our democracy, and having the information they need to do that. This referendum is the perfect place to start that.</para>
<para>Amendment PX150 prevents the indexation of the disclosure threshold; that's uncontroversial, so we support that. But we note that we have an amendment, which I'll move shortly, to lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000. People have a right to know who is funding what, not just in elections but also in referenda. Whilst we support the decision not to allow indexation to occur, we think that $15,200 is too high a threshold. People actually want to know that information, and they deserve to know it. I note that Senator David Pocock has an amendment to one of the amendments the government has moved, the effect of which would be to extend the media blackout to include social media. I'm flagging that even though it hasn't been moved—although I imagine that's imminent—the Greens will support it. And I'll have quite a lot more to say when it comes to our amendments, because this is a crucial opportunity to enfranchise as many people as possible.</para>
<para>This is an important referendum; it has been a long time since we've had one, and these are weighty decisions. We should be maximising the participation of people in having their voice heard. It's somewhat ironic that the amendments the Greens will move to allow on-the-day enrolment will not, I believe, be supported by the government or the opposition. I say 'ironic', because we are having a referendum about having the Voice and yet they won't allow people to have a voice about having a voice by having this insurance policy of allowing on-the-day enrolment. I will speak about that when the time comes but I would urge others in the chamber to reconsider their opposition to that, because we can't wait. Voting is a right, it's not a privilege, and we should maximise participation by allowing on-the-day enrolment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a question for the minister about Commonwealth expenditure. I would like an explanation about the constitutional expert group—the Referendum Engagement Group or the Referendum Working Group. I understand they are all 'yes' voters and 'yes' people. So if the government are paying for 'yes' people on their engagement group and their working group who are going around selling their song sheet and singing from their song sheet, then where is the accountability and transparency in paying those 'yes' people to say yes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Thorpe for her question and I thank her for her engagement in this process with me and my office. The organisations just mentioned are groups that are currently working with the government. It's a reflection of what the government has been doing in consultation with those people who are interested in supporting the Voice to Parliament. It is an appropriate expenditure of federal government funds.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Excuse me for my ignorance and for not understanding this, but I thought there was no money for a 'yes' campaign and a 'no' campaign, so why are you paying people to say yes and, in fact, bully blackfellas out there to say yes as well? How much money are these people being paid to say yes to you and to allow the assimilation of black people into the Constitution?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Thorpe for her question. I absolutely reject the proposition that the purpose of these groups is to bully Indigenous voters one way or another. I don't think I can be clearer than this, Senator Thorpe. The government proposes to give Indigenous Australians a voice to parliament. We took that proposition to the last election. That was endorsed by the Australian people. We are in the process of working out all of the constitutional arrangements that would be required to implement that voice to parliament. It's appropriate that those individuals who are engaged in that process and who are providing the advice and support to the government be paid in those circumstances.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How do the black sovereign movement, who are a progressive no, participate in decision-making given you have only got the far-right blackfellas in the country saying yes and you have a growing black sovereign movement who are concerned about assimilating into the colonial Constitution? Is there an opportunity in terms of transparency and accountability to include the progressive no sovereign Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people in this country as part of your paid 'yes' people on the Referendum Engagement Group and the Referendum Working Group?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No, it's not the intention of the government to include those groups in this particular process, but any organisation in this country is free to express their point of view, either yes or no, in terms of the referendum. The great thing about Australia is that we are a democracy. People have the right to express yes or no. The whole point of the referendum is asking the Australian people what they think about this constitutional change. We heard earlier from particularly many of the coalition speakers on this topic just how difficult it is to pass a constitutional amendment in this country. The requirement is that you have four of the six states voting in favour at least and then a majority of Australians voting in favour. So it's a difficult hurdle to get over. The government supports the Voice. I'm very clear on that. And of course we have a couple of colleagues in the chamber have been very actively engaged in the process, Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy.</para>
<para>But regarding the people that you were referring to, they are free to participate in the process and, like everybody, will have an opportunity to express their point of view. I hope that they are not successful, because I believe that this referendum should succeed, but good luck to them in presenting their arguments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senat</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>or THORPE () (): In subsection 4, where you've included 'does not prevent the Commonwealth from extending money in relation to meetings of the Constitutional Expert Group, the Referendum Engagement Group, or the Referendum Working Group' these are all 'yes' people. They are all pretty well-paid CEOs in their own right who are now being paid by the government to say yes, and who don't have the consent of the people who they say that they represent. The Prime Minister was asked to meet with the black sovereign movement one month ago. We've had no response, and there has been no opportunity for black sovereigns in this country to have a conversation about their future. I don't understand the transparency and accountability if you're only paying 'yes' blackfellas and not allowing the progressive 'no' blackfellas even a seat at the table. I don't see the transparency and accountability—or fairness, to be precise. Can you explain that to the black sovereign movement watching today, who have been denied a seat at the table? They've asked the Prime Minister to have a conversation, and only 'yes' people are being paid at this point in time by your government, because it's your agenda.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your question. I can't say much more, in honesty, than I said in answer to your previous question. These groups—and I don't accept your categorisation of them as simply being 'yes' people—are there to give government advice on the best way of achieving an Indigenous voice to parliament. That's the purpose. The objective is not to give the government advice on how not to do that, which is what I think you are asking to do.</para>
<para>You may not like the position that the federal government has taken on the Voice, but we are the government. We are entitled to present the position that we took to the Australian people at the last election in support of an Indigenous voice to parliament. And that is exactly what we're doing. It is appropriate that the people who are giving us that advice are treated in the way that this bill seeks to. That is their job. That's what they're doing. They're doing a very good job. Constitutional change is not easy in this country, Senator Thorpe. I, personally, support the Voice to Parliament. My home state of South Australia—I think this week, or in the next few days—is in fact doing this. South Australia, as it always has been, is a leader in social change in this country. That's what they're doing. Now it is time for Australia to catch up. We need catch up with the moves in South Australia.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Only a treaty will do that!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, there are activities right around the country in terms of treaty. But we have chosen to go down this course. As I said, people are free to vote no if they wish. I don't want them to vote no; I want them to vote yes. This group has been working tirelessly to make sure that happens. That's the intention of the government. That's what we've announced that we're going to do, and we're going to continue to do it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for your lovely whitesplaining of how good this assimilation policy will be and how good the upcoming assimilation referendum for a powerless Voice will be. We're used to that. We've been putting up with that for over 200 years. I won't be supporting this particular amendment. I think it's just a secure way for the government to pay their 'yes' people to provide the 'yes sir; no sir' tokenistic gesture that, unfortunately, many, many advisory bodies—which government themselves hand-pick—do to us all the time. On behalf of the black sovereign movement, we won't be allowing 'yes' people to get paid any more than they already are to sell us out.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1) on sheet 1861:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Amendment (1), item 3, after paragraph 3B(1)(e), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (f) a social media service (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Online Safety Act 2021</inline>).</para></quote>
<para>This is a very simple amendment that seeks to amend the government's amendments on sheet ZB195 to simply add social media to the blackout period. We have the advertising blackout period for a very good reason. I welcome the updates to the machinery of how referendums take place. It's 2023. There have been many changes since the republic referendum, including with regard to social media. I don't think social media featured in that campaign, so it makes sense to me to ensure that we're not seeing advertising on social media during that period.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for his engagement over this period, which we very much appreciate, but the government will not be supporting this particular amendment. While we do appreciate that the world has changed since that first broadcasting ban was introduced, and social media is a feature of modern-day communication, the objective of all of these changes to the referendum act is to try to ensure that Australian people have the same experience in this upcoming referendum as they would in a general election. Why is that necessary? The last referendum was more than 22 years ago. We've made a whole series of changes to the electoral act. We need to make sure that those experiences are now the same. Like it or not, there is currently no ban on social media in a federal election. There is a ban on other forms of media. All we're trying to do is link the normal processes that would apply in a federal election and make sure that they apply to a referendum.</para>
<para>I welcome discussion, in the JSCEM report, of the matters that you raise. There are a whole lot of changes that the government intends to make to the way in which we conduct federal elections in this country, but this is not the time to move this particular amendment. The time to deal with that issue will be when JSCEM is considering how we need to update our electoral laws. There will be plenty of time to deal with that in the weeks and months ahead, and I welcome your contribution to those processes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. Minister, can you give the Senate a guarantee that once that JSCEM review is tabled, should a social media blackout be part of that, that that will be brought before parliament to ensure that the referendum isn't disadvantaged? I really don't believe that the referendum should have to put up with a potentially huge amount of advertising in the few days before Australians go to vote on this very important issue just because we haven't kept up with electoral reform. We're not reflecting in our laws what I think is an expectation from the community. Social media now is a very legitimate advertising channel; in fact, millions and millions of dollars are spent on social media advertising. It seems that, rather than getting ahead, it is common sense to bring this up to date.</para>
<para>I accept your reason that you don't want this to be ahead of JSCEM, but, should JSCEM before the referendum conclude that social media should be included, will the government seek to address this before the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Pocock for what is a very sensible question. We will participate, like you will have the chance to, in the JSCEM processes. The issue is more complicated with social media. I will make this observation about social media—and there might be people in the parliament that disagree with my assessment of it. A person who looks at a particular social media site for their news is more likely to be a person who agrees with that particular social media point of view that's being projected. One of the problems with modern forms of communication, like social media, is that you're often only getting the news that you want to hear. In a sense, social media is different from, for instance, an advertisement in the middle of the nightly news.</para>
<para>Look at the way in which people form judgements and views. The most significant influence in a decision to change your mind about a particular issue is what you see on the evening television news, and that hasn't really changed very much over the years. You can go down the list of all the ways in which you can communicate. Of course, the one at the bottom, interestingly enough, is Twitter. Twitter is a source of information that makes virtually nobody changing their minds. No-one who is listening to your Twitter feed at the moment, if you've got one—I don't happen to have one—is going to change their mind about anything that they hear on Twitter.</para>
<para>I think there are different considerations, and I'm not pre-empting what JSCEM is going to do. I'm happy if they discuss this issue, because I think it's an important issue. My only point is that the whole purpose of this particular bill is to ensure that we have common treatment between referenda and general elections. That's what this bill does, and we appreciate the support for ensuring that blackout period; but, for any further changes, let's see what JSCEM comes up with. I am not going to pre-empt any decision that they might make.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. I am in no way suggesting that people's views be curtailed on social media, but there is a huge amount of advertising on Meta, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. I haven't seen the research that you cite, but it makes no sense to me to include all of these other advertising mediums and then not to include social media. I take your point on not wanting to be ahead and waiting for JSCEM, but, if JSCEM says social media should be included in the blackout period and that is before the referendum, will the government include that? I don't see why we should disadvantage the referendum and risk having advertising that really can't be scrutinised given that a lot of the ads on social media are dark ads. They're not visible to everyone. They're being served to people individually, and there is not a lot of transparency, but we know that political advertising on social media is well regulated, so it is fairly simple for the social media companies to simply not allow political ads in those last few days.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator David Pocock for his question. I don't think I can say anything more than I've already said. I'm not disagreeing that this is an important topic. It is a modern form of communication that we'll need to look at. The issue is complex. It's more complex because you're dealing with the internet and a range of other issues about how people can avoid having information delivered to them. The issue will be discussed by JSCEM. They will come up with a considered view on that. Let's have a look at what that view is.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I already flagged the Greens's support for Senator David Pocock's amendment in this respect, but I neglected to ask the minister one detailed question that pertains to the government amendment on sheet PX150. Some non-government organisations have asked for clarification. In relation to proposed section 109E, can you confirm that referendum entities are only required to disclose donations that they receive in the six months prior to the referendum? Will any disclosure be required for donations made earlier if the funds are spent during the referendum period? Thanks for clarifying that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to make sure that I give you the right answer. The amounts donated within six months before the writ and up to polling day need to be disclosed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So just for clarity: if the donation is received prior to the six months and is spent during the six months, it is not subject to the disclosure requirements; is that correct?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The answer is that it would be declared as an expenditure but not a receipt.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Now that there have been a number of amendments moved I thought I should put the opposition's position on each of them. I'll start with your amendment, Senator David Pocock. The opposition notes the views of Senator David Pocock on the blackout, but the opposition believes that the blackout period as imposed by the government amendment on sheet ZB195 should apply, as it does to other electoral events, such as federal elections. To expand the application of this would set a precedent that has not yet been fully investigated, as Minister Farrell explained. Any expansion of the blackout period should be subject to the proper processes, including consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, before the parliament can consider it effectively. So the opposition will be opposing this amendment.</para>
<para>I turn to the government's other amendments. The amendment on sheet PX149 is around the number of scrutineers. The opposition's position is to support that amendment because of the need to ensure that an appropriate number of scrutineers can be appointed to provide the additional assurance that referenda can be conducted with the appropriate level of integrity. We would note, however, that this does not address the issue of how scrutineers will be appointed by formal or informal 'yes' and 'no' campaign organisations and how to ensure each side has the adequate number of scrutineers or indeed how scrutineers behave and report back the information that they are seeing at voting places.</para>
<para>The opposition will be supporting the government's amendment around pausing the indexation event for the donation disclosure amount for the period of the referendum. It's a sensible step to ensure that participants who may be caught by donation activity prior to the referendum will have the same regulatory amount regardless of when they donate.</para>
<para>We'll be supporting too the government's amendment that creates an advertising blackout for the referendum, in line with the blackout that applies during Commonwealth elections. We've said that this referendum should be similar—as close as possible—to other electoral events so that participants have some familiarity with the way that it will be conducted. This is a good addition to the bill—to ensure that the blackout period which applies to federal elections also applies to the referendum.</para>
<para>Finally, the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment to allow for the extension of remote area mobile polling activities—RAMP activities, as the AEC refers to them—for the purposes of referendums, with the pre-poll locations, in addition to remote area mobile polling locations, operating earlier than the prescribed pre-poll period. We think this, too, is a sensible measure that will take into account the potential for adverse weather events, particularly during the wet season, which may delay the access of those RAMP teams to remote communities. We are very conscious that the RAMP teams service many remote and many Indigenous communities, and every effort should be made for those communities to be provided with the opportunity to cast their ballots in a referendum.</para>
<para>Those are the opposition's positions on both the government's amendments and Senator David Pocock's amendments. I do want to ask a question, though, of the minister regarding some questions that were asked by Senator Thorpe about the provision for limits on expenditure for meetings of the government's referendum groups: the Constitutional Expert Group, the Referendum Engagement Group and the Referendum Working Group. Can I just confirm that the expenditure is limited to meetings of those groups.</para>
<para>I also have a couple of questions around AEC resourcing. This is going to be a referendum which, unusually, is—I think the phrase that you've used, Minister Farrell, and also that the Prime Minister has used—going to be driven by civil society. Civil society is going to be able to run and manage their own campaigns, whether they be for 'yes' or whether they be for 'no'. From the opposition's perspective, this creates some risks. While it sounds like a terrific proposition, it is very different from the way we run federal elections, with registered political parties that are responsible for maintaining the integrity structure around those elections—for instance, around foreign donation laws, donation caps and foreign interference laws. All of that is run within the sphere of registered political parties.</para>
<para>When you turn a referendum over to civil society, you are going to be dealing with a whole new raft of organisations that have never, potentially, dealt with the political process before, and that opens up the system, the referendum and the electoral process to some risks. The opposition would like some assurances from the government as to how those risks will be managed. Is the government going to resource, for instance, the Australian Electoral Commission in order for them to provide education to referendum participants around things like the donations and disclosure regimes that are contained in this bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hume for her question. I met with the commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission yesterday, and I'm very confident that they're full bottle on all of the issues that might arise in the course of the referendum. Of course, we've set aside a significant amount of funding to conduct the referendum, and I'd be confident, based on my discussions with the Australian Electoral Commission, that this referendum will be run in the same professional manner in which a general election would be run, and that all of the required rules around donations et cetera will be applied as they always are by the Australian Electoral Commission.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the AEC going to hold a register of participating organisations in the same way that it holds a register of political parties at an election?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The AEC will be doing everything it needs to do to ensure that this referendum is conducted in the professional way in which Australian elections are always conducted. I'm very proud of the AEC and the way in which they conduct elections. I think we have one of the finest electoral organisations in the world. They know what their job is, and I'm sure that's exactly what they're going to do. They're very focused on the referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That wasn't an answer to the question. I am very concerned that, potentially, you haven't even spoken to the AEC about whether they will hold a list of organisations which are going to participate in this referendum, or whether those organisations have to register at all with the AEC. Is this something that you have spoken about to the AEC? And, if you have, what has been their response? I should put a caveat on that to say that in no way is the opposition casting aspersions on the professionalism of the AEC. We feel that the AEC does an exceptional job at federal elections. The problem is this: we are concerned that because of the way this referendum is going to be run, the AEC has one hand tied behind its back. So we want to understand what the government is doing to ensure that is not the case.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are in furious agreement about how well the AEC is going to conduct this referendum. Let's leave it to them. They know what their job is. They're professional people. If there is likely to be an issue, I'm sure I'll hear from the electoral commissioner himself, because in the past, when I've been the shadow SMOS, he's contacted me about this or that issue of concern. I'm sure that during the last federal election he made contact with the government about issues that he might have been concerned about. But I don't think we should have any fear whatsoever. This is going to be a professionally conducted referendum to the standard that we expect, and these changes we're bringing about today are going to assist in that process.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I'm hearing you say is that there is no plan at this point in time for a register of participants in the upcoming referendum; that the AEC is not necessarily going to hold a list of all of the organisations participating; and that they're not going to hold a list of all of the organisations that could potentially breach the very laws that we are imposing upon those organisations today as part of this machinery bill. From the opposition's perspective, this is exactly the reason why we have requested official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns—to maintain the structural integrity around the referendum so that Australians know that those donation laws have been applied, that the organisations have complied, that foreign interference is limited and that foreign donations are banned. This is simply an impossible thing to manage and oversee unless there is either official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns or, at the very least, a register of organisations that the AEC and our intelligence agencies can go to to make sure that these organisations are complying with these very laws. I ask, then, of the minister: what is the quantum of funding that the government has provided to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake its duties as part of this referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I get to the specific question, I'm happy if the opposition or, in fact, any member of parliament want to meet with the Australian Electoral Commission and discuss any concerns they might have about issues that might arise and how the AEC would answer those questions. I happen to know one of the reasons the AEC were in the building yesterday is that they were doing exactly that with one member of parliament who did have some concerns not in relation to this issue but on more general issues. I'm happy to facilitate any discussion that you might have. If you have concerns about how the AEC are going to conduct this referendum, I'm happy for the AEC to make themselves available to answer those questions and, in a sense, put your mind at rest that this is going to be a professionally conducted referendum.</para>
<para>In terms of some of the funding that we have set aside, in the 2022-23 October budget on the measure for delivery of the First Nations Voice to Parliament referendum preparatory work was announced to provide funding of $75.1 million over two years from 2022-23 for the AEC and other agencies to commence preparations and support work to deliver the referendum. This comprises $50.2 million in 2022-23 for the Australian Electoral Commission to commence preparations to deliver the referendum, $1.6 million over two years from 2022-23 for the Attorney-General's Department and $0.8 million for two years from 2022-23 for the Department of Finance. Then there is $160 million in the contingency reserve, a previous government decision, for further funding towards the referendum. The details will be announced in the 2023-24 budget. The final cost will be settled in the 2023-24 budget, as you would expect.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, what advice has the government received about the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not aware of any specific advice that we have received in relation to foreign interference in the referendum. But, as always, I'm sure the AEC will monitors these issues. We know legislation has previously passed this Senate that prohibits the involvement of foreign entities in Australian electoral processes. I'm sure the AEC is very alert to those issues and would be watching very closely.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister might like to check that answer because his own Attorney-General has publicly discussed the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum. I am sure—and I would hope—that the Attorney-General wouldn't be publicly speculating about a foreign interference risk without receiving advice about it. Could the minister clarify?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure I need to check my answer. The Attorney-General might have received some advice on this issue, but your question to me was on what advice I have received from the AEC.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, you'll have to check the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. I'll read exactly the question I asked, which didn't mention you and didn't mention the AEC. I said, 'What advice has the government received about the risk of foreign interference in the referendum.' It wasn't limited to you; it was 'the government'. I'd appreciate your answer to that question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was referring to the advice I had received. I thought that was the context in which the question was being asked. But I'm happy to check with the Attorney-General to see what advice he's received.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You are the minister responsible for this legislation and the successful delivery of this referendum, and you've received no advice on the risk of foreign interference that your own Attorney-General has publicly speculated about? If that is true, that is extraordinary and negligent. What questions have you asked and what information have you sought about this risk, which your own government is talking about publicly?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very confident, Senator Paterson, that the AEC are dealing with any issues that might relate to foreign interference in exactly the same way they deal with them at general elections—that is, very competently. If there were any issues that I needed to be made aware of, I'm sure the AEC would have done that. As I said, I was in conversation with the commissioner only yesterday afternoon. He certainly didn't raise with me any issues in relation to foreign interference.</para>
<para>The government continues, of course, to monitor these things in a variety of ways which I'm sure you're very familiar with. We don't want any foreign interference in this referendum. We want it to be about the Australian people and we want it to be the Australian people, and not foreign entities, who make the ultimate decision about whether or not we have a Voice to Parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm conscious of the time and that we're soon going to hit a hard marker. Obviously, we'll be returning to this issue. Can I ask that the minister, in the intervening time away from the chamber, go and seek answers to these questions so that he can come back to the chamber and answer them adequately when we return to the committee stage later today. The government should be able to provide some information about the advice it has received, or sought, on the risk of foreign interference, given that the government has publicly speculated about it.</para>
<para>I'd also like to know whether you or any government minister has met with any of the tech platforms about the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll come back to you in respect of those answers when we resume debate on this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have two more questions. I heard both you and the opposition talk about how wonderful the AEC is and what high regard you hold the AEC in. The head of the AEC also supported provisional voting and said strongly that he supported provisional voting on the day. What is the problem with that? I understand there's some racism around why only Aboriginal people are being stopped from voting on the day. I've been hearing that the reason could be voter fraud—we don't want blackfellas being fraudulent towards the voting system. Why won't the government allow enrolment and voting on the day, as the head of the AEC has suggested and supported?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Sen</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ator FARRELL (—) (): I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. I reject the notion that any decision we've made to either support or oppose an amendment to this legislation is based on racism. That's certainly not the case, and every decision we've made is based on our commitment to ensuring an Indigenous voice to parliament.</para>
<para>On the issue of voting on the day: I don't know how many times I can say this to you, Senator Thorpe, but the objective of this piece of legislation is to create the experience—</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>30</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Motor Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BRO</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>WN (—) (): Earlier this year I spent some time visiting logistics and road safety organisations in Victoria. Thanks to the assistance of Peter Anderson from the Victorian Transport Association, I spend time with the team at MIRRAT logistics at the Port of Melbourne. MIRRAT is an impressive Australian logistics company which supports the importation of vehicles to Australia. With a purpose-built facility at the Port of Melbourne, MIRRAT has enough room for 14,500 cars and two dedicated quarantine wash bays.</para>
<para>My conversation with MIRRAT focused strongly on how supply chain issues were impacting on the importation of vehicles into Australia. On the day we met, there were three cargo ships full of new vehicles anchored in the Port of Melbourne, waiting to be unloaded. While handling all this, they've also managed to run almost entirely on renewable energy sourced from their very own solar panels.</para>
<para>Also while in Victoria, I had the opportunity to visit Linfox's Australian Automotive Research Centre with one of their tenants, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program—ANCAP. ANCAP provides consumers with independent, transparent and trusted information and advice on the level of protection offered to vehicle drivers and passengers in the most common types of crashes. Further, the testing provides information about the ability of a vehicle to avoid or mitigate the severity of a crash with other vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, and, from this year, motorcyclists. Since 1992, ANCAP has published safety ratings for thousands of vehicle makers, models and variants sold across Australia and New Zealand by using a star-rating system of zero to five stars. ANCAP has had a longstanding relationship with the Australian Automotive Research Centre in Anglesey, which provides organisations, companies and government with a facility to test a range of automotive vehicles, from cars, trucks and motorcycles through to defence machinery.</para>
<para>The purpose of my visit was to test out the automatic braking and lane support systems in two vehicles, and I'm pleased to say that both passed. I also had the chance to see Australia's first motorcyclist test dummy. As of 2023, vehicles will be assessed for their ability to avoid a crash with a motorcycle. The dummy will be used in a range of emergency braking and lane support testing scenarios. The dummy sits atop a motorcycle and is propelled on a platform.</para>
<para>ANCAP has played a key role over the last 30 years in encouraging vehicle manufacturers to continually improve the safety features and technologies offered in their vehicles, ahead of regulation. It was great to see ANCAP's work firsthand and to see the vast variety of needs that the Australian Automotive Research Centre is able to cater for. I'm also proud that the Australian government, through the National Road Safety Action Plan 2023-25, has committed to continuing to fund the fantastic work that ANCAP does. I'd like to give a big thank you to ANCAP's CEO, Carla Hoorweg, and her team for making the day so informative and memorable.</para>
<para>I then had the opportunity to sit down with some of the world's leading road safety researchers at the Monash University Accident Research Centre—MUARC. MUARC is one of the world's most comprehensive injury prevention research institutions, with extensive research being conducted in a wide range of fields. MUARC has 40 staff and 30 students, all of whom believe that the translation and implications of research should be able to be understood by policymakers and advocates alike. Sitting outside of other faculties at Monash University, MUARC is able to lean into many different research specialties while conducting road safety research in an ethical manner. The MUARC professors and researchers I met with came from fields of engineering, psychology and public health and all worked together in collaboration on various pieces of research. In recent years, MUARC has launched several professional road safety programs, including the Road Safety Management Leadership Program.</para>
<para>The Road Safety Management Leadership Program aims to deliver a leader's capability in delivering change through a five-day intensive program. The program focuses on participants leaving with an in-depth understanding of road safety management, including a safe systems approach and its underpinning scientific principles. Past programs have attracted international attendance from road safety leaders from countries including South Africa, Indonesia, India and New Zealand. At home, the program is highly regarded by state and territory police forces and state and local governments across the country.</para>
<para>One of the programs MUARC runs is a complementary program to the ANCAP safety rating program, known as the Used Car Safety Ratings. The free ratings are available on a number of used vehicles and are presented using star rating scale of one to five stars. Used Car Safety Ratings provide an indication on the relative risk of death and serious injury to the driver of the vehicle in a crash compared to other vehicles on the road. Cars which receive a five-star driver protection rating provide greater protection to the driver; are less likely to result in serious injuries to the other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists; and have a lower risk of being involved in a crash in the first place. I am also proud that the recent <inline font-style="italic">National road safety action plan 2023-25</inline> contains federal government action continuing to contribute funding to MUARC's Used Car Safety Ratings program. I look forward to visiting MUARC again to see the testing they undertake for the used-car safety program in person.</para>
<para>While in Melbourne I had the opportunity to visit Road to Zero: Road Safety Experience, which has been developed by the Transport Accident Commission. The Transport Accident Commission is a Victorian government organisation set up to support survivors of road trauma. TAC does impressive work in the road safety space, including their exhibition at the Melbourne Museum. The Road to Zero exhibition is world-first road safety education exhibition with interactive technologies for people to explore the impact of road crashes both on the body and socially. While at the exhibition, I had the opportunity to use the virtual reality experience, which had me travelling in cars from 1970 through to 2055 and learning the history of and vehicle safety in Victoria. At the beginning of the experience, in 1970, roads were mostly wide and undivided, and a total of 1,034 Victorians died on Victorian roads. The simulator shows how, by 2055, future upgrades to the infrastructure network and improvements in vehicle standards will lead to zero deaths and zero injuries.</para>
<para>Last but not least, I had the opportunity to visit the National Transport Research Organisation, formerly known as the Australian Road Research Board. NTRO work alongside all levels of government to provide innovative, impactful solutions that benefit all road users. NTRO does extensive work on both the measurement of current road conditions and the creation of new or modified road service materials. One of the NTRO's core beliefs is that, if you don't measure it, you can't manage it. To complement this ideology, NTRO have a full suite of data and analysis services which are used by state and territory and local governments across the country.</para>
<para>During my time at NTRO, I had the opportunity to see some of the vehicles they use for the infrastructure measurements, including the network survey vehicle. When I was at the NTRO office in Melbourne, one of the iPAVEs, which is a dedicated truck with a series of lasers mounted on the trailer to measure the state of the road underneath, was conducting post-flood assessments of roads in Victoria and another iPAVE truck was in Queensland. All in all, I would like to thank all of the remarkable organisations and research institutes that I was able to meet while in Melbourne, and I look forward to keeping up to date with the work of each organisation well into the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax, Trade</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">S</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>enator BROCKMAN () (): I rise to speak about a couple of issues that are vitally important to my home state of Western Australia. I'll start with the GST sharing arrangement. The GST sharing arrangements are not top of mind for people across Australia. In fact, if you talk about GST relativities, most people's eyes probably start glazing over. But that's certainly not true in my home state of Western Australia, and it's certainly not true amongst the Western Australian Liberal team.</para>
<para>For those who are interested, I think this is really important point to make: what does a GST relativity mean? We hear these numbers bandied around: 70c, 15c and $1.01. A relativity above one means that a state is effectively subsidised because it receives more than its population share of the GST. It's a pretty straightforward concept: it receives more than its population share of GST if that number is above one. In the past, Western Australia was in danger of falling to a catastrophically low level, a number of 10c in the dollar and a relativity of 0.1 or even lower. The WA Liberal team fought very hard indeed to ensure that that system was repaired, that the failures within that system to take into account the unique attributes of Western Australia were repaired and that there was a change in the ridiculous circumstance where, literally, one-tenth of the GST revenue delivered from Western Australia to all the other states was returning to WA.</para>
<para>In government, we fixed that problem. The whole WA team, led by then finance minister, Senator Mathias Cormann, fought hard and convinced the government that that needed to be changed, and it was changed. That was a team effort, and I was very proud to be a very small part of that team, having newly arrived in this place. But we delivered for the people of Western Australia. We delivered the 70c—going to 75c—floor in the GST sharing arrangements. We are watching this government. Senator Matt O'Sullivan, who's in the chamber with me now; my colleague Senator Dean Smith, who's doing some great work on this issue; Senator Michaelia Cash; and Senator Linda Reynolds—we are all watching the government and are 100 per cent committed to ensuring that the fair GST carve-up that we put in place stays in place.</para>
<para>Why are we watching so closely? Because we can see pressure building in the Labor Party. The New South Wales Labor leader, Chris Minns, went to WA recently and met with Mark McGowan. They did a nice friendly visit in WA but didn't really get into the GST; that would have been a bit too touchy. But, once he got back to New South Wales, what did he say about the GST? 'We're entitled to more.' That's an implicit criticism of the current arrangement. 'It's all up for negotiation in the next few years, and I'm not going to take a backward step'—that's what the putative Premier of New South Wales said just after he had his friendly visit with Premier McGowan in Western Australia.</para>
<para>Let's look at Western Australia and New South Wales in the current circumstances. Under an assessed relativity—remember what we're looking at when we're looking at relativity; if a number is above one, a state is being subsidised in terms of its GST share—New South Wales would actually be at $1.01. New South Wales would actually be getting more GST than its share by population. What would Western Australia be getting under straight assessed relativity at the moment? It would get 15c in the dollar—0.15. Thanks to the deal secured by the Liberal WA team in this place, that is being boosted to the floor of 70c, ensuring that 70c in the dollar of GST population share is returned to Western Australia—70c! Mr Minns, the putative Premier of New South Wales, described that as unfair, that 'we are entitled to more' because WA gets back 70c in the dollar. So every Liberal member of this place and in the other place is watching this government very closely in terms of its actions in relation to GST.</para>
<para>I also wish to discuss trade. Australia is a trading nation and Western Australia is a trading state. If we draw lines on a map, the start and finish of those lines are invariably in Australia. Be they plane routes, sea routes, telecommunication flows or monetary flows around the world, Australia is at the start and the end. We're a trading nation, and Western Australia is a trading state. Be it our major commodities, like iron ore, gas or agricultural commodities, Western Australia's lifeblood is our ability to trade with foreign nations and foreign purchasers, but we're seeing those relationships and the great reputation Australia has as a reliable training partner being undermined by this Labor government—and we've seen it across a few different areas.</para>
<para>I think we'd all agree in this place that Japan is an extremely important and extremely reliable trading and strategic partner. It's probably up there with the US and the UK as one of our top four relationships in the world. But this Labor government's tinkering intervention in the gas market has seen the Japanese government and its representatives respond in a way that's very unusual. They're very, very reluctant to criticise and very reluctant to talk about relationships. They're always keen to keep a positive relationship. And yet we've had Japanese trade representatives going to trade magazines with comments like, 'We're concerned that the government's short-term market intervention could possibly threaten LNG business practice, which has been established over many years, and investment in the future.' This could put current markets at risk and stifle investment. This is what we said—many people on this side, including me, said—that there was a major risk from the Labor government's intervention in the energy market, particularly in the gas market. We said this would happen, and now we can see a clear demonstration from Japanese government representatives that this is affecting our trade relationship with Japan.</para>
<para>The other clear example which affects my home state of Western Australia—not that the gas industry doesn't affect my home state, because at times we are the largest exporter of LNG in the world—is, obviously, the live export trade. The live export trade, particularly to the Middle East, has been a significant part of the WA agricultural industry for decades. It's very important to those markets, and those markets are saying clearly that this has the potential to impact beyond just the trade in live sheep itself. It could impact on other aspects of our agricultural supply relationships with those countries and impact on other aspects of our broader trade relationships with those countries.</para>
<para>Those countries considered us to be a reliable supplier of protein to their domestic market. Not only are we putting that market at risk and the sheep farmers of Western Australia under extraordinary economic pressure but we are damaging Australia and our trade relationships. The rest of the world is looking at us and saying: 'Is Australia the same trading partner it used to be? Is Australia the reliable, dependable trading partner for gas and agricultural products that it used to be?' I personally find that extraordinarily dangerous for the future of Australia in this world because we are a trading nation and Western Australia is a trading state.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Iran</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since Jina Mahsa Amini's murder in custody six months ago we've seen brave women and allies stand up against the oppressive Iranian government. Hundreds have been killed and thousands have been arrested. Rallies around Australia have called for solidarity. We've chanted 'zan, zendegi, azadi'—women, life, freedom—and we've listened to the Iranian community in Australia. Many fear for their families still in Iran, and they've asked us to be their voice.</para>
<para>Today I want to give voice to members of the Queensland Iranian community by reading their words—of course with their consent and partially anonymized at their request for their own safety. When I met with these formidable and very impressive women recently they were calling for Magnitsky sanctions on those directly affiliated with the Islamic regime. Earlier this week we learnt that the Australian government has issued new Magnitsky sanctions against senior Iranian military, the morality police involved in the death of Jina Mahsa Amini and government officials, entities and individuals involved in human rights abuses. This is important progress and it's welcome, but still more must be done.</para>
<para>Rosa, a university lecturer, told me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am committed to the future of my home country, Iran, and its people. As an Iranian-Australian, I want to shed light on the recent developments concerning the Iran revolution from a diversity and inclusion perspective. The brave young Iranians who have taken to the streets are risking their lives to demonstrate to the world that the Islamic Regime does not represent their interests. They demand that the legitimacy of this regime be challenged on a larger scale by the leaders of the free world once and for all. The magnitude of this recent uprising is incomparable to previous nationwide protests in 2019 and 2009, and it is clear that this is a revolution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For 44 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran … has tried to eliminate the diversity embedded in Iran's history and culture by rewriting Persian history based on Shia ideologies and the gradual physical elimination of ethnic groups. However, the young generation's courageous unity has surmounted the Regime's "divide and conquer" strategy and made the world finally listen to their cry for a free united Iran that celebrates its cultural diversity.</para></quote>
<para>Rosa urged Australia to oppose the Islamic regime and support the work of unified opposition groups working towards a free, secular and democratic Iran. She says that doing this would align with Australia's values and demonstrate that we stand in solidarity with the Iranian people in their fight for freedom, justice and human rights.</para>
<para>Atti, a registered nurse working in allied health, expressed her concerns about the health catastrophe imposed on Iranians by the regime's security forces. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Medical centres have been ordered to refrain from admitting and treating injured protesters. They have been instructed to have a mandatory report to security forces about these injured protesters. On many occasions, injured protesters have been abducted from hospitals and medical centres to unknown locations for investigation and torture.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Ambulances are being misused to transport security forces to the streets to suppress protesters and also to transport abducted protesters from medical centres to prisons and detention centres. Vehicles are seen painted to look like an ambulance bearing a green number plate, which indicates that the vehicle belongs to the military and law enforcement forces. This casts discredit on and makes people lose trust in the medical system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In any case, the vehicle that is supposed to save lives is currently being used in Iran by forces that shoot directly at protesters, be they children, teenagers, old or young.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Healthcare workers are being assaulted, prohibited and threatened to refrain provision of treatment and medical service to injured protesters. Many have been persecuted. Healthcare workers have been forced to provide false medical statements, including false death certificates, fabricated medical information and coroner's reports on protestors to the media.</para></quote>
<para>Atti also spoke of reports of school students being poisoned. She says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The first case which was reported in Qom on November 30 affected 18 students at a secondary school who fell ill with symptoms such as nausea, headaches, coughing, difficulty breathing, heart palpitations, and lethargy. Some of these students lost movement in their limbs and had to be hospitalized.</para></quote>
<para>Since then, Atti has heard of over 900 young girls being poisoned in 150 schools across Iran, with at least one girl, 11-year-old Fatemeh Rezaei, dying from the exposure. Atti says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Islamic Regime is taking revenge on women for their brave resistance. Even parents who were complaining in front of schools over their daughters' safety were crack downed on … Fear, torture, violence are the IR's last tools to survive. What they are peddling to the world as security is nothing more than a deceitful mirage from terrorists who take revenge on schoolgirls in this way for their participation in the women, life, freedom revolution.</para></quote>
<para>These are just several examples from an endless list of the regime's incompetency and inhumane crimes, endangering the health and life of Iranians. These catastrophic human rights violations deserve urgent attention.</para>
<para>The next ladies who shared with me are Zara and Merry—that's not her real name. They talked about their family's experience of political violence and the suppression of any media that tried to tell the truth about what's happening. Zara says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The current political climate in Iran is marked by a high degree of repression, with the regime censoring the media and cracking down on dissent and civil society groups advocating for reform. Despite efforts by some Iranians to gradually reform the political system, the prevalence of systematic corruption and political suppression has made this extremely difficult, leading to the arrest and suppression of many reformists and their families. It is important to note that the severe crackdowns occurred during the reformist administration in Iran.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My family used to believe that Iran needs a gradual process of reform to address its problems. But, despite being reformists, my brother was kidnapped and tortured by IRGC security forces for several weeks, resulting in ongoing health issues and chronic pain. Another brother was physically attacked multiple times on the street, arrested and tortured. During his arrest, he was subjected to prolonged periods of solitary confinement. My sister was arrested and tortured simply for writing articles for journals and newspapers.</para></quote>
<para>Merry says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">As tax-paying, law-abiding Australian-Iranians, we are constantly living with the horror, we know they are surveilling us and, that we are at risk within Australian borders and also subjecting our family, relatives in Iran to prosecution, detention, forced confessions, and torture to pressure us into submission to IR.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am so concerned for the rest of my family as they can be taken hostage at any moment to coerce me into submission. My nephew was severely assaulted during the early stages of the protests last September. He lost 8 teeth and had 28 stitches on his forehead.</para></quote>
<para>Despite her experience, Zara remains hopeful. She says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">One of the protesters' greatest achievements is that they have raised a new Iranian political order. They have created solidarity among different social groups and now we have a united opposition for the transition period that represents our voice.</para></quote>
<para>The last lady, who would like to remain anonymous, came to Australia as a student in 2016. She was raised by her grandmother after her mother, father, aunts and uncles were arrested by the Islamic Republic. She describes her childhood as 'travelling from one jail to the others to visit my family members'. For her, the recent protests and arrests have brought back memories of her childhood. She talked to me about the thousands of people being imprisoned and the unpredictability of who would be convicted, who would be hanged and who would be released. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It shows it is not a legitimate system. There is no Rule of Law … Obviously, the community is desperately calling for more to be done to show the Iranian regime that these hateful acts will not be tolerated. Australia is capable of effective action, and it is time for Australia to join the US, Canada, UK, and the Europeans in continuously imposing new tranches of sanctions.</para></quote>
<para>These incredibly brave women and their allies, here and in Iran, continue to battle against oppression to stand up for basic human rights—the right to choose what they wear, what religion they practise, what careers they have and what they do with their bodies. These freedoms must not be denied. The courage and commitment of our sisters in Iran is an inspiration, but they're also a reminder that we must never be complacent and take rights for granted. Until Iran is free, until women all around the world are free and equal and able to go to school without being poisoned, we must raise our voices in this place and be the voices of those who cannot speak. We must raise our voices until we are louder than the oppressors.</para>
<para>To these brave women: I promise you that the Greens hear you and we will keep fighting against oppression and for a world where women everywhere can live with dignity, respect and equality.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales Election</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Saturday the people of New South Wales are going to the polls. When you enter that booth, you'll be presented with a choice between giving the reheated leftovers of the Liberals and Nationals a fourth consecutive term in office—potentially, that will be 16 straight years in power—or a fresh start for New South Wales with Chris Minns and Labor.</para>
<para>When I look at this election, I'm struck by the similarities between it and the federal election last year: a tired old incumbent coalition government plagued by scandals, addicted to pork-barrelling and treating public money like Liberal and National Party campaign funds; a government onto its third—or, in the case of New South Wales, its fourth—leader; a government that has run out of ideas for how to deal with today's challenges. Where Prime Minister Morrison's great idea was getting children to drive forklifts, Premier Perrottet wants to spend $850 million on Australia's most complicated term deposit scheme.</para>
<para>Just like Morrison, Perrottet is coming up against a Labor leader with serious ideas for fresh, meaningful reform and real solutions for the cost-of-living challenges facing the people of New South Wales. Those challenges are very serious. People across New South Wales, particularly in regional areas and in Western Sydney, are getting kicked in the teeth by the coalition's failed agenda. The coalition has allocated regional New South Wales a grand sum of zero dollars in the next two years for regional road upgrades—zero dollars! Under the Nationals there will be no money for regional roads for the next two years. Does anyone remember when the Nationals were the party for the regions? Labor, by the way, have committed to $724 million in regional road investments, and we won't be pork-barrelling regional funding like former Deputy Premier Barilaro did with the bushfire recovery grants.</para>
<para>But people in Sydney aren't doing much better under the Liberals, because they are living in the most tolled city on the planet. It costs some people in Western Sydney $60 a day to get to work in the CBD and back. That's $60 a day taken from your wallet and shoved straight into Transurban's pocket, and it's that's because of the Liberals' ideological obsession with privatisation. It's a kick in the teeth every time you are charged to use a road you already paid for through your taxes. Take Westconnex: it cost $21 billion to build, whilst the Premier, when he was Treasurer before the 2019 election, promised he would not privatise it. Not only did he break his promise; he flogged it off on the cheap to Transurban for just $20 billion. He flogged it off for less than it cost to build! Now Western Sydney residents will be paying for it through the nose for the rest of their lives. It is a forever tax on what should be a publicly owned and managed road. Unlikely the Perrottet government, which is making plans to privatise the new Western Harbour Tunnel, which will be another forever tax on residents of Western Sydney, Labor is committed to ending the so-called administration fees that Transurban slaps on top of your toll—a rip-off on top of a rip-off.</para>
<para>Labor is committed to ending the secrecy around the privatisation contracts. We still have no idea what the Perrottet government signed the people of New South Wales up for when they flogged off Westconnex and NorthConnex to Transurban. And Labor is committed to a $60-a-week toll cap—not the $60 per day that some people are currently paying but $60 per week capped. Labor is committed to a review overhaul of the toll network, led by former ACCC chairman Allan Fels.</para>
<para>On top of all that, Labor has committed to the end of the privatisation agenda in New South Wales. And I'm not just talking about roads: it has been revealed in recent days that the Perrottet government has spent $400,000 on consultants to advise on privatising Sydney Water. Privatising our roads, ports, electricity, public housing and the land titles office isn't enough for them; they want to privatise water as well. And that's in election season. The Premier is denying that he wants to privatise Sydney Water. If that's the case, why spend almost half a million dollars on advice on how to do it? We already saw Mr Perrottet, as Treasurer, break his promise not to privatise WestConnex before the last election, and I don't think that the people of New South Wales will be fooled for a second time. Modelling shows that privatising Sydney Water would increase water bills by 59 per cent, another kick in the teeth to Sydney residents.</para>
<para>If a Minns Labor government is elected on Saturday then the people of New South Wales will wake up on Sunday morning to a fresh start. They can wake up to a state government that will not be flogging off public assets to private consortiums on the cheap. They can wake up to a state government that will actually make things in Australia and New South Wales again. The Perrottet government, meanwhile, has wasted billions of dollars on cracked trams, trains that don't fit on the tracks and ferries that don't fit under bridges, or which will decapitate you if you actually ride on their top decks. All these things were made overseas.</para>
<para>We actually have a rich, rich history of domestic manufacturing in New South Wales. That's right across the state, particularly up in Newcastle. We've done it before: we have made trains. A Minns Labor government is committed to building the Tangara replacement fleet right here again—an important step for skilling Australia and rebooting manufacturing. Bringing domestic manufacturing back is a massive opportunity for Australian industry, Australian skills and Australian jobs. That's why we're launching the National Reconstruction Fund at the federal level, and it would be so valuable to have a partner reviving domestic manufacturing in our largest state.</para>
<para>We don't share the Liberal and National ideological opposition to building things in Australia, just as we don't share their ideological opposition to fair wage rises for essential workers. The Perrottet government has imposed an arbitrary 2.5 per cent pay cap on nurses, healthcare workers, allied health workers, teachers and other essential public workers since 2011. New South Wales allied health workers, teachers, nurses and other essential public workers are the only workers in Australia who are banned from negotiating pay increases with their employers. The Perrottet government was all too happy to praise nurses and allied health workers as heroes of the pandemic, but when it actually came to rewarding them with a fair pay increase they were nowhere to be seen. I bet that just about every person in New South Wales has a parent, sibling, partner, neighbour or friend who is impacted by this. When the Perrottet government has its boot on the neck of such a large proportion of working people New South Wales through its pay cap, it hurts the entire economy. We came to office federally last year with a commitment to get wages moving again, and a Minns Labor government has that exact same commitment. It has committed to scrapping the pay cap, not just because it's fair but because it makes economic sense.</para>
<para>Just as the Liberals and Nationals have robbed essential public workers of their fair pay, and just as they have robbed people in Western Sydney by flogging off their roads to Transurban, let's not forget that they've also robbed people across Sydney of their nightlife. The Liberals' lockout laws decimated small businesses, jobs and nightlife in Sydney. The only people who benefited from the lockout laws were the casino wowsers and the wealthy property developers gentrifying inner Sydney. If anyone is at all confused by the term 'wowser', the Australian writer CJ Dennis reportedly defined it as 'an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder.'</para>
<para>Even now that the lockouts have been scrapped, the city is still struggling to come to life after dark. Sadly, we have seen numerous iconic venues close down in recent years. That's why I was excited to see Chris Minns and NSW Labor pledge to invest $103 million in New South Wales's contemporary music scene. Sydney is an iconic global city. We deserve a lively nightlife, economy and live music at the heart of the city. It's time for a fresh start. We have fantastic members and candidates across the state, from Janelle Saffin in Northern Rivers, who has done such a wonderful job representing people in Lismore, right through to Simon Earle in Miranda.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Spinal Cord Injuries</title>
          <page.no>36</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It only takes a second—a single second—for our lives and the lives of our families to be changed forever. It could be a car accident, a sporting injury, a fall from a roof or a swim at the beach—a catastrophic accident that results in a spinal cord injury, years of rehabilitation, specialist health care and a life in a wheelchair. It could happen to any one of us at any time.</para>
<para>Today 20,000 Australians and their families live with a spinal cord injury, and every single day in Australia an Australian injures their spinal cord. In addition to the catastrophic impacts on their lives and the lives of their families, spinal injuries cost the nation nearly $4 billion a year. My home state of Western Australia accounts for 2,800 Australians with spinal cord injuries, which costs over half a billion dollars per year. Interestingly and somewhat inexplicably, regional Western Australia has disproportionately more spinal cord injuries than our metro areas. The impacts on people's physical health, mental health, families and relationships are profound and life-changing. All aspects of a person's life are impacted, and they have to adapt their lives to accommodate quite severe disabilities. These challenges are often exacerbated when people return to work after many months, or many years, of intense rehabilitation, having to adapt to very different ways of not only living but working.</para>
<para>Today there is still no treatment for people with a spinal cord injury. It absolutely astounds me that, globally, spinal cord injuries have not received the research funding and attention they deserve, particularly given the severity of the impact of these injuries on the lives of so many. However, there is good news, and the good news is that Australian research bodies such as NeuRA and SpinalCure Australia are now leading the way. NeuRA was founded in 1991 and is an independent and not-for-profit research institute that is seeking to prevent, treat and cure brain and nervous-system diseases, disorders and injuries through its world-leading research. SpinalCure was founded in 1994 and is now an Australian leader in funding and promoting cure-related research into spinal cord injuries. They are a not-for-profit organisation relying solely on donations and grants to fund their groundbreaking research.</para>
<para>I'm delighted to have had the opportunity, for several years now, to work closely with SpinalCure's very passionate CEO, Kathryn Borkovic, and inspirational executive director, Duncan Wallace. Duncan became a quadriplegic almost 40 years ago after being hit by a drunk driver. In April 2022, SpinalCure presented me and then minister for health Greg Hunt with a petition signed by more than 30,000 Australians calling for funding to establish a dedicated neurostimulation research and treatment program here in Australia. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Greg Hunt and acknowledge his passion and commitment to supporting this type of research here in Australia. I'm delighted to advise colleagues that SpinalCure recently received $6 million in funding for their Project Spark. The funding was provided under the Medical Research Future Fund and delivered by the former coalition government. This is the first time that government funding has been provided for core-focused spinal cord medical research in Australia.</para>
<para>Project Spark is a national medical research collaboration led by NeuRA, which is working to develop the first treatments for Australians with spinal cord injuries through what they call neurostimulation, in clinical trials. I've been working closely with SpinalCure Australia to raise awareness of Project Spark at a federal level. I am so proud to support the efforts of their amazing ambassadors, who include Sam Bloom and Kerri-Anne Kennerley.</para>
<para>Kerri-Anne became a supporter of SpinalCure Australia after her beloved late husband, John, became paralysed after a tragic fall from a balcony that resulted in fractures to his C3 and C4 vertebrae. John was put into an induced coma. He spent six weeks in intensive care and had multiple operations. Doctors diagnosed him as an incomplete quadriplegic. Kerri-Anne lovingly cared for him until he passed away in February 2019, three years after his accident. Since then, she has been a tireless advocate of research and support for those who have suffered a spinal cord injury.</para>
<para>Sam Bloom had an accident in Thailand, when a balcony railing fell, causing her to fall six metres onto the concrete floor below. Miraculously, she did survive, but she suffered catastrophic injuries, becoming a paraplegic. Sam bravely shared her story in the book <inline font-style="italic">Sam Bloom: Heartache </inline><inline font-style="italic">&</inline><inline font-style="italic">Bi</inline><inline font-style="italic">rdsong</inline>, where she tells her story about how her life and her family's life changed after that accident. Her inspirational book was turned into an absolutely magnificent movie called <inline font-style="italic">Penguin Bloom</inline>, which I encourage everybody to watch. It is deeply moving and it gives a wonderful insight into the lives of the families and individuals that are changed forever by spinal cord injury. Sam is not only a passionate advocate; she is a generous donor as well, and recently donated $100,000 of her own money to Project Spark.</para>
<para>Neurostimulation is the world's leading experimental therapy for people with spinal cord injury. It is the use of tailored electrical currents to amplify messages between the brain and the body, using the nerves that remain intact after an injury has occurred. It has already resulted in life-changing functional recovery, such as bowel and bladder control, hand movements and cardiovascular stability. To most of us, this might not sound very significant, but regaining functions such as these are life changing for a person with a spinal cord injury. In some small initial studies overseas, it has actually restored the ability for some people to stand and to walk many years after this injury has occurred. While the first trial will begin in Sydney, as a senator for Western Australia I am very excited that it is planned that the second community-based clinical trial will be done in Perth. This trial will seek to improve hand, arm and respiratory function in quadriplegics. These two trials, in Sydney and in Perth, will treat over 200 Australians, hoping that we can restore some loss of bodily functions.</para>
<para>My sincere thanks go to the work of these amazing Australian research bodies. Treatments that will reverse the physical impacts of spinal cord injuries are now a very real possibility. People with spinal cord injuries have been waiting decades for the science to develop at the same speed at which much other medical research has been done. SpinalCure Australia are hopeful that they can reverse the cost of spinal injuries to the economy, and they expect the annual cost savings to be in the billions. But, as we here in this place all know, success is not measured in dollars alone; the most important success is the improvement it makes to thousands of Australian lives.</para>
<para>It is my great hope that Australia can cement its standing as a world leader in curing spinal cord injuries and also that we can play a pivotal role in global efforts to develop advanced therapies and, ultimately, we hope, a cure. Once thought to be impossible, SpinalCure may just make it possible to improve the lives of Australians living with a spinal cord injury. I strongly urge all colleagues, on all sides of this chamber, to encourage the Albanese government to support this important cause with further funding. I'm aware that there is a budget proposal that has been put forward to the government, and I'd also like to take this opportunity to encourage the health minister to support and champion this proposal for additional funding to increase scientific research capability and expand clinical trials domestically.</para>
<para>To the team at SpinalCure Australia: congratulations on your amazing work. You are already making a real difference in the lives of people and you are offering hope to so many more. I look forward to continuing to support your important research and your future life-changing findings for all Australians living with or supporting those who have spinal cord injuries.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender and Sexual Orientation: Protests</title>
          <page.no>37</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm so proud of my home state of Tasmania today. A few days ago, on the steps of Parliament House in Spring Street in Melbourne, we saw a pathetically small group of transphobes standing next to actual Nazis as they gave the Sieg Heil salute. It was a disgraceful collusion between two absolutely hateful ideologies that represent actual fascism in this country. But yesterday some of the same people—these Nazi sympathisers, these people who are transphobic and play footsies with actual Nazis—came down to nipaluna/Hobart, in my home state of lutruwita/Tasmania, and do you know what happened? They were run out of town.</para>
<para>They held what they thought would be a rally but turned into a pathetic agglomeration of about a dozen people, and many hundreds of Tasmanians who believe in fairness, who believe in equality, who believe in love and who wanted to support their transgender siblings, came out, shouted them down and ran them out of town. It was a glorious day for my home state of Tasmania because Tasmanians came out and made it very clear that that hateful, transphobic, fascist agenda has no place in our society, has to be stood up against and has to be fought. That's what happened yesterday, and it was a beautiful thing. I thank everyone who came out in lutruwita/Tasmania yesterday to stand up for decency, to stand up for love, to stand up for compassion and to stand against the hateful ideologies of fascism and transphobia.</para>
<para>I want to mention two people in particular who represent the worst of those ideologies. First there is Posie Parker, which is a pseudonym for Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who is a pathetic and disgusting excuse for a human being, who labelled my partner a 'groomer' yesterday because she has a transgender son, my stepson, Jasper Lees. I say to Posie Parker—or whatever pseudonym Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull wants to go by—that what she did yesterday was vile, disgraceful, untrue and disgusting, and it provided us with a window into her dark and warped soul.</para>
<para>Also yesterday, another pathetic and vile excuse for a human being, who goes by the name of Kim Allen, or @kimberleyallen, on Twitter, deadnamed my stepson Jasper Lees, deliberately misgendered him and said the most vile and disgusting things about him on Twitter. Well, Kimberley Allen, you can get in the bin alongside Posie Parker, because Jasper has more humanity in his little toenail than either of you have in your entire bodies. He is an intelligent, funny, highly empathetic human, not to mention a very handsome young man, and his intelligence, his humour and his empathy are diametrically opposed to Posie Parker's and Kimberley Allen's.</para>
<para>And Posie Parker belled the cat in Hobart yesterday when she admitted that she wasn't a feminist. She said that yesterday. And I agree with her that she's not a feminist, and there are plenty of transphobes like her who are not feminists. We need to call Posie and Kimberley and their ilk what they actually are, and that is trans-exclusionary right-wing dropkicks—T-E-R-D-S. They are not TERFs; they are TERDS, and that's how we should describe them: T-E-R-D-S.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Laverty, Mr Declan, Northern Territory: Crime</title>
          <page.no>38</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCARTHY</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to update the Senate on an incredibly tragic event that occurred in the Northern Territory in the past couple of days. On Sunday night, 20-year-old Declan Laverty went to work—a shift at one of the bottle shops in Darwin. Sadly, he never came back home after that shift. He was allegedly killed, and since then a 19-year-old man has been charged with murder and taken into custody. It's the news that no parent, family, friend or community ever wants to hear. No-one expects to go to work—or anywhere, for that matter—and lose their life to violence.</para>
<para>My heartfelt condolences go out to Declan's family, especially his mum and dad. We heard young Declan's father, Damian, still had his son's dinner waiting in the fridge for him that night. We also heard his mum, Samara, and dad, Damian, received text messages from their son saying, 'Love you, been stabbed'. It's a pain we can't imagine any parent experiencing, and it's something that is so heart-wrenching. No parent should ever worry about whether or not their child will come home.</para>
<para>We've been facing a lot of issues in the Northern Territory, most significantly these past couple of months. I recognise that the issue of alcohol is a deeply troubling issue for many residents across the Northern Territory, and I know it's not simply in the Northern Territory. It's also in many communities, in particular in Western Australia and in Queensland. But there is something going on across our country that we have to deal with here around the scourge of violence that emanates from alcohol. Whilst alcohol itself is not the complete cause, it is absolutely contributing to what we see occurring. I say to the people of the Northern Territory that there is an increase here that has to be dealt with.</para>
<para>Organisations like Larrakia Nation, for example, do an incredible job under circumstances of enormous stress. I say this personal message to the staff of Larrakia Nation in Darwin—Darwin is on Larrakia country. I have been out with staff, whether it's to see their work on the Night and Day Patrol and the way they interact with a lot of families and individuals who come in from communities and who are either homeless or unable to return to their communities. The Larrakia Nation does a tremendous job in supporting and trying to work with individuals and families to assist them with whatever concerns they have. But I have heard the CEO of Larrakia Nation also speak on radio, saying that there is an expectation that any First Nations people who come onto Larrakia country also need to show respect. They need to show respect for the place and the country of somewhere else and someone else but also for the people they come into contact with.</para>
<para>Clearly, this is a community call to all people—all groups and organisations—that things have to change. We cannot have people walking in and out of bottle shops, taking off with alcohol and thinking that's okay. We cannot have workers, whether they're in bottle shops, whether they're in retail outlets and stores across the Northern Territory, feeling unsafe and now feeling like they're so unsafe they may not get home. It is not good enough, and we have to ensure the safety of everyone. We stand here and talk about the importance of safety for women and children. Will we stand here and say that the safety of every person is absolutely critical? I say to the people of the Northern Territory: every single person does matter, and what occurred this week is a tragic incident and event. My heart goes out to the families involved. We have to do more, and I'll certainly be looking at that when I get back to the Northern Territory.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I have a personal story to convey, and it involves both my niece and her son. When she was four years old, my niece Sarah was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Her readings were hard to stabilise, and, at that time, her insulin was administered via regular injections throughout the day. Sarah was kept alive and healthy by six injections a day. She started school around the time she was diagnosed, and that involved her mother going to the school twice a day to take her readings and give her an insulin injection. As you can imagine, in the 30 years since then Sarah has seen many benefits from improvements in technology, from insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors through to the many improvements in insulin types, particularly in the area of fast-acting insulins. Three years ago, Sarah's youngest son, Ollie, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at just 2½. He was too young to tell his parents how he was feeling, let alone understand the need to have his finger pricked or a monitor and pump attached to him. It was a really difficult time for their family.</para>
<para>Fiasp is a fast-acting insulin used by approximately 15,000 Australians with type 1 diabetes, and it is the most effective insulin for Sarah. It gives her flexibility in managing her diabetes and therefore in improving her quality of life, and Fiasp is the only insulin that Ollie, who is only five, has ever used. Taking Fiasp instead of a slower-acting insulin means Sarah and Ollie can eat almost straightaway. Without Fiasp, they would have to take their insulin dose 15 to 20 minutes before eating and then wait. Fiasp has helped this family manage meals better. Any parent knows how hard it is to tell a hungry child that they can't eat just yet. How does a child know they will be hungry in 20 minutes? When everyone else is eating, 20 minutes is a very long time for a child to wait. Type 1 diabetes is always there, but Sarah says Fiasp provides 'one small element of normality at mealtimes'.</para>
<para>There is no other comparative insulin option for Sarah and Ollie. Fiasp helps them to regulate their blood sugar level so they don't spike too early or crash later. As an adult, Sarah knows how to live with and manage her diabetes, but parenting a child with type 1 diabetes is another matter altogether. A diabetes diagnosis disrupts the natural impulsiveness of childhood. You must always be prepared and have a plan to deal with every potential scenario. Sarah is on constant alert for Ollie, making him wait for his pump to be removed before he jumps into the pool for a swim or runs into the ocean, taking finger pricks to measure blood sugar levels and responding with a jelly bean, a drink of juice or an insulin injection. 'It's constant interruptions to his day over and over again,' she says. Sarah has to be on alert for herself, too. She needs to make sure she always has supplies at hand and checks her blood sugar levels before she leaves the house to determine that she is okay to exercise, to eat and to drive. Sarah admits it can be relentless at times.</para>
<para>Why am I telling you about my family connection to this drug known as Fiasp? Because it was recently announced that Fiasp would be removed from the PBS on 1 April, leaving nearly 15,000 Australians, like Sarah and Ollie, facing a hike of $220 per script. They would be forced to find hundreds of extra dollars each month when Fiasp reverts to a private prescription or find an alternative insulin, none of which have the same profile as Fiasp. Last Friday, the health minister announced that access to Fiasp on the PBS would be extended by six months—great news for Sarah, Ollie and the thousands of other Australians living with type 1 diabetes. However, this extension is only for six months, or 12 scripts each for Sarah and Ollie, and it is under a supply-only arrangement to patients who already have a prescription on 1 April.</para>
<para>So what happens when 1 October rolls around? Sarah, Ollie and the other 15,000 Australians who use Fiasp deserve certainty about their future and their health. I don't want to simply accept my niece and great-nephew won't be able to access the medication that makes their lives easier, and I don't want to accept the situation for the thousands of Australians in the same position as Sarah and Ollie either. Sarah is one of almost 40,000 people who have already signed the change.org petition calling for Fiasp to be reinstated to the PBS. Already impacted by the increasing costs of living, with mortgages, energy prices, grocery prices and the cost of medical visits rising, to add an extra cost of $400-plus a month to those people is unpalatable. I call on Minister Butler to negotiate a solution and keep Fiasp on the PBS.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Iraq War: 20th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>39</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>March this year is the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, led by the United States and its lackeys, including, shamefully, this country. The Iraq war was bloody, aggressive and illegal. It should be remembered as a crime against humanity. How can the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, the attacks on civilians in Baghdad square and the bombardment of Fallujah be called anything other than crimes against humanity? The war destroyed Iraq and took hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Nine million people were displaced. Five million Iraqi children were orphaned. Entire generations can never look at the sky the same way, and yet the architects of this war and these war crimes walk free.</para>
<para>Blair, Bush and Howard have faced no accountability. The Bush administration manipulated the facts and deliberately deceived the public after 9/11, hellbent on invading Iraq. Bush stoked fear, hate and Islamophobia to build support for war. Tony Blair exaggerated the case for war and rushed into conflict, the UK giving the US the diplomatic cover they needed for their criminal acts of aggression. John Howard gave false reasons for going to war. Howard lied to the parliament and he lied to the public, and he remains unrepentant.</para>
<para>Sadly, Iraq's people were not the only victims of the Western world's so-called war on terror, as the people of Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and others will attest to. Muslims throughout the world who felt this fear of Islamophobia because of the lies manufactured to enable the war were also victims of the so-called war on terror. Most offensive was the narrative that Iraqi people needed Western intervention to free them. Black and brown people have never needed white saviours. The reality is that they were seen, and they are seen, as pawns in the games of imperialists. Their pain and suffering is completely ignored.</para>
<para>Greed is often at the core of warmongering. Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was state owned and closed to Western oil companies. After the war, it was largely privatised and is now dominated by foreign firms. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron have all set up shop in Iraq.</para>
<para>Twenty years on, justice has not been served. The arrogant AUKUS dealers demonstrate the Western war machine remains as powerful and bloodthirsty as ever, including here in Australia. We see constant hysterical warmongering on our front pages and no regard for the impact on Chinese communities, just as there was no regard for Muslim communities 20 years ago.</para>
<para>Disgracefully, the Albanese government are as eager as the Morrison government was to make Australia America's little lapdog. They are too cowardly to admit that nuclear submarines, missiles and bombs will not protect people. In Australia we face the worst housing crisis ever. More and more people are living in poverty. Amidst the climate crisis, a code red for humanity has been declared. When it comes to these mammoth problems, the Labor government shrugs its shoulders and cries poor. They say there is not enough money to stop the growing homelessness crisis. They say there is not enough money to raise income support so people don't have to live in poverty and children don't have to go hungry. They say there's not enough money to provide higher education without punishing students with mountain-high debt. We are nowhere near the actions so desperately needed to stop the ticking climate bomb. But there is unlimited money for dangerous weapons and war machines that we don't need, $360 billion of it, to be precise, pumped straight into the US weapons companies and the military-industrial complex, courtesy of the Australian public. It's austerity for people and planet but abundance for the war machine.</para>
<para>Iraq deserves full accountability and reparations for what Western invaders did. We owe this to the people of Iraq and the countries that were targeted and the victims of this war. We need to push back against Labor's and the Liberals' war agenda with every fibre of our being. We must mobilise against war and militarisation. We must build a mass movement of peace. Let's learn the lessons from the past colossal failures of the entirely futile and bloody imperial wars that have been waged by Europe, the US and their Western allies, like Australia. Let's not repeat these unmitigated disasters.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>40</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The ABS published data today showing that nearly one in 200 people were homeless on census night in 2021. The data shows that 122,494 people were estimated to be experiencing homelessness at the time of the 2021 census, an increase of 6,067 people, or 5.2 per cent, since 2016. This is something that we in this place should all be concerned about. Many advocates believe that those figures are likely to be conservative, as the census was conducted at the height of the COVID lockdowns.</para>
<para>It's an issue around the country. Here in the ACT, we're often perceived as an affluent community, but that masks a lot of acute poverty which exists outside these walls. Canberra has the highest rate of persistent homelessness in Australia, at almost twice the national average. This is not only embarrassing but it's a shameful fact that needs addressing at the local ACT government level and through measures in this place.</para>
<para>At the time of the last census, we also had the highest proportion of people in supported accommodation for the homeless. In light of concerns about housing and the proposed Housing Australia Future Fund, over the next three years the ACT stands to lose the highest number of NRAS properties—the National Rental Affordability Scheme—of any electorate. More than half of our funding under the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement goes straight back to the Commonwealth coffers in historic housing debt repayments. That's a debt that has been forgiven for Tasmania and South Australia.</para>
<para>Outside the doors of parliament, here in the ACT, more than 8,000 Canberra children are living below the poverty line. Distressingly, the data released today shows that homelessness is impacting women and young people in increasing numbers. While the number of men experiencing homelessness increased by 1.6 per cent, the number of women experiencing homelessness increased by 10.1 per cent. Nearly a quarter of all people experiencing homelessness were aged between 12 and 24 years, and we saw an increase in Indigenous people experiencing homelessness.</para>
<para>We have to do better; we have to do much better, and we can do better. That's why I'm pushing the government to ensure that we have more ambition in the Housing Australia Future Fund. We can't afford to let this crisis get worse, and without more action from the federal government it will. The federal government has a long history of building social and affordable housing. Under the Housing Australia Future Fund, the ACT will be lucky to get an extra 500 houses over the next five years. That's against a shortfall standing at more than 3,100. What do I say to the 2,600 households who will still be waiting after five years for somewhere to call home? What will we say to the increasing number of people who are still sleeping rough in cars, or couch surfing or on the streets in our communities?</para>
<para>The ACT has received none of the $3.4 billion in finance from NHFIC since it commenced operation in 2018. Let's remember that housing is not a 'nice to have', that housing is a fundamental human right—and that the blame game and buck-passing need to end. Saying, 'I know this is not enough, but it's a good start,' is, frankly not good enough. A $10 billion housing fund, while welcome, needs to go further. Putting that against the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund that was established and is doing great work, I'd argue that housing is an issue across the country that deserves more than what is being offered up by the government. There's an opportunity to do more. We can do more. It comes down to political will in this place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the GST.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>41</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales State Election</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>G () (): I'd like to make some statements about the New South Wales election on Saturday. I think it is a very important opportunity for people across New South Wales to make a judgement for our future which takes into account the recent past. It was only 12 years ago that the Labor Party concluded 16 years in government in New South Wales, where they ran the place into the ground. Anyone who has lived in Sydney or in New South Wales over the past decade knows that the city and the regions have been revitalised and rejuvenated by dynamic leadership, which you've seen. There has been huge construction of roads and transport routes across the state of New South Wales. Sydney is almost unrecognisable as a city to commute around because of the bold leadership that has been undertaken by Barry O'Farrell, Mike Baird, Gladys Berejiklian and Dominic Perrottet.</para>
<para>I urge people across New South Wales to think carefully about our future and think carefully about the investments that have been made in Sydney and across New South Wales not just in roads but also in public spaces and museums. There has been enormous investment in clean energy and child care in the last couple of years across New South Wales, which has set the state up for success in the future. It is a very big choice that the people of New South Wales have on Saturday—between going back to the dead hand of Labor, with no progress or investment, and the very significant progress that has been seen under the Liberal-National coalition, where Sydney and New South Wales is back to where it should be, which is as the leading jurisdiction in Australia and a city and a state that we can be proud of. I urge people to vote 1 Liberal or National on Saturday across New South Wales.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Juvenile Arthritis</title>
          <page.no>41</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Some 3.6 million Australians of all ages are living with arthritis. Many of them are in fact children, and it is a leading cause of pain and disability in children. Arthritis is a musculoskeletal condition, has a variety of forms and is the second-highest burden of disease group in Australia, and it's in fact the highest nonfatal disease burden. Juvenile arthritis is as common as juvenile diabetes and causes permanent damage and disability. I want to thank the Juvenile Arthritis Foundation and Arthritis Australia for the event that they supported in parliament this week. They highlighted that children in Australia do not receive the same standard of care as they would in a comparable country like the UK.</para>
<para>In Australia we have fewer than 15 paediatric rheumatologists in positions around Australia, which is way too few for the thousands and thousands of children with arthritis. They can't get diagnosed, and, as a result, they can't get treatment. We have the first ever comprehensive national survey of the cost of juvenile arthritis and childhood rheumatic disease now taking place, and I want to thank Ged Kearney for launching the register for children with these conditions so that children can find each other and families can support each other. I know that, with a strong commitment from government and the community, we can make a difference to these children.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender and Sexual Orientation: Protests</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARUQI</name>
    <name.id>250362</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been a very tough time for the trans community. This weekend we saw a vile alliance of hate between transphobes, Neo-Nazis and other far-right extremists on the streets of Melbourne. Last night, One Nation's Mark Latham spoke at an anti-trans meeting in Sydney. That is disgusting on its own, but LGBTQIA+ activists peacefully protesting outside were violently attacked. This chamber has seen much hate-mongering targeting trans people from the likes of One Nation. They are expanding their catalogue of hate from Asian Australians and Muslims to the entire trans community. They are constantly searching for new targets to whip up a frenzy against. The bigotry towards trans people has become one of the defining elements of far-right extremism. This is abhorrent.</para>
<para>I vehemently condemn these merchants of hate. Their hate reverberates around the community and causes tremendous harm. Transgender people are some of the most marginalised. Young transgender people face enormous stigma and are at much higher risk than their peers of serious mental health concerns, self-harm and suicide. The media outlets who in the last few years have platformed hate against trans people and allowed it to be spread should be ashamed. The politicians in this place who spew transphobic bigotry don't really belong here. Fascism, transphobia and racism are all part of the same arc of hate that must be destroyed.</para>
<para>My solidarity is with the courageous LGBTQIA+ and antifascist protesters who have been fighting against a sickening level of prejudice and hate this week. Transphobia has no place in politics, in media or in society. There should be zero tolerance for this. We should be loud and proud about the rights of trans and gender diverse people. Trans rights are human rights.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One of the great joys of my role as the shadow minister for education is to meet so many inspiring teachers and educators who are working so hard in our schools and university campuses to transform the lives of young Australians.</para>
<para>Last week, it was a great pleasure to travel to Bendigo, where I visited Holy Rosary Primary School and the Bendigo campus of La Trobe University. It was wonderful to meet with grade 6 students, who had plenty of good ideas about improving their school, and it was also fabulous to learn about the wide range of courses being offered at La Trobe Bendigo, including dentistry, paramedicine and teaching. I was particularly inspired to learn about La Trobe's strong focus on the importance of phonics and the science of teaching children to read. Reading is foundational to a child's success at school and beyond. I am concerned that some of our teachers aren't being adequately prepared by our universities to teach the basics in Australian classrooms.</para>
<para>I congratulate La Trobe, which in 2022 introduced the SOLAR Lab—short for 'the Science of Language and Reading'. It is supporting schools to adopt well-established scientific approaches to improve how they teach children to read. While the explicit teaching of phonics is now part of the national curriculum, concerningly, there is a massive inconsistency in its adoption. In Victoria, the focus has been on balanced literacy, where students are taught to memorise words using a combination of whole-language practices and phonics. Australian children need the best teaching methods to help them to reach their full potential. We live in the best country in the world, and I want to congratulate La Trobe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Road Safety Action Plan</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CAROL BROWN</name>
    <name.id>F49</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier this year the Albanese government released the first National Road Safety Action Plan under the National Road Safety Strategy. The action plan focuses on delivering tangible, measurable actions and clear responsibilities and time frames. Like the strategy, the action plan contains nine key priority areas, and included in the priority areas are infrastructure, planning and investment.</para>
<para>Through the strategy, infrastructure and transport ministers from across the country have agreed that all investments in road infrastructure planning, design and construction must have the Safe System approach applied to them. The Safe System approach to road safety has a long-term goal for a road system which is eventually free from death and serious injury.</para>
<para>The Safe System principle is based on the underlying principles that humans make mistakes that lead to road collisions and that there is a shared responsibility between road users, road managers and vehicle manufacturers to take appropriate action to ensure that road collisions do not lead to deaths. The Safe System requires a proactive approach to ensuring road safety is front of mind not only in road design and building but also for vehicle manufacturers and road users.</para>
<para>Through this action plan the Australian government has committed to coordinating a review of the Australian Road Rules and to development of a regulatory impact statement on reducing open road default speeds. The consultation will be conducted with state and territory governments, local governments and police. Further, the Australian government will develop an assessment and evaluation framework for the delivery of road safety upgrades funded by the Australian government. This and the other eight actions provide a pathway to Vision Zero, our shared commitment for zero deaths and zero injuries by 2050. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Electric Vehicles</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's aspiring New South Wales Premier Chris Minns apparently had a bit of a problem on the campaign trail yesterday. His electric campaign bus, full of staffers and reporters, ran out of power. We hear that they had to be rescued by a bus with a more reliable diesel engine. In the end it's only a minor embarrassment for Mr Minns, but once again the incident was not a great look for those who say that electric vehicles are going to save the planet from climate change. We're constantly told that these vehicles will reduce fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.</para>
<para>Companies falling over themselves to pander to green Left climate activists have been quick to showcase their uptake of electric vehicle technology. These include mining companies, which are all too often the target of activists, even though without them there wouldn't be any of the raw materials needed to make wind turbines, solar panels and rechargeable batteries. This trend has seen mining companies replace diesel powered haul dump trucks with electric-diesel trucks in an effort to reduce their fossil fuel use and so-called carbon footprint. Those diesel trucks were burning 3,000 to 4,000 litres of diesel every 24 hours. However, the electric-diesel trucks are burning no less than 5,000 litres of diesel fuel every 24 hours, at least 25 per cent more than the diesel-only vehicles.</para>
<para>Of course the green Left activists will continue to signal the virtues of this wonderful fuel-saving technology. As I've said before, hypocrisy is the new green Left virtue, and they never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The latest report by the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, confirms our worst fears—that Labor is driving Australia headlong towards a gas and energy crisis. This latest report states that southern states will be at risk of shortfalls from winter this year. From 2027 there will not be enough domestic gas to cover the eastern market, meaning blackouts and gas rationing across the east coast. AEMO has pointedly noted that the government's price intervention and mandatory code of conduct are key drivers in creating market uncertainty, which is leading to reduced investment in supply. That is real jobs for real people in regional Queensland that go.</para>
<para>With skyrocketing energy bills already hitting Australian families and businesses, Australians now face energy blackouts and rationing across the years to come, thanks to Labor's disastrous market interventions. Despite repeated warnings from the coalition over the last six months, Labor has chosen to ignore common sense and instead taken actions that will continue to destroy supply and result in gas and electricity shortages. Last October in the budget they cut funding for gas development, last December with their interventions they destroyed new supply from investors and in the last sitting they banned additional federal funding for gas projects.</para>
<para>AEMO and the ACCC are calling for further investment in supply, storage and infrastructure to avert the looming shortfalls and to secure energy supplies. But under Labor's failed policies, gas investment has dried up, southern import terminals have stalled, domestic supplies are inadequate and power prices are rising. The coalition's record on gas is clear—we need to put in place measures to support new supply and address shortfall risk. Labor has torn these plans up, and Australian families and businesses are losing out as a result. The only time power prices will come down under Labor is when there is no energy left to buy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak to the admirable works of nine religious leaders who have openly endorsed the Voice to Parliament and the 'yes' campaign. This referendum campaign will need the voices of civic society and of the faith groups that form the backbone of so much of our social fabric and social services. They note in an open letter to federal parliamentarians that the Voice is 'necessary, right and reasonable' and that 'future generations will not forgive us if we fail to grasp the historical moment'—and the generous offer from our First Nations brothers and sisters.</para>
<para>The civil society support for the Voice is wide and deep. The National Australia Bank, the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, BHP, Rio Tinto, Wesfarmers, Woolworths and Coles have all endorsed the Voice to Parliament. The trade union movement stands foursquare with its Indigenous members in supporting the 'yes' campaign for the referendum.</para>
<para>I note and thank members of the Anglican Church, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Australian National Imams Council, the Australian Sangha Association, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Hindu Council of Australia, the National Council of Churches, the National Sikh Council and the Uniting Church in Australia Assembly for the proud civic leadership and moral authority that they bring to this vital campaign. I look forward to further work with these wide-ranging religious communities as we walk hand in hand with the First Nations community towards a successful 'yes' vote in this year's referendum.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Alice, Aunty</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to acknowledge the passing of a strong blak matriarch, Aunty Alice. She was a strong woman born on the rabbit-proof fence, and she spent her whole life fighting for First Nations people. I know that I wouldn't be here in this place today without women like her, who've spent their whole lives fighting for First Nations justice.</para>
<para>She endured so much hardship, racism and injustice but she tirelessly overcame every obstacle in her way, and I want to take this time to thank her—to thank her for her life's work and thank her for the change that she helped create. We have a long way to go, but without aunties like her we would not be where we are now. She was loved by her family and community right across Western Australia, and I send my love to them as they are conducting their sorry business now.</para>
<para>I was honoured to be asked, alongside other incredible First Nations people, to create a video to be played during her sorry business. In that video I shared a poem that I'd written, and I would like to share it with you all today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Born on the rabbit-proof fence</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">her journey began along the rabbit-proof fence</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">and for 96 years she walked with us</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">witnessing our struggles and our joys—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">a fearless blak matriarch, leading us.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Grandma Alice has gone from our arms, but lives on in our songs</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">her footsteps have shaped this land and our hearts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">we still hear her words of hope and resilience—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">a wise blak matriarch, teaching us.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We remember her strength, her smile</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">as she fought for us, so we could thrive</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">beside us through heartbreak, struggles and trials—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">a loving grandma, holding us.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a famous saying in politics, and that is: 'Never let a good crisis go to waste.' There's an argument to be made that the bank failures we are seeing could be used as an excuse to usher in a brave new world of central bank digital currency. Mr Acting Deputy President, you can think of CBDC as digital money, but it's very different to what you have in your NetBank right now. It's based on blockchain technology, so you need to think of it more as a coupon or a voucher—that's a more accurate description.</para>
<para>This money is programmable. The government will be able to see exactly where your money is, where it goes, what it's spent on et cetera. CBDC, when you really think about it, is arguably more dangerous to your freedom than a standing army. I'll give you an example, Mr Acting Deputy President. The government could easily restrict what you spend your money on. Perhaps they could restrict how much alcohol you can buy or what food you can buy. Perhaps they could say, 'You can only purchase a certain amount of red meat this month because you've reached your carbon quota.' Perhaps the government could set an expiry date or a negative interest rate on your digital money. The potential for abuse of this technology is limitless, and, at the end of the day, it's first and foremost about control of the population through the financial system.</para>
<para>Anyone who might say, 'The government would never do that,' or, 'It would never happen,' has not been paying attention over the last two years. The government absolutely could do that. People must push back against a central bank digital currency, lest we lose what little freedom we have left. This is not a conspiracy theory. Our central bank is doing a trial of CBDC right now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Criminal Code Act 1995</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a boy I read as much as I could about Simon Wiesenthal. He was a survivor of Nazi concentration camps and he was a survivor of a Nazi death march. As a survivor of the Holocaust, he spent his remaining life gathering information on Nazis and hunting Nazis. My family had no Jewish antecedents, but as a boy I could never understand the hatred towards those who were Jewish. I couldn't understand the hatred that Nazis exhibited towards their fellow citizens. And it was hate. As an adult and as a senator, I still can't understand that hatred—the hate towards those that are different. So I stand in this chamber and I cannot comprehend why any Australia would join the Nazi Party or give the Nazi salute.</para>
<para>I am proud that, in my family, my grandfather's brother, Uncle Gray, with the surname Schneider, who grew up on a farm in Queensland where German was spoken within living memory, joined the Australian Army to fight the Nazis. So I'm equally proud that, earlier today, Peter Dutton moved in the House of Representatives to bring in a bill to allow the member for Berowra, my friend Julian Leeser, to amend the Criminal Code to ban display of Nazi symbols. Mr Dutton said that Nazi symbols must be condemned whenever and wherever they are found. I would hope that all senators in this place and all members of the House of Representatives join with Mr Dutton and Mr Leeser, who is Jewish, to bring forward and support this bill.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kids Helpline</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I said I'd use my position in this place to elevate the voices in our communities. Today I want to share something with you from yourtown's Kids Helpline. They do really important work with young people and mental health. Here are some words directly from their mouth:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We tell young children to reach out and ask for mental health support.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Kids Helpline is the critical safety net for every young person in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">No matter where they live. No matter what time of the day or night.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's always there when they need it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Over 443,000 young people between 5-25 contacted Kids Helpline last financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's unique in what it offers. It's 24/7 and it's free.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It's often the only mental health service available after hours, on the weekends, or for young people who live in rural and remote areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Last year, over half of the young people Kids Helpline supported, contacted the service after hours and on weekends.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One young person who used Kids Helpline said that they struggled with depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts throughout their teens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There is no question the service saved their life many times.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Right now, Kids Helpline needs your support.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The technology that underpins this vital service needs urgent upgrading.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Without it, we may not be able to support young people in the contemporary ways they want to engage, in a safe and non-judgemental environment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We need $10.5 million in funding to make this happen.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will future-proof the service, ensuring that Kids Helpline can keep supporting young people's mental health for many more years to come.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is vital if we want to ensure every child that reaches out for help will have someone there to help them.</para></quote>
<para>Minister, this is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I really hope you consider funding this. It's a vital service for the health and wellbeing of our young people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Child Incarceration</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about recent events in what they now call Queensland, where new laws have been passed to bring more and more young people into contact with the criminal legal system and be locked up. These incredibly harsh laws make breach of bail an offence, while expanding electronic monitoring of young people. Human rights advocates and legal experts have warned this will not only be ineffective but lead to the number of children in detention skyrocketing.</para>
<para>There is wide-ranging evidence that youth imprisonment, which is what these laws seek to achieve, does not rehabilitate. It just creates a lifelong relationship with the criminal legal system. These laws are unjust and inhumane, and violate several human rights commitments, including in Queensland's very own Human Rights Act. Unfortunately, First Nations kids are of course the most targeted by these racist and unjust laws, including by the racist police, thus continuing the genocidal project of governments in this country of separating First Nations kids from their families and their cultures, and locking them up behind bars.</para>
<para>When a First Nations child is born, they inherit and learn cultural wisdom, knowledge and strength. If only it were a reality that our children lived out their birthright in this country so that they lived a journey of peace, culturally and spiritually safe. No First Nations child should be robbed of their birthright in so-called Australia. Our children need family and community to grow up and strive—not be locked up. We must all fight for a world in which all children can live out their birthright and remain surrounded by their family and culture. Stop the genocide— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Midland Highway, Tasmania: Energy</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I very much look forward to making my contributions in this little part of the Senate agenda for the day. My favourite topic is of course the state of Tasmania, which is what I'm going to talk about today, and, in particular, that amazing Tasmanian Liberal government, the Rockliff government, that is putting energy, energy, energy into an amazing project—an upgrade of the Midland Highway, which runs between two population centres, Hobart and Launceston, a beautiful city in the north of the state. It is a bit painful to get from one end of the state to the other, but, I tell you what, that pain is worth the gain.</para>
<para>It's great to see the 'Elbow-Knees-y' government working in lock step with the Rockliff government, picking up from the former government, the Morrison government. But it's great to see all Tasmanians pulling in the same direction, making sure that our state and its economy grow, whether you like sarsaparilla or you like Coke, whether you cook on a George Foreman grill or you cook on a barbecue. All of these things are the amazing quality of Tasmanians.</para>
<para>I just wanted to take this opportunity, too, as a proud Tasmanian, to talk about energy—and I do acknowledge the presence of my good friend and colleague Senator Brown, who I work very closely with on a lot of these issues, including on the preparation of some of these speeches to highlight the good things about our state. I know she's a supporter of the Tasmanian government, and the good works they do as well; we all pull in the same direction, as I said. When it comes to energy, we have things like our amazing opportunity when it comes to pumped hydro and the Marinus Link that will one day connect Tasmania even more with the mainland and generate that clean, green energy. I'm a proud Tasmanian and I stand with my colleagues to make sure that we do a great job—with that energy, energy, energy that we all display in this place.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Duncraig Senior High School</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently visited a class of year 11 politics and law students at Duncraig Senior High School, in my home state of Western Australia. Apart from an unwelcome reminder of how short I am, I was not sure what to expect. These students were only beginning their studies in this area, but after only a few moments I could tell they were genuinely intrigued by politics and the work that the Albanese Labor government is doing to prepare for their futures. I shared with them my story as a migrant to this country and my path to now having the honour of being able to represent them in this place. It's important to show our young people that, no matter their circumstances, in a country like Australia there are opportunities to succeed.</para>
<para>However, the real joy of this visit was the depth and complexity of the questions the students asked me, across a wide range of issues. It was an incredibly refreshing change from what I am about to experience during question time from those opposite! I was asked about tackling discrimination, gender equality, the environment, career opportunities and even about Australian foreign affairs. I was very impressed and even more delighted to be able to tell them that our government is taking real action on issues like closing the gender pay gap, legislating emissions reduction targets to get us to net zero, fee-free TAFE places—and the list goes on. A huge thankyou to the students at Duncraig Senior High School and their incredible teacher Elizabeth Clark for organising the visit. I'm excited to keep meeting students across WA.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll now move to question time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>46</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Can the minister name anywhere in Australia where power prices have been reduced since Labor have been in government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McGrath for his question. I do not follow power prices closely enough to be able to answer the question. I am not sure that there's any person in the chamber who so closely watches power prices that they are able to get that answer.</para>
<para>What I can say is this, Senator McGrath. I did say something similar yesterday. It is the objective of the Albanese government to put downward pressure on power prices so that Australian consumers, householders but also Australian businesses, don't have to pay the high electricity prices that have resulted from your years and years of neglect in this space. We want Australian consumers and businesses to be paying less for their power prices. The things that we have done have included the cap that we have put in place. Firstly, it wasn't easy to make that decision. It wasn't easy to get it through this parliament, because your party opposed all of the changes that might have put downward pressure on electricity prices. So I think it's a little bit rich for you to be coming into this question time and asking these questions when we are in this situation as a result of your neglect. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McGrath, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister identify a single mortgage holder that has seen their interest rate go down in the past 10 months?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McGrath for his question. I have great sympathy for mortgage holders for the situation in which they find themselves and the repeated increases in interest rates. But there is a whole—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I was going to bring it to the chamber's attention. Apparently there is a senator taking photos. We all know that's inappropriate. I remind the chamber not to do that.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, I am responding. I expect the government will speak to the senator concerned. Minister Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We all know the reasons why there's pressure on interest rates in this country. We are not unique in that regard, because there is pressure on interest rates going on right around the world. But, again, this government is trying to do things to reduce the costs of living. <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 McGrath, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can the minister identify a single person whose grocery bill is lower today than when Labor came to government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator McGrath for his question. Again, I can't say that I know the grocery prices of every retail store in the country, and therefore what the consumers themselves choose to buy. I do know that as a matter of practice, having some experience in the retail industry in a former occupation, one thing people do when prices start to rise is change the particular products that they purchase. Again, it's the purpose of this government to try put downward pressure on the cost of living. We're doing that in terms of things like child care. We're doing that— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Today new homelessness data has been released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which shows that over 122,000 people were homeless on census night. Can the minister outline the practical measures the Albanese Labor government is taking to address cost-of-living pressures for people, particularly those experiencing housing stress or homelessness?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for her question. The Albanese government wants every Australian to have the security of having a roof over their head. We know that too many Australians are being hit by growing rents and too many Australians are struggling to buy a home. It's unacceptable that it's getting more and more expensive to have a safe and secure home. Sadly as we found out today, as Senator Walsh alluded to in her question, far too many Australians are facing homelessness. As reported today, on census night nearly 123,000 Australians were homeless. This is unacceptable. We have also seen figures today that show in the five years to 2021 under the former government's watch the number of homeless people grew each night by 6,000.</para>
<para>This is why we need to improve access to affordable and safe homes for all Australians. We were elected with a plan to clean up the mess that was left behind and to help tackle the cost of accessing a home. Fundamental to our plan is increasing the supply of new housing. Australians do not have enough supply of new housing. The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund will be the largest boost to social and affordable homes in a decade. The 30,000 homes the fund will deliver are one part of the Albanese government's ambitious housing agenda, which also includes broadening the National Housing Infrastructure Facility, the Housing Accord, the $1.6 billion National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, the interim National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, a new National Housing and Homelessness Plan, the Help to Buy Scheme and the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. The government is going to continue to push and argue in this chamber to have the passage of that important piece of legislation so that we can put in place the fund that will provide an ongoing source of investment into the social and affordable housing sector.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how will the Albanese Labor government's Housing Australia Future Fund help to support people with acute housing needs?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Walsh. The Housing Australia Future Fund will provide regular and reliable capital funds to build new social and affordable homes across Australia in perpetuity. As we heard in the Senate hearing last week from experts, community housing providers, homelessness services and academics, this is urgently needed. National Shelter, the peak body that so many of us deal with on these matters, called it the most critical housing legislation to be brought forward for the past 10 years. In its first five years, this fund will be investing in building 20,000 social housing properties, with 4,000 properties for women and children fleeing domestic violence and for older women who are at risk of homelessness; $100 million for crisis and transitional housing for women and children; and $30 million to build more housing for veterans who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. I hope that everyone in the Senate will consider these statistics when that legislation comes for a vote over this sitting fortnight.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Walsh, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WALSH</name>
    <name.id>252157</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, why is it so important that the Housing Australia Future Fund is delivered?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Walsh for the question and for her interest in the issue of social and affordable housing in Australia. It's so important that this fund is delivered. It is the first fund of its kind which would provide an ongoing revenue stream into the social and affordable housing sector—the first time that we would have set something up via legislation to make investments. This is over and above the traditional areas of Commonwealth investment through our national partnerships with the states and territories, but it's in recognition that there is not enough supply, and there is not enough supply of housing going into the areas where it's needed the most—in First Nations communities, for women, for veterans and especially for single older women who have no retirement savings and who might be living on their own. This is the area where we need to make these investments. That is why this piece of legislation is so important, and that is why the opposition should change their position on this bill. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Yesterday during question time the Minister for Finance said: 'The fact is stage 3 tax cuts have been legislated by this chamber. They are in place. Stage 3 will commence in July next year. The policy we took to the election was that those tax cuts remain, and our position has not changed. That is what I was saying yesterday and that continues to be our position.' Minister, does Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister, remain committed to implementing the stage 3 tax cuts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Chandler.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>With all due respect to Senator Birmingham, I am quite capable of answering my own questions and don't need his—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I find it difficult to understand why the coalition—this is the second question today that you've asked basically asking the same question that was answered yesterday. Would you be surprised, Senator Chandler, if the Prime Minister, who's doing a wonderful job, had any different view about tax cuts than the finance minister?—who's doing an amazing job, given the mess that you left her to—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes! I'd forgotten about that. At least we have a finance minister who is trusted by his—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, they trust him, too.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a senator is on her feet. Senator Chandler?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Chandler</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order on relevance. It was a very specific question, and the minister has been going for 93 seconds now. It does require just a one-word answer, if he could provide it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is being relevant. Thank you, Senator Chandler. Please continue, Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, can I say to Senator Chandler: if you want to answer my questions, then there's no point in you asking the questions to me. You might as well answer them yourself. But look, you've asked the same question to me that you asked to Senator Gallagher yesterday— <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 Chandler, a first supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday in question time the Minister for Finance also said: 'Our position on tax cuts hasn't changed, but we are in the position of having to repair a budget.' Can the Prime Minister guarantee that his government's policy in relation to stage 3 tax cuts will not change in the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> (—) (): Thank you, Senator Chandler, for your supplementary question. Again, you've got the answer, because the finance minister, who's in charge of this area, answered the question yesterday. You've referred to the issues that Senator Gallagher raised yesterday. Can I expand on the financial mess that we discovered when we came to government? Can I just report on one fact that puts this into perspective? When Labor lost power in 2013, our national debt was $300 billion. When we came to power almost 12 months ago, that figure had blown out to $1 trillion. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Chandler, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, why can't you be honest with the Australian people and admit now that you won't be implementing the stage 3 tax cuts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Chandler for her question. Honesty! We're talking about honesty! Why didn't the former Prime Minister of this country tell us that he replaced five ministers of the former government? I think we've discovered it might even be six, and you dare to talk about honesty! What Prime Minister Albanese says, he does. When he said he was going to put downward pressure on—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDE</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left! Your leader is on his feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>President, I'm afraid Senator Farrell is misleading the chamber. If the Prime Minister does what he says, where are the $275 tax cuts?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please continue, Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I reject that point of order.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He didn't even get to the point-of-order stage, Minister! Please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure why they're all so happy today. What are you happy about? <inline font-style="italic">(Tim</inline><inline font-style="italic">e expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Responding to the latest IPCC synthesis report yesterday, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said there should be no new coal, oil or gas projects and no expansions of existing coal, oil or gas reserves. Why does Labor want to open the 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for her question. The Australian government of course welcomes the IPCC report. I think even you, Senator Waters, would acknowledge that there's been a significant change, in terms of the issues of climate change which the IPCC were dealing with in their report, between our government and the former government and, in particular, the greater commitments that we have made as a government to addressing the issues of climate change and starting the process of increasing the speed at which our economy is decarbonised. That, unfortunately, is not an easy thing to do. You can't snap your fingers and suddenly go from a fossil fuel supported economy to a renewable economy. You just can't do it. I wish you could. I wish I could do that by clicking my fingers. But we can't do it. This government is moving down the path of decarbonisation, but we're doing it in a sensible way. We're trying to bring the community with us, and I think we're doing that. We brought them with us—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, they voted for us at the last election, Senator McKim! They voted for us. You don't like it, but they voted for us as a government. They voted for our policies, not your policies, and they certainly didn't vote for the opposition's policies. <inline font-style="italic">(</inline><inline font-style="italic">Time expired</inline><inline font-style="italic">)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, your first supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has called for budget restraint. The UN secretary-general and the International Energy Agency have both called for cuts to public subsidies for fossil fuels, which, incidentally, would save your budget $11 billion every year. Will the government end fossil fuel subsidies to help tackle the economic and climate crises?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for her question. The issue of transitioning from a fossil fuel economy to a renewable economy, which is what we're talking about here, is not an easy transition. It's easy to say and it's easy to talk about—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Waters?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, President. I specifically asked about fossil fuel subsidies and when they're going to axe the $11 billion a year that they give in cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation to fossil fuel companies.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Waters. I will remind Senator Farrell of the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Waters for her intervention there. As I was saying, if there were an easy way to solve this problem, like simply abolishing the sorts of—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please assume your seat. Senator Birmingham.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If it would help Senator Farrell, Senator Watt has already ruled this change out from being in the budget—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, please, that's not a point of order! Minister Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. Look, can I— <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 Waters, your second supplementary question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the Labor Party return the $960,000 it received in donations from the fossil fuel sector just in the last financial year so that it can start making policy decisions based on science?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt! Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The short answer is no, we're not going to return those donations any more than you have returned donations from companies which also have investments in fossil fuels and donate to the Greens. I understand that your organisation has refused to return those. Nor do you return donations from companies engaged in gambling.</para>
<para>Can I say this to you, Senator Waters? I agree—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESI</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister says that—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge! Order! If you rise to your feet during question time it is to call a point of order and not to make a statement. You can make statements at other times in this place. Minister Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Obviously, we touched a nerve there! The Greens were embarrassed about their donations. But I'll say this to the Greens and to the coalition: we do need to reform the donation regime in this country, and there's only one party— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. The Albanese government has a clear agenda to create the jobs of the future by taking advantage of the transition to renewable energy and investing in skills and training. How is the government's commitment to action on climate change supporting the jobs and skills of the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Grogan. You, of course, have a very long history in supporting all of these issues, even before you arrived in this place. Right now, this parliament is faced with a very simple choice. For the first time in a decade we can seize the opportunity to reduce emissions from Australia's big emitters or we can squander that opportunity yet again. Reforms to the safeguard mechanism are crucial to meeting our legislated emissions reduction target, the target that most honourable senators voted for in this place last year. When this parliament voted for a 43 per cent emissions reduction target for our country, the very senators who then argued for a higher target are now the ones who would have it be even lower. Without the changes that the safeguard mechanism involves, our nation is looking at a 35 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, which is eight per cent lower than what was legislated by this parliament last year. Those honourable senators who said the target should be higher now have a choice to make, because, if they vote against these reforms, they are voting for a lower outcome than what was legislated just last year. Those senators would be voting against a 43 per cent emissions reduction target and against net zero by 2050.</para>
<para>We all have the opportunity here to take 205 million tonnes of carbon out of the air by 2030, the equivalent of two-thirds of the cars on Australia's roads. We have the chance to drive change among the 215 biggest emitters in the country, who represent 28 per cent of Australia's overall emissions. Yesterday's IPCC report, which has been cited here today, showed that this decade is the critical decade for action, the critical decade to make an urgent, rapid and far-reaching transformation across our economy, and that's exactly why all senators should vote for the changes we're proposing for the safeguard mechanism.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, Grogan, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Watt, that was wise advice that you've given there. Given that the jobs and skills of the future depend on industry and business having certainty and confidence, can the minister outline how a predictable trajectory for emissions reduction will give that certainty and confidence?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks again, Senator Grogan. The government's safeguard mechanism reforms that all senators will have the opportunity to vote on in the next couple of weeks are the next step to ensure that Australian industry remains competitive in a decarbonising global economy while reducing its emissions. What this means for Australians is jobs: clean, green and renewable jobs of the future—and jobs in green steel manufacturing, green hydrogen, offshore wind and other associated industries. If we get the policy settings right for business to decarbonise, we will achieve this ambition.</para>
<para>That's why the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry support these reforms, and 80 per cent of facilities are already covered by corporate net zero commitments. It's interesting that the parties who say they support big business aren't backing in those business groups on this point. Business knows that reducing emissions is essential to their long-term competitiveness in a global net zero economy, and that's why they're supporting the safeguard mechanism change. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Watt, are there any threats to delivering the skills, training and jobs of the future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Grogan. Unfortunately, there are a range of threats, and not always from the sources that you would expect. The truth is that Australia is starting way behind where it should, largely as a result of the Greens voting with the Liberals and Nationals against the CPRS in 2009—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">S</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd be pretty embarrassed about that too! And, of course, it's also due to a decade of inaction from those on the other side.</para>
<para>Now the Greens are faced with the same choice 14 years later, and I say to the Greens senators: do you really want to find yourself sitting next to Senator Rennick, Senator Antic, Senator Canavan, Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts and all of those other people who say that climate change isn't real? Do you really want to be sitting next to them when this comes to a vote in the next fortnight, or will you be on the right side of history? Will you listen to the appeals of groups like the Carbon Market Institute, the Investor Group on Climate Change, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Climate Council, who all say that this whole Senate should back the safeguard mechanism? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind you, Senator Watt, to please direct your comments and answers to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, follows calls from concerned constituents and relates to Labor's bank deposit guarantee element of the Financial Claims Scheme. Minister, can you assure constituents, and assure the Senate, that in the event of banking failure every cent in every Australian's bank account will be guaranteed under the deposit guarantee scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</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 to the Senate about the strength of our banking system, because I think it is important to reassure Australians that we have a very strong, well-regulated, well-led, well-capitalised banking system with good liquidity. I think that should provide reassurance to the Australian people about the system that we have in place. It's been strengthened considerably in the years since the GFC and since the banking royal commission. It's obviously a vital and important sector for the overall functioning of our economy.</para>
<para>I would also say that the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer meet regularly and are getting updates regularly on the global situation and on what we have been seeing happening overseas. This includes meeting with the regulators of our system to get up-to-date advice.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I asked specifically for the minister to assure constituents that, in the event of a banking failure, every cent in every Australian's bank account will be guaranteed. I'm not interested in overseas. I just want to know about that, for every cent.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Roberts. I believe the minister is being relevant to your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I only briefly talked about overseas. I was giving that as additional reassurance. In the initial part of my remarks, my answer was about the strength of the Australian banking system, which is where Australians have their deposits and have their money. I was providing that reassurance that Senator Roberts was seeking about the strength of the banking system and the fact that we are taking advice. In fact, the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer are getting briefings regularly about the situation overseas, because that directly links to your question, which relates to some of the concerns that we have seen in banks overseas. We are connected in a global world, so we do keep an eye on that in order to keep an eye on what is happening in 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 Roberts, your first supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that twice the minister has not assured people that every cent in every Australian bank account will be guaranteed. Minister, what is the total figure for depositors' funds in Australia, and, of that, what percentage does the deposit guarantee scheme actually guarantee?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't have those details front of mind or in my papers. I will come back to the senator and the Senate with an update. If I can do that during question time, I will. But I will say that when we have faced challenges in the banking system in Australia—which we are not facing now—the government, and I presume this would be on either side of the political fence, would act quickly to respond to any concerns that we saw in the banking system, which goes to your question about guaranteeing deposits. But we are not in that situation, and that is why my answer to your original question was about the strength of the banking system here, and the fact that we are keeping a close watch on what is happening internationally in case there are any impacts that come our way from it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, a second supplementary question?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since 2008, the deposit guarantee scheme has been capped at $20 billion per bank and $80 billion in total. Minister, do you have $80 billion sitting there ready to go, and, if not, how much is immediately accessible to the scheme and how long will it take for the full guarantee amount to be available?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the event that we needed to respond, I can guarantee that the government would move quickly to ensure the stability and security of Australia's banking system. But that is not the situation we are in. The regulators advise us that the banks are well capitalised with good liquidity. They are well led, they are profitable and they are engaged with regulators all the time. The government remains absolutely aware of the issues overseas and is engaged with the banking system, the regulators and other stakeholders to ensure that remains the case. If there were any concerns, the government would respond quickly.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Earlier this week the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It has been a good 10-month period because what we've been doing is going through, fulfilling the commitments that we made at the election …</para></quote>
<para>Meanwhile, families in New South Wales, including the parents from St Philip's college, who are up in the gallery above us, are facing double-digit energy price rises. Where is the commitment to the $275 energy price cut that you made?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Watt, I've called you to order several times. Interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Minster Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Cadell for his question and welcome all of the people up there in the gallery who are taking an interest in democracy.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> They're not frightened of me! Even you're not frightened of me! Getting back to the question at hand, the Prime Minister is deeply concerned about the cost-of-living issues that face everyday Australians. What's he doing about it? He supported the increase in the minimum wage and a pay rise for aged-care workers. He has made child care cheaper in this country. He is pushing down the price of medicine. He created 180,000 new fee-free TAFE places to make up for all of those job shortages that your policies created. He is delivering 20,000 new university places and establishing 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave. He convened a jobs and skills summit and established Jobs and Skills Australia. In fact, the question you could almost ask is: what is it that Prime Minister Albanese hasn't done to help the Australian people? I can go on. <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 Cadell, your first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The same parents of these children are now facing an average of 9.2 per cent price rises in staples like bread, fruit, vegetables and dairy. After just 10 months, what specific relief has the government delivered to those New South Wales families struggling to buy those basics to put on the table to feed those children?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Cadell for his question. You obviously weren't listening to my previous answer, because I listed 10 or more things that the Albanese government is doing to put downward pressure on the cost of living. With a background like his, nobody understands cost-of-living pressures more than our Prime Minister.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Seriously?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> Yes, seriously. He understands the cost-of-living pressures on ordinary Australians. What could you have done in these 10 months that might have helped the parents of these children to push down something like electricity prices? You could have voted for the cap on gas prices that would push— <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 Cadell, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CADELL</name>
    <name.id>300134</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under your government, New South Wales families have also experienced 10 interest rate rises, meaning most families are now paying an extra $1,400 per month in interest. No $275 energy bill cut, at least a 9.2 per cent rise in the price of staples and 10 interest rate rises—is that this government's idea of a good 10 months for Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Cadell for his question. It's interesting that you're focusing all of your questions on New South Wales. Maybe that's because there's an election on in New South Wales this coming Saturday—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and your candidates—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>who represent—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, 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>Order on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash! I had to call the minister about four times because it was so noisy in here he couldn't hear. Minister Farrell, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Come on. What are you waiting for?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm waiting for the direction to come and stand, which I'm doing right now—plus I was getting a little bit of advice from my colleagues behind me.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't think of everything. I need—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hanson</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I want relevance to the question. I want to hear an answer. I don't want to hear waffling on about the New South Wales state election, which has nothing to do with the question.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hanson. There are a lot of interjections across the chamber, including interjections directly to the minister. Please continue, Minister Farrell.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll go through them: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, 180,000 fee-free TAFE places, 20,000 new university places, 10 days paid family and domestic leave, the Job and Skills Summit we convened— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians: Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THOR</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PE () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians. A recent FOI exposed a dirty secret report to the National Indigenous Australians Agency that concluded traditional owners in the Beetaloo basin won't benefit economically, socially or culturally from fracking their country. It also stated that the traditional owners are at a clear disadvantage when negotiating with gas giants. How do you justify fracking the Beetaloo after these revelations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. I understand Senator Thorpe's question relates to the report commissioned by the NIAA on Beetaloo, which was done under the previous government. The NIAA commissioned the <inline font-style="italic">Blueprint </inline><inline font-style="italic">for </inline><inline font-style="italic">Aboriginal </inline><inline font-style="italic">benefits realisation in the Beetaloo r</inline><inline font-style="italic">egion</inline> report in 2020. It was done by external consultants; they prepared the report. It doesn't constitute legal advice or represent the government's position.</para>
<para>We absolutely acknowledge that First Nations people's connection to their country is central to their spiritual, cultural, physical and economic wellbeing and that native title recognises First Nations people's pre-existing land and water rights and interests. We also recognise the importance of thorough consultation with First Nations people with the cultural authority to speak for country in line with principles of free, prior and informed consent. Land councils have those statutory responsibilities under law to consult with traditional owners and native title holders regarding activities on their traditional land. We are also taking action to ensure that the voices of First Nations people are heard and listened to, as we are through the Voice to parliament.</para>
<para>Specifically in relation to the Beetaloo basin, the Northern Land Council has statutory responsibilities under law to consult the traditional owners and native title holders regarding the activities on their traditional land and are committed to working with them. This includes support via the Australian government and those ongoing discussions.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given the clear disadvantage of traditional owners when negotiating with these dirty gas giants and their almost-unanimous opposition to fracking—no free, prior and informed consent, I beg your pardon—will you withhold any fracking in the Beetaloo until and unless genuine consent has been obtained? If you have free, prior and informed consent, show us.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Sena</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>tor GALLAGHER (—) (): I think the issues of the Beetaloo basin really fall under the responsibility of the Northern Territory government through the arrangements they have and through the responsibilities they have via the territory laws, but the federal government remains open to working with any community on any issue where there are concerns. If the standard processes that have been put in place aren't working then of course the government would stand ready, able and willing to engage with them on any issue that they seek to raise.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Minister, for your answers. So what this comes down to is whether the government stands with First Nations people or with gas companies that fund your party. Whose side are you on?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Commonwealth has specific responsibilities in relation to approvals for particular projects. I know this one has been controversial and I urge those that do have concerns—if Senator Thorpe has people that don't feel that they are being spoken for or are able to have their voice heard, I encourage her to encourage them to come forward. The Commonwealth remains committed to working in partnership with land councils, First Nations communities and the Northern Territory government to sort through any of the concerns that may exist, but, ultimately, the Commonwealth has a specific and set responsibilities in this area.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manufacturing Industry</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Senator Farrell, the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science. What are the government's plans to build a strong and growing manufacturing industry in Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator O'Neill for her very deep interest in this area and, of course, her interest in ensuring a new Labor government in New South Wales this coming weekend. Australia must be a country that makes things. The $115 billion National Reconstruction Fund is a key platform to support, diversify and transform Australian industry. The NRF will target projects and investments that help Australia capture new, high-value market opportunities. This will help our businesses grow and succeed in the economies of both today and tomorrow.</para>
<para>The NRF will provide finance to grow advanced manufacturing and support businesses to innovate and to move up the technological ladder, but it also supports out national sovereign capability. In the early days of the pandemic, people were shocked that Australia couldn't make enough masks or PPEs for our population. It showed the vulnerability of being the last link in the global supply chain. But the National Reconstruction Fund is about more than helping us produce things at short notice in times of crisis. It's about building a more resilient and more diversified economy with more jobs in regional Australia.</para>
<para>At the very heart of the National Reconstruction Fund is an ironclad belief in the capability of Australian know-how. The Albanese Government is committed to diversifying our industrial base, and the National Reconstruction Fund is the key to unlocking Australia's potential. I call on all senators in this chamber to support the National Reconstruction Fund.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Farrell. My second question to you today is: why is a vibrant Australian manufacturing industry important, and what challenges does the Australian industry face?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator O'Neill again for her question. Manufacturing does matter because it creates sustainable, secure, well-paying jobs—from coders to welders, designers, researchers, process workers and everything in between—including in regional Australia and our outer suburbs. For too long, the Australian manufacturing industry has been subject to the threat of political games by the opposition. The NRF will be independently run on a commercial basis with decisions taken in the national interest, not marginal-seat politics—no colour-coded spreadsheets here. Again I call on all senators in the chamber to realise this opportunity to support Australian manufacturing and support the National Reconstruction Fund.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Farrell, and I appreciate your good wishes for the people of New South Wales on the weekend. What are the international market opportunities that will help our industry grow, and what threats are there to that bright future?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I again thank Senator O'Neill for her question. We are supporting manufacturing through the NRF but also by creating new international market opportunities for high-quality Australian products. The Albanese Labor government is opening up new and diversified markets for Australian goods in countries like India. On my recent visit to India with the Prime Minister, we were accompanied by the president of an Australian based hearing device manufacturer, Cochlear. They're working hard to expand their distribution networks in India so more Indian people have access to this incredible Australian innovation, which creates more jobs both there and at home. For too long, our exports have been concentrated in a single market. Under our trade diversification plan, more Australian made products will be enjoyed around the world, including in India. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Perth Mint</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. I refer the minister to the confronting revelations exposed though a recent <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> expose on Perth Mint, which unearthed alleged gold doping, money laundering and a complete breakdown of compliance and reporting requirements. I also note AUSTRAC's investigation into the Perth Mint, the London Bullion Market Association's incident review process that's underway, revelations around the US state model commodity code coming to light and, importantly, comments from your Treasurer, who described these revelations as 'incredibly concerning and very troubling'. Noting that the Western Australian opposition is calling for a royal commission, what is the response of the Albanese government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Brockman for the question. Matters relating to the Perth Mint's operations are a matter for the Perth Mint and the Western Australian government as its owner. The federal government—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What about AUSTRAC?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hang on a second, Senator Scarr. I know you like to answer my questions before I get the opportunity! Put your seatbelt on for a second. The federal government takes compliance matters very seriously, and the AUSTRAC audit of the Gold Corporation, which trades as the Perth Mint, assessing compliance with anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism finance law, is due to report in May 2023. They are the responsibilities of the federal government. They are in place. That is the position of the Albanese government. Calls for a royal commission by the WA opposition should be matters that the WA parliament deals with, and the suitable response should be there. But we are satisfied with the work that is underway via AUSTRAC doing their assessment, which is due to report to the government, or due to release its report, in May 2023.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRES</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brockman, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Perth Mint is a $21.8 billion business, trading with customers in more than 130 countries. With a conflicted WA Premier refusing to instigate a royal commission through fear of what will be exposed, will the Albanese government take action and engage with Premier McGowan over the need for a royal commission into Gold Corporation and Perth Mint to retain the confidence of our trading partners and the Australian public?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't agree with the insinuations in Senator Brockman's question.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it was a pretty long preamble there. The Western Australian Premier, Mr McGowan, has made it clear that the government is aware of these matters. There is presently an audit underway and the Perth Mint is also investing heavily in anticriminal behaviour measures and compliance measures. As to whether there's a political dispute that the opposition in WA is running, which you are running by proxy through this chamber, Senator Brockman, I think that's largely a matter for the Western Australian parliament. If you want to have a say in that, maybe you should stand over there and have a say in the parliament there. They might need a couple of extra bodies over there. On the matter of substance, that is why there is an AUSTRAC investigation underway, which is due to report in May. It is serious. It's being handled— <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 Brockman, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will remind the minister that the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act is a Commonwealth act. Has the government had any conversations with the Premier to urge him to take action over this important issue regarding the reputation of Australia in the international marketplace? If the Premier won't act, will the Albanese government?</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>Based on the answers I've given you to the previous two questions, both governments are acting. There is an audit underway. There's an assessment underway by AUSTRAC, which is appropriate, and a report to be provided in May. I don't know how much faster you can be in assessing the concerns that have been raised—the serious concerns that have been raised—around the Perth Mint. AUSTRAC, with their responsibilities, have to assess compliance with anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing laws, which is something I did respond to in the first question. That is their responsibility. So the Commonwealth, through its agencies, is responding to the areas that it has responsibility for, and the report will be provided in May, which is two months away. I think that is a pretty swift response. As to conversations between governments, I have no doubt that there have been some. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Floods</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</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 Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Over the last week, remote communities in my home state, and in your home state, of Queensland have had devastating flooding. Can the minister please advise what the Albanese government is doing to support these communities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks again, Senator Sheldon, for your ongoing work when it comes to disaster recovery. On Friday last week I travelled to Normanton and Burketown, Gulf of Carpentaria communities, and was able meet with locals and see the devastating flooding that those communities have experienced firsthand. I want to thank and acknowledge the member for Kennedy, Mr Bob Katter, for his advocacy and for joining me as we toured some of the areas of highest impact. I also thank Senator Green for her ongoing advocacy to both the federal and state governments for these communities.</para>
<para>I also want to thank the mayors of the Carpentaria and Burke shires, Jack Bowden and Ernie Camp, as well as other members of the Burke Shire Council, who gave me a tour of some of the damage in the community. In addition, I'll be meeting Mr Camp and the mayor of Doomadgee council, Mr Jason Ned, while they're in Canberra this week. On the same day that I visited these communities we made the Australian government disaster recovery payment available to residents in the Queensland local government areas of Boulia, Burke and Mount Isa. This is the one-off payment of $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child, for those who have suffered a significant loss as a result of the floods, including through a severely damaged or destroyed home or a serious injury.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDonald</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How long did it take?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Don't worry, Senator McDonald, we'll come to you. We also activated the disaster recovery allowance for the same areas and extended it to the local government areas of Carpentaria, Cloncurry, Doomadgee and Mornington. This is in recognition of the fact that this event has caused significant disruption to people's livelihoods. The disaster recovery allowance provides up to 13 weeks of federal income support to assist people who experience a loss of income as a direct result of a major disaster, such as being cut off from getting to their workplace or the business that they operate. There are many such people in our gulf communities right now.</para>
<para>I can inform the Senate that, as of midnight on Monday this week, 1,300 people had received nearly $1 million in payments since claims opened on Friday just last week. That followed other support that began within 24 hours of the floods— <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 Sheldon, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for those actions at this very important time. What is the Albanese government doing to ensure that Australians are better prepared for the more intense and more frequent natural disasters we will be facing due to climate change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As we have now demonstrated on numerous occasions in all parts of this country, no matter what state or territory you live in, no matter whether you live in a safe or a marginal seat and no matter who represents you in parliament, when a disaster strikes somewhere in Australia the Albanese government will stand by your side. That's why we always move quickly to offer immediate assistance, whether that be financial or logistical, in conjunction with state and territory governments as well as with the ADF. We don't pick fights with state governments, as those opposite continue to do even in opposition. We just get on with the job, cooperating with people regardless of their political colour to deliver the support that's needed.</para>
<para>In addition to that immediate help, the Albanese Labor government is also working proactively to fix the failure to prepare that we witnessed over the past decade. I noticed Senator McDonald complaining last night and in the media about the exposure that remote communities have to disasters. What a shame she didn't do a single thing about that in any of the years she was in government. We have got on with the job. We are creating a disaster ready fund— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Are there any threats to the Albanese government's work to better prepare Australians for natural disasters?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The fact is that for nearly a decade the coalition failed to make our country more resilient to the impact of natural disasters, mainly because they didn't believe in climate change. Not only did they not spend a single dollar of their Emergency Response Fund, which was designed specifically to invest in disaster resilience; they also failed to guarantee the ongoing funding of our national natural disaster agencies beyond 1 July this year. This is another one of these temporary measures that Senator Gallagher is having to work her way through in the budget, with funding that was due to run out on 30 June this year. That included the natural disaster management agencies of the federal government. If the coalition had won the election our national natural disaster agencies would have run out of money on 30 June this year and, as things currently stand, the new National Emergency Management Agency requires an injection of new funding simply to continue operating. These are the kinds of economic vandals these people are. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expir</inline><inline font-style="italic">ed)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Farrell</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>After that terrific answer, Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Conduct</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Madam President, a matter was raised by Senator Thorpe earlier about a senator taking photographs. Can I just ask that you address that directly and report back to the chamber? I seek assurance that those photos have been deleted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been addressed, Senator Brockman. Senator Pratt has been asked to delete the photos from her phone. I was going to speak to Senator Thorpe privately because she is not in the chamber, but I am happy to also make that information available to the chamber.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>58</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by Minister Farrell to the questions without notice asked by Senator Cadell today on the cost of living.</para></quote>
<para>Senator Cadell is my good friend from New South Wales. What is interesting is the gap in reality between the government benches and what is happening out in the real world. There is a massive gap in reality when you have a prime minister who says, 'It has been a good 10-month period because what we have been doing is going through and fulfilling the commitments that we made in the election.' Well, first of all, they've been busy breaking their promises, and, second of all, they do not understand the cost-of-living crisis that is impacting upon all Australians.</para>
<para>In particular, my colleague Senator Cadell asked about the price of electricity and what is happening to the government's commitment to cut people's power bills not by a dollar, not by a thousand dollars but by $275. Before the last election Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor Party promised 97 times that they would cut your power bills. So, to the good people listening at home, the Labor Party promised you they would cut your power bills by $275. They didn't do it once. It wasn't just a brain burp, like when sometimes politicians misspeak. It happened 97 times. When they get into power it's a bit like Homer Simpson wandering through the staffroom at Mr Burns's nuclear reactor going, 'It wasn't me, boss.' They have no idea of how to use the levers of the economy to help the Australian people. What is happening under this government is that power prices are actually going up. They're not going to go down by $275; they're actually going to go up by more than that, thanks to Labor, who are very good at talking. There are some fine words that come from the Labor side. But, when you look at the words and you study them, you realise they're very good at making promises, but they're particularly poor at delivering on those promises. But they are brilliant—they are gold medallists—at breaking promises. I'm going to go through some of the promises that the Labor government said they would deliver.</para>
<para>Now, this is going to hurt people, because I know most Australians think politicians don't break promises. They think politicians are honest, altruistic people. Guess what? On this side of the chamber, we are. We are honest and altruistic. We believe in what is good for Australia. But, sadly, Deputy President—and I know you've warned me before about saying rude things, so I won't; I'm on my best behaviour at the moment, and I disappoint my fans who are listening, those who send the nice emails in the capital letters—the Labor Party are very, very good at breaking promises. First of all they said they would cut your power bills by $275. Well, broken. They promised that 97 times. Guess what? They've broken it 97 times. They said there'd be cheaper mortgages. Guess what? Since Labor have been in power, mortgages keep going up and up and up. So thanks, Labor, for making my mortgage payments go higher. They said there'd be no changes to super. Well, come in spinner—we've got another broken promise from Labor. They are now going after your money in your super accounts. So, first of all they're putting up your power bills, then they're putting up your mortgages, and heaven help you if you're renting somewhere. Firstly, it's so hard to find a place to rent, and, secondly, rent is going through the roof because of Labor's policies. But then they're going after your retirement savings. And they promised lower inflation.</para>
<para>It is so dispiriting that a modern political party would make such false promises before an election then get into power and skip around this building like fat kids in a lolly shop, stealing all the lollies and then not delivering on their promises, because they've forgotten who sent them here. They think the trade union sent them here. In this place, if you look over at the good people there—well, most of them—it's like a retirement home for union barons. This is what it is. The UK have got the House of Lords. Here we've got the 'house of union barons'. They serve two terms as the secretary of the 'paperclip union of South Australia' and suddenly they get elevated to the Senate. It's almost like their super or their pension policy: 'You've done 10 years working for this union, and now for your retirement package. Here we go—go and be a senator for 12 years.'</para>
<para>Another promise was that they wouldn't touch your franking credits. Guess what? They're coming after those, because you can never trust a fat kid in a lolly shop, like you can never trust the Labor Party when it comes to keeping their promises.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Besides some offensive comments from the senator who spoke before me, I just want to say it's a very interesting approach to say 'honest and altruistic'. Those opposite voted against a $230 average saving to household power bills. That's what they did—that's their honesty. Do you know what? They are altruistic, because they did not support a wage increase of a dollar an hour—that's 'altruistic' when you're a conservative on that side of the chamber! They made sure they voted against multi-employer bargaining, which delivered productivity and better wages and which produced an opportunity for fair competition amongst companies. They voted against that. They voted against a secure jobs plan because they're 'altruistic'. If that's what altruism is then that's what is wrong in this country and why they were voted out. They don't understand the importance of making a difference in this country on so many fronts, the importance of building a better country that involves everybody.</para>
<para>When we go back to the energy program from those opposite, we see they didn't have one, and they didn't have one on 22 occasions. They had no policy. We were landed with no energy policy from those opposite, but we have had them vote against an energy policy that decreases and holds back average prices for power bills. They are the ones who hid the fact that there was a 20 per cent increase in the default market offer before the election. They are 'altruistic and honest'—what a load of rubbish!</para>
<para>It is disappointing to hear those sorts of false allegations made in this Senate, when the reality is that they didn't vote to hold back prices at $230, on average, per year and they lied about and misrepresented a 20 per cent increase in the default market offer. I can go on. In nine years there were 22 energy policies that didn't float, that didn't fly, that didn't progress, yet those opposite have the hide to come in here and talk about honesty and altruism. Being altruistic is actually about making a difference with the plans that you put forward.</para>
<para>Those opposite ignored 12 formal warnings from the ACCC about domestic gas supply—they ignored them! And these are the people who have the hide to come in here and say to the Australian people that not only do they not have an answer—that they haven't progressed an answer—but they vote against answers because that's the program that they have. Under those opposite we also saw a four-gigawatt infrastructural power leak, with only one gigawatt coming back in. Snowy 2.0 is running months late.</para>
<para>Of course, we've announced, quite rightly, our Energy Price Relief Plan. We've also announced our intent, in this May budget, to make some incredibly important changes to make sure there's relief and support for those in the Australian community who are doing it tough. They're doing it tough because the people opposite, who are not altruistic and not honest, have left this country in a hole of over a trillion dollars of debt. Whilst they were running off and giving billions of dollars to Qantas, without any obligations to the Australian public, and giving tens of millions of dollars to Harvey Norman, without any obligations and whilst its profits went up during COVID, leaving us with a trillion dollars of debt because of their mismanagement, we've been looking at areas like the Housing Australia Future Fund. They don't want to have 30,000 new social and affordable houses in this country in the next five years. They're voting against it. They've said they're opposed to it.</para>
<para>How could you be less altruistic and less honest while saying you are honest? Their approach to honesty in what they are delivering, in their views and their policies and their suggestions—their 'no-alition'—is to make sure that every Australian pays the price for their lack of thought, lack of preparation over the last decade and lack of capacity to support good policies that make a difference to the Australian public.</para>
<para>Of course, those good policies go to cheaper medicine under Medicare, a very important initiative—30 per cent less for prescription medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They go to 180,000 free TAFE and vocational education and training places. That's about building up productivity and capacity within our community. They go to the $50 million TAFE Technology Fund. Again, it's all about improving capacity and productivity within the economy. That's smart spending not wasted spending. It's about making sure we make a difference.</para>
<para>We see those opposite consistently oppose policies to ease cost-of-living pressures through opportunities for better wages, or, alternatively, through policies that make a difference to energy prices.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to speak on the motion to take note of the answer provided by the minister to the question asked by my good friend and colleague Senator Cadell. That was a question about the cost of living, which is an issue that I'm hearing a lot about. In my home state of Tasmania, families are struggling, prices are going up and up, and they feel like they don't have the means to address those price increases.</para>
<para>It seems like every single day, at the moment, we are coming into this chamber as the opposition and we are asking questions on behalf of those families in our own states about the skyrocketing cost-of-living. Every time we ask these questions—and they are important questions that the Australian people want answers to—we find ourselves in a situation where the government brushes those questions off and will try to talk about anything else. If this government was something you bought in a store, I think you would be taking it back to the store and asking for a refund. Then you would take that refund and put it towards paying for your power bill, which we know has gone through the roof since this government came to power. Or it might be your grocery bill, which we also know has gone through the roof, or your mortgage payment, which, again, is going through the roof.</para>
<para>The marketing material for this government was very clear. What was written on the box is not the product that Australians have actually got now. If only I could call the ACCC! The government said that if you voted for them your cost of living would go down.. They said that if you voted for them your power bill—each individual's power bill—would go down by $275. They made that commitment 97 times in the lead up to the election. They made it over and over and over again.</para>
<para>Fast forward 10 months, and not only have they broken that promise but they are actually asking for credit for bills going up by more than 10 per cent. They want credit for breaking an election promise, yet they don't want to accept any of the blame for the skyrocketing cost of living that Australians are now facing. Indeed, every time we come into this chamber and we have conversations about the rising cost of living, and we ask questions about that $275 commitment that was made 97 times during the election campaign, all we get from the government is avoiding the question—at best—and—at worst—talking about the previous government, because they don't have anything else that they know how to talk about.</para>
<para>They also promised that they wouldn't increase taxes on Australians. Yet, they've broken that promise as well. In the lead up to the next budget in May, it certainly seems, as my colleague Senator McGrath says, that they are laying the groundwork to break that particular promise—not to increase taxes on Australians—again and again. This is a Labor government which said whatever it thought people wanted to hear to get their vote back in May 2022. But, in fact, this government does the opposite. Under Labor, the cost of living has gone way up, when they said it would go way down.</para>
<para>We know that the Treasurer and the finance minister have looking around to see whose pockets they can dip into to plug the holes in the budget coming up in May. Sure, they promised before the election that they wouldn't do any of that. But, of course, that promise is out the window, like the majority of the promises they made. We saw this when the Treasurer got up on national TV and refused to even rule out capital gains taxes on the family home. Admittedly, the Prime Minister did come and clean up that little slip of the tongue by Treasurer Chalmers, but, like I say, you can't trust this government when they've broken so many promises already. Who's to say that we won't be having another conversation about capital gains tax come the budget in May? It was pretty obvious, when the Treasurer would not even rule out something so obvious as capital gains tax on the family home, that the Labor government are cooking up a long list of possible tax hits on Australians, and the Treasurer, at that point, did not want to rule anything in or out.</para>
<para>But there will be something else. There is always something else when it comes to this Labor government. They promise the world to everyone and quickly run out of money to pay for all of those promises. And when they have run out of money, they will come after yours. The Labor promise to cut your power bill by $275 is broken. Their promise to reduce the cost of living is broken. Their promise not to increase taxes on Australians is broken already, and they are looking for even more ways to break it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government understands that the rising cost of living is hurting Australians. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer know that it is hitting a lot of Australians hard. The government knows this too, and I know that. I think the Australian people understand that we didn't create these challenges, but they elected us to take responsibility for addressing them.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has a three-point plan for addressing the inflation and cost-of-living challenge in the economy; it's about relief, repair and restraint. I'll break it down. It's about responsible cost-of-living relief and policies, like our cheaper childcare policy, cheaper medicines and direct energy bill relief. We're also repairing the supply-side constraints by introducing fee-free TAFE; cleaner and cheaper energy; the National Reconstruction Fund, which, hopefully, will go through the parliament; and a plan for more affordable housing. We've also got a responsible budget with spending restraint, as I said. We want to return almost all the revenue upgrades to the bottom line and keep spending essentially flat over the next four years, not to add to inflation.</para>
<para>There's absolutely a plan, but let's think about how those opposite have tried to thwart it. Let's talk about electricity prices. The question to the minister was about electricity prices, but let's take a closer look. It seems to me that those opposite have a bit of amnesia about what they actually did last year. Maybe they can't remember what they did during the Morrison years.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ciccone</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They don't want to remember it!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They don't want to remember it—absolutely! Luckily for us the Australian people saw it and remembered it at the ballot box almost a year ago. They remembered it. It seems like there's a bit of amnesia and re-creation of history. Let's remember that last year the Albanese government legislated to cap wholesale energy prices on coal and gas. We did that in large part because we had to deal with a wasted decade of failed energy policies from the coalition. We did that in part to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which had put enormous pressure on global energy markets. We recalled the parliament—do you remember that?—before Christmas to deal with the situation because we prioritised energy prices and we prioritised what we thought was a difficult situation. This government took it very, very seriously, so we legislated the Energy Price Relief Plan. Do we remember that?</para>
<para>Now, just three months later, we're already hearing from the Australian Energy Regulator that, had we not acted when we did, energy prices would be 40 to 50 per cent more expensive than they are now. Without that government intervention, Australian families would be paying more for electricity. Without the government intervention, Australian businesses would have paid extra. Because we acted, hundreds of dollars in additional increases for households have been avoided, and people have saved thousands of dollars.</para>
<para>But wait a minute; let's remember—where was the coalition when this emergency was going on? When given the chance to support cheaper power prices, what did the coalition say? They didn't say yes, they said no. When asked if they would support Australian households and business by stabilising the energy market, the Liberal and National Party said no. The 'no-alition' over there voted against cheaper energy prices and voted against support for Australians feeling the sting of inflation. If the coalition had been in charge last year, Australians would be paying hundreds and hundreds of dollars more for electricity than they currently are. Why? Because the Albanese government had a plan and we implemented that plan, but with no help from the 'no-alition'—no help whatsoever. Are we surprised about that? No, because during their nine years in office they had 20 failed energy policies. There was inaction—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ciccone</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>How many?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was 20—yes! It was a decade of inaction that put us in this mess. They were in charge. They could have had an energy policy, but, no, 20 of them bit the dust. I'm here to remind those opposite of what they did—which was nothing—and what the Albanese government have done, which is have a plan and put it into action. The plan is delivering for Australians every day of the week, and of that I am incredibly proud.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BRAGG</name>
    <name.id>256063</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The reason that we're having this debate today is that when you are the government for vested interests you don't have any time to deal with the major challenges that are facing the Australian people; you only have time to work through the narrow vested interests that are being set out for you by your great supporters, benefactors and donors. We have seen since the election an effort to work through the laundry list of grievances from unions, super funds and class action law firms. We have seen the effort to put in place multi-employer, or pattern, bargaining. We have seen the efforts to line the coffers of super funds. We have seen the efforts to remove transparency from workers so they can't see how much money the super funds are sending off to the unions. And we have seen just in recent weeks this hilarious idea of a housing fund, where we want the super funds to give more money so they can buy more houses, but, of course, the people themselves are banned from buying houses with their own money. This is the bizarre world of the government's vested interests, where if you are a union or a superfund you get the rolled gold treatment but if you are a punter you can forget about it.</para>
<para>The consequence of the narrow focus here is that the government hasn't been able to deal with inflation. We have seen 10 interest rate rises since the election. A mortgage holder with a $750,000 mortgage will now be paying at least $1,500 additionally each month. That has been massively fuelled by Canberra. The government is fuelling inflation. The IMF, the International Monetary Fund, has warned that the use of off-balance-sheet items has fuelled inflation and is a risk to our budget and our economy. Inflation is at a 33-year high. Canberra and the Labor Party are massively fuelling inflation because Canberra and the Labor Party are addicted to massive spending projects off the balance sheet but also through the budget itself.</para>
<para>So we have seen $45 billion in off-balance-sheet items, the reconstruction slush fund for unions, the housing fund and the rewiring fund, but there are also tens of billions of dollars in new expenditure locked into the budget with the bills that have passed the parliament since the election. So you have a government that is heavily invested in enriching its favourite vested interests through policy proposals, but you have also got a government that is committed to fuelling inflation perhaps not deliberately but because it can't seem to restrain expenditure. It is prepared to ignore the IMF and the independent observers here. It continues to bring bills before the parliament. There are now bills before the parliament to establish the union slush fund, the reconstruction fund and the housing fund. We just considered the housing fund at the economics committee this week, and we will be reporting later today or tomorrow. This is another $10 billion. Again, going against the warnings of the IMF, the government has decided that it will fuel inflation.</para>
<para>Then we hear the Labor Party people come into the Senate and read out their pieces of papers with their talking points about how bad the Morrison government and other governments were. Sure, there were many bad things in the past, but the reality is that the pandemic was managed as well as it could have been from an economic viewpoint. The Labor opposition wanted to pay people to get vaccinations. The Labor opposition wanted to pay JobKeeper to foreigners and universities. We won't forget that because, effectively, the idea of extending JobKeeper and then paying it to foreigners was a ridiculous proposition at the time and it was ruled out of order. Then Labor will say, 'You switched off too quickly.' But Dr Leigh—or Minister Leigh, as he now is—has gone through and done a forensic examination of all this sort of stuff. We will come back to this in the next episode.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to climate change.</para></quote>
<para>This week Australia and the world received their last warning from the IPCC about the dangerous pathway that we're on and the climate danger we face with the current settings and if we don't keep coal and gas in the ground. Of course, it wasn't just the IPCC that blew the whistle on the Labor government's flawed policies for dealing with the climate. We saw some 54 climate and environment organisations deliver an open letter to the Albanese government this week, calling on them to prevent any further new coal and gas developments in Australia, and that's what the IPCC has said is absolutely needed.</para>
<para>The organisations who wrote the open letter include 350 Australia; Friends of the Earth Australia; GetUp; Greenpeace; Original Power; Oxfam Australia; the Wilderness Society; Environmental Justice Australia; Comms Declare; Common Grace; Move Beyond Coal; Co Power; caha; Lock the Gate; Environment Victoria; the Conservation Council SA; the Queensland Conservation Council; the Environment Centre NT; the Australia Institute; the Edmund Rice Centre; WA Climate Leaders; the Pacific Islands Council of Queensland; the Environment Council of Central Queensland; even the Labor Environment Action Network in the Northern Territory; Environs Kimberley; Wodonga and Albury Towards Climate Health, WATCH; Climate Action Newcastle; Darebin Climate Action Now; Zero Emissions Noosa; Environment Victoria South Eastern Volunteers; Surfers for Climate—listen to the surfers; Australian Marine Conservation Society; Parra CAN; Climate Action Canberra; Cairns and Far North Environment Centre; SERCA; the Green Institute; the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society; the Climate Justice Union; C4CE; the Bayside Climate Crisis Action Group; ShireCAN; the People's Climate Assembly; CLIMARTE Emergency: Action; Glen Eira Emergency Climate Action Network; the Community Power Agency; Climate Emergency Australia; Lighter Footprints; Psychology for a Safe Climate; ARRCC; Australian Parents for Climate Action; Green Music Australia; cedamia; and Vote Earth Now. Fifty-four organisations signed the letter demanding climate action and demanding that the Albanese government change its policies and keep coal and gas in the ground. Will the Albanese government listen?</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>First Nations Australians: Mining Industry</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Public Service (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Thorpe today relating to a report on mining in the Beetaloo.</para></quote>
<para>Apparently responsibility for Beetaloo comes under the Territory, so we want to know if you will rule out giving Commonwealth funds for the Middle Arm. There's no accountability and transparency in fracking or any kind of destructive behaviour to our mother Earth. There is no free, prior and informed consent. Labor does talk about consultation over consultation over consultation. We also heard from a Labor minister that consultation does not mean consent. It may be something that Labor need to learn a little bit more about. You can't just rock up and talk to people and think that they are consenting to a project.</para>
<para>There has been unconscionable conduct not only from the coalition when they were in power but also from the Labor government. They are still acting unconscionably by only dealing with land councils, who don't always represent traditional owners. Traditional owners are being bullied and locked out of meetings. They don't even get to have a say about any destructive behaviours on their country. It goes through a peak body that is funded by the Commonwealth government, and we see how that turns. The last NLC CEO is now a Labor member in the other place. So whoever allows this consent to happen so that the mining companies can destroy our lands and waters it seems are rewarded with a seat as a politician for the Labor government.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.</para></quote>
<para>I also 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>
<quote><para class="block">Purpose of the Bill</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The purpose of the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 (the Bill) is to strengthen the Government's compliance powers with respect to pharmacists who are prosecuted for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) fraud related offences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, if a pharmacist is prosecuted for a PBS fraud related offence, their approval to supply PBS medicines can be suspended or revoked. A drafting anomaly prevents the power being exercised if the pharmacist holds their approval under a company structure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Increasingly more pharmacies operate under company structures, exposing the PBS to further abuse by convicted fraudsters.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill supports the integrity of the PBS by ensuring any pharmacist who is charged with, or convicted of, a PBS related offence is not able to perpetrate further fraud in their capacity as director of a company.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for Urgency</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill seeks to prevent all pharmacists who have been prosecuted for PBS fraud, including those who hold their approval under a company structure, from further defrauding the PBS. There have been recent cases where pharmacists have been charged with several counts of PBS fraud and PBS benefits continue to be paid. Payments may continue until the changes proposed in the Bill come into effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health and Aged Care)</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>63</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 give notice that, on 9 May this year, I shall move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A bill for an act to establish an inquiry into the Murdoc media and media diversity in Australia and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Short title: Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</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 general business order of the day no. 30 (Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023) be considered on Thursday, 23 March 2023 at the time for private senators' bills.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Postponement</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reporting Date</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</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 this proposal at the request of any senator.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Public Works Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>66</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That, in accordance with the provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Public Works C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ommittee 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 Foreign Affairs and Trade—Proposed construction and decommissioning of the Australian Pavilion at the World Expo 2025 Osaka, Kansai, Japan.</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>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>66</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Attorney-General's Department</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>66</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Cash, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on 23 March 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) briefing notes and file notes held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, as well as any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the resignation of Mr Leo Hardiman PSM KC as Freedom of Information Commissioner, dated 5 March 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) briefing notes and file notes held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, as well as any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Freedom of Information Commissioner and/or any correspondence between the Attorney-General's Department and the Freedom of Information Commissioner in relation to the Commissioner's resignation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) briefing notes and file notes held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, as well as any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Freedom of Information Commissioner and/or the Attorney-General's Department and the Freedom of Information Commissioner in relation to the Commissioner's resignation statement.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move an amendment, as circulated, to the motion:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Omit "23 March 2023", substitute "27 March 2023".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) After paragraph (c) add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) briefing notes and file notes held by either the Attorney General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, as well as any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Freedom of Information Commissioner and/or the Attorney-General's Department and the Freedom of Information Commissioner in relation to resourcing of the functions of the Freedom of Information Commissioner and/or backlog of FOI reviews.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge to general business notice of motion No. 183 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Department of Finance</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>66</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on 6 March 2023, the Senate ordered the Minister for Finance to lay on the table documents in relation to the cost of recalling Parliament for the 15 December 2022 unscheduled sitting, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on 9 March 2023, the Government responded to the order by stating it could not be complied with as it is not possible to differentiate between parliamentarians' travel for the purpose of Parliament versus other official business; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on 27 March 2023, all costs for the period of 13 to 16 December 2022 inclusive, in relation to the following categories:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) parliamentarian travel allowance,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) parliamentarian airfares,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) parliamentarian Commonwealth Car, cabcharge and rideshare expenses,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) staff travel allowance,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) staff airfares,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vi) staff cabcharge and rideshare expenses,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(vii) any additional staffing requirements, including, but not limited to, security services, attendants, restaurants and catering staff; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(viii) any other costs in relation to the recalling of Parliament.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>67</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>67</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="s1372" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>67</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Productivity Commission Act 1998</inline>, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</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>67</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</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 table an explanatory memorandum to the bill.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> and to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is based on two fairly simple principles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Namely, that there has long been a lack of an easily accessible, nationally consolidated and regularly updated report on retail electricity prices across Australia—and that this state of affairs needs to change.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In short, if this Bill was to be passed, it would legislate for the Productivity Commission to compile a quarterly report containing statistics on electricity prices and generation in each State and Territory. It would also require the Commonwealth Government of the day to then table these reports in Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Plainly, energy generation and energy pricing are two of the most critical policy issues in contemporary Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As a matter of basic principle, it is right that Australians should therefore be provided with clearer information and enhanced transparency about how much they are being charged for their electricity. They would also stand to benefit from the incorporation, within these new reports, of information that shows the respective percentages of the various sources from which Australia's energy is being derived.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Over recent years, a number of steps have been taken to improve the range of information, statistics and reporting on energy pricing, in particular.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That process has generally been successful, and it has led to the development of a variety of tools, products and forms of data relating to energy in Australia. These represent a vast improvement on what was available (or, more to the point, unavailable) in earlier years.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The most similar type of report that currently exists, for instance, is the Australian Energy Market Commission's (AEMC) 'Residential Electricity Price Trends' document.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Likewise, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) maintains an online dashboard bringing together various sets of information on electricity prices around the nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Some forms of comparative data for electricity prices charged by Australian energy companies are also presented on a range of websites. These include the Australian Energy Regulator's 'Energy Made Easy' site and the Victorian Government's 'Victorian Energy Compare' site, as well as web pages of organisations such as Canstar Blue, iSelect, Finder and Compare the Market.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, none quite bridges the full divide.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The AEMC's 'Residential Electricity Price Trends' document, for instance, uses a number of projections for future years rather than reporting purely on actual past and current prices. It is also not a mandated publication—as was tellingly illustrated when the AEMC announced, on 1 December 2022, that it would not be producing an annual edition for 2022 and would simply defer the release of its next report to sometime around mid-2023 instead.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Similarly, the AEMO dashboard's analysis of pricing is concentrated on wholesale figures. It also does not provide composite information in the one place for all of the States and Territories.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The online comparison services have various limitations, too, including that none displays comprehensive data for every retailer across every State and Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Accordingly, there still remains a need for relatively straightforward, overall, national breakdowns of data to be brought together all in the one place.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Indeed, if you enter a term like 'consolidated electricity price comparisons for Australia' into an online search engine, then it typically generates links to a range of sites that offer the user a selection of tools that allow them to compare the price of different energy plans for their own needs at a local, individual level.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When it comes to finding information at a broader level for all of the States and Territories, it's nowhere near as readily available, or easily accessible. Let alone easily understandable for most consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That's a void that should be filled. Moreover, it's an even more glaring problem in a period in which millions of Australians are experiencing particularly acute cost of living pressures. Not to mention that millions of Australians were also distinctly promised by the Labor Party, each of 97 times before the 2022 Federal election, that they would receive a $275 annual reduction on their power bills if the Albanese Government was elected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is true that—in relation to the mix of sources used to generate electricity—the AEMO dashboard does already offer specialised, accurate and even historical reporting. However, it is the Coalition's view that the new Productivity Commission reports would still be enhanced by the inclusion of the same (or similar) information as well.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill has also been drafted in such a way as to provide the Commission with some flexibility in the way that it presents the figures in relation to generation. This is because it mightn't always be easy for it to access every piece of information that it would need in every single quarter to be sure that its calculations were fully precise.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Rather than starting with just a single, isolated, one-off snapshot, what is also being stipulated in the Bill is that the first reports by the Productivity Commission will contain each of the relevant quarterly statistics dating back to, and including, the quarter commencing 1 July 2019.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The use of a period of around three years seems a reasonable and logical way, to us, of placing the initial, up-to-date set of figures into a fuller, more informative context.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In totality, the provisions of the new Bill will lead to better, more regular and more comprehensive reporting on energy issues for Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the process, the Bill will also appropriately demand greater transparency and accountability from not only the Albanese Government, but also all future Federal governments, in relation to their energy policy decisions and their consequences. That surely can only be a good thing, given that all of us in this Parliament should recognise that governments genuinely need to be held account for all of the policies that they implement, and the decisions that they take, that risk increasing the costs of living for ordinary Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We know already that, in just ten months, the Albanese Government has embarked on a course of breaking various election promises, and making life harder and more costly for Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As we found out in mid-March, there's also yet another massive power price rise—potentially of around another 30%—on the way from 1 July this year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">However, supporting this Bill surely shouldn't be a hard thing for the Labor Party to do.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After all, it was the Prime Minister himself who said, on 7 May 2022, that "you have to treat the Australian people with respect" and, on 16 August 2022, that "the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Indeed, if the Prime Minister (and his Ministers) are true to many of their words from the past, supporting this Bill should really be a formality.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I therefore look forward to the backing of the Government, as well as of the crossbench parties and independents, for this legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the meantime, I commend the Bill to the Senate.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Goods and Services Tax</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 192 and I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that order for the production of documents no. 135, relating to the goods and services tax, was agreed to by the Senate on 7 February 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) notes that 30 days have now passed since the order's deadline of midday on 20 February 2023 and that it has not been complied with; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) requires the order to be complied with by midday on 27 March 2023.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leader of the Government in the Senate</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>69</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator LAMBIE</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) There be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, no later than 5 sitting days after 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October each year, a letter of advice that all ministers' official appointments diaries, covering the periods 1 October to 31 December, 1 January to 31 March, 1 April to 30 June and 1 July to 30 September respectively, in accordance with paragraph (2), have been published on a single government website.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The official appointment diaries referred to in paragraph (1) must indicate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) each meeting (regardless of format) held by the Minister with external persons who seek to influence government policy or decisions; a meeting with external persons does not include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) internal meetings held by ministers exclusively with other federal ministers and/or federal ministerial staff and/or federal government officials,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) strictly personal meetings,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) electorate meetings,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) party political meetings, or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) public or strictly social events;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the attendees at each meeting, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the name(s) of the individual(s),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) organisation name(s),</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) where an individual attends a meeting in a non-official capacity and does not represent any organisation, the individual's name, except where publication of the individual's name could cause harm to the individual (eg a whistleblower's name or a police informant's name), and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) where a third-party lobbyist is present at a meeting, the name of the lobbying firm, the name of any personnel present at the meeting and the name of the client on whose behalf the</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">third-party lobbyist is present;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a brief description of the topic or purpose of the meeting (however, the topic or purpose of the meeting does not need to be disclosed where there is an overriding public interest against disclosure, in which case the nature of the harm must be provided); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the city or town where the meeting occurred, and:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) where publicly funded travel is involved, for travel outside of the Australian Capital Territory or beyond 30 km of the Minister's normal electoral office—the mode of transport (eg regular public transport flight, special purpose flight, charter flight, Comcar, hire car, etc), and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) where meeting attendee funded travel is involved—the mode of transport (eg charter flight, private flight, chauffeur driven car, etc).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This order takes effect from 1 April 2023 and is of continuing effect.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 174 standing in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </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>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</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>Watt, M. P.</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>Attorney-General's Department</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>70</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Cash, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on 27 March 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) briefing notes, legal advice and file notes held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, as well as any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Attorney-General's Department, in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) briefing notes, legal advice and file notes held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Attorney-General's Department, as well as any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and the Solicitor-General and/or any correspondence between the Attorney-General's Department and the Solicitor-General in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) briefing notes, legal advice and file notes held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Australian Government Solicitor, as well as any correspondence between the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or any correspondence between the Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Government Solicitor in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) briefing notes, legal advice and file notes held by either the Attorney-General and/or his office and/or the Prime Minister and/or his office in relation to the proposed wording for the Voice referendum.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</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 CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As the opposition knows, the government is working through a cabinet process in relation to the Voice referendum, including in relation to the wording for the proposed constitutional alteration. The Referendum Working Group is providing the cabinet with advice as part of that process, and so is the Solicitor-General. Consistent with the longstanding practice followed by all governments, cabinet deliberations should be able to be conducted in secrecy so as to preserve the freedom of deliberation of that body. It would harm the public interest to undermine the confidentiality of the cabinet process by producing the document sought by Senator Cash or by producing legal advice.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 189, standing in the name of Senator Cash, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [15:55]<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>Babet, R.</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>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</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>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Dodson, P.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</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>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>
              </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>Department of the Treasury</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>71</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by 9.30 am on Friday, 24 March 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the complete email and any associated attachments sent on Friday, 3 March 2023 at 6.03 pm, with the subject line 'Large balances: Q&A for QT and additional info [SEC=OFFICIAL]', to or from the Treasurer's office or the Treasury; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any document titled 'Large superannuation balances' generated within the Treasury or the Treasurer's office between 2 and 10 March 2023 that contains the following text: 'In 30 years, it projected that roughly only the top 10 per cent of earners will retire with superannuation balances of around $3 million or more'.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that general business notice of motion No. 193, standing in the name of Senator Birmingham, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:02] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>41</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</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>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>18</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</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 agreed to. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>72</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>72</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I remind senators that yesterday a division was deferred relating to a motion moved by Senator Roberts proposing a reference to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold that division now. The question is the business of the Senate No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Roberts deferred vote be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [16:09] <br />The President—Senator Lines </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>29</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</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>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>30</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</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>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</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>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</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></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I inform the Senate that Senator McKenzie has withdrawn the matter of public importance which she had proposed for today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A letter has been received from Senator Babet:</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">Australia must urgently move towards modern nuclear technology as a means of alleviating our energy crisis.</para></quote>
<para>Is the proposal supported?</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">More than the num</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ber of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</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>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In Australia we are facing an energy crisis that threatens to cripple industry and impoverish families and, if it is not urgently addressed, we will see our standard of living decrease and we will see our people suffer. The fact that we find ourselves in this position beggars belief. As a nation we have a clear competitive advantage: abundant and easily accessible coal and gas. I keep talking about it. We should have the cheapest energy in the world, but we don't. Instead, we have manufacturers and businesses closing and collapsing all across our nation under the weight of energy bills. In fact, the cost of electricity is going to rise by about 30 per cent this year in my home state of Victoria.</para>
<para>The Snack Brands factory in Smithfield reported some time ago that their gas bill had gone from $3 million a year to $9 million a year. Do you know where that factory is located? It's in energy minister Chris Bowen's electorate. Who needs enemies when you have mates like Minister Bowen as your local member? You don't need enemies. Our current energy crisis is not the fault of some far-off distant war like some in this place have tried to allege on more than one occasion. Perhaps if that were the case it would be easier to understand. Instead, our crisis is self-inflicted, and the hurt that we are currently experiencing can easily be avoided.</para>
<para>The Albanese government and the Greens are determined to shut down all coal and gas. The government, of course—well, I hope, anyway—hopes to do this without destroying business, impoverishing families and endangering our national security. This is a pipe dream. This is a pie-in-the-sky plan. It is simply not possible to achieve net zero using solar panels, windfarms and batteries while at the same time maintaining our standard of living. If the government is determined to put an end to safe, effective, cheap, reliable and abundant coal and gas and maintain our nation then the government must embrace nuclear energy. We have no other options. If we do not, we will suffer in exactly the same way that some other nations across the world are suffering right now. If the government is determined that Australians must not use our abundant coal and gas then let's use our abundant uranium instead. But here's the irony: just like we're exporting our coal and gas, we're also exporting our uranium to other countries, where they are using it and benefiting from it—and we're not. We are third-largest exporter of uranium in the world, and it's crazy that we're not taking advantage of it.</para>
<para>For those who say they are worried that catastrophic climate change is about to end the earth because of CO2—which is just plant food—nuclear power is your answer. What about the expense? Yes, it might cost a little bit up-front, but it's an investment which secures our power needs for the long term. Renewables, however, are not renewable at all. The only thing renewable about renewables is the expense. Roughly every 15 or so years you've got to bury your solar panels in the ground, in landfill, and buy new ones. Every 10 years you have to bury the batteries and buy new ones. Every 20 years you have to bury the wind turbines and buy new ones. Where do you buy them from? China, mostly. The CCP controls most of the supply chain when it comes to renewables.</para>
<para>Nuclear, when compared to that possible future, is, in fact, not expensive. It is better for our environment, especially when you compare its cost to that of rebuilding our national infrastructure to accommodate renewables. With nuclear, you can build a plant on the existing footprint of where a coal-fired power plant currently is and keep the infrastructure as it is—no changes. How good is that? Instead of acres of solar panels and hillsides dotted with wind turbines, we could have a facility roughly the size of an IKEA powering millions of homes. We need to stop cowering in fear at the thought of the word 'nuclear' energy. Nuclear energy is the answer for the 21st century. There is no other option. If we do not look at nuclear energy, our only other alternative is poverty.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CANAVAN</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm honoured to stand and support this matter of public importance, and I congratulate Senator Babet for bringing it forward. The acquisition of up to five nuclear submarines has removed any logical reason for Australia to continue to ban nuclear energy in this country. Sometimes we hear that we can't go down the path of nuclear energy because we have nowhere to store the waste. Well, we're going to now have a high-level waste facility because of the acquisition of nuclear submarines. That hurdle will have already been jumped. That is done. We sometimes hear that it could potentially be too unsafe and there could be some sort of accident or issue. Well, we're going to have up to five nuclear reactors sailing underwater around our coastline, just next to major population centres, and docking in our harbours—no safety concerns about that. It would be completely illogical to legalise the sailing of nuclear submarines right around our coastline while we continue not to allow those same facilities onshore and on land in this country.</para>
<para>We have a massive energy deficit right now. Our energy regulators are warning that will be short 8,000 megawatts of reliable power over the next decade, and that can't be filled by solar and wind; they don't have the dispatchable capacity that we need. With these nuclear subs, maybe we could have an innovative solution: we could dock them in Sydney Harbour and go get a big extension cord from Bunnings! That's 1,000 megawatts of the 8,000 that could come in and provide electricity. But a more logical option would be to actually build an advanced nuclear reactor in this country, as has happened in every settled continent in this world except for Australia. It is only us and the penguins who don't have nuclear energy. Every other settled continent in the world relies on nuclear energy and has done safely for decades. It is about time that we get over this ridiculous paranoia and legalise nuclear energy so Australians can get cheaper power.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the many amazing people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I know that nuclear is the answer to humanity's energy needs. The only question is whether we embrace nuclear technology now and set Australians up for a prosperous future or we keep promoting unreliable expensive wind and solar that will end as landfill every 12 to 15 years. Australia can never achieve a sustainable energy grid if every new wind and solar power unit we build dies so quickly. The energy required to break down a solar panel dwarfs its profit. Even the ABC admits that solar panel waste will outstrip all other e-waste by 2035.</para>
<para>Nuclear energy is a single-build project with a small ongoing fuel supply whose waste output is tiny, completely contained and capable of being used as fuel for our reactors—in other words, truly renewable and with zero output of carbon dioxide. Not that carbon dioxide is a problem; it is plant food. It is a proudly Australian-centric energy system that does not require dependence on supply lines from communist China. Nuclear will keep the lights on in Australia independent of the weather.</para>
<para>The European Union has embraced nuclear as the gold standard in green technology. They tried solar panels. They tried wind turbines; they don't work. So why are parties in this place insisting on subjecting everyday Australians to electricity cost and reliability nightmares? Why are you ignoring the science? A one-gigawatt nuclear plant is equivalent to 430 wind turbines or three million solar panels demolished and replaced six times in the life of one new-generation nuclear plant with a life of 100 years. This is why the United Nations and the World Economic Forum's crooks and disciples are trying to make nuclear a dirty word, because they know they can't compete on any environmental or economic argument. Nuclear energy is freedom. Nuclear energy is national security. Nuclear energy is the answer to maintaining everyday Australians' living standards. I thank Senator Babet for the motion. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has laid out the government's energy and emissions reduction plan, and has clearly articulated, very clearly articulated, that nuclear will not be a part of Australia's energy mix. Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, so there is a good reason, right? It is the most expensive form of energy, which has been reaffirmed over and over again by various people. The CSIRO in its 2021-22 GenCost report calls nuclear energy 'commercially immature' and 'high cost'. The report also affirms that the cheapest form of energy is mixed renewables such as wind and solar.</para>
<para>I would be delighted to introduce Senator Babet to some scientists, maybe some economists and that might help inform him in his pathway of pushing for nuclear energy. Senator Babet's friends on the opposition benches were unsuccessful in prosecuting this nuclear argument in nine years under their own government. They can't get their own government to support it. Their own people won't back it, so I am not quite sure where that is going for those in the opposition.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senators, I remind you that other speakers have been heard in silence. I remind people to give the same courtesy to Senator Grogan.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We had nine years of a Liberal-National government during which we had 22 stop-start energy policies and three gigawatts of dispatchable energy exit the grid without being replaced. I hardly think those opposite are in a position to be providing a way forward on our energy issue. Then, of course, when we introduced our Energy Price Relief Package, you would not support a package to reduce the price on people's hip pocket and take down prices. We saw prices skyrocket and they started under the opposition government. In our attempts to bring it down, you all vote against it because you would rather invest in very, very expensive nuclear energy.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would love a medal, thank you, Senator Canavan. If you could make me one that would be great.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Grogan, I remind you and Senator Canavan that it is disorderly to interject, and your comments should go through the chair. Pay the same courtesy as was displayed to you, Senator Canavan.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My apologies. But I do fear that the facts on nuclear energy generation are somewhat lost on my colleagues across the room. I know a number of you have cast aspersions on the CSIRO in the past. So, rather than just keep quoting them, I will add a bit more detail from other sources that you may prefer, particularly the nuclear energy industry. Yes, that's right: the nuclear energy industry admits that cost is a prohibitive factor compared to renewable energy. The <inline font-style="italic">W</inline><inline font-style="italic">orld </inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline><inline font-style="italic">uclear</inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">ndustry </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tatus </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 2020</inline>—not the CSIRO, if you're paying attention, but the <inline font-style="italic">W</inline><inline font-style="italic">orld </inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline><inline font-style="italic">uclear </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">ndustry </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tatus </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">eport</inline>, stated:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The costs of renewables continue to fall due to incremental manufacturing and installation improvements while nuclear, despite over half a century of industrial experience, continues to see costs rising.</para></quote>
<para>That same report goes on to say that the levelised cost of energy analysis by the US bank Lazard shows that between 2009 and 2021 utility-scale solar costs came down by 90 per cent, wind costs came down by 72 per cent and new nuclear costs increased by 36 per cent. So, sure: I get it that maybe you don't like some scientists, you don't like some organisations, because you think they believe in climate change or various other things that you can't get behind. But this is the industry itself. This is the report on the industry itself, telling you exactly what the costs look like. So, you enjoy that at your peril and ignore it at the country's, I believe.</para>
<para>We have now seen a decade of denial and delay as far as our energy sector is concerned. And now the transition to renewable energy is going to have to boost. We know this. The level of investment has been low, but it is growing. Since we legislated the 43 per cent target, investment has increased, and it will continue to increase, for renewable energy— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The proposal for nuclear power for Australia is wrong on many counts. Small modular nuclear power generation is too expensive, it's not operating commercially and it's a distraction from what we have to really get on with, which is a very fast move to renewables. We senators in this place have a responsibility to consider realistic proposals to advance citizens' interests, not run impractical, risky, uncommercial proposals up the flagpole on behalf of, in this case, nuclear industry spruikers. Last time I looked, only two small modular reactors were in operation on the planet, one in China and one Russia. In both cases the cost blowouts have been huge. Many other such next-generation nuclear reactors have been cancelled as people have worked out that renewables are the cheaper, more-reliable way forward.</para>
<para>But I want to especially focus on what Senator Canavan has raised, and that's the question of nuclear waste disposal. The truth is that finding a permanent solution for the safe storage of nuclear waste arising from power generation remains a big, dangerous problem everywhere—a very expensive problem. The UK has 70 years of waste, 260,000 tonnes of it, from its nuclear power plants, in unsafe temporary storage. It's a major problem for that country and its citizens. The US nuclear industry has similarly been plagued by dangerous leaks and failures. No long-term solution exists in the US for waste from power generation or from nuclear powered submarines.</para>
<para>South Australians have had some experience with these issues. In 2016 our citizens had a very close look at a proposal that we take the world's nuclear power waste and store it. We were promised an income stream of $51 billion. That's a lot of money, but South Australians said no. The world's largest citizens jury of 350 South Australian citizens read the fine print. They saw that the proposal was for temporary storage for above-ground for more than a century. They said no to the false promise of huge incomes but especially to the safety risks and the fact that those who spruik nuclear power never offer a long-term waste solution that is safe and that will last the 100,000 years that is needed. First Nations people across South Australia in particular said no. They remember Maralinga. This is a national challenge of long standing.</para>
<para>Since Australia first started producing nuclear waste, 70 years ago, five successive governments have tried and failed to find a suitable place for the permanent storage of our relatively small quantities of low-level and intermediate-level waste. Low-level waste, arising from medical use, must be stored safely for 300 years, and it's nowhere near as dangerous as intermediate waste, but no community in this country has agreed to take and store that waste. Intermediate-level waste, arising from research at Lucas Heights, must be safely stored for 10,000 years. The previous government began a process towards that storage at Kimba, and it's been bitterly disputed at every step of the way since, opposed by farmers, by community members and by First Nations people. The Barngarla people are currently in the Federal Court fighting the current government, which is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose the voice of the Barngarla people.</para>
<para>In the case of AUKUS, the fuel from decommissioned submarines is nuclear weapons grade, and it requires military-scale security. It must be stored safely not for 300 years, not for 10,000 years, but for 100,000 years, and neither the UK nor the US have been able to find permanent storage solutions for their own submarine waste. So, given that successive governments have continuously failed to manage much-less-dangerous radioactive waste in Australia, our government would find it very difficult in this country to find a solution to dispose of nuclear waste or AUKUS submarine waste. Traditional owners of the future in particular should have a say and a veto about any such proposal.</para>
<para>There is a long list of reasons why the $368 billion spend proposed for AUKUS is a terrible idea, but it's not least that the government has no viable solution to care for the weapons-grade nuclear waste and keep us safe. The Australian public is right to be sceptical and concerned about waste disposal in relation to AUKUS. There is no plan, and the same argument applies to any ill considered, expensive adventurism around nuclear power. Our children need practical, affordable action on renewable energy that cuts carbon pollution, not pies in the sky that generate toxic waste for which there are no safe solutions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator VAN</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>1,430 terawatt hours per year is the amount of electricity needed to be able to power Australia to be a green energy superpower, something that we all aspire for this country to be. That is an awful lot of energy. If we are going to power that through green energy, we have to consider all options to do so, with nuclear power being one of those. There is no way that we can get to net zero emissions or, even better, zero emissions without nuclear base load power. All clean energy options need to be on the table. That includes nuclear, pumped hydro, geothermal—all sorts of other ways.</para>
<para>This fixation on renewables only is a fallacy that's being sold to the Australian public, and they're being lied to because there is no way that we can get to where we need to be and be a hydrogen superpower simply on renewables. The variable and intermittent nature of those generation techniques is not doable. My learned friend over here talked about unproven technologies. The other fallacy that the Australian people are sold is that batteries can solve this. There is no battery that can provide the deep storage of energy that will be needed to firm up intermittent power from wind and solar sufficiently to power industries as they are now, let alone as we electrify industries to reduce emissions down to the lowest possible part we can. Stop telling lies. Nuclear power is a proven technology, and it will play a part in our energy mix in the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GREEN</name>
    <name.id>259819</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very happy to stand and speak on this matter of public importance today because it gives me an opportunity to talk about a number of matters, particularly our government's record on delivering our renewable energy plan to make this country a renewable energy superpower. It particularly gives me an opportunity to talk about the debate we are having about nuclear energy in this place, why we're having the debate and who is pushing that debate in this chamber. We know there's a reason that the Liberal and National parties are pushing nuclear as a form of energy. It's because they're distracting from their bitter disunity and denialism on climate change and it's because they don't want to see this country become a renewable energy superpower.</para>
<para>I am proud that one of the first actions of our government was legislating our emissions reductions targets. Our government has a clear commitment to renewable energy. We know that firmed renewables are the cheapest form of energy and that they are getting cheaper every single day. If we hadn't lost 10 years of investment, we would be far beyond where we are now, but we are making good headway in catching up. We are working with the states and territories to deliver renewable energy projects across the country. It's why we're delivering our Powering Australia Plan, but we're also choosing to invest in renewables through the National Reconstruction Fund, an incredibly important piece of legislation that those opposite have dealt themselves out of. We want to see our regions become renewable energy powerhouses. I speak of the region that I come from in Far North Queensland when I talk about the wind, solar and pumped hydro opportunities that will create jobs in regional Queensland.</para>
<para>It's important to understand where we've come from over the past 10 years and why we are now having this debate—why we're at a point where we are having a genuine discussion about renewable energy not being the way forward. It's because the LNP's record on energy is abysmal. In government, the Liberal-National coalition vetoed projects that would have created hundreds of jobs in regional Queensland. In Queensland, the Liberal National Party tried to sell off the state's power assets so that we couldn't have public energy in public hands. When it came to promising what power they would generate, the federal coalition did promise years and years ago to build a coal-fired power station in North Queensland. That never happened because there is nothing from this former government when it comes to delivering on the promises they made.</para>
<para>Heading up into the election, they hid key information about electricity prices from Australians. Now, in opposition, they choose to vote against energy bill relief. They talk about reducing power prices, but they're not prepared to vote for cheaper power bills.</para>
<para>We know what the experts say about nuclear energy. It's expensive, it's slow and it's the hardest to deliver when it comes to forms of power. It isn't members on this side of the chamber saying that; it's the CSIRO. They've done these reports time and time again and found that nuclear energy would be far and away the most expensive form of energy in Australia. That is the experts telling us about nuclear energy when it comes to the way forward. We're facing an energy crisis right now in this country and in this world, and it is a matter of deep concern that a party of government is pushing a form of energy that would not have a plan and would take decades to establish.</para>
<para>Why are the Liberal and National parties talking about nuclear energy? It's purely because they are completely disunified when it comes to their beliefs about climate change and about renewable energy itself. They don't believe in renewable energy, they don't believe in climate change and they don't believe in doing anything about it. The Liberal and National parties can choose to generate a debate about nuclear energy, but they are using it as a distraction from the fact that they continue to drift further and further to the extreme far right on issues like this and others that we have seen play out in the national debate this week.</para>
<para>The Australian public know that the former government did nothing on energy. The proposal that they are putting forward around nuclear is uncosted, won't be delivered and won't deliver the jobs that regional Queenslanders deserve. I urge this chamber to push back on this debate. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I cannot believe that we are actually here talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power makes no sense on so many fronts. It is a dangerous undertaking and can never be fully accident-free. As we have seen with Fukushima and Chernobyl, this is simply not a risk we can take for anybody living now or in the future. My people have known for many thousands of years that this poison, uranium, needs to stay in the ground and never be touched. It causes sickness and death. There is a lot of talk about next-generation nuclear reactors, but for their concept—even if they were somehow magically safe—the technology does not currently exist to scale, so it is not even an option until sometime in the future anyway. Even economists agree that nuclear is financially not viable. Investment in nuclear energy would also slow the decarbonisation of our economy and would actually increase electricity costs, which you all are always so concerned about.</para>
<para>Last but not least, we have absolutely no idea how to safely manage high-level nuclear waste for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Nobody knows this, probably because it's not possible to make it safe for such a long time and communicate with generations in thousands of years. The proposition of nuclear energy is dangerous: dangerous economically, dangerous for our clean energy journey, dangerous for humanity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In the last 30 years, nuclear energy has come a long way. The Greens like to remind us of the Chernobyl disaster, but the fact is that nuclear technology has advanced tremendously since 1986. Nuclear energy in Australia has great potential to contribute to the global movement towards low-emission technologies, and this is widely recognised by experts. Put aside your personal views on the net-zero debate; we're certainly not going to achieve it with only wind turbines and solar panels.</para>
<para>The entire world looks to us confused. They don't understand why we have a moratorium in place on nuclear energy. All we know is that we're now working towards gaining nuclear submarine capabilities, so why not nuclear energy?</para>
<para>In the United States, nuclear constitutes 20 people cent of the energy mix and there is bipartisan agreement in congress about the importance of nuclear energy to helping the US achieve its climate ambitions, its energy security and its sovereignty. President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act has a heavy emphasis on the important role that it will play in the US. I will quote directly from the Office of Nuclear Energy's website:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Momentum is building for U.S. nuclear energy and the investments and tax incentives included in IRA guarantee a commitment to nuclear energy that will continue well throughout the nation's journey to net-zero.</para></quote>
<para>We must get our heads out of the sand and seriously look at lifting the moratorium. Now, I'm not even saying that we should necessarily build a nuclear power plant; we should just lift the moratorium. This way we'll allow industry to explore the opportunities and universities to commence the important work of skilling up out workforce that will be critical for any future nuclear industry here in Australia. We're still having the same discussion here today that we were having when I was born, and the rest of the world is, frankly, leaving us behind.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time for discussion has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliament: Procedure</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now move to Senator Thorpe, who wishes to make a one-minute statement. Leave has been agreed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday, while talking to a matter of public importance, I was ordered to remove a prop: the message stick I brought into the chamber with engravings for lives lost through deaths in custody—441 lives. I would like to state to this chamber that a message stick is not a prop. It is a means of communication for my people. It is no different from the pieces of paper, the mobile phones, the iPads et cetera that everyone is allowed to carry in here. I would like to point out that the move was disrespectful to my people and culture and undermines cultural safety in this place. I will therefore approach the President and seek to find a way forward to ensure the practices in this place are respectful to First Nations people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>78</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present two reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement as listed at item 16 of today's Order of Business, together with accompanying documents. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the reports.</para></quote>
<para>I rise as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to speak on the committee's report examining the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission annual reports for 2020-21 and 2021-22. The committee has a statutory duty to monitor and review the performance of the ACIC by examining each of its annual reports.</para>
<para>The committee is pleased to report that the ACIC performed satisfactorily in 2020-21 and 2021-22, achieving significant outcomes despite the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The committee heard from the ACIC officials that the volume and tempo of the agency's work remained high during both reporting years.</para>
<para>The ACIC achieved a range of positive operational results by focusing on serious and organised crime and its networks that cause the greatest harm to Australia. In partnership with other law enforcement agencies, the ACIC's criminal intelligence efforts disrupted 107 criminal entities across the two reporting periods. The ACIC continues to make important contributions to operational activities such as Operation Ironside, which was led by the Australian Federal Police and involved the management and access of a dedicated encrypted communications platform to target criminal syndicates and led to hundreds of search warrants and arrests across the globe.</para>
<para>Despite external demands on the National Police Checking Service, which impacted the agency's ability to meet its timeliness benchmarks for standard and urgent police checks, the ACIC processed more than 6.7 million checks in 2021-22, 18.3 per cent more than its four-year average—a notable achievement. The ACIC did not meet one of its performance criteria relating to the National Police Checking Service during both reporting periods; however, the committee acknowledges that the ACIC has adopted several mitigating strategies to improve its performance, including working closely with its police partners. The committee will review the effects of these mitigation strategies in 2022-23.</para>
<para>The ACIC's redeveloped stakeholder survey now targets partners who are better placed to comment on the quality of the agency's services. The committee is pleased that in 2021-22 survey participants reflected positively on the ACIC, noting that the ACIC's national policing information systems were of value to their work. The ACIC's insights and research on drug consumption and law enforcement drug seizures were of particular interest to the committee, as it is currently holding an inquiry into Australia's illicit drug problem, focusing on the challenges and opportunities for law enforcement in this area. The committee commends the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program, which provides valuable insights into drug consumption trends across Australia and identifies new sources of threat.</para>
<para>Lastly, the committee thanks ACIC executives and the dedicated staff of the ACIC for their efforts and achievements in protecting Australia from serious criminal threats in 2020-21 and 2021-22. The committee also extends its thanks to Mr Michael Phelan, who led the ACIC and the Australian Institute of Criminology from November 2017 to November 2022. The committee thanks Mr Phelan for his dedication to disrupting criminal networks over his extensive career and helping to make Australia safer by positioning the ACIC to meet the challenges of a complex and continually evolving global organised crime environment. Thank you.</para>
<para>I also rise as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to speak about the committee's report examining the Australian Federal Police annual reports for 2020-21 and 2021-22.</para>
<para>One of the committee's key roles is to provide oversight of the AFP by examining each of the AFP's annual reports. This role recognises that agencies which have been granted strong coercive powers, such as the AFP, should be subject to additional oversight.</para>
<para>Like all Commonwealth agencies, one of the challenges facing the AFP in recent years is the COVID-19 pandemic. As people began to spend more time online, the AFP responded by ramping up its efforts to combat online child exploitation. This included releasing a podcast called <inline font-style="italic">Closing the net</inline> to raise community awareness about the serious risks children can face online.</para>
<para>This was a long-term covert investigation involving collaboration with the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. Prosecutions arriving from the operation are ongoing, but as at June 2022 there had been: 774 search warrants executed in Australia; 383 offenders charged; and seizures of 6339 kilograms of drugs, $55.6 million in cash, 69 firearms and 78 weapons.</para>
<para>I commend the AFP for continuing to perform well in service of the Australian community. I also wish to thank the AFP officers who gave evidence to the committee, as well as my fellow committee members for their contributions to the committee's important scrutiny work. I thank them, and I commend these reports to this chamber. They will be of great interest, I'm sure, to all my colleagues.</para>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future of Work and Workers Select Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the government's responses to the report of the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers, and the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 in accordance with usual practice. I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The documents read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Government response to the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers report:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ho</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pe is not a strategy—our shared responsibility for the future of work and workers</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MARCH 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Overview</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government welcomes the recommendations outlined in the <inline font-style="italic">Hope is not a strategy—our shared responsibility for the future of work and workers report</inline> (the Report) and thanks the Committee for its work. The Government particularly acknowledges the valuable submissions to the enquiry made by over 160 individuals and organisations. The feedback provided at public hearings was used by the Committee and Government in framing the inquiry report and this response.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The nature of work is constantly changing. How we currently work and will work in the future is being shaped by factors such as economic, technological and demographic change, as well as shifts in business practices as industries and communities adapt to climate change. The way we work also continues to evolve. For example, COVID -19 has accelerated digital transformation and adoption of new technologies and new work styles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To keep pace, workers and employers are adopting new ways of operating. These changes provide an opportunity for Australia. The priorities of ensuring access to better skills and training, secure jobs and growing wages create new opportunities for more Australians and are key objectives for the Government.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has a clear plan for a better future for all Australian workers and is making jobs more secure by implementing reforms to strengthen protections available to workers. Jobs and Skills Australia has been established to strengthen workforce planning, the training system is being improved and there is increased investment in TAFE and university places to train workers for the new jobs of the future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">On 1-2 September 2022, the Government convened the Jobs and Skills Summit which brought Australians together to work constructively on the challenges and opportunities facing the Australian labour market and economy. In collaboration with industry, unions and other community stakeholders, the Government agreed to a range of immediate initiatives.</para></quote>
<list>An additional $1 billion in joint Federal-State funding for fee-free TAFE in 2023 and accelerated delivery of 480,000 fee-free TAFE places.</list>
<list>Modernising Australia's workplace relations laws, including to make bargaining accessible for all workers and businesses.</list>
<list>Amending the Fair Work Act to strengthen access to flexible working arrangements, make unpaid parental leave more flexible and strengthen protection for workers against discrimination and harassment.</list>
<list>Improving access to jobs and training pathways for women, First Nations people, regional Australians and culturally and linguistically diverse people, including equity targets for training places, 1,000 digital apprenticeships in the Australian Public Service, and other measures to reduce barriers to employment.</list>
<list>Increasing the permanent Migration Program ceiling to 195,000 in 2022-23 to help ease widespread workforce shortages.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is focused on medium and long-term reforms to prepare Australia's future labour market and has undertaken to develop an Employment White Paper which will build on the outcomes of the Jobs and Skills Summit and will focus on the objectives of full employment and productivity growth for the benefit of all Australians, along with women's economic participation and equality.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will continue proactively working with business and unions to address the workforce challenges presented by the changing labour market and is focused on building a bigger, better trained and more productive workforce, boosting incomes and living standards to ensure jobs are secure and businesses are thriving.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Changing employment trends and working patterns</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Technology has always changed the way workers do their jobs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COVID-19 led to rapid changes in the way people worked and transformed almost every aspect of people's lives. Workers and employers were forced to adopt new ways of working. Many activities moved online, and many aspects of these changes may remain permanent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government recognises the importance of ensuring everyone can take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technologies and a modern workforce. The Government is improving access to the internet, including providing reliable services in more regional areas and investing in skills development to ensure digital literacy training is available to people who need it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Rapid technological advancement, disrupted global supply chain settings, and an ageing Australian population are expected to result in further structural change in the labour market continuing over the medium and long term. It is projected that four service industries—health care and social assistance, professional, scientific and technical services, education and training, and accommodation and food services—will provide more than three-fifths of total employment growth over the next five years<inline font-style="italic">[</inline><inline font-style="italic">1</inline><inline font-style="italic">]</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our recovery from COVID-19 highlighted vulnerabilities in the global supply chain. The $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is the first step in the Government's plan to rebuild Australia's industrial base. The National Reconstruction Fund will provide financing to drive investment in projects that will build prosperity across the country, broadening our industrial base and boosting regional economic development and employment opportunities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Powering Australia Plan will also prioritise regional growth and investment. Increasing investment in renewable energy will create jobs, cut power bills, and reduce emissions. These initiatives will support Australian businesses to grow and ensure more opportunities are available for employees.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is focused on leveraging the opportunities these changes present and shaping the future so that everyone prospers. Skilling Australians for change is crucial to building a better future. To take advantage of these opportunities, the Government will also work in partnership with businesses and unions to achieve better outcomes for the Australian economy. This includes updating workplace laws, boosting job security and wages, and advancing gender equality for women.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Building a better skilled, better trained workforce</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Training workers for the future is key to taking advantage of the opportunities these changes bring. How we skill people up and prepare Australians for change is crucial. Investing in education and equipping people with the right knowledge and skills is the best long-term generator of economic growth and productivity. A strong education, from early learning and schools right through to universities and TAFEs helps set people up to make the most of upcoming opportunities. As workplaces evolve, workers will need support to continue to deepen, develop and adapt their skills throughout their working lives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Jobs and Skills Australia has been established as a priority. The new agency will provide independent, evidence-based advice on current and emerging skills and labour needs and workforce challenges, and will engage widely with business, unions, governments and the education and training sectors. The agency's analysis will support government and industry to address short-term challenges and emerging opportunities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Having good quality and responsive higher education and vocational education and training (VET) systems is critical to ensuring people are prepared to take up future jobs. To support this goal, the Government will work in collaboration with states, territories and key VET stakeholders to create a National Skills Agreement that offers Australians the skills they need to gain secure employment in the future, and to develop a comprehensive VET Workforce Blueprint to support and grow a quality VET workforce, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the VET sector. This partnership will drive improved outcomes in the VET sectors and strengthen workforce planning, particularly in growing sectors of our economy.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is supporting more technology-related jobs by making available 480,000 fee-free TAFE places and up to 20,000 additional Commonwealth-supported university places for under-represented groups in areas of skills shortages. The Australian Skills Guarantee (the Guarantee) will ensure one in ten workers on major government projects is an apprentice, trainee or cadet. The Guarantee complements the Australian Apprenticeships Incentive System which provides financial assistance to all employers hiring an apprentice or trainee. Additional support through a wage subsidy is available for employers of apprentices in priority occupations identified as being skills in demand. Apprentices and trainees in priority occupations are also eligible for direct payments to assist with their costs of living and completing their apprenticeship.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A New Energy Skills program is funding 10,000 New Energy Apprentices. The New Energy Apprenticeships initiative will help secure a pipeline of talent to build a skilled workforce so that Australia can become a renewable energy superpower.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Increasing the participation of women in the workforce</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite considerable gains in the workforce participation of Australian women over the past 50 years, employment and economic outcomes for women remain unequal. The Government is working towards reducing barriers to employment so that all Australians have an equal opportunity to reach their full potential. This will include:</para></quote>
<list>Reducing the cost of childcare for over 95 per cent of eligible families, boosting women's workforce participation and helping to close the gap in retirement incomes so women don't retire in poverty.</list>
<list>Requiring employers with 500 or more employees to commit to measurable targets to improve gender equality in their workplaces.</list>
<list>Requiring employers with 100 or more employees to publicly report their gender pay gap to Workplace Gender Equality Agency.</list>
<list>Requiring the Australian Public Service to report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and to set targets to improve gender equity in the public service.</list>
<list>Continuing to provide additional support for women undertaking apprenticeships in trades, including career advice, personalised assistance and access to peer networks and mentors.</list>
<list>Setting targets for women on major Australian Government funded projects to provide women with opportunities to work and train on major projects through the Australian Skills Guarantee.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Making it easier for people to get jobs</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is committed to ensuring Commonwealth employment services support people to find good secure jobs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has established a House Select Committee inquiry into Workforce Australia Employment Services so that employment services are best designed to meet current and future challenges facing Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee will examine the first 12 months of the new Workforce Australia system and has committed to review all aspects of the program including the implementation, performance and appropriateness. The Committee has also resolved to include pre-employment and complementary programs within the scope of its inquiry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee undertook to make any recommendations on ParentsNext in an interim report before the end of February 2023 while a final report will be provided back to Parliament by 29 September 2023. The Committee will conduct a number of public hearings and will seek submissions from stakeholders as part of this process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Creating secure jobs</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Employment has a profound impact on an individual's and families' quality of life. Insecure work, low wages and low productivity have material consequences for individuals, businesses, the economy and the community as a whole. The Government wants a strong economy where every Australian has the opportunity to find a secure job, with fair pay and proper protections. An effective workplace relations system will allow Australians to build a safe, prosperous and secure future while providing workers and businesses a pathway to seek better outcomes and thrive.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay legislation will bring changes to the workplace relations system that deliver better productivity and flexibility for employers and better pay and conditions for workers. The new laws:</para></quote>
<list>boost bargaining and workplace relationships</list>
<list>improve job security and gender equality</list>
<list>improve workplace conditions and protections</list>
<list>restore balance to workplace relations institutions.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 does this by:</para></quote>
<list>reforming the Better Off Overall Test so it's simple, flexible and fair</list>
<list>including gender equity and job security as objects of the Fair Work Act</list>
<list>introducing a statutory equal remuneration principle</list>
<list>prohibiting pay secrecy clauses</list>
<list>providing stronger access to flexible rostering arrangements</list>
<list>limiting the use of fixed term contracts</list>
<list>prohibiting job ads that advertise below minimum rates of pay</list>
<list>giving the Fair Work Commission more powers to arbitrate industrial disputes</list>
<list>abolishing politicised anti-worker organisations.</list>
<quote><para class="block">The Secure Australian Jobs Code will be established under the Buy Australian Plan to prioritise secure work in government contracts and ensure that government purchasing power is being used to support businesses that engage in fair, equivalent, ethical and sustainable practices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Senate Committee's final Report recommended that the Fair Work Act be updated to respond to emerging issues in Australia's employment and workplace relations' system, including the rapid emergence of the gig economy. Changes to the workplace relations framework are necessary to ensure all workers have adequate protections for themselves and their families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has also committed to:</para></quote>
<list>Establishing a right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards to provide workers a clear pathway to recover unpaid superannuation entitlements.</list>
<list>Establishing a national labour hire regulation, which will help to protect labour hire workers by promoting greater compliance with workplace and other relevant laws and encourage a consistent approach to labour hire across Australia.</list>
<list>Empowering the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for employee-like forms of work, including gig work, to ensure that all workers in Australia are protected and fairly paid.</list>
<list>Introducing Same Job, Same Pay, which will ensure that workers who are doing the same job are being paid fairly and consistently, regardless of how they are engaged to work.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Conclusion</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government thanks everyone who participated in the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers for their insights. The possibilities emerging from new technologies and work practices create many valuable opportunities for Australian businesses and their workers. As workforces continue to undergo change, we will continue to take forward initiatives that help build a better trained and more productive workforce, create secure jobs, boost real wages and living standards, and create more opportunities for more Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">[1] Employment Outlook (five years to November 2026), National Skills Commi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ssion.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Government response to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 </inline> [Provisions]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MARCH 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the bill be passed, subject to the amendments that follow.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government notes this recommendation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that an amendment be made to the bill to clarify that conciliation should take place before arbitration of disputes over fle xible working arrangements unless there are exceptional circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports this recommendation. In response to this recommendation, the Government moved an amendment to require the Fair Work Commission to first attempt to resolve a dispute by means other than arbitration, such as conciliation. Paragraph 65B(4)(a) notes the Fair Work Commission must first deal with a dispute over flexible working arrangements by means other than arbitration, unless there are exceptional circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Rec ommendation 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that an amendment be made to the bill to clarify that the protections and entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009 apply regardless of immigration status.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Government has made an election commitment to implement the recommendations of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, which covers this recommendation. Implementation of this recommendation is expected to occur in the first half of 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The co mmittee recommends that the provisions of the bill prohibiting sexual harassment be reviewed for consistency with the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination and Fair Work (Respect at Work) Amendment Act 2021</inline> and the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment ( Respect at Work) Bill 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports this recommendation. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has reviewed the provisions in the bill for consistency with other recent Respect@Work reforms to the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination Act 1984</inline> and concluded that any differences are necessary given the different context of the two pieces of legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that the definition of 'small business employer', for the purpose of Part 21 of the bill be increased from fewer than 15 employees, to fewer than 20 employees, including regular and systematic casuals, based on headcount. The definition of 'small business employer' in section 23 of the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline> should remain unchanged.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government notes this recommendation.In response to Recommendation 5 of the Senate Committee Inquiry, the Government moved an amendment which increases the small business exemption for single interest employer authorisation where an employee organisation applies to add an employer to a single interest agreement or authorisation. Employers must have at least 20 employees at the time the application an made. Such employers will still be able to be added to an authorisation or agreement by consent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 6</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> The committee re commends the amendment of the 'minimum bargaining period' in s235(5)(i) for the purpose of an intractable bargaining declaration, to provide for a nine month minimum bargaining period commencing after either the nominal expiry date of the agreement or nine months from the commencement of bargaining, whichever is later.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government notes this recommendation. In response to Recommendation 6 of the Senate Committee Inquiry, the Government supported the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock which extends the 'minimum bargaining period' to the latter of nine months from the nominal expiry date of the agreement, or nine months after bargaining starts. This longer timeframe ensure that parties will have a reasonable period of time in which to bargain for an agreement before the Fair Work Commission is able to settle a bargaining dispute using an intractable bargaining declaration.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends that a statutory review of the bill be undertaken but occurs no earlier than three years after the bill receives Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Government moved an amendment which requires the Minister to cause a review to be conducted into the operation of the amendments made by the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Legis</inline><inline font-style="italic">lation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022</inline>. It must start no later than two years after the Act receives Royal Assent, with a written report provided to the Minister within 6 months of its commencement. The report must subsequently be tabled in each House of the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Recommendation 8</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee recommends section 180A of the bill be amended so that no party can unreasonably withhold agreement for a proposed enterprise agreement being put to a vote, and the Fair Work Commission should have the power to resolve disputes pertaining to this.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government notes this recommendation. In response to Recommendation 8 of the Senate inquiry, the Government moved an amendment to ensure that employers are not unreasonably prevented from putting multi-enterprise agreements to a vote.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Coalition Senator's Dissenting Report and Additional Comments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government does not support the recommendations set out in the Dissenting Report and Additional Comments.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to offer some comments on the reports that have just been tabled. I welcome the contents and the material they present, which is very relevant to many matters before our parliament.</para>
<para>It's somewhat disappointing that the response to a report on the future of work has to wait five years to be tabled. It's a long time to spend without dealing with matters which really remain—and certainly were five years ago—very important. I say that as someone who has recently chaired a similar select committee, which looked at issues of work and care. That's a report which I hope does not have to linger on the shelf and wait five years for a response from the government. I would make the point that there's a range of additional material now before the parliament in the form of that Select Committee on Work and Care, and other matters. This material is very relevant to legislation we will be looking at over the coming course of the year. These reports point to the existence of labour shortages five years ago, and of the need to change the way in which we regulate and support workers.</para>
<para>There's clear evidence in more recent times that our labour participation rates in Australia can be increased by improvements in our Paid Parental Leave scheme—increasing the participation of people in work through better and cheaper child care—and by a range of measures that countries use which are referred to in these reports. There's clear evidence in them of the need to take action, particularly in relation to security of employment. It is very clear that we have too many casual workers, especially in our care sectors. Many of them who are on casual terms are unaware of their potential hours next week and are unable to predict their working time or, necessarily, get the support they need for the care to get to work.</para>
<para>I think there are many important issues raised in these reports which require a legislative and a policy response, which subsequent reports have also referred to and which I hope will lead to positive action to make a difference for working carers—men and women—and for their families into the future.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Scrutiny Digest</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of my dear friend and colleague Senator Dean Smith, Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I present <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny digest</inline> No. 3 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to continue my remarks.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>84</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>84</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PRATT</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Senator Bilyk, I present the report of the committee on its examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner for 2021-22, together with accompanying documents. I seek leave to incorporate the chair's tabling speech into <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">I rise as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to speak on the Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner 2021-22. I did speak to this report in the chamber on 9 February 2023 so my remarks may be similar in some places.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under the <inline font-style="italic">Law Enforcement Inte</inline><inline font-style="italic">grity Commissioner Act 2006, </inline>the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity has a statutory role to examine each annual report prepared by the Integrity Commissioner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As part of this examination the committee held a public hearing on 8 February 2023 to speak with ACLEI about its performance over the reporting period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee concluded that ACLEI performed well against its performance framework in 2021-22, achieving most of its performance targets. The committee report therefore focuses on those performance targets not met and the action being taken to address them.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee noted that as part of its performance measures ACLEI conducted its first biennial survey of jurisdictional agencies in the reporting period. The overall results were pleasing with 89 per cent of responders satisfied with their experience with ACLEI. However areas for improvement include timeliness such as the triage of ACLEl's assessment work.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Given the stakeholder survey results and the necessary preparation for the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), ACLEI has been focused on improving timeliness in assessment work and investigations. The committee was pleased to see the effort to reduce the backlog of investigation reports, particularly those over two years, but noted that this effort will need to be sustained given the number of matters that may be referred to the NACC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ACLEl's contribution to the work on standing up the NACC was a natural focus of questioning from the committee at the hearing. Recruitment has been an ongoing issue for ACLEI in relation to some of the specialised skills required to conduct investigations. In addition, the committee notes the current tight labour market which may make attracting sufficient specialised skills a significant challenge for the NACC.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With the upcoming establishment of the NACC, the committee was pleased to see ACLEI sharing information with a broader remit beyond agencies in its jurisdiction. ACLEI has published its second annual Corruption Vulnerabilities Brief and the Integrity Maturity Framework has been developed. The committee noted the importance of this work as agencies will come under the NACC's jurisdiction with differing levels of maturity in relation to their integrity framework.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The committee thanked the Integrity Commissioner and staff for their work over the reporting period.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:56</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 seek to comment on the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission annual reports for 2020-21 and 2021-22. We must commend the Australian Institute of Criminology for high-quality, impartial and factual statistical reports and especially commend their statistical reports on Indigenous deaths in custody. If we want solutions to our country's problems, we have to deal with facts—hard data. With deaths in custody, the data shows there's no sudden or worsening crisis. The rate of deaths in custody has been steady for 20 years—at around half its peak in the early 1990s. These are indisputable data from the Australian Institute of Criminology, the government agency tasked especially with monitoring deaths in custody.</para>
<para>Adjusted for population, non-Indigenous prisoners were twice as likely to die in prison as Indigenous prisoners. Yes, you heard that right: non-Indigenous prisoners are twice as likely to die in prison than Indigenous prisoners are. Due to the small numbers, deaths in police custody fluctuate from year to year. The data on Indigenous deaths in police custody per Indigenous population has drastically reduced since the 1990s and has remained steady at this far lower rate for nearly 20 years—two decades. The real crisis is of male deaths in prison. On a population adjusted basis, in the last reported year, men were 60 per cent more likely to die in prison than women.</para>
<para>Activists have previously pointed to the total number of deaths in custody over decades to implicitly denigrate the police and prison staff as white supremacists who just want to kill Indigenous people. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the statistics that have been published every year for decades show our prisons are going to great effort to avoid Indigenous deaths in custody—much more than they are doing for the non-Indigenous. The problem certainly is not racism in our custody system. We must remember that these deaths-in-custody statistics include things like deaths from natural causes, deaths in motor vehicle pursuits by police, suicides and other arguably unrelated issues. All these are included in the total numbers.</para>
<para>Now, we do have a problem. There are far too many Indigenous people in our prison system for the proportion of the Australian population that they represent. This is the result of decades of virtue-signalling politicians, like the uncaring Greens, voting for policies that do nothing to help remote and Indigenous communities—decades of dishonest, negligent, uncaring neglect creating victims, robbing them of personal responsibility and depriving them of hope. These virtue-signalling policies have only transferred taxpayer money to the Indigenous industry of white and black consultants, lawyers, activists and rent-seekers who care more about their salaries and perpetuating their jobs than about the communities they supposedly represent.</para>
<para>The Voice to Parliament is just the next policy on this long list of 'look good and do nothing' policies that will not help anyone except bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble. We thank and appreciate the Australian Institute of Criminology. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>85</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement: Submarines</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Marles, I table a ministerial statement on the AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</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>This is a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. In taking note of this statement, I want to emphasise some points about what AUKUS means in the context of Australia's engagement in the world and our broader foreign policy. I understand that Senator Wong, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, will make more comprehensive remarks when she is back in the chamber next week.</para>
<para>The Australian government's intent in acquiring this capability is to make our contribution to the strategic balance of the region. Australia wants a stable region where no country dominates and no country is dominated. If that is to be the case, we all have a responsibility to play our part in the collective deterrence of aggression. Our region has been home to an unprecedented military build-up in recent years, meaning we must work hard and fast if we are to maintain equilibrium. Increasing our military capability sits alongside our diplomacy, which is about increasing the opportunities and benefits from peace and partnership—positive incentives for peace.</para>
<para>I come to this debate with a deep interest in the intersection between regional affairs, peace and security questions, and economic and industry policy. On the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I should note that I was a key figure in the organising committee for the anti-Iraq-War demonstrations in Sydney. National security debates are not the sole property of the security establishment, our defence forces or conservative commentators; they are for all Australians. There is no room for dogma or over-reliance on outdated ideological certainties. As well as positive incentives for peace, Australia must have an effective deterrent for conflict and aggression. By having strong defence capabilities of our own and by working with partners investing in their own capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor.</para>
<para>There are those in the building who like to beat the drums of war with a comic-book characterisation of regional powers, and there are those who like to believe that peace can come from passively hoping for the best. This government knows that part of maintaining peace is making sure that all countries are invested in that peace through effective diplomacy and that part of maintaining peace is making sure no state will ever conclude that the benefits of conflict outweigh the risks. The goal is not to be an aggressor and use the military capability. The goal is to make anyone thinking it's a good idea to use their military capability think again.</para>
<para>For those who are concerned about the diplomatic implications of the optimal pathway on nuclear powered submarines announced last week, I make the observation that our regional partners agree on the need for a stable region, and we appreciate that they have listened to our explanations of how AUKUS contributes to regional balance. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific made more than 60 calls to counterparts in the lead-up to the announcement.</para>
<para>This is, of course, on top of ongoing diplomatic legwork put in by the Albanese Labor government, particularly our foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, since the election—work that has been focused on rebuilding relationships with key partners, deepening trust and demonstrating Australia's growing contribution to the need for strategic equilibrium and guardrails to prevent competition between great powers turning into conflict. Our engagement has emphasised that Australia will continue to meet its non-proliferation obligations and commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and remains fully committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. We are committed to ensuring that the rotational presence of UK and US submarines aligns with our longstanding commitments under the treaty. And, while we are not a party to it, Australia will continue to act in a manner that is consistent with the basic principles of the Bangkok treaty.</para>
<para>This is underlined by the fact that these boats will be nuclear powered, not nuclear armed, and that Australia will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons. In addition, I note that US Defense Secretary Austin has confirmed that the submarines visiting Australia on rotation will be conventionally armed. We are working openly and transparently with the IAEA to develop an appropriate, robust non-proliferation approach to underpin Australia's nuclear powered submarine program. This will enable the IAEA to provide assurance to the international community that Australia is continuing to meet its obligations, as Director General Grossi confirmed again last week.</para>
<para>For those who have expressed concern about regional reactions—and I note that Senator Shoebridge did in question time this week—let me offer some reassurance. Fiji's Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, has expressed his support for the AUKUS agreement. Samoa's Prime Minister, Fiame Naomi Mata'afa, here in Canberra this week, said that she understands Australia's rationale for acquiring nuclear powered submarines. The Philippines Ministry for Foreign Affairs says it has no objection to the development of the trilateral security pact and noted assurances made to contribute to the preservation of regional peace and stability. Japan's Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, said:</para>
<para>… the undertakings of AUKUS will contribute to the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region amidst an increasingly severe security environment in the region.</para>
<para>Indonesia said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Maintaining peace and stability in the region is the responsibility of all countries. It is critical for all countries to be a part of this effort.</para></quote>
<para>Malaysia said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Malaysia appreciates the readiness on the part of the three countries, which are our close partners … in engaging with Malaysia at various levels and in sharing the latest updates and future outlook of AUKUS prior to the announcement.</para></quote>
<para>Vietnam said that peace, stability, cooperation and development in the region and the world is the common goal of every country. And France has said that, while it deeply regretted the Morrison government's decision to cancel the contract because it was announced in a particularly harsh way, it noted efforts underway to re-establish a solid partnership with the current Australian government, with close and regular contact between leaders and officials, including at the recent Australia-France 2+2 meeting.</para>
<para>As the Deputy Prime Minister has articulated, acquiring nuclear powered submarines is a game changer for our capability and posture. The Collins class is a potent, highly capable diesel electric submarine. The Australian government will extend the life of the Collins class from 2026 so that it remains a potent capability until its withdrawal from service. But, as we look to the 2030s and beyond, the reality is that diesel electric submarines will be increasingly detectable as they surface to recharge their batteries. That will necessarily diminish their capability. By the 2030s and 2040s, the only capable long-range submarine able to effectively operate in the environment in which we live will be nuclear powered submarines. These submarines have the capacity to remain submerged and deployed for months, making them incredibly hard to detect. As a corollary of their speed, stealth and endurance, nuclear powered submarines are a capability that will make Australia a more difficult and costly target for anyone who wishes us harm. And so it is a capability that will significantly enhance our contribution to peace and security in the region.</para>
<para>Maintaining peace requires effort. It demands effective diplomacy to ensure that everyone in the region benefits from that peace. Our intent in acquiring this capability is to contribute to the strategic balance of the whole region. We want—the Australian government wants—a stable region where no country dominates and no country is dominated.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The AUKUS political deal was a last-ditch attempt by Scott Morrison to cling on to power. Brought before the Australian people in the dying chapter of that benighted government, it was his final roll of the dice. His prediction was this: 'If I come together with some of the most outlandish and least trusted world leaders and propose to the Australian public and the parties in this place that we bind ourselves to the Americans and the British,' led at that time by Boris Johnson, 'under a project that will see hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines, necessitating a waste dump on Australian soil and nuclear submarines in our waters, then no Australian Labor Party that can call itself progressive will possibly be able to back that. No Australian Labor Party, bound as they are to a platform that includes support for nonproliferation, will surely be able to back that? They'll have to oppose it. It will sound so ridiculous, particularly being led by Anthony Albanese. They can't possibly back it. So they'll oppose it and we will have,' he thought, 'a khaki election. We'll have an election where I can say, "I'm Scott Morrison, defender of the people of Australia, and the other side want to put us at risk."'</para>
<para>What he did not count on was the fundamental spinelessness of the leadership of the current Australian Labor Party and the reality that the leadership of the current Australian Labor Party are not progressive. They have no desire nor ability to oppose the conservatives when it comes to questions of so-called national security. He had not counted on just how committed people like Minister Wong and Mr Albanese were to fundamentally binding themselves to the Liberal-National coalition, which on questions of national security you wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand, so they could have the maximum possible chance of getting elected. So Mr Morrison's gamble to get himself a khaki election failed, and here we are today, buried, as the Australian people, under the $370 billion price of Labor's fundamental political spinelessness, where we as a nation are asked to trust, for the next 30 years, in the judgement of the United States of America.</para>
<para>Let us examine the record of this nation with which we are to link our foreign policy for the next three decades—to which we are to bind ourselves inexorably and indivisibly. Let's examine their record on matters of war and peace since the Second World War. There was the war in Vietnam: five million tonnes of bombs dropped on a nation. That was more than all of the bombs dropped by the United States in the entirety of the Second World War. There were the illegal bombings of Laos and Cambodia. There was the invasion of Panama. There was the support of coups all across South America—in Chile, in particular, and in El Salvador. There was the support of the Contras in Nicaragua, violent and vile as they were. And then it rolls wonderfully up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Iraq was an illegal and immoral invasion which fundamentally undermined international law, left 500,000 people dead and 1.2 million people displaced, and created five million orphans. Australia's, Britain's and the United States's populations were led to war on the lies of a US president. And then, as if add a dark bow to the whole thing, there was Afghanistan, where America in its wisdom spent 20 years, trillions of dollars and countless lives to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.</para>
<para>This is the country that now, only two years out from living under a fascist president who led a coup against his own government in order to overturn the results of an election, and 18 months away from either his return or the potential election of President DiSantis—a competent fascist—the Australian Labor Party proposes that we bind ourselves to for the next 30 years. This is the judgement that we are being asked to trust, not because Penny Wong, Richard Marles or Anthony Albanese think it's a good thing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Excuse me, Senator Steele-John, but I have the minister on his feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ayres</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't want to interrupt Senator Steele-John, but it would assist both compliance with the standing orders and the civility of debate if he referred to people by their proper titles.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Steele-John, if you could refer to people by their proper titles, thank you, that would assist the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The fundamental point is this. The Australian public, without being asked to vote on the actual ramifications of this political deal, are being saddled by both major parties with a $360 billion, 30-year commitment to a nation that in the post-World-War-II period has demonstrated again and again that it does not have good judgement. It cannot and does not make decisions in relation to issues of war and peace in anybody's interest but its own. The people of Vietnam, the people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan know that America is a very bad house guest. They begin a conflict in their national interest and they end it in their national interest.</para>
<para>The Australian people deeply understand the recklessness of that nation and have always been reflexively of the view that we should chart our own path, supportive of peace and independence in our region, precisely because we understand that the Americans, on these questions, will always act in their own interest and their interest alone. Once they are done with the Asia-Pacific, once this posturing no longer serves their purpose, they will leave. For the United States of America, the Asia-Pacific region is an area of current strategic interest. For Australians, it is our home. For the nations of the region, it is their home. Australians across the country are uniting in a common call for peace in the face of this reckless political deal that was cooked up by a man we rejected and that is now being continued by a government without the courage to call it out for what it really is and join the Australian people in that common cause for peace.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023, Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>88</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">
            <p>
              <a href="r6988" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6986" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6985" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6983" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6984" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bills read a first time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That these bills be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speeches read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY REGIME BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I would like to note at the outset that this is the first of five bills I will introduce this morning. Taken together, they will establish the Financial Accountability Regime, extending the provisions of the existing Banking Executive Accountability Regime to the Superannuation and Insurance sectors, and also establish a Compensation Scheme of Last Resort, for consumers who have suffered financial losses and have received a relevant determination in their favour from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Members will note that Bills with these same objectives were introduced into the House last year, and progressed as far as a second reading in the Senate. Two things have changed since then.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">First, it became clear that the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort component, which replicated an even earlier Bill introduced by the previous Government in October 2021, was no longer fit for purpose.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As I will set out in introducing the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2023, a back log of complaints that have been lodged with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) and that are expected to be eligible to claim on the CSLR will be funded through a one-off levy on Australia's 10 largest banking and insurance groups.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Since the original Bill was introduced by the previous Government, a material event occurred in the market that significantly increased the amount that would need to be paid out of that one-off levy. That, combined with the passage of time and the need to collect the levy based on the best available data, led us to pause the Bill, and now require minor amendments to it. Such amendments could not be moved in the Senate, on account of Section 53 of the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Second, after productive discussions with Senator David Pocock, the Government decided to adopt an amendment he proposed for the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023, to articulate more clearly the scope of the Minister's exemption power and to provide for Parliamentary oversight.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The combination of these two things mean that reintroducing the Bills in the way we are doing today is the neatest, lawful path to the agreed objective.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I will move now to the substance of the first Bill, the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023 establishes the Financial Accountability Regime, or FAR, which replaces and extends the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, following a number of recommendations from the Banking Royal Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill underscores the Government's commitment to finalise the action necessary to fully address the Banking Royal Commission and implement measures that compel the financial services industry to act in the public's interest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Financial services executives make decisions that impact upon the lives of ordinary Australians who have no choice other than to engage with the system that they operate. As a result, the community reasonably expects high standards of accountability and integrity of financial services directors and executives.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Banking Royal Commission revealed too many instances of misconduct across the sector and highlighted that industry practices often did not meet community expectations. These issues were frequently found to be systemic and part of corporate cultures that can only be improved and remedied from the top-down.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill would establish the FAR with substantially the same design specifications originally introduced in October 2021 which lapsed with prorogation. The requests made by the former Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Senate Economics Legislation Committee were considered and have been addressed in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FAR would extend the existing responsibility and accountability framework to the insurance and superannuation sectors, to ensure that heightened accountability obligations are in place across the wider financial industry.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FAR ensures that where these community expectations are not met, appropriate consequences will follow.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I would now like to turn to the provisions of the Bill.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FAR imposes heightened accountability obligations for prudentially regulated financial institutions; meaning banks, insurers, and superannuation entities. These institutions are referred to as accountable entities in the regime. The FAR regulates directors and the most senior and influential executives of accountable entities. These individuals are referred to as accountable persons in the regime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FAR imposes four core sets of obligations. Firstly, accountable entities and accountable persons must conduct their business in a proper manner, which includes acting with honesty and integrity, and with due skill, care and diligence; dealing with Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in an open, constructive and cooperative way, preventing adverse impact on the accountable entities' prudential standing and preventing breaches of certain specified financial services laws by their accountable entity.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Further, accountable entities must ensure clear identification of accountabilities for accountable persons in the organisation across key areas of operations, and defer at least 40 per cent of the variable remuneration of accountable persons for a minimum period of 4 years. Variable remuneration will be reduced where accountability obligations are breached. Ensuring there are financial consequences for accountable persons who do not meet their obligations will increase their focus on the long-term outcomes of their decisions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FAR will be supported by the imposition of notification obligations which require accountable entities to provide APRA and ASIC with certain information such as information relating to the responsibilities of their accountable persons or breaches of certain obligations by the accountable entities or their accountable persons.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Both APRA and ASIC will jointly administer the regime.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They will have the power to disqualify accountable persons, investigate suspected breaches of the regime, and direct entities to take remedial action and to apply to the Federal Court to impose a civil penalty on accountable entities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government notes the recommendations made by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022 and Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022 and Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022 and Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022. The Committee's report was tabled on 24 October 2022 and we thank the Committee for its recommendation that the Bills be passed. The Bills that I introduce today are substantially the same as those considered by the Committee, though, as previously mentioned, it now incorporates a small amendment previously circulated by Senator David Pocock to articulate more clearly the scope of the Minister's exemption power and to provide for Parliamentary oversight.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government has not adopted the Australian Greens' recommendation to introduce individual civil penalties for breaches of accountability obligations. The Government's Bill already contains effective measures to address executive failures to comply, including disqualification, loss of deferred bonuses, and individual civil penalties for assisting in an entity's contravention of its obligations. These sanctions are on top of penalties for misconduct already in place in other financial services laws.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These measures are finely balanced to improve executive conduct in the financial services sector without adversely impacting the sector's efficiency. Adding individual civil penalties is not likely to substantially increase the level of deterrence that already exists, while it may impact on firms seeking to attract and retain the best executive talent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The FAR will apply to the banking industry six months after the Royal Assent and to the insurance and superannuation industries eighteen months after the Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Through this Bill, the Government is finalising the necessary action to ensure that financial institutions are meeting the community's expectations, and that they are focused on outcomes for all Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY REGIME (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Financial Accountability Regime (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 is part of a package of Bills that finalises a number of remaining recommendations from the Banking Royal Commission.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will make minor and consequential amendments to various Commonwealth laws to support the Financial Accountability Regime and provide transitional arrangements relating to the repeal of the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government acknowledges that most of these reforms will require some time for industry to implement, so the bulk of the proposed changes will commence 6 months following Royal Assent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified of this Bill as required under the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Agreement 2002 </inline>and the <inline font-style="italic">National Credit Law Agreement 2009</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPENSATION SCHEME OF LAST RESORT) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort) Bill 2023 is part of a package of Bills to establish and fund a financial services compensation scheme of last resort (CSLR).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government remains committed to establishing a CSLR.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The background to the CSLR is well known. In 2019, the Financial Services Royal Commission recommended that a CSLR be established. In doing so, the Royal Commission endorsed the 3 principal recommendations of the 2017 Supplementary Final Report of the <inline font-style="italic">Review of the financial system external dispute resolution and complaints framework</inline> (Ramsay Review). The Ramsay Review noted the inadequacy of existing redress measures in ensuring all consumers are compensated for losses, and recommended the establishment of an industry-funded and forward looking CSLR that targets the areas of the financial sector with the greatest evidence of need.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The CSLR is designed to provide compensation to consumers who have received a relevant determination in their favour by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), where that determination remains unpaid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Claimants may receive compensation of up to $150,000 where they have an unpaid AFCA determination in their favour for the following financial services or products: personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients, credit intermediation, securities dealing and credit provision. The cap on claims helps maintain the ongoing financial sustainability of the scheme, whilst balancing the interests of consumers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The operator of the CSLR will be a subsidiary of AFCA, limited by guarantee and operating on a not-for-profit basis. The operator must act in line with the primary legislation and regulations, with compliance ensured by ASIC. The operator will be managed by a Board consisting of an independent Chair appointed by the Minister, a person who is a member of the board of AFCA, and an actuary who has at least 5 years of actuarial experience.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Passage of this legislation in March 2023 will facilitate the CSLR being operational from December 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The CSLR is designed to act as a last resort mechanism. After the claimant has notified AFCA that their determination remains unpaid, AFCA will be required, where appropriate, to take steps to ensure the relevant entity pays the compensation owed. The CSLR operator will also need to confirm that no other statutory scheme is available to pay all or part of the compensation owed, including any state or territory arrangements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Measures have been added to reduce the incentive for financial firms to rely on the CSLR, and to facilitate better compliance with AFCA determinations. For example, ASIC must cancel an AFCA member's Australian financial service licence and/or Australian credit licence if the CSLR provides compensation as a result of that member's misconduct.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As set out earlier, legislation to establish a CSLR was previously introduced by this Government on 8 September 2022. That legislation proceeded to the Senate. In December 2022, the Government identified the issue mentioned earlier in relation to the one-off levy, and so the CSLR legislation was not passed last year while further consultation was undertaken.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The CSLR Bills package being introduced today reflect the same intent and are substantively the same as the legislation considered by the Parliament last year. Minor and targeted amendments to reflect the passage of time and further stakeholder feedback have been made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was notified of this Bill as required under the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Agreement </inline><inline font-style="italic">2002.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, I take this opportunity to respond, on behalf of the Government, to the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in relation to the CSLR Bills. The Committee recommended the passage of the Bills that were before them, which contained substantively the same CSLR provisions as are being introduced today. Additional comments were also provided by Coalition Senators who recommended additional Parliamentary scrutiny of AFCA and the CSLR operator, consideration of ASIC's enforcement capacity and capability and consideration of three other technical matters. In response, the Government notes the work being undertaken in the Other Place to conduct an inquiry into ASIC's capacity and capability to respond to reports of alleged misconduct. The Government also notes the appearance of AFCA at Senate Estimates last year. The Government acknowledges the Coalition Senator's recommendations and restates its commitment to ASIC as a key financial system regulator, AFCA as the external dispute resolution provider, and the establishment of the CSLR to support relevant consumers when compensation has not been paid.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPENSATION SCHEME OF LAST RESORT LEVY BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is the first of two Bills which form the levy framework to fund the financial services compensation scheme of last resort (CSLR).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commonwealth will fund the establishment of the CSLR, which is intended to be operational from December 2023. The Commonwealth will also fund the scheme's initial operation until 30 June 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A back log of complaints that have been lodged with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) and that are expected to be eligible to claim on the CSLR will be funded through a one-off levy on Australia's 10 largest banking and insurance groups.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The costs of the CSLR from 1 July 2024 are to be fully industry funded. The levy framework provides for an ongoing annual levy on entities that fall within a subsector within the scope of the scheme. The framework will issue levies in advance of a financial year, based on expected claims, AFCA fees and administration costs in that upcoming financial year. The ongoing annual levy will follow an approach already applied under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) industry funding model. The first ongoing annual levy notices are expected to be issued by ASIC in May 2024 to fund the scheme for the 2024-25 financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The CSLR is designed to be financially sustainable and provide assurance to relevant financial market subsectors about the maximum amount expected to be levied. The scheme applies subsector caps of $20 million and an overall scheme cap of $250 million. This limits the amount leviable within a single levy period, whilst maintaining the ability to accommodate any unexpected large-scale events or failures. The levy framework provides the Minister with the ability to issue special levies to in-scope and out-of-scope entities, in response to higher-than-expected outlays such as may be experienced with the failure of a large financial firm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The financial market subsectors that will pay the ongoing annual levy will be detailed in regulations. The regulations will also detail the methodology to be applied by ASIC in its calculation of levy notices.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPENSATION SCHEME OF LAST RESORT LEVY (COLLECTION) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is the second of two Bills which form the levy framework for the financial services compensation scheme of last resort (CSLR).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As noted previously, the Commonwealth will fund the establishment of the CSLR, which is intended to be operational from December 2023. The Commonwealth will also fund the scheme's initial operation until 30 June 2024.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A one-off levy to fund the back log of Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) complaints that are expected to be eligible to claim on the CSLR will be issued by December 2023. This levy will be payable in two instalments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ongoing annual levy to fund the 2024-25 financial year will be issued by May 2024. The ongoing annual levy will then be issued in advance of each following financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In advance of the issuing of a levy, the CSLR operator will determine the amount to be raised through the levy. The CSLR operator's determination will include, as relevant, estimated compensation claims and AFCA fee costs and associated administrative costs. The CSLR operator's determinations will be disallowable.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Levy notices will be issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in accordance with primary law, regulations and the CSLR operator's determination. ASIC will collect the levies and have the power to facilitate and enforce the payment of levies. These powers include the ability to seek information from relevant entities for the purpose of correctly calculating an entity's levy, to impose penalties for late payment and to impose a shortfall penalty where incorrect information has been provided.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
<para>Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills 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><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>92</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="r6987" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>92</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</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>92</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator AYRES</name>
    <name.id>16913</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</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 Labor Party has a longstanding history of contribution to the legacy of universal health coverage in Australia. The Albanese Government is committed to protecting and strengthening our world-class Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, known as the PBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The PBS has continually provided affordable access to medicines for all Australians for over seventy years and is respected and valued for the high quality, cost-effective medicines it delivers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Australian Government expenditure on the PBS was $14.7 billion in the 2021-22 financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the PBS to maintain its ability to support the costs of an increasing number and range of medicines, it is essential that the Government protects public funds through ensuring the integrity and financial viability of the scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill amends the <inline font-style="italic">National Health Act 1953</inline> to support the integrity of the PBS.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the majority of pharmacists do the right thing when claiming PBS payments, there is unfortunately a small number that do not. In certain cases, it is a result of inappropriate claiming, or worse, fraud. Any pharmacist who has been prosecuted for PBS fraud should not be able to perpetrate further fraud against the community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Under the current legislation, an approval to supply PBS medicines can be held by a pharmacist as an individual or under a company structure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, if a pharmacist who is approved as an individual is prosecuted for a PBS fraud related offence, their approval can be suspended or revoked. However, if that same pharmacist operates under a company structure, there is no ability for that approval to be suspended or revoked.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This poses a real risk, as many pharmacists increasingly operate their pharmacy businesses under corporate structures. Such a pharmacist, if prosecuted of a PBS related offence, can continue to supply PBS medicines and perpetrate further fraud.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill introduces an amendment which will align with the original intent that the power to suspend or revoke the approval of a pharmacist who has been prosecuted for PBS fraud applies equally to all approvals. This is irrespective of whether the approval is held by an individual, or under a company structure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will strengthen protection of the PBS regardless of the business ownership structure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I would like to acknowledge and thank key stakeholders for their input and support for the amendments during consultation on the Bill. In particular, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the Pharmacy Board of Australia and State and Territory Pharmacy Regulators nationwide.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Government is aiming to ensure that Australians continue to have access through the PBS to affordable medicines when, and where they need them. The proposed changes will improve access to PBS medicines by preventing abuse of the scheme.</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>92</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Membership</title>
          <page.no>92</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economics Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Walsh, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills, together with the accompanying documents.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>93</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration of Legislation</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That divisions may take place between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm today for the purposes of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>93</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>93</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="r6965" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY C</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>HAIR ( Senator McGrath ) (): The committee is considering the amendments moved by Senator Farrell on sheets QE100, PX151, PX149, PX150 and ZB195, and the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock to government amendment No. (1) on sheet ZZB195. The current question before the chair is that Senator David Pocock's amendment be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I wonder if you had the opportunity to refresh your memory or to seek wider advice from your colleagues about the issues we were discussing this morning?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Paterson. I've had a response from the Attorney-General and it's a very long response. I'm happy to give it to you—to read it out or to table it. What about that? Are you happy to receive it through tabling?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I certainly have no objection to it being tabled, but I would also like to ask follow-up questions based on it. If it's a very long statement, I suppose that we shouldn't waste time on reading it out. Perhaps other senators can ask their questions and deal with their matters while I consider the document, after it has been tabled, and then I can ask questions on that basis.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I table the document.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how will the AEC police electoral material with no authorisation during the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would have thought that they would police it in the same way they police it in a general election: if somebody makes a complaint or they discover that somebody hasn't authorised relevant material then they would take the action they would take in any other set of circumstances.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the government intend to provide the electoral roll to any organisation campaigning during the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, will parliamentarians be allowed to provide their access to the electoral roll to organisations that are campaigning during the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not permitted.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under the legislation, Minister, can a parliamentarian campaign for either case at the referendum? And can the staff of a parliamentarian campaign for either case at the referendum as part of their duties?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, noting that certain electoral activities undertaken by parliamentarians and political parties associated with them are exempt from the Privacy Act 1988, will the activities of participants captured by the referendum machinery provisions in this bill and the act be subject to the same exemptions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They're not registered political parties, so there would be no exemption.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You've said that you want this to be a civil-society led referendum, and many community groups will be involved. If a community group nominates to fundraise for the purpose of putting forward an argument in the referendum, will they be captured by the donation regime?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that if they go over the disclosure threshold then they would have to declare. That threshold, which I think I talked about earlier today, is in the vicinity of $15,000.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, what mechanisms are in place to prevent a community group from accepting a foreign donation, prior to them actually receiving it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This act replicates the foreign donations provisions of the Electoral Act. As I've said so many times today, the idea is to match the same experience, and so the same provisions would apply.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The foreign donations law applies to registered political entities, and these organisations won't be registered political entities or registered political parties. Is there a mechanism that's specifically in place to prevent civil society at large from accepting foreign donations, prior to them actually doing it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If they became a referendum entity by virtue of the level of donations then, yes, they would be captured if they were in receipt of foreign donations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So a referendum entity is something that has to be registered? Earlier today you said that there wasn't necessarily going to be a register of entities that can campaign as part of the referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They're not formally registered. They're required to disclose and, as such, they would then attract the regulation regarding foreign donations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will a community organisation be liable for receiving an illegal donation if they are ignorant of the provisions against foreign donations?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no defence. That wouldn't be any different in these circumstances, and, obviously, they are subject to the foreign disclosure provisions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the government then expect a community group to be prosecuted by the AEC if they receive an illegal donation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The idea is that, by virtue of the foreign donations rules, it would work in the same way it would work in a general election. We're not seeking to do anything different here. The idea is to standardise the experience that people get and the obligations organisations have, whether it be for a general election or for a referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What is the penalty for receiving an illegal foreign donation, and what action would the government take when it becomes aware of foreign donations occurring?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand it to be 100 penalty units. What was your second question?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What action would the government take?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It wouldn't be the government taking the action. It would be the Australian Electoral Commission, who would do whatever they usually do when they find a breach of any aspect of the electoral law, which I imagine would be a prosecution.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How might donations of cryptocurrency be treated under this donations regime?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll get the AEC to give me a response to that question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How will donations in kind to organisations campaigning in the referendum be treated under the donations regime?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>They will be treated exactly the same as the Electoral Act currently provides.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will foreign citizens be able to purchase goods and services that are sold for the purpose of funding referendum activities?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, it's exactly the same provisions as in the Electoral Act, which is that if it's in excess of $100 then yes, it applies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can you explain to me what will happen to funds raised by a referendum campaign organisation that isn't expended prior to the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could you repeat that question?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If an organisation is a campaigning organisation for the referendum and is accepting donations from citizens to campaign for the referendum, what will happen to that money if the organisation hasn't expended all of those donations prior to the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be the same as it is for a political organisation if they raise more money than they use in an election. It would sit somewhere, I guess, in a bank account. Obviously, if it exceeds the threshold, they would be required to declare that. I assume it would be up to the organisation as to what it subsequently does with the money.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Se</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>nator HUME () (): Is there any obligation on the organisation to notify those that have donated that it still contains money in a bank account somewhere that belongs to them and hasn't been expended?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the rule would be the same as a political party getting more money than it expends. I don't know how often that happens. I suppose it happens occasionally. It never happens in the Labor Party, so we never have this issue. The only answer I can give you is that the organisation would have to resolve how they dealt with the money. If it were no longer required, you'd hopefully get them to return the money if that were possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My concern there, of course, is that if you donate to a political party the chances are it's going to be fighting another election—a referendum is a one-off occurrence. I think that there probably needs to be some clarity around that. Perhaps you could confirm for the chamber that the government is considering how to build some clarity around that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll give it some very deep thought.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What confidence should Australians have that they'll be donating to a genuine referendum campaign organisation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The hope of the government is that this referendum will be conducted in a civil fashion—that each side will have an opportunity to progress its arguments through civil society. Our expectation is that people will abide by that sense of civility in the processes and that we won't find people doing things that are inappropriate or, for that matter, illegal.</para>
<para>If we find that issues arise in that regard, and I hope we don't find that those sorts of issues arise, then I guess we'll have to deal with them. But we're working on the basis that people are going to behave appropriately throughout the course of the referendum and that we won't get into a situation where, for instance, people are illegally taking money on false pretences. But I guess there are other laws which might come into play. If somebody set themselves up as an organisation receiving money for the 'yes' or 'no' case and we discovered that in fact they were a bogus organisation, I imagine there are laws in place that deal with those sorts of things quite independently of the referendum.</para>
<para>I think we have to work on the basis of a degree of trust in the Australian people and trust that this will be a civil campaign and that, at the end of the day, whether it's a 'yes' case or a 'no' case, people are satisfied that the Australian people have had appropriate opportunity to express their view on a Voice to Parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, do you think that, without a register of organisations or an official 'yes' or 'no' campaign, this is a situation that is ripe for scammers?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, when a private company engages in pro bono work on behalf of a referendum entity or a participant captured by one of the disclosure regimes, would that activity be captured as a donation or a gift? How would that be disclosed—as a donation or a gift by the individual, or as a donation or a gift by the company?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It will be treated as an in-kind donation for both.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Where a private company becomes aware of work conducted using its resources and its staff for a referendum entity or a participant and it hasn't disclosed that activity, will that organisation then be subject to penalties?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That would be an issue for the AEC to work through, in the same way they would do that in respect of a general election.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Could the minister confirm that the donation and disclosure regimes in the bill, and the act, will apply retrospectively?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you talking in respect of contributions that might already have been made to either the 'yes' case or the 'no' case?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hume</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Or to a community entity or community organisation or to a private company who are—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a reasonably complicated answer. Let me see if I can explain it. If the money is received and spent in the six months prior to the issuing of the writ then, yes, it will have to be included in the declaration that you make. I consider that a prospective rather than retrospective application because the declaration would have to be done after the issuing of the writ.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I just clarify? Because we don't know the date of the issuing of the writ yet there are companies out there right now who may be donating their time, may be donating their staff's time and may be donating money that don't realise that they have to declare that or record it yet. Is that a concern for the government?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we're concerned about is that when this legislation, hopefully, passes today—if you don't have too many more questions for me—all organisations understand their obligations and comply with them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, I'm not entirely sure that organisations understand their obligations, because those obligations haven't been specified to those organisations yet and they don't know whether they fall outside or inside that six-month regime. Is there a message from the government that you would like to send today to those organisations that want to provide pro bono work to a campaign organisation?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, there is a message, and thank you for the opportunity you've given me to give them a message: please comply with the obligations under this new legislation, and we'll do our level best to make sure that you're aware of what your obligations are. I suspect the sorts of organisations that you are talking about, Senator Hume, will take a very careful look at the legislation and take the opportunity to get some advice. I'm sure my office—and perhaps even yours—after this legislation goes through would be happy to advise them exactly what their obligations are.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, thank you for tabling this statement. I'm not sure that your definition of 'long' and my definition of 'long' are the same. This is a single-sided, double-spaced dot-pointed piece of paper. It might have taken two minutes to read into the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>. But, nonetheless, thank you. Really the only first dot points are relevant in any case, which read:</para>
<list>I understand at the National Press Club, the Attorney-General last year expressed concern about overseas funding of campaigning in the upcoming referendum, and that he was referring to foreign donations.</list>
<list>I also understand that he did not refer to 'advice'.</list>
<para>Am I to understand from this that the Attorney-General and the government have also not sought any advice—and you admitted you had not—about the foreign interference risks in the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know you have a bit of an obsession in this area, Senator Paterson, and are looking for an opportunity to expose or expand on foreign interference in any aspect of our society—and good luck to you in doing that; I don't have any difficulty with that. The AEC monitor these things very closely—much more closely. I'm happy to take you into the AEC one day and show you what they do in this space to keep an eye on all of these things. If they felt that there was an issue that needed to be addressed in this area, I'm sure the first thing they would do is make contact with me about it—or, for that matter, with the Attorney General, if it were something in his bailiwick. As I said before, I was talking with the AEC yesterday. I've got the greatest confidence that they will conduct the referendum in exactly the appropriate way, but that if an issue of foreign interference does arise then we will become aware of it and we will take appropriate action.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to be clear, has the government sought advice from any agency about the foreign interference risk at the upcoming referendum? Yes or no?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can talk for myself, and the answer to that is no. We referred to the comments made by the Attorney-General earlier. As I said, if we believe an issue arises here, based on advice from either the AEC or other organisations, then we will take the appropriate action.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Farrell, it wasn't just a question to you; it is a question to the government. I would be grateful if you could answer on behalf of the government, as you are representing them here on this bill. I ask again: has the government sought advice from any agency on the risk of interference in this upcoming referendum? To assist you: for example, ASIO, ASD, ONI, the Department of Home Affairs or the Attorney-General's Department. Have any of them been asked for advice on the foreign interference risks in the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can only answer the question based on my own knowledge, and I have done that. I am happy to make some inquiries and come back to you about whether or not other organisations have received any such information. I suspect that, had any issues been uncovered, we would have heard about it. The fact that we haven't heard about it is probably an indication that there are no issues out there.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That last part of your answer does not fill me with confidence. You suspect that if there were issues you would have heard about it, and since you haven't, perhaps there aren't. That indicates to me an attitude or a culture in the government of not taking this issue seriously. It is your job as ministers to seek advice and to consider the advice you are provided with. Minister, I did ask you this morning whether the government had sought advice from any agencies. You did undertake to come back to me about that. You appear not to be able to. Can I ask you to confer with the advisers next to you, who will be able to consult the ministerial offices they are here representing. I am sure they have telephones and WhatsApp and Signal and can seek that advice from their ministerial offices and provide that answer to the chamber now. Now is when the chamber is considering relevant amendments which will have implications to foreign interference, which I will come to next.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That's a very patronising way to treat me, with respect, Senator Paterson.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a patronising question because you can't answer it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I have answered it. I've said that I have not received any advice which would lead me to believe that we currently have an issue in respect of foreign donations. One of the things we're doing here is reflecting the foreign donations provisions in the referendum. The last time the referendum took place, we didn't have those provisions in the referendum act. We will have them in the act now. Those provisions are there to stop foreign donations. I've got the greatest confidence in all of our authorities that, in the event that somebody were seeking to influence our referendum—foreign companies, foreign organisations—we would take the appropriate action to ensure that the law of this country applies and that those foreign donations were prohibited.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, to assist you, I really do think it probably is the case that some of your colleagues in government have been briefed on this question and have sought advice on this question, and I find it extraordinary that you are not able to answer that question on their behalf. It would be remarkable if no advice had been provided to your colleagues. I am surprised it hasn't come to your awareness. I can't go to the content of it, but I myself have received briefings on the risk of foreign interference in this upcoming referendum, so I would be utterly astonished if government ministers had not also received them. Why is it that you are not able to answer this question on behalf of the government on your own bill?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Paterson, we're putting a foreign donations provision into the referendum act to stop exactly what you say you're interested in stopping! What else are we supposed to do? We have a regime—and why do we have a regime to stop foreign donations? It's because two parliaments ago, as the shadow special minister of state, I pushed the government into doing something about it. We have a foreign donations register in the AEC legislation in this country because the Labor Party pushed for it. I can't remember, to be frank, any contribution from you in that role.</para>
<para>We have that legislation and we've put it into the referendum act now, so let the law work as it is intended to work. Stop all these conspiracy theories—all these crazy ideas that you have, obviously. We want a civil Australian referendum to determine whether there should be a Voice to parliament, and that's what this legislation is doing. If you vote in favour of this legislation then you'll get what you say you're after, which is protection from foreign influence in our electoral system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is it the government's view that the risk of foreign interference in the referendum is a conspiracy theory?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's the government's view that if this legislation passes today then we will match the foreign donations provisions that apply in a general election. We think that is the safest course of action to ensure that there's no foreign influence in this referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, is the only sort of foreign interference or foreign influence that the government is concerned about from foreign political donations, or are you aware of other possible avenues for foreign interference?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're going to apply the foreign interference regulations that apply to a general election. We think that is the appropriate course of action to deal with any potential sources of foreign influence. If we find that there is foreign interference, we will ensure that it's dealt with in the same way that it would be dealt with in respect of a general election.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Has the government sought or received advice on the risk of foreign interference through social media in relation to the referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have an organisation called the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce, comprised of the relevant agencies across federal government. They work together to provide information and advice to the Australian Electoral Commissioner on matters relating to the integrity of the processes of federal elections and referendums. The following portfolios and agencies are EIAT members: the Australian Electoral Commission; the Department of Finance; the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Department of Infrastructure, Transport Regional Development, Communications and the Arts; the Department of Home Affairs; the Attorney-General's Department; the Australian Federal Police; the Australian Signals Directorate; and the Office of National Intelligence. The task force is also supported by members of the National Intelligence Community, as required.</para>
<para>On 26 July 2022, the Australian Electoral Commissioner released a public media statement confirming that the EIAT agencies did not identify any foreign interference or any other interference that compromised the delivery of the 2022 federal election or that would undermine the confidence of the Australian people in the results of that election. Members of the EIAT consult with online media platforms, including for major electoral events such as referenda, and have also established escalation processes for the referral of content in breach of the Commonwealth legislation or in social media platform terms of service. Agencies that participate in the EIAT are already working to provide appropriate support to protect the integrity of the proposed referendum, including from foreign actors. The government will continue to work through the members of the EIAT on risks to integrity of the referendum, including the threat of foreign interference, to ensure the public can have continued confidence in the conduct and the outcome of this and other electoral events.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. That was an interesting answer but not one that addressed the question that I asked, which was: has the government sought or received advice about the risk of foreign interference through social media in relation to the upcoming referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've answered the question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, this morning when I asked you a series of questions that you took on notice and undertook to come back to me in the chamber on, one of them was: has the government had any meetings with any of the tech platforms in relation to the risk of foreign interference in the upcoming referendum? What's the answer to that question?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>FARRELL (—) (): I just read out the answer to that question. Obviously you weren't listening. I refer to my previous answers.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You didn't address the question. Has the government sought or had meetings with any of the tech platforms in relation to the risk of foreign interference through social media or online in the upcoming referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When did the government meet with the tech platforms in relation to the risk of foreign interference in relation to the upcoming referendum?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I don't think it reflects all that well on you that you are refusing to answer this question. If the answer is that the government has not met with the technology platforms in relation to this issue, you should just say so, and if you don't know, you should say that you don't know.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is another condescending remark, which is not appreciated, Senator Paterson. I'll read out what I said previously, which answers your question directly. Members of the EIAT consult with online media platforms, including prior to electoral events including referenda, and have also established escalation processes for the referral of the content in breach of Commonwealth legislation or social media platforms' terms of service.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, when did the government meet with the platforms?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've just explained to you the process of how we deal with these issues. I can repeat this over and over again, Senator Paterson. Maybe at some point you'll get that I've answered your question. There is a process in place to deal with this. I've explained how it's working. I've explained how the AEC have given a report saying that they didn't see any evidence of foreign interference in the last election. I'm hopeful that by adopting exactly the same set of procedures in the referendum we get exactly the same result so that sometime after the referendum there will be a report that discloses that there was no foreign interference in our referendum. The process is all set up to deal with it, Senator Paterson, and I can't understand for the life of me why you can't understand that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minster, may I follow up on Senator Paterson's question? In a normal election, the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce that you referred to might contact a person that is leading a political party or an organisation, but, in this referendum, we don't have political parties or organisations, so how will this be managed under the current referendum machinery, where participants don't need to register prior to engaging in electoral activity?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Have some faith in the AEC. There's a process set up there to deal with this. Those processes will work. I'm absolutely confident of that. We can be assured, I hope, that, at the end of this process, we'll get the same sort of communication from the AEC that we got in July 2022 that they didn't identify any foreign influence in the referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just to follow up on that: if an instance of foreign interference occurs or foreign interference activity becomes an issue in a campaign for a referendum, there won't be any official 'yes' organisation or 'no' organisation for intelligence and security agencies to contact about that. In contrast, there are registered political parties at elections, which have officials and structures that can respond to those sorts of events. So, in this referendum, who will the agencies contact to make the 'yes' or 'no' cases aware of any of these issues?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It isn't a case of contacting the 'yes' or 'no' cases. It will be their job to contact the organisation about which it is alleged that they are a foreign organisation seeking to influence an Australian referendum. That is who they'll contact.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I clarify, Minister: what steps has the government taken to educate parties that will potentially be campaigning 'yes' or 'no' about the risks of foreign interference and how those risks can be mitigated?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We haven't passed the legislation yet. Fair crack of the whip! The legislation hasn't passed. In due course, the AEC will do everything that it is required to do to educate people. One of the things that we know we are going to invest in is an education campaign about the referendum, and I'm sure this will be part of anything that the Australian Electoral Commission ultimately communicates with the Australian people. But have some faith that this is going to work the way we want it to work. Have a little bit of faith, both in the AEC and the Australian people, that this will work properly.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme operate during the referendum, and, if so, how will it operate?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It operates all the time, Senator Hume, and will continue to operate throughout the course of the referendum in the same way it works at the moment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If a referendum related event were to have a speaker who wasn't an Australian citizen, would this activity be captured by the foreign influence scheme?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My understanding is that it would be covered by the in-kind provisions, but we are starting to move outside the scope of this legislation, I think.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Earlier today, Minister, before we moved onto other things, you said, quite complimentarily, that the AEC Commissioner was able to make himself available to senators—and, no doubt, to members of the House of Representatives. It's great that he's able to have private meetings, but could you undertake to have a special meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee to hold a public inquiry with the commissioner to ask these sorts of questions directly to him and get his direct feedback on the mechanics of how this referendum would be conducted?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would be very happy to see if he would make himself available, either to that organisation or to any senator who wants to find out about how this process is going to work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, it seems to be your view, based on these exchanges, that the existing arrangements are sufficient for guarding against the risk of foreign interference and influence in the upcoming referendum, although it's not clear to me how you could form that view, given you yourself have not sought or received any advice from our agencies about that risk. Therefore, you don't appear to be informed about it. It is, of course, this legislation itself that will contribute to and risk exacerbating the risk of foreign interference, because you have not allowed for official 'yes' and official 'no' campaigns.</para>
<para>The reason why that's important—and you might have known this if you'd met with the tech platforms to discuss this—is that the tech platforms have said to me that it would be very helpful for them to be able to point to official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns as authoritative sources of information if there is, in this political debate, conjecture about disinformation or misinformation which may or may not be driven by foreign states or other actors. How did you form the view that it wasn't necessary to have a 'yes' or 'no' case to ameliorate this risk if you didn't seek or receive briefings from our agencies and if you haven't met with tech platforms to discuss their point of view?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm extremely confident—and I invite you to discuss it with the AEC after this legislation passes—that they are completely in control of this issue. You can never guarantee that no foreign organisation may seek to influence them. I'm not saying that you could make that guarantee. But, certainly, based on the advice that we got subsequent to the last federal election, I have the greatest confidence in the AEC and other organisations that are responsible for monitoring this issue, and I know that they'll be able to deal with any issues that may arise.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PATERSON</name>
    <name.id>144138</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that offer of a briefing from the AEC. I've had many such briefings in the past, and from them I know that it's not the AEC's responsibility to deal with content in an election campaign or a referendum campaign. It is, of course, content of speech and debate in the context of a referendum campaign which has the greatest risk of potential foreign interference. We have seen this in relation to recent reporting about foreign interference in the Canadian elections. We have seen this in other elections where content has been weaponised on social media platforms to drive disinformation—sometimes weaponised by foreign states to undermine social cohesion, undermine national unity and cause division. That is the risk in this debate, in this referendum, and it is exacerbated by your policy choice to not allow a formal 'yes' or 'no' case. Will you reconsider your opposition to a 'yes' or 'no' case?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>FARRELL (—) (): No.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation seeks to introduce an amendment to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022 to amend the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, and it will be a first for Australia. We have always championed the Australian people having a more direct say in how they are governed. We strongly support a people's democracy, sometimes called direct democracy. Over the years, the need—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry, Senator Hanson. I have the minister on his feet.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's probably the wrong place for Senator Hanson to move her amendment. We have a number of amendments before the chair, and, in fact, we have some amendments to our amendments. Can I suggest that we deal with our amendments and Senator Pocock's amendment now and deal with Senator Hanson's amendment at a later point in the proceedings?</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'm cognisant that the question before the chair is in relation to those government amendments which you just referenced, but I don't think Senator Hanson has actually moved her amendment at this point. I think she was just foreshadowing moving her amendment. But Senator Hanson does need to be relevant to the question before the chair, which is the content of the current amendment, so I will listen very closely to ensure that she is being relevant to that. But, I think, Senator Hanson, you are in order.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Over the years, the need has become more urgent. Policymakers, political parties, lobbyists and the media have become increasingly distanced from the Australian people they are supposed to serve. As a result, legislation and political commentary increasingly do not reflect the wishes and aspirations of the Australian electorate, and the people themselves are feeling increasingly powerless and disenfranchised. Our amendment seeks to reverse this trend and, for the first time, allow the agenda to be set by the Australian people, instead of out-of-touch politicians, lobbyists and the media.</para>
<para>I'm talking about citizens initiated referenda. There is ample precedent for this overseas. New Zealand and Switzerland have citizens initiated referenda, and direct democracy is practised to varying degrees in Europe and a number of the United States. One Nation's amendment will add a new schedule to the act after section 145:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This Schedule enables Australian citizens to initiate legislation that provides for the holding of a referendum to alter the Constitution</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 sets out the process that must be followed, and the requirements that must be met …</para></quote>
<para>These are exacting processes and requirements, as should be the case for an initiative to change the founding document of the Commonwealth. Firstly:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a person who is an elector may apply to the Electoral Commission to register a proposal for a referendum—</para></quote>
<para>The commissioner must examine it—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and decide whether it relates to a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution—</para></quote>
<para>If it does, the commissioner must register the proposal and the applicant must, within six months, lodge a document with the commissioner containing the signatures of two per cent of the total of all electors. Once this requirement has been met, the commissioner must undertake random sampling to verify that at least 50 per cent of the signatures were obtained validly. Once this verification is achieved, 'the minister must cause a proposed law to alter the Constitution, in accordance with the proposal, to be introduced into the parliament'.</para>
<para>The amendment continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3 sets out rules that apply to the holding of a citizen initiated referendum. Once a proposed law to alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal has been passed, by an absolute majority of one House, or both Houses, of the Parliament, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution, the Governor-General may issue a writ for the citizen initiated referendum to be held—</para></quote>
<para>on the date of the next federal election—</para>
<quote><para class="block">Part 4 deals with delegation of the Electoral Commissioner's functions and powers.</para></quote>
<para>This is not a simple process, and this is intentional. Democracy is not an easy exercise and was never meant to be. By its nature, democracy is hard and difficult. Winston Churchill perhaps described it best when he said that democracy was the world's worst form of government except for all others that have been tried.</para>
<para>Anything worth doing is worth doing well, and democracy has proven its worth time and time again. This is an important truth which the Albanese government seems to have forgotten with its disturbing habit of rushing through extremely poor legislation with the absolute minimum possible scrutiny. One Nation calls on the Albanese Labor government, the opposition and the crossbench to recommit to the fundamental principles of Australian democracy and stop this 'my way or the highway' cowboy approach to lawmaking. There is no better way to signal this commitment to the principles of democracy than by supporting One Nation's amendment and allowing Australian citizens to initiate a referendum.</para>
<para>Minister, there was a discussion about the yes and no vote at the next referendum. Will you be supporting the no vote with the—allowing them to put out literature on the same basis that you are going to put out for the yes vote?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No. The government is not supporting either the yes or the no case in a financial sense. It will be up to civil society to conduct the arguments in favour of a yes or a no case.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under the NIAA you have allowed for a body of people to put recommendations to the referendum at a cost of about $1.6 million. So, basically, you have already put in place committees and organisations funded by Prime Minister and Cabinet under the NIAA. Is that really saying that you are distancing yourself from the yes campaign?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government has sought advice from various organisations in this country to, well, receive advice on the best way in which to go forward in terms of the yes case. I have earlier today explained all of the organisations to which funding has been given, but in terms of the conduct of the yes/no case itself, we are leaving that to civil society.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's make it quite clear. Under Prime Minister and Cabinet, which costs about $4½ billion a year for the NIAA, part of this money has gone to the structure of a body to actually inform the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about the structure of them working towards this referendum. So does that mean you are saying that you don't fund a yes case at all, although money from the department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has gone to a body of people purely to develop information and a strategy towards the yes vote?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government took to the last election the proposition that we would put a referendum to the Australian people on the issue of whether there should be a recognition of a voice in the federal parliament to Indigenous Australians. The government won the election, and we are carrying through on that promise to the Australian people. In the process, we are seeking advice on the nature of the question that should be put to the Australian people to determine that issue and a range of other issues around that. But once this legislation passes, and the subsequent legislation to deal with that question, then, of course, we are leaving it to the Australian people, either the people who want to vote yes or people who want to vote to no, to run that case, or present the arguments to the Australian people. At some time later in the year—the Prime Minister has said in the second half of the year—there will in fact be a referendum. People will be able to make a choice—yes or no—for Indigenous recognition. I, for one, will be voting yes.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is my last question: Is the Prime Minister aware of the decisions and the direction that the NIAA are headed towards with this referendum? And does he support what they are doing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will ask him and get back to you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To return to my amendment to the government amendment earlier, you said that social media advertising was the least likely to change someone's mind. So I am just interested why the Australian Labor Party spent over $1.3 million on Facebook alone in just the last week of the last election campaign?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Wow, hypocrisy!</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There is no hypocrisy. We are not into hypocrisy in the Labor Party. Rest assured; we are not into hypocrisy. I think you're taking selective references from my comments. You might recall I referenced Twitter and I revealed that Twitter was the least likely form of communication that would change your vote. One of the reasons that political organisations do spend money on social media is to make contact with the people that they know are supporting them. So you spend a lot of money in an election actually geeing up your own supporters and reassuring your own supporters. I don't purport to be an expert on social media. I am sure there are other people who can speak more authoritatively on this topic than I can, but the reason you spend money on social media in that period of the election, as I understand it, is that you reinforce your message to those people who are already are considering voting for you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the explanation. Finally—then I am very happy to move on—if social media is such a legitimate advertising channel that the Labor Party in one week would spend $1.3 million on Facebook, why don't we just add it to the blackout period? We have listed all the other mediums where people consume content. Social media is a big part of that now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I agree with Senator Pocock; it is a big part of it, although some people say it's a declining part of it. You can see what's happening to some of the social media organisations around the world and you might conclude that there is a bit of a decline there.</para>
<para>The message I am trying to give the Senate is a simple one: we want the experience that Australians get at this up-and-coming referendum to be as close as possible to the experience they would have in a general election. So what we are trying to do is marry the two sets of provisions so that that can occur. It has been more than 22 years since we have had a referendum. The Electoral Act has been updated. For instance, Senator Paterson was talking about foreign interference. We didn't have that as an issue when we had the republic referendum. It's been raised as an issue since. There has been legislation. We have legislated it in respect of a general election. We are now legislating to make sure that the same provisions apply to a referendum.</para>
<para>I am happy to have the discussion about whether the blackouts should be extended to social media. I am not saying that we should reject that out of hand. But we have a process that deals particularly with general elections. There is a whole range of issues, including many raised in the amendments that the Greens are proposing, like ceilings on disclosure and real-time disclosure. All of these issues will be subject to a JSCEM inquiry. Let's not pre-empt that JSCEM inquiry. There will be significant issues if you extend the ban. I think the appropriate course of action is to let that JSCEM process happen. Let's have a look at what comes out of that and make some evaluations after that. I welcome your participation in that discussion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just have one last question for the minister and then I hope that we can progress this. Having heard the answers you have given the chamber today, Minister, I am interested to know: if this referendum were on a different issue, if it weren't about an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, if it were about something far more basic, would you change the mechanism and the machinery by which Australians go to the polls? Would you consider 'yes' campaign and 'no' campaign organisations, as there have been in previous referenda, or would you persist with this mechanism and this machinery the way you have established and described it today?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't know.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I clarify, then, that this machinery bill has been built around the question rather than around the issues of foreign donations, foreign interference and updating the machinery for all of those issues that we have covered off today? In fact, the machinery bill has been updated by the government specifically for this question rather than the fair and free referendum that Australians would normally expect no matter what the question is.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would not agree with that characterisation, Senator Hume. Your previous question was based around what we would do if a different topic were the subject of the referendum. I answered as honestly as I could that I am not sure, and I don't know what we might do in some future referendum.</para>
<para>Our objective here—and I have repeated it so many times today—is to try and get the referendum experience for the Australian people to be as close to a general election as we can. We took a deliberate policy decision not to do what you have been seeking. I have explained to you time and time again that we have made that decision. What we would do in respect of some future referendum, given how hard it's been to get this particular bill through the parliament, I don't know. We would have to look at that and see what we might do. We've made a policy decision that civil society can run these campaigns—they run them free of any political interference—and I'm hopeful that at the end of that process the Australian people vote for an Indigenous voice in the parliament.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, how will homeless people vote?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm assuming you're talking about a homeless person who is not currently on the electoral roll. It's our wish to try and increase the number of people participating in this referendum. We've made some changes that make it easier for people to get on the electoral roll, and I referred to a couple of those changes today. One of them is the use of the Medicare card to get yourself on the roll, and the other one is the use of a naturalisation certificate. I've asked the AEC to focus on trying to increase the level of enrolment between now and the referendum, and I believe that they are doing that. As time goes by and we get closer to the referendum, I think we'll see the number of people on the roll increase. That's certainly my wish. That's certainly what happened, for instance, in the plebiscite that dealt with the issue of same-sex marriage. I'm hopeful that the same processes will apply.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If a First Nations person rocks up on voting day with their ID, will they be allowed to vote?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If they're enrolled, they will be allowed to vote and they won't be required to have ID. You might recall that in the last parliament there was a proposal to require people to produce photographic evidence before they were allowed to vote, and we and the Greens worked very hard to defeat that—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Very cosy.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, you can call it cosy if you like, but it was a sensible decision. I think that, even now, there would be members of the coalition who would admit that that was the wrong course of action. We defeated that legislation, so you're not required in this country to produce photographic evidence to vote. There's a certain degree of trust in that process. The level of people who vote more than once is absolutely minuscule. I could probably get the exact figures, but I have a feeling that something like 16 people were discovered to have voted more than once at the election before last. So there's only a tiny group of people that ever vote more than once. You've got to have a little bit of faith in the Australian people that they'll participate genuinely in this debate, they'll have the opportunity to express their point of view and that, at the end of the day, they'll make the right decision, which, in my view, is a 'yes' vote for Indigenous recognition.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For those First Nations people who turn up to the booth who are not enrolled to vote—they come with their Medicare card and whatever ID and say, 'We would like to vote on something that will assimilate us into the colonial Constitution'—what is the government doing about those people? How many First Nations people who are not enrolled are you going to turn away on the day?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It would be my preference that there be none. One of the reasons for allowing the Medicare card to be identification for the purposes of the electoral roll is that I want the people that you're talking about who might turn up on election day to be enrolled today, tomorrow, next week, next month—but well before election day. I'd certainly encourage all of those people to get on the roll. We're making it easier for them to get on the roll. I'd be hopeful that we wouldn't have anybody in the situation that you're talking about on election day, and that they would have been enrolled well and truly before that.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>I0T</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1861, moved by Senator David Pocock, amending government amendment (1) on sheet ZB 195 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Chair, I ask for my position in support of my amendment to be recorded.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Thorpe and Senator Waters, I'm assuming you're seeking leave to have your individual and your party positions in support of Senator David Pocock's amendment recorded? That will be done. The question now is that clause 4 stand as printed.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the remainder of the government amendments on sheets PX149, PX150, PX151, QE100 and ZB195 be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1830:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Provisional voting</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After subsection 4(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) Despite subsection (1), a person is entitled to vote at a referendum if the person makes a claim for enrolment under paragraph 37(1)(f).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 At the end of subsection 37(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; or (f) the person wishes to make a claim for enrolment and each of the following applies:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the person's name cannot be found on the certified list of voters, or an approved list of voters, for the Division for which the person claims to vote;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the person is entitled to enrolment and to vote under section 93 of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After subsection 37(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AA) A person who wishes to make a claim for enrolment under paragraph (1)(f) may be asked to satisfy the identity requirements under subsection 98AA(2) of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AB) A person who wishes to make a claim for enrolment under paragraph (1)(f) and casts a provisional vote is deemed to have made a claim for enrolment for the purposes of section 98 of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Subsection 37(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or claims to be", substitute "claims to be, or wishes to be".</para></quote>
<para>This amendment pertains to on-the-day enrolment not just for First Nations people but for anyone who wishes to have their voice heard in this and any other referendum, who has not been able for a variety of legitimate reasons to be able to enrol themselves prior to election day. As I said in my second reading speech, this bill is an important and timely opportunity to improve enfranchisement, particularly for First Nations communities and particularly on this topic, and we must not waste the opportunity. The government have consistently said that they want the referendum to be as close as possible to a normal election, but in the last election many people missed out on voting. That's something that we need to fix rather than replicate.</para>
<para>We do support the government's commitment to increasing remote-area mobile polling, but that's not enough on its own. We support automatic enrolment and we support the recent changes to allow people to use their Medicare card or their citizenship certificate. They're all good amendments that will help boost enrolment, but they are not enough. I have talked to the government about this consistently and put the position, which we've heard over and over from stakeholders, that on-the-day enrolment and provisional voting will have a significant impact on the number of people able to cast a vote on referendum day. It is, if you like, an insurance policy in case those other provisions don't work. I hope they work, and you seem confident that they will, but if they don't, we need an insurance policy.</para>
<para>This is a foundational document. It is crucial that as many people as possible have their say. We don't require them to all think the same thing. We just want to know what it is that they think. Our amendment would allow voters, including, but not only, First Nation's voters, to attend the polling place, apply for immediate enrolment and cast their votes. That vote would be done by declaration to manage any risk of fraud. That means it would only be added to the formal count after the usual checks are made. The AEC would still need to verify that the enrolment is valid before the vote is counted.</para>
<para>There is no reason not to make this change; it would redress decades of disenfranchisement and make sure that everyone with a stake in the outcome of a referendum is able to exercise their right to vote—and it is a right, not a privilege. It is in fact a right. Moreover, this proposal has the support of the Electoral Commission. Not just that, it has been operating in other states and territories for years. There is no evidence of voter fraud or admin delays, and there is no undermining of election results. There is only evidence that more people get to vote.</para>
<para>I thought this was about increasing and improving democracy, and modernising the laws under which our referenda are conducted so that they might be closer to elections. I thought this was about maximising people's chance to have a say. Well, please pass this amendment! Allow people who wish to have their voice heard to enrol to vote on the day. I have just run you through the checks and balances which will exist, and there is no risk or downside to this! There is only an upside for democracy and for our nation to have its voice heard, ironically, on whether it should have a Voice to parliament. What dark irony it is that you wouldn't allow as many people as possible to have a voice on whether they would like to have a Voice!</para>
<para>Without this reform there's a real risk that many First Nations people may not get the chance to have a say on the Voice referendum. Frankly, it's unconscionable to refuse a change that would only increase the number of votes cast in a referendum. Again, we strongly urge the government and the opposition to support this amendment. This is an issue which, yes, we will agitate through the JSCEM reforms when considering reforms to our electoral laws. But I'm concerned that we won't be able to do that in time for the referendum, and I don't want people to miss out on voting on this important question. We have the chance to actually fix this now. We know it works in other jurisdictions and we know that the AEC is happy with it; I don't understand why you don't just support this! Let people vote! They want to have a say. Please support this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On the Greens amendment: I want to put on the record that the opposition will be opposing that amendment. I have great respect for your position, Senator Waters, but the opposition has the very strong view that changes to the enrolment procedures should be considered by the bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters rather than done on the fly in the chamber. The voting franchise is the bedrock of the Australian electoral system, and changes to it should be considered in a thoughtful and deliberate manner under existing and established processes, including that joint standing committee. So we will be opposing the amendment.</para>
<para>While I'm on my feet, and for the sake of clarity in the chamber, I should inform the chamber that the opposition will not be moving the amendment on sheet 1803 because that issue has already been dealt with through government amendments. But I will be moving the opposition's amendment on sheet 1804. It which creates official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns and ensures that those campaigns have equal funding. I think that the reasons for this amendment have become very clear throughout this committee process. I have stated in many speeches, as have my colleagues on this side of the chamber, that the creation of official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will dramatically improve the integrity of the referendum and will increase trust in the integrity of the process. Having official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns will make things much simpler for the regulatory environment and for the proper conduct of the referendum. It will make life so much easier for the AEC and make it so much easier for our intelligence agencies.</para>
<para>The amendment will ensure that once these two bodies are established and appointed by the government, that equal funding is also provided to each side to ensure that neither side is advantaged. These amendments, brought on by the government to the machinery bill, will ensure that they can comply with the disclosure and regulatory regimes and be adhered to at the referendum. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Campaign organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of subsection 11(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (d) a body nominated under section 11A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After section 11</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11A Campaign organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Where a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution is to be submitted to the electors, the Minister must, within 2 weeks of the passage of the proposed law, by writing nominate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a body (<inline font-style="italic">the Yes campaign organisation</inline>) to campaign in favour of the proposed law; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a body (<inline font-style="italic">the No campaign organisation</inline>) to campaign against the proposed law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister must ensure that the Yes campaign organisation and the No campaign organisation are allocated equal amounts of money for the purposes of the administration and operation of each campaign organisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament by another Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection (1) ceases to be a nominated body the day after the voting day of a referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After subsection 89(4A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection 11A(1), or a person authorised by the body to act under this section, may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre, but the number of scrutineers for each body must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I respect the sincerity with which Senator Waters has raised her concerns. My wish is that we don't wait until election day to get people enrolled, that the changes that we've made—which, I'm told, will result in significant additional enrolments between now and the election—will work today, tomorrow, next week and next month. We will get those people on the roll so that we're not relying on the very last day to get them on the roll. In any event, as Senator Hume's pointed out, this should be a matter that is discussed at JSCEM, and I'm very happy to engage in that discussion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, 87,000 First Nations people are eligible to enrol to vote currently. In a six-month period, which is the predicted period in which this referendum will take place and which by my calculations is 2,416 people needing to be enrolled per week, what is the strategy of this government to achieve that?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've just explained that we are making it easier for people to get on the roll. One of the features of a referendum coming up, of course, is that the AEC does ramp up its effort to ensure people are enrolled and correctly enrolled. The previous government withdrew enrolment funds from the Northern Territory. We have restored that money, and the AEC is already having significant success in increasing enrolments generally and Indigenous enrolments in particular. I am confident that, between now and the vote, we will have significant extra people on the roll.</para>
<para>In terms of the total population, we're now at roughly 98 per cent of Australians being registered to vote. Now, I don't think that, outside of a dictatorship, there is any other democracy in the world that has that level of enrolment. That's not reflected in Indigenous enrolment. We need to ensure that more Indigenous Australians are on the roll and entitled to vote. That was a policy we took to the last election. We have been implementing that and, as I say, the changes I recently made will not only helped total enrolment but will particularly help Indigenous enrolment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Respectfully, that wasn't really an answer about the practical actions that your government are going to take. Last night at spillover estimates I asked NIAA a very direct question about $75 million that your government have allocated to this referendum, and they said, 'We have strategies.' No-one's actually telling us what those strategies are. In my home state of Western Australia, in the Northern Territory and in Queensland, we have people currently displaced by floods. How do you think those people are going to now, with your confidence, be able to get to the AEC? They are worried about surviving. They are worried about their families. They are worried about their livelihoods. They are not worried about prioritising getting to the AEC to be enrolled. So I would like to hear about the practical strategies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm quite happy to organise a meeting with you and the AEC to talk about how the AEC is dealing with this. You are obviously talking about a broader group of people. Political parties, if they wish, can go out and try to encourage people to enrol, and they often do. That is a very common practice. I know that in the South Australian branch of the Labor Party, in the six months before the election, we'd go—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We're talking about the NT.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay, but I was just giving you an example of what you can do as an organisation to—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's black and white people, remember.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, black and white people. We get both on the roll. There are a whole range of things that are happening at the moment. It is having some success, and I think if you talk to the AEC they will confirm that they are having success. We want a greater number of people on the roll. We're doing practical things to actually bring that about, as we speak, and I'm happy to get the AEC to talk to you—to actually go and meet the group.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Thorpe</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're the government!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, we are the government, and we're making decisions to invest in a range of activities which are going to increase enrolment in this country. That's a good thing. I'm responsible for doing it, I accept that, but the AEC have got a very crucial role in this area. I'd be very happy to make them available to you, so you can go and talk to them about exactly what they're doing right now in the communities that you're talking about.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's just one last contribution from me on this amendment. I accept that the government is doing some administrative measures in an attempt to increase First Nations enrolment and that those changes were made approximately two weeks ago. I accept that. I don't think it should be a choice between doing that and also having an on-the-day enrolment protection mechanism to scoop up anyone who hasn't availed themselves of your administrative opportunities. It doesn't need to be a choice between the two. You can actually do both and genuinely maximise First Nations enrolment. So I don't accept your premise that, because you're doing it now, you can't also have a safety net, if you like, to catch people on the day. I just think your logic there is a little lacking.</para>
<para>There is another point I'd like to make. You have mentioned that this will be considered by JSCEM, in the course of the electoral reforms. I'll just remind the chamber that, in fact, this bill was already considered by JSCEM, and the report recommends that this very change be adopted. The AEC made that suggestion, and the report says, 'What a great idea. Let's do it.' So I do really feel like you're punting the ball down the road a little, when JSCEM has already considered this matter and has already considered in a multipartisan way that this is an amendment that would ensure more people can vote and, in particular, more First Nations people can get on the roll. This is one last opportunity for the government to explain why they don't want to do this extra thing, which seems to have no detractors and no downsides, to help First Nations people vote.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 1830, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [18:57] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>15</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</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>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>23</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</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><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1804:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Campaign organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 At the end of subsection 11(4)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (d) a body nominated under section 11A.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After section 11</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11A Campaign organisations</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Where a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution is to be submitted to the electors, the Minister must, within 2 weeks of the passage of the proposed law, by writing nominate:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a body (<inline font-style="italic">the Yes campaign organisation</inline>) to campaign in favour of the proposed law; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a body (<inline font-style="italic">the No campaign organisation</inline>) to campaign against the proposed law.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister must ensure that the Yes campaign organisation and the No campaign organisation are allocated equal amounts of money for the purposes of the administration and operation of each campaign organisation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Payments under this section shall be made out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament by another Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection (1) ceases to be a nominated body the day after the voting day of a referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After subsection 89(4A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4B) A body nominated by the Minister under subsection 11A(1), or a person authorised by the body to act under this section, may appoint persons to act as scrutineers during the scrutiny at each counting centre, but the number of scrutineers for each body must not exceed the number of officers who are engaged in the scrutiny at each counting centre.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>FARRELL (—) (): I indicate that the government will not be supporting this amendment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that the amendment on sheet 1804 as moved by Senator Hume be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [19:04] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>24</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</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>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payne, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>31</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</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>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</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 negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move amendment (1) on sheet 1855 revised:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 11 — Voter information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After paragraph 11(1)(db)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(dc) the functions conferred on the Commission by section 35S; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After Division 4B of Part II</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 4C — Functions relating to impartial referendum information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">35R Interpretation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Division:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Electoral Commissioner </inline>has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum </inline><inline font-style="italic">(Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">referendum </inline>has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Referendum Minister </inline>means the Minister administering the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">35S Functions of Commission relating to impartial referendum information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The following functions are conferred on the Commission:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to prepare arguments in favour of, and against, a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament in accordance with subsections (2) and (3);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to promote an understanding of the processes relating to referendums in First Nations and culturally diverse communities;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to prepare, and to publish in such manner as the Commission considers appropriate, factual and impartial information relating to referendum processes in multiple languages, including First Nations languages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament, being a proposed law passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of the Parliament, is to be submitted to the electors, the Commission must, within 4 weeks after the passage of that proposed law through both Houses of the Parliament, prepare and forward to the Electoral Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an argument in favour of the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an argument against the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament, being a proposed law passed by an absolute majority of one House of the Parliament only, is to be submitted to the electors, the Commission must, within 4 weeks after the second passage of that proposed law through that House of the Parliament, prepare and forward to the Electoral Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an argument in favour of the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an argument against the proposed law, consisting of not more than 2,000 words.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This section ceases to have effect at the end of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">35T Performance of functions relating to impartial referendum information</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Commission may perform the functions referred to in section 35S during the period commencing immediately after either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament is passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of the Parliament; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the second passage of a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relating to a Voice to Parliament by an absolute majority of one House of the Parliament only;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">and ending either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at the end of the voting day for a referendum relating to a Voice to Parliament; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the day after the day the Referendum Minister informs the President that the referendum is not to be held.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Paragraph 11(1)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Before "within", insert "unless paragraph (c) applies—".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Afte r paragraph 11(1)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relates to a Voice to Parliament—there is forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner by the Australian Human Rights Commission, arguments prepared in accordance with subsection 35S(2) of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Paragraph 11(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Before "within", insert "unless paragraph (c) applies—".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 After paragraph 11(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution relates to a Voice to Parliament—there is forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner by the Australian Human Rights Commission, arguments prepared in accordance with subsection 35S(3) of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 After subsection 11(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2AA) Paragraphs (1)(c) and (2)(c) cease to have effect at the end of the polling day for the first general election of the members of the House of Representatives held after the commencement of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Act 2023</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>There has been much debate about the 'yes' and 'no' pamphlet being produced by politicians in the so-called two camps. This amendment would take the politics out of preparing essential information about the two cases and put it into the hands of the Australian Human Rights Commission, an entity we all respect, which can ensure that the information provided is correct, factual and provided in clearly accessible terms, ensuring human rights are respected in the process. I urge you all to support this important amendment, as it would vastly improve the process in the upcoming referendum.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicate that the government opposes this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicate that the opposition is also opposing this amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. As I said in my speech on the second reading, the Greens support the public having access to clear, objective, accurate and respectful information outlining the 'yes' and 'no' cases. For many Australians the implications of a referendum are not clear, and they need to have the confidence that the official material produced in this place will help inform their decision. We have already seen the dangers of misinformation and missing information in the current debate.</para>
<para>Submitters to the inquiry into this bill and to the various referendum reviews that preceded it have called for an independent panel to produce the official material. That would help ensure that the material was clearly communicated, that it was accurate, that it was unbiased, that it candidly outlined the pros and cons without fearmongering and that it did not include discretionary or racist talking points. The Australian Human Rights Commission is an expert independent and well-respected body. We support the amendment to give them responsibility for producing the materials to help Australians understand the referendum question. Giving people information they can trust will help to ensure that we get a referendum result with integrity.</para>
<para>I might add that we actually would like to see broader reforms in this space and have truth in political advertising laws, something that we have advocated for for many years now. And I hope that we can have that conversation as well as many others in the course of the JSCEM reforms that are coming down the line. But, in the absence of those laws which actually would have delivered a good and impartial result, we think this is a good suggestion. We will also be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment, which makes a slightly different proposal but with the same intent, to ensure that there's a basis of truth and independence in the preparation of these materials.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I will put the question that the amendment on sheet 1855, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Can I have my position noted as being in favour of the amendment?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it will be recorded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Likewise for the Australia Greens, please.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It will be recorded. Senator Pocock, do you wish to be recorded as being in support?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes. I seek leave to move amendment (1) on sheet 1851, amendments (1) to (12) on sheet 1815 and amendment (1) on 1816 together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<para>Sheet 1851</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 10 (after line 15), after Schedule 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2A — Exclu sion zones</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Paragraphs 131(1)(b) and (1A)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "6 metres", substitute "100 metres".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subparagraph 131(1A)(d)(iii)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "6 metres", substitute "100 metres".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Application of amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to referendums the writs for which are issued on or after the commencement of this Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>Sheet 1815</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (after line 13), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">gift</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">initial disclosure period</inline> means the period, in a referendum expenditure period, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) starts at the start of the referendum expenditure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ends on the day of the issue of the writ for the referendum to which the referendum expenditure period relates.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">ongoing discl</inline> <inline font-style="italic">osure period</inline> means the period, in a referendum expenditure period, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) starts on the day after the issue of the writ for the referendum to which the referendum expenditure period relates; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) ends at the end of the referendum expenditure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (line 31), at the end of section 109D, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; and (c) a contravention of section 109GA or 109GB that would otherwise have been committed by an entity that is not a legal person is taken to have been committed by each member or officer (however described) of the entity, who, acting in that person's actual or apparent authority, engaged in any conduct or made any omission contributing to the contravention.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, item 3, page 25 (after line 2), after Division 2, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Division 2A — Early disclosure of gifts</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109GA Disclosure by gift recipients in relation to initial disclosure period</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant person</inline>), other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, must provide a return in accordance with this section if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant person received a gift or gifts covered by subsection (2) at any time during the initial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the amount of at least one such gift was more than the disclosure threshold; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the total amount of all gifts received by the relevant person from at least one single person during the initial disclosure period was more than the disclosure threshold.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Civil penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The higher of the following amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 60 penalty units;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A gift is covered by this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The relevant person must provide to the Electoral Commission a return for the initial disclosure period setting out the following details:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for subparagraph (1)(b)(i):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the amount of each gift covered by that subparagraph; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the date on which the gift was made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for subparagraph (1)(b)(ii):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the total amount of gifts made by each single person who is covered by that subparagraph; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the date on which each of those gifts were made;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in any case:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for a gift or gifts on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association (other than a registered industrial organisation within the meaning of Part XX of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>)—the name of the association, and the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) for a gift or gifts purportedly made out of a trust fund, or out of the funds of a foundation—the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or foundation, and the title, name or other description of the trust fund or foundation; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) for any other gift or gifts—the name and address of the person who made the gift or gifts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The return must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be provided before the end of 7 days after the end of the initial disclosure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) be in the approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109GB Disclosure by gift recipients in relation to ongoing disclosure period</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant person</inline>), other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, must provide a return in accordance with this section if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant person receives a gift covered by subsection (2) from another person or entity at any time during the ongoing disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the total amount of the following is more than the disclosure threshold:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the gift;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any earlier gifts covered by subsection (2) that the relevant person has received from the other person or entity since the start of the referendum expenditure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Civil penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The higher of the following amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 60 penalty units;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A gift is covered by this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The return must include the information referred to in subsection (4) in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(a); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any earlier gifts mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) in relation to which the relevant person was not already required to give information in a return under section 109GA or this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the information is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount of the gift or each of the gifts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the return relates to 2 or more gifts—the total amount of those gifts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the date or dates on which the gift or gifts were made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for a gift or gifts on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association (other than a registered industrial organisation within the meaning of Part XX of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>)—the name of the association, and the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) for a gift or gifts purportedly made out of a trust fund, or out of the funds of a foundation—the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or foundation, and the title, name or other description of the trust fund or foundation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) for any other gift or gifts—the name and address of the person who made the gift or gifts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The return must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be provided before the end of 7 days after the gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is received; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) be in the approved form.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109GC Disclosure by gift donors in relation to initial disclosure period</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">donor</inline>) makes one or more gifts covered by subsection (3) to another person or entity, other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, at any time during the initial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the total value of the gift or gifts exceeds the disclosure threshold.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The donor must, within 7 days after the end of the initial disclosure period, give to the Electoral Commission a return, in an approved form and in accordance with subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Civil penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The higher of the following amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 60 penalty units;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A gift is covered by this subsection if the donor intends for the gift to be used:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for the dominant purpose of incurring referendum expenditure; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The return must include the following information:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the value of the gift, or each of the gifts, made in the initial disclosure period by the donor to the other person or entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the return relates to 2 or more gifts—the total value of those gifts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the name of that other person or entity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the date or dates on which the gift or gifts were made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109GD Disclosure by gift donors in relation to ongoing disclosure period</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">donor</inline>) makes a gift covered by subsection (3) to another person or entity, other than the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, at any time during the ongoing disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the total value of the following is more than the disclosure threshold:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the gift;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) any earlier gifts covered by subsection (3) made by the donor to that other person or entity since the start of the referendum expenditure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The donor must, within 7 days after the end of the ongoing disclosure period, give to the Electoral Commission a return, in an approved form and in accordance with subsection (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Civil penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The higher of the following amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 60 penalty units;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of the gifts not disclosed—3 times that amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A gift is covered by this subsection if the donor intends for the gift to be used:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for the dominant purpose of incurring referendum expenditure; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The return must include the information referred to in subsection (5) in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(a); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any earlier gifts mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) in relation to which the donor was not already required to give information in a return under section 109GC or this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the information is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount of the gift or each of the gifts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the return relates to 2 or more gifts—the total value of those gifts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the name of other person or entity to whom the gift or gifts were made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the date or dates on which the gift or gifts were made.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (2) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, item 3, page 29 (line 31), after "109G,", insert "109GA, 109GB, 109GC, 109GD,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 4, item 3, page 33 (line 31), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 4, item 3, page 34 (line 25), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 4, item 3, page 35 (line 21), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 4, item 3, page 35 (line 23), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 4, item 3, page 36 (line 12), omit "or 109G", substitute ", 109G, 109GA, 109GB, 109GC or 109GD".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 4, item 3, page 37 (lines 24 and 25), omit "are or may be required to give a return under section 109G", substitute "have been, are or may be required to give a return under section 109G, 109GC or 109GD".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 4, item 7, page 40 (after table item 6), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 4, item 8, page 41 (lines 3 and 4), omit "Division 2 of Part VIIIA of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendu</inline><inline font-style="italic">m (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, applies", substitute "Divisions 2 and 2A of Part VIIIA of the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>, as inserted by this Schedule, apply".</para></quote>
<para>Sheet 1816</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 3(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Panel</inline> means a Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel established under subsection 135A(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After subsection 11(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2AA) Members of the Parliament may not authorize an argument in favour of, or against, a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(i) or (ii), or (2)(b)(i) or (ii), unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the argument has been given to the Panel established in relation to the proposed law for its review; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Panel has approved the argument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2AB) To avoid doubt, the Electoral Commissioner must not arrange for the printing and sending of a pamphlet under subsection (1) or (2) unless the authorizations of members of the Parliament referred to in that subsection are in accordance with subsection (2AA).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 After Part X</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part XA — Referendum Pam phlet Review Panel</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">135A Establishment of Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution is to be submitted to the electors, the Minister must, by writing, establish a panel to be known as the Referendum Pamphlet Review Panel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The Minister must ensure that the Panel is established, and members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c) appointed, such that it will have sufficient time to perform its functions in relation to the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution, taking into account the period within which arguments may be forwarded to the Electoral Commissioner in accordance with subsections 11(1) and (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An instrument made under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">135B Functions of the Panel</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Panel has the following functions:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to conduct a review of the arguments in favour, and against, the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution, which are to be contained in pamphlets referred to in section 11;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to determine what changes (if any) to the arguments the Panel considers should be made to address any concerns of the Panel in relation to the arguments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) to decide whether to approve the arguments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) to do anything else that is incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) In performing its functions in relation to an argument mentioned in subsection (1), the Panel must only consider matters relating to whether the argument contains:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) any statements purporting to be a statement of fact that are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) misleading or deceptive to a material extent; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) likely to mislead or deceive to a material extent; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any statements that are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate one or more persons on the ground of the persons':</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) race, colour or national or ethnic origin; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) sex; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status (all within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination Act 1984</inline>); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) age; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(v) disability (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Disability Discrimination Act 1992</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">135C Membership of the Panel</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Panel consists of the following members:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Electoral Commissioner;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Parliamentary Librarian appointed under section 38C of the<inline font-style="italic"> Parliamentary Se</inline><inline font-style="italic">rvice Act 1999</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) at least 3 persons appointed by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Members of the Panel mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) are to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A person must not be appointed as a member of the Panel under subsection (2) unless:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications, skills or experience in fact-checking or culturally appropriate communications; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not have any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that conflicts or could conflict with the proper performance of the person's duties as a member of the Panel; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Prime Minister has consulted with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives about the appointment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) In appointing members of the Panel under subsection (2), the Minister must ensure, to the extent practicable, that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the members of the Panel mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) are an appropriate mix of persons with the qualifications, skills or experience mentioned in paragraph (3)(a); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if one or more working groups (however described) were established by or on behalf of the Commonwealth in relation to the development of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution—the Panel includes one or more persons who were included in such working groups; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Panel includes at least 2 other persons who have extensive experience at a high level in a field of research relevant to the Panel's functions in relation to the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) To avoid doubt, the Electoral Commissioner may not delegate under section 138 the Commissioner's duties as a member of the Panel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">135D Other matters relating to the Panel</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the Panel, including, but not limited to, the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the operation and procedures of the Panel;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) remuneration or allowances of members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) resignation of members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) disclosure of interests by members of the Panel;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) termination of appointment of members mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) leave of absence of members of the Panel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If no regulations are in force under subsection (1), the operation and procedures of the Panel may be as determined in writing by the Panel.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Subsections 7(9) and (13) of the <inline font-style="italic">Remuneration Tribunal Act 1979</inline> do not apply in relation to the office of a member of the Panel mentioned in paragraph 135C(1)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The effect of this subsection is that any remuneration or allowances of a such a member will be paid out of money appropriated by an Act other than the <inline font-style="italic">Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973</inline>.</para></quote>
<para>I have been in discussions with the government about these amendments. The first one is about simply having an exclusion zone around polling booths. This is done in Tasmania and the ACT. It works very effectively in taking the heat out of polling booths. In my opinion it's a much nicer experience for voters. Given the sensitivity of this referendum and some of the rhetoric we are already hearing, I believe it is a sensible amendment to ensure that people are safe when they're casting their vote.</para>
<para>The amendments on sheet 1815 truncate the disclosure time frame. To me it's frankly ridiculous in 2023 that, six months after an election, we find out who funded it. We have plenty of technology to be able to do that in a much more timely manner. I'm proposing seven days to disclose, seven days to make that public. I understand the government's reason—that they're waiting for JSCEM—but this is something that we know Australians want and something we have the technology to do, and it's disappointing not to have support for a sensible amendment like that.</para>
<para>Finally, a review of the pamphlet arguments—just leaving it up to politicians. We've seen over a number of elections political parties being willing to be very creative with the truth, down to smear campaigns and misinformation. It seems to me that having some sort of independent check on that is a sensible move.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicate that the government will be opposing these amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition will be opposing all three amendments.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting these sensible amendments, in particular about real-time disclosure. We have a similar amendment to achieve the same outcome, although I do note that we would actually like the disclosure threshold to be lowered down to $1,000. I note that this amendment would simply maintain the disclosure threshold where it is. But we are in support of real-time disclosure, and, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, we support an independent review of the pamphlet text. We are happy enough with this formulation of folk to do that, as we were with the previous amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We'd just like to put on record that we're in the affirmative for 1815 and 1851 but in the negative for 1816.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll break the question then.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I just want to put on the record that I support Senator Pocock's amendments.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that all amendments on sheets 1851 and 1815, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [19:20] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Ayres, T.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson, P. L.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>O'Neill, D. M.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Paterson, J. W.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Pratt, L. C.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</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><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Unless any senator wishes to make a further contribution, I intend to put Senator Pocock's further amendments. No senators wish to speak, so I will put the question that all the amendments on sheet 1816, standing in the name of Senator Pocock, be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—Chairman, under the standing orders I ask that the names of Greens senators be recorded as being in favour of the motion, along with Senator Thorpe and Senator David Pocock.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 12 — Secure telephone voting</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Section 73L</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">electronically assisted voting method </inline>includes a method prescribed for the purposes of subsection 73M(1B).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 After subsection 73M(1A)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) The regulations must provide for a telephone voting method, to be used by persons covered by a determination under subsection 73QB(1), to vote at referendums.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Subsection 73M(3)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "subsection (1) or (1A)", substitute "subsection (1), (1A) or (1B)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Subsec tion 73M(7)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and Antarctic electors", substitute ", Antarctic electors and persons covered by a determination under subsection 73QB(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 At the end of Part IVB</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">73QB Electoral Commissioner must determine that certain persons may use a secure tel ephone voting method</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Electoral Commissioner must, by legislative instrument, determine that a secure telephone voting method prescribed for the purposes of subsection 73M(1B) may be used by individuals:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) who have not previously voted in the referendum; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) who are a member of a class of persons specified in subsection (2) during all or part of the period:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) starting at 6.01pm on the Wednesday that is 3 days before the voting day in the referendum; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) ending on the close of voting for the referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Nothing in this section or in the regulations made for the purposes of subsection 73M(1B) authorises any person to vote more than once at a referendum, see subsection 73M(6).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The class of persons for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) include the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) voters located in a remote area;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) voters receiving residential care (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Aged Care Act 1997</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) voters impacted by a declared emergency or declared natural disaster;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) voters in hospital who are unable to attend a polling place;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) voters located overseas who do not have access to a postal vote or overseas polling place;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) itinerant electors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any other class of persons specified in the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The regulations may specify eligibility requirements for the classes of persons mentioned in subsection (2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Instrument must be published on the Electoral Commission's website</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the Electoral Commissioner makes a legislative instrument under subsection (1), the Electoral Commissioner:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) must publish the legislative instrument on the Electoral Commission's website; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) may publish the legislative instrument in any other way the Electoral Commissioner considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Electoral Commissi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">oner's powers may not be delegated</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Despite section 138, the Electoral Commissioner may not delegate a power or function under this section.</para></quote>
<para>These amendments would introduce telephone voting provisions similar to those we had during COVID. It is nothing radical, nothing new and completely doable. It is a small measure with a big impact that would allow so many people who otherwise could not vote to vote because they can't physically attend a voting booth to cast their votes. If referendums are really the people's vote then we should all support these amendments. I'll also add that I won't be moving amendments on sheets 1854 or 1818.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Thorpe.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to indicate that the opposition will not be supporting Senator Thorpe's amendment on sheet 1865.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Waters, would you like to put the position of the Greens?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, thank you. We have an incredibly similar amendment, and we think both are great.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to put my support in, but just my support for this one. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOC</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>K () (): May I please indicate my support as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment on sheet 1865 standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can my vote be recorded?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, I think everyone's position is known, given the declarations ahead of the putting of the vote. But I'll make sure it's recorded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 9 — Citizen Initiated Referendums</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 After section 145</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">146 Schedule 5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5 has effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 At the end of the Act</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5 — Citizen Initiated Referendums</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: See section 146.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1 — Preliminary</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Guide to this Schedule</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Schedule enables Australian citizens to initiate legislation that provides for the holding of a referendum to alter the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 sets out the process that must be followed, and the requirements that must be met, in order for a citizen to initiate the holding of a referendum.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The process involves the following steps:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a person who is an elector may apply to the Electoral Commission to register a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Electoral Commissioner must examine the proposal and decide whether it relates to a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the proposal relates to a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution, the Electoral Commissioner must register the proposal and the applicant must then lodge with the Electoral Commission a document containing the signatures of 2% of the total of all electors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if the applicant lodges the document within 6 months of the proposal being registered, the Electoral Commissioner must undertake random sampling to verify that at least 2% of those signatures were obtained validly;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) once a proposal is verified, the Minister must cause a proposed law to alter the Constitution, in accordance with the proposal, to be introduced into the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3 sets out rules that apply to the holding of a citizen initiated referendum. Once a proposed law to alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal has been passed, by an absolute majority of one House, or both Houses, of the Parliament, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution, the Governor-General may issue a writ for the citizen initiated referendum to be held.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 4 deals with delegation of the Electoral Commissioner's functions and powers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Object of this Schedule</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The object of this Schedule is to enable Australian citizens to initiate a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Defini tions</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In this Schedule:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">citizen initiated referendum</inline> means a referendum resulting from a proposal that is verified under clause 9.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">qualifying day</inline>, for a proposal for a referendum, has the meaning given by subclause 8(2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">qualifying requirements</inline>, for a proposal for a referendum, has the meaning given by subclause 8(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">random sampling process</inline> has the meaning given by subclause 9(3).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2 — Process for initiating a referendum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Application to register proposal for referendum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person who is an elector may apply to the Electoral Commission to register a proposal for a referendum to amend the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An application to register a proposal for a referendum must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be in the approved form; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) contain an outline of the proposal; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) be accompanied by the application fee prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The amount of the application fee must not be such as to amount to taxation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The application fee may be refunded in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Electoral Commissio ner to examine proposal for referendum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Within 1 month after receiving an application under clause 4, the Electoral Commissioner must examine the proposal outlined in the application and decide whether it is a proposal to amend the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Registration of proposal for referendum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Electoral Commissioner must, after the examination, register the proposal unless he or she is satisfied that the proposal does not relate to a proposal to amend the Constitution.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the Electoral Commissioner is not satisfied that the proposal relates to a constitutional matter, the Electoral Commissioner must reject the application to register the proposal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The Electoral Commissioner may not reject an application without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Notice of decision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Within 7 days after making a decision under clause 6, the Electoral Commissioner must give a written notice to the applicant:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) if the decision was to register the proposal—setting out the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) a statement that the proposal has been registered;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a statement that the applicant must satisfy the qualifying requirements for the proposal by the qualifying day in order for the proposal to progress;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the qualifying day for the proposal; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the decision was to reject the application for the proposal—stating that the proposal has been rejected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Meaning of qualifying r equirements and qualifying day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) An applicant will satisfy the <inline font-style="italic">qualifying requirements</inline> for a proposal for a referendum if the applicant lodges with the Electoral Commission a document containing the signatures, printed names and addresses of at least 2% of all electors in a majority of States.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The <inline font-style="italic">qualifying day </inline>for a proposal for a referendum is the day that is 1 month after the end of the period of 6 months starting when the proposal is registered under clause 6.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Electoral Commissioner to verify t hat qualifying requirements have been satisfied</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This clause applies if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an applicant lodges a document with the Electoral Commission that purports to satisfy the qualifying requirements for a proposal for a referendum; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the document is lodged by the end of the qualifying day for the proposal.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Within 4 months after the applicant lodges the document, the Electoral Commission must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) undertake a random sampling process to verify whether the signatures contained in the document were validly obtained; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) either:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) if the results of the random sampling process indicate that the signatures contained in the document were validly obtained—verify the proposal and notify the applicant, in writing, that the proposal has been verified; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) otherwise—notify the applicant, in writing, that the proposal has been rejected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) To undertake a <inline font-style="italic">random sampling process</inline> in respect of the signatures contained in a document, the Electoral Commission must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) randomly select at least 2% of the persons whose signatures are contained in the document; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) contact each of those persons to verify that their signature was validly obtained; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) undertake any procedure set out in the regulations in respect of the random sampling process.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Minister to arrange for introduction of proposed law</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Within 2 months after a proposal for a referendum is verified under clause 9, the Minister must cause a proposed law that will alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal to be introduced into the Parliament.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 3 — Holding a citizen initiated referendum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Writ for referendum</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a proposal for a referendum has been verified under clause 9; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a proposed law to alter the Constitution in accordance with the proposal has been passed by an absolute majority of one House, or both Houses, of the Parliament, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the Governor-General may issue a writ for the submission of the proposed law to the electors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A writ issued under subclause (1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may be in accordance with Form A in Schedule 1 to the <inline font-style="italic">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984</inline>; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must be signed by the Governor-General; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) must appoint:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the day for the close of the Rolls; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the day for taking the votes of electors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the day for the return of the writ.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 4 — Miscellaneous</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 Delegation by Electoral Commissioner</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Electoral Commissioner may, in writing, delegate to the Deputy Electoral Commissioner all or any of the functions or powers of the Electoral Commissioner under this Schedule.</para></quote>
<para>I'll just briefly say that the amendment is in relation to citizen initiated referenda. It means that two per cent of the population can get a petition drawn up in accordance with the AEC and present it to the parliament, and, if the parliament agrees to it and it passes both houses, then it will be put to a vote at a referendum by the people. This will give the people of Australia an opportunity to sign a petition and present it to the parliament if they have concerns with anything that's in the referendum, whether they wish to have something inserted or withdrawn from the referendum. It's basically the people's democracy. I must assure the parliament that it cannot be passed without both houses agreeing to it. It's basically giving the people a voice. This has actually worked in other countries around the world who have this in place, and it's worked very well for them. I think it's about time that we allow the people to have more of a voice in this country.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There seems to be a bit of a mood around the chamber that, with a little bit of extra time beyond 7.30 pm, we may be able to conclude all stages this evening. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That progress be reported.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Progress reported.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>122</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the sitting hours of the Senate be varied so much that the adjournment occur on the motion of a minister.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>122</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>122</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="r6965" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>122</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're dealing with Senator Hanson's amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the luxury of a brief additional period of time, I'll put the Greens' position on the record in relation to this amendment. We support participatory democracy. Politics can't work for people without listening to their voices rather than the voices of big donors and corporations. However, the proposal from One Nation sets the threshold for triggering a big and expensive review of our constitutional framework at just two per cent of voters in the majority of states. That is a big change, and we think it needs more consideration, particularly about what an appropriate threshold will be. We will not be supporting the amendments, but we will continue to call for reforms that increase democratic participation and give politics back to the people. This could include a range of things such as citizen juries, reforming question time, mechanisms to allow the public to petition for a key issue to be debated in parliament, a range of reforms to get big money out of politics and ensuring that the maximum number of people get to vote in elections and referenda, something that our amendments, which, sadly, were not supported by this chamber, sought to achieve.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to indicate that the opposition think that this is a very interesting idea, but it should go through the normal JSCEM processes, so we won't be supporting this amendment at this time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>250026</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>LAMBIE () (): The JLN will not be supporting this, although we do agree that it's an interesting idea. It's just a little bit late in the involvement of things.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Hanson for her contribution. I agree that this is a very interesting proposal. I have not had time to look at it properly. Whilst generally supportive of participatory democracy, should this come to a vote, I will abstain.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I put the motion: because of the nature of the number of motions in relation to the placement of business, we can't, at this point in time, have divisions. I'm in the hands of the leaders here. We can actually record our positions, or we can move further motions to amend that position. We can put the question for that division, but the division will be deferred. I'm in the hands of the chamber. Before I put the question, I'm happy to reflect the will of the chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It seems there are two options before us to try to conclude tonight. One is that, as you just expressed, the parties can individually express their positions, and that avoids the need for a division to be called. The other is that, if we report out of the committee again, with the leave of the chamber and no disagreement across the chamber, we could move that divisions also be allowed if that is the will of members. But, if somebody called a division on that, that division itself would have to be deferred until tomorrow. Depending on the will of the people to easily get the job done, the simplest path would be for people to express their opinions and for those to be recorded.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is anybody intending to call a division for any of the remaining—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We would have if we could have.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARR</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If nobody is intending to call a division, let's proceed.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hanson-Young.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the suggestion from Senator Birmingham is a good one and I feel that the goodwill in the room was to that intent. We should move forward in that vein.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So are you suggesting that we report progress, move another motion to allow divisions and then return back into committee?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I am.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister has no objection, so I'll give the call to Senator Hanson.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To confirm that: do you want to record the votes without calling a division? Obviously, if I wanted to call a division, I have the opportunity to call a division for this if I have the two voices. Is that correct?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You could still call a division, but it would have to take place tomorrow. One of the options on the table is that we report progress—I go up to the chair—and then we allow divisions and just proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm quite happy to have people's votes recorded without calling a division.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, but other members of the chamber wish to have divisions.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So we're going to have a division?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Greens have indicated that they wish to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON-YOUNG</name>
    <name.id>I0U</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian Greens would like to be able to complete this tonight, if we can. I feel like there's goodwill in the room to do it. If we don't need divisions and all parties are willing to put their position on the record, that is fine. We are also relaxed about the idea of having to go back to the Senate if need be. I feel as though we now have consensus around the room—something the Greens are quite good at—to make sure that we can move forward.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to summarise the mood of the room and then you can all pull it apart. I feel that the mood of the room is to stay in committee and proceed. If someone wishes to record their position, they can do so. I'm going to proceed. I now put the question that the amendment on sheet 1874 moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think, Senator Hanson, you would like it recorded that you supported that amendment—and Senator Babet and Senator Roberts.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1862:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Page 63 (after line 2), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 11 — Entitlement to vote</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Subsection 93(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit ", (5) and (8AA)", substitute "and (5)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subsection 93(8AA)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Section 109</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Subsection 110(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "sections 108 and 109", substitute "section 108".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Subsection 112(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Application of section 108 to the Australian Capital Territory</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) For the purposes of the application of section 108 in relation to the Australian Capital Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Australian Capital Territory does not include Norfolk Island or the Jervis Bay Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) subject to subsection (3), section 108 applies in relation to Norfolk Island as if references in that section to a State were references to Norfolk Island; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) subject to subsection (4), section 108 applies in relation to the Jervis Bay Territory as if references in that section to a State were references to the Jervis Bay Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subsection 112(5)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Subsection 112(6)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Application of section 108 to the Northern Territory</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) For the purposes of the application of section 108 in relation to the Northern Territory:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Northern Territory does not include the Territory of Christmas Island or the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) subject to subsection (7), section 109 applies in relation to the Territory of Christmas Island as if references in that section to a State were references to the Territory of Christmas Island; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) subject to subsection (8), section 109 applies in relation to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands as if references in that sections to a State were references to the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Subsection 112(9)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Paragraph 208(2)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "; and".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 Paragraph 208(2)(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Paragraph 221(3)(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12 Paragraph 221(3)(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph.</para></quote>
<para>This amendment would remove the restriction on people in prison being able to vote. Denying people in prison the right to vote is like adding punishment beyond their imprisonment. It treats people in prison as if they are not members of the Australian community and as if their views on constitutional reforms that impact the way we live our lives don't matter. Restricting the right of people in prison to vote is a form of disenfranchisement, which heavily affects already marginalised people.</para>
<para>The overincarceration of First Nations people means that disenfranchisement disproportionately affects Aboriginal communities, which are already neglected by political processes. Some 0.6 per cent of Aboriginal people in Australia are disenfranchised by restrictions on voting from prison, compared to 0.075 per cent of non-Aboriginal people. We know that many people removed from the electoral roll while in prison may not re-enrol after their release, which just compounds the disenfranchising impact of the restriction.</para>
<para>This amendment seeks to restore the dignity and voting rights of people in prison. I urge the chamber to support it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Rather than get up every time, I indicate that we oppose all of the remaining Australian Greens amendments. There's an opportunity to raise these issues in JSCEM.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HUME</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the convenience of the chamber, I indicate that the opposition will also not be supporting any of the upcoming amendments of the Greens and the one that is immediately before the chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>One Nation will not be supporting this amendment. Senator Waters said that people in incarceration should have the right to vote. I'm sorry, but they shouldn't have the right to vote. They have committed crimes against society and lost their rights, and one of the rights is the right to vote. If you don't commit crimes—and be a citizen—then you will have those rights.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Waters</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that it be recorded that the Greens voted in support of our own excellent amendment.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To make this work, do any other senators wish to indicate that their support be recorded? Okay. I intend to ask that question after every vote to remind members.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1843 together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (after line 7), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">disclosure threshold</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">financial disclosure period</inline> has the meaning given by section 3AAB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (after line 21), after the definition of <inline font-style="italic">referendum expenditure period</inline>, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">reporting timeframe</inline> has the meaning given by section 3AAB.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 19 (after line 30), after section 3AAA, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3AAB Financial disclosure periods and reporting timeframes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Column 1 of the following table sets out the <inline font-style="italic">financial disclosure periods</inline> in a referendum expenditure period. Column 2 of the table sets out the <inline font-style="italic">reporting timeframe</inline> for each financial disclosure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, item 3, page 21 (line 3) to page 24 (line 2), omit sections 109E and 109F, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109E Returns by referendum entities</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant person</inline>) must provide a return in accordance with this section if the relevant person has become a referendum entity by the end of a financial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Returns provided under this section must be published by the Electoral Commissioner on the Transparency Register (see section 320 of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Civil penalty:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The higher of the following amounts:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 60 penalty units;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if there is sufficient evidence for the court to determine the amount, or an estimate of the amount, of referendum expenditure not disclosed—3 times that amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The relevant person must provide to the Electoral Commission a return:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) setting out:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) details of the referendum expenditure incurred by or with the authority of the relevant person during the period covered by subsection (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the total value of gifts covered by subsection (4) that were received by the relevant person during the period covered by subsection (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the total number of persons and entities who made gifts covered by subsection (4) to the relevant person during the period covered by subsection (3); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the financial disclosure period is the final such period in a referendum expenditure period—including a statement that the relevant person complied with section 109J during the referendum expenditure period, signed by the members, agents or officers (however described) of the relevant person who have responsibility for ensuring that the relevant person complies with this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: For the purposes of subparagraph (a)(i), referendum expenditure is the total amount of expenditure incurred the period covered by subsection (3) in relation to all referendums held on a single day (see subsection 3AAA(3)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The period covered by this subsection is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the financial disclosure period; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the financial disclosure period is not the first such period in the referendum expenditure period, and the relevant person became a referendum entity during the financial disclosure period—the period starting at the start of the referendum expenditure period and ending at the end of the financial disclosure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A gift is covered by this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The return must:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) be provided before the end of the reporting timeframe for the financial disclosure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) be in the approved form; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if the relevant person is also required to provide a return under section 109F for the financial disclosure period—include that return.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsection 93(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act does not apply in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">109F Returns relating to gifts received by referendum entities for referendum exp enditure</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A person or entity (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant person</inline>) must provide a return for a financial disclosure period in a referendum expenditure period in accordance with this section if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant person has become a referendum entity by the end of the financial disclosure period; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the relevant person received one or more gifts covered by subsection (2) during:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—the financial disclosure period; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) if the financial disclosure period is not the first such period in the referendum expenditure period, and the relevant person became a referendum entity during the financial disclosure period—the period starting at the start of the referendum expenditure period and ending at the end of the financial disclosure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The return required under this section must be included in the return provided under section 109E (see paragraph 109E(5)(c)).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A gift received by the relevant person from another person or entity is covered by this subsection if the gift is covered by subsection (3) and the total amount of the following was more than $1,000:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the gift;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other gifts covered by subsection (3) that the relevant person has received from the other person or entity during the period starting at the start of the referendum expenditure period and ending at the end of the financial disclosure period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) A gift is covered by this subsection if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relevant person knows that the person or entity who made the gift intends the gift to be used for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the relevant person accepted the gift intending to use the gift for the purposes of incurring referendum expenditure, or for the dominant purpose of creating or communicating referendum matter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The relevant person must provide to the Electoral Commission a return setting out the information referred to in subsection (5) in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) each gift mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) received by the relevant person from any other person or entity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any other gift received by the relevant person from another person or entity mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection, if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the gift is mentioned in paragraph (2)(b); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the relevant person was not already required to give information in relation to the gift in a return under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the information is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the amount of the gift or each of the gifts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the date on which the gift or each of the gifts were made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) for a gift or gifts on behalf of the members of an unincorporated association (other than a registered industrial organisation within the meaning of Part XX of the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>)—the name of the association, and the names and addresses of the members of the executive committee (however described) of the association;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) for a gift or gifts purportedly made out of a trust fund, or out of the funds of a foundation—the names and addresses of the trustees of the fund or foundation, and the title, name or other description of the trust fund or foundation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) for any other gift or gifts—the name and address of the person who made the gift or gifts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 4, item 3, page 24 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the disclosure threshold", substitute "$1,000".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 4, item 3, page 24 (line 16), omit "15 weeks", substitute "5 days".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 4, item 7, page 40 (table item 6), omit "24 weeks after the voting day for the referendum to which the return relates", substitute "14 days after the return is provided".</para></quote>
<para>Our amendments do two things. They lower the disclosure threshold to $1,000, the level the Greens have long advocated for all donation disclosures to be set at and the level that it is in fact set at in most states and territories. The amendments also require far more regular disclosure so that people aren't finding out who funded the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns many months after the referendum is done and dusted.</para>
<para>Disclosure isn't a complete solution. The Greens will continue to call for caps on donations in all elections. But regular disclosure of all donations above $1,000 would give people a better insight into who is providing the information that they rely upon when they decide how they will vote.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I put on the record that we support this.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I ask that my name be recorded as being opposed to the amendments.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>127</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank everyone in the chamber for their cooperation and—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hume</name>
    <name.id>266499</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's not prolong this.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can at least say that, surely? Anyway, 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>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>127</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mobile Black Spot Program</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today because I want to express my profound disappointment in the Labor Party's attitude towards regional Australia and the desperate need to address mobile connectivity. It is no secret that residents in rural and remote areas struggle with inadequate mobile coverage, resulting in safety issues and gaps in communication, including ones that result in the loss of business opportunities. That's why when we were in government the Nationals developed the Mobile Black Spot Program. In our time in government we constructed and delivered over 1,200 base stations, funded across rural and Australia in seats of all political holdings. And now Labor has the reins. Congratulations.</para>
<para>They came in saying they would address the problems. Well, what have they done? They've given it a new name, for starters, because Labor are very good at changing logos, giving new names and changing the machinery of government. They've called it the Better Connectivity Plan for Regional and Rural Australia and they claim this program will finally address the issue of regional connectivity, but the reality is that it is nothing more than a sham.</para>
<para>While in government, we recognised that, through the five earlier rounds of the Mobile Black Spot Program in the early days, the low-hanging fruit was taken. The obvious and mildly commercial options were addressed. We saw the need over time to adjust the program. We developed round 5A and then we developed new guidelines for round 6. We looked at new ideas. We sat down with community and industry to ensure that even our most remote communities had a hope of getting access to funding through the program. Whether it was councils building towers to be accessed by all providers or looking at small-cell options, everything was on the table. We worked with industry and community anywhere that connectivity was an issue, regardless of political holdings.</para>
<para>Then Labor came in, and Labor's promise to improve mobile phone coverage in black spots has been nothing but a political exercise in pork-barrelling, aimed at winning votes and boosting the party's profile in Labor electorates. The sad truth is that, in announcing funding under the latest round, Labor has done nothing but feather its own nest.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Polley</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You hold Bass! That's not true.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVEY</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is absolutely true, because in New South Wales all of the sites selected were in Labor electorates. In Victoria the majority of sites went to Labor electorates. I agree we hold Bass, Senator Polley, but in Tasmania the majority of black spot programs went to Labor electorates. It is beyond belief that no funding went to seats like Farrer, where I live, or the Riverina or Parkes—the majority of regional and rural New South Wales.</para>
<para>When questioned on 2GB radio by Ben Fordham, Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland actually admitted that, yes, she hand-picked every site for funding. She admitted that she worked with Labor candidates prior to the election to identify their locations for funding. She agreed that none of the locations chosen were selected based on advice from the Department of Communications.</para>
<para>I believe there is a word for this blatant partisan decision-making. What is it? Pork-barrelling! What is worse: given that Labor holds a minority of regional seats, this sort of partisan funding should ring alarm bells right across rural and regional Australia. I find it deeply concerning that the Labor Party is more interested in scoring political points than addressing the real issues faced by regional people. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Right now homeless people across Tasmania and Australia are doing it tough. It really is tough for them. They're sleeping rough of a night, and these summer nights are not going to last for much longer. Too many Tasmanians are couch-surfing, sleeping in their cars, relying on friends and family, or sleeping in tents with their kids. And then there are those who don't have any friends or family that they can rely on. Nearly 10,000 women and children are seeking safety at crisis accommodation shelters across the country, and they are often being turned away because of the lack of supply after nine long years of the Liberal-National governments.</para>
<para>Every single person sleeping rough has a personal story to tell. I urge people to think about that when they walk past homeless people or see the tents in the park, because it could happen to any of us. Too many Australians are living pay cheque to pay cheque. They're one pay cheque away from not meeting their mortgage repayments or their weekly bills.</para>
<para>We know that a disproportionate number of women are now homeless. Women often retire without a reasonable superannuation balance because they have been caregivers, they have been raising their children or, in many cases, they have been caring for their elderly parents. Many women feel unable to leave an unsafe relationship because they do not have the right financial circumstances. The Albanese Labor government is doing everything in its power to ease the cost of living, drive down prices and implement a housing strategy that is fit for purpose and allows more Australians to be safe and warm at night, either in their own dwelling or one provided by social and affordable housing.</para>
<para>Homelessness and a lack of housing have been issues for many, many years, and those opposite and the Liberal state government in Tasmania have done nothing but break promises. They've neglected to ensure that there is affordable housing for people who are in urgent need. That's why the Albanese Labor government will establish the Housing Australia Future Fund to build 30,000 social and affordable homes across the country. What we need is for those opposite to support that legislation. The housing will include 4,000 homes for women and children fleeing violence, and older women on low incomes who are at risk of becoming homeless. I'm glad to say that this has started in my home state of Tasmania.</para>
<para>As a government, we are also going to invest in 500 new community sector workers across Australia to support people who are facing violence. The extra hands will be instrumental in getting more women and children out of dangerous environments. People need support and they need to be able to talk to people they can relate to. Further to this, to support women in northern Tasmania the Albanese Labor government is providing $2.25 million for additional crisis accommodation. We expect that this could help as many as 202 women and children to find refuge. We will also fund 12 workers to help 960 women and support them during the hardest times of their lives. I look forward to working with my Tasmanian colleague Minister Julie Collins to deliver on this much-needed funding. Survivors of violence are strong and they deserve to have the help they need to rebuild their lives. Labor will tackle the scourge of domestic violence with ambition and urgency.</para>
<para>I look forward to the day when we see more social housing built across Australia to address the very real homelessness epidemic across this country and in my home state. It is devastating to think that the Liberal state government and the former Liberal-National federal government did nothing in terms of providing that support for women and children who are desperate to leave a domestic violence situation. They're asked, 'Why don't you leave?' The reason is that they have nowhere to go. What we should be asking them is, 'What can we do to assist you to rebuild your life and live in safe, affordable housing so you can go on to reach your full potential and support your children?' Older women in this country are the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in this country. It's shameful. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Biosecurity: Pet Importation Permits</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor has backflipped on its pet permit implementation bungle after being grilled about its dog act by the Nationals in Senate estimates. We recently received some great news about Maximus and Henry, two dogs trapped as a result of this implementation farce by the Labor Party on coming to power.</para>
<para>I want to read some of the comments from some loving dog owners who are so stoked with the backflip by Labor: 'We want to share the fantastic news with you that DAFF yesterday issued permits for both our dogs, Maximus and Henry, for the 10 days quarantine. This is the best news we could have hoped for and we wanted to pass on our thanks to you and your team. We also understand from others that DAFF have indicated in correspondence to them that they will honour the 24-month RNATT for applicants prior to 1 March 2023 with 30-day quarantine. This small win will be very welcome news for many families who were applicants prior to 12 January, in particular, who were impacted by this change and just need to get to Australia and who were willing to accept 30 days. For those still stuck in the ID check rigmarole and having to start again to qualify for 10 days quarantine, those in the UK who are still unable to do this, it remains an ongoing issue.</para>
<para>'DAFF did point out to us: "Please note that the assessment and outcome was specific to your dogs and the information provided and assessed. This outcome is not guaranteed in every instance for every applicant." DAFF has not, to our understanding, publicly indicated that they may be willing to review information to support ID checks from applicants most impacted on a case-by-case basis, and we're reluctant to share the outcome of our own assessment due to perception of favouritism.'</para>
<para>This is unacceptable. The Labor Party made a mistake in the implementation of what is good biosecurity practice, and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of dogs, families, expats impacted by this. As we know, 6½ thousand dogs and cats came into Australia in 2022 alone. Many of their owners had put in applications to return their beloved pets to Australia under the pre-existing regime, only to be caught short by the implementation disaster under Labor, which was uncovered in Senate estimates.</para>
<para>I really want to say thank you to Michelle Johnson, who was willing to speak out on this issue. That allowed us, as the National Party, to prosecute this in Senate estimates. We're stoked that Maximus and Henry are home with Andrew and Shona, and we look forward to that family being reunited at home here in Australia, whilst we're also keeping our biosecurity issues in place, like our strong borders. We want to keep Australia safe and free from disease, but it's important that Australians, whether they're here or overseas, have confidence in our biosecurity system.</para>
<para>Under Labor's new rules, pet owners overseas must now take their animals to official government vets for identity checks: Who actually is Maximus? Who actually is Henry and others? This is like classic—what's that show on the ABC?</para>
<para>An honourable senator: <inline font-style="italic">Bluey</inline>?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, not <inline font-style="italic">Bluey</inline>. It's where they make up policies on whiteboards.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Davey</name>
    <name.id>281697</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">Utopia</inline>!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para><inline font-style="italic">Utopia</inline>. It's classic <inline font-style="italic">Utopia</inline>. The official government vets, who this entire biosecurity arrangement was based on, actually don't exist in the US or the UK yet. We've got potentially thousands of expats in the US and in the UK who want to return home with their pets but are unable to because the actual system the Labor Party set up doesn't exist. They can't have their pets identified in the UK or the US. Hats off to everybody over there.</para>
<para>Thankfully, they've given an exemption for Maximus and Henry to come home. I'm calling on the Labor Party not to make that a once-off but to ensure that all cats, dogs, llamas, mice, gerbils, whatever—family pets, one and all—can, within a strong biosecurity system, come home with appropriate systems in place to protect our strong borders on biosecurity, but also to ensure that pets are reunited and stay with the families that love them. Thank you Andrew and Shona. It's been our pleasure.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Indigenous Australians Agency</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HANSON</name>
    <name.id>BK6</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As Australians would be aware, the Liberal Party today struck a deal with Labor to give the government the numbers to pass the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. In effect, the coalition have handed Labor the starter's gun for what will be an extraordinarily divisive constitutional change when we peg Indigenous Australians against all other Australians.</para>
<para>My concerns have been further elevated today by a letter I received from a member of the public who provided an 11-point plan he says was devised by staff within the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which operates within the remit of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It's the same NIAA I brought to the Australian people's attention earlier this week—a body of 1,317 bureaucrats funded to the tune of almost $4½ billion this financial year, reportedly set up to improve the lives of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The NIAA is an unnecessary, duplicative body set up in addition to the roughly 3,000 Aboriginal corporations registered under the CATSI Act that claim to do the same thing.</para>
<para>But my anxiety levels are rising following this correspondence, containing details of an 11-point plan, left behind by a group of six or seven NIAA employees who were having coffee at a cafe in the Woden town centre. This coffee shop in Woden is roughly 450 metres from the NIAA office here in Canberra.</para>
<para>Let me read to you the 11 bullet points that were taken from the pages left behind by that group of NIAA staff. It was headed 'Early action opportunities for the Voice'. 'One, jobs quota—minimum 10 per cent appointments to be First Nations people for judges, magistrates, CW, SES, ADF officers, AFP and state police forces, corrections departments, vice-chancellors and ambassadors. Two, universities—no entry test and no fees for First Nations people. Three, old age pensions—reduced age eligibility for First Nations people because we die younger. Four, public housing—First Nations people to have first preference for all vacant public housing across all states. Five, sport and music—entry fees reduced by 50 per cent for First Nations people for any events on public land. Six, beaches and national parks—all beaches and national parks to be property of the relevant tribe, and non-First-Nations people to be charged to use the beaches, parks et cetera; revenues to go to relevant tribe. Seven—rivers and streams to become property of relevant tribe, and fees for water consumption paid to relevant tribe. Eight, mining royalties—same as for water. Nine—income tax for First Nations people to be 50 per cent of normal rate. Ten, liquor licensing—all new liquor licences across Australia to be vetted by Voice. Eleven, Voice office—research, policy staff to analyse and review all proposed government policies, legislation and appointments; same size and pay as DPMC.' The 'DPMC' they refer to stands for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.</para>
<para>If the Prime Minister is aware of these initiatives set out by the NIAA, it would appear that Mr Albanese continues to mislead the Australian people over the extent of the powers given to the Voice to Parliament. If, on the other hand, the PM does not know about the list, then who from Prime Minister and Cabinet is overseeing the actions of the National Indigenous Australians Agency? Australians have a right to know the extent of the powers being handed to the Voice to Parliament now—certainly not whenever this government feels like it.</para>
<para>What has been listed here greatly concerns me because, as I said before, once you put it in the Constitution, any government can make whatever legislation they want and it cannot be changed. It is only through a referendum that it can be changed. This is fraught with danger for the rest of Australia, because this is divisive. What they're proposing here will divide Australians, and we are all Australians together. That's why I want an answer from the Labor Party and I definitely want an answer from the Prime Minister: What are your intentions? What do you intend to do to the Australian people? It's not about bringing everyone together; it's about dividing us. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales Election</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>20:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'NEILL</name>
    <name.id>140651</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak about the upcoming state election, on Saturday, in New South Wales, my home state. It's a state that's desperate for a fresh start, and a Minns Labor government is a recipe for a great New South Wales. The past 12 years of Liberal-National government in New South Wales has seen our state rocked by scandal after scandal at the highest levels of Liberal-National politics and leadership. There's been an ongoing and egregious privatisation of our state's public assets. It's seen a total lack of policy accomplishments, with nothing—nothing—to show for more than a decade in government.</para>
<para>As a duty senator for the great regions of New South Wales that cover the seats of Parkes, Calare, Farrer, Riverina, Hume and Lyne, much of the work that I do outside of Canberra entails travel to the rural and regional parts of New South Wales. These are regions that the coalition and in particular the National Party claim to advocate for most strongly, and yet the reality is that after 12 years of Liberal-National Party government in New South Wales the entirety of the state of New South Wales and particularly our rural and regional areas are hurting. They are in fact in a state of profound neglect.</para>
<para>Health and education, two of the primary public services which state governments are responsible for delivering, has totally deteriorated under the coalition. The management of the New South Wales health system under the coalition has seen an egregious collapse in the capacity of our health services to respond to the needs in our state. Unacceptably long ambulance waiting times and stories of ambulances being ramped at hospitals for hours have become sadly commonplace. They're just reported daily in our news cycle. Even in our metropolitan areas, the state of public education is in need of serious attention as the teacher shortage in our country really begins to bite. The situation with regard to teachers is even more dire in regional New South Wales. My office constantly hears stories of high schools without enough teachers to actually start classes for the day. Students are forced to take off full days from learning and complete the vast majority of their courses remotely, with no teacher.</para>
<para>But there is hope for change this Saturday. Not only are Labor committed to ensuring that teachers, particularly in our public system, are valued; we are committed to the commonsense policies that will improve the quality of both the teaching and learning experiences for those in schools in New South Wales. To respond practically to that challenge, a Labor New South Wales government is going to ban mobile phones in schools and they're going to expand the school breakfast program to 1,000 schools. No child should have to start school with an empty stomach. They simply can't learn that way. Labor is committed to public education and to addressing gross neglect in the form that New South Wales education has just become accustomed to and which has been the signature of 12 years of coalition government.</para>
<para>It is not just these considered policies that are going to ensure New South Wales prospers under a Minns Labor government; it is the people of New South Wales. I have had the privilege of knowing many of the Labor members of both the current New South Wales Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council as well as the candidates running in this election. Not only are they part of a party which has an undeniable legacy of delivering positive, practical outcomes for Australian families; they are individuals of extraordinary calibre. Each and every member of Labor's New South Wales team that I have met with—from members to staffers, candidates and rank-and-file branch members—is deeply committed to the values of equity, justice, inclusion and a fair go for all Australians, regardless of their postcode.</para>
<para>Labor is the party that delivers for Australians. It has been almost a year—10 months, in fact—since Australia wisely chose to elect a federal Labor government. In that time, we have seen policy and cultural achievements which have dwarfed the efforts of the previous decade of failed Liberal and National Party government. The Albanese Labor government, of which I am so proud to be a part, has already legislated cheaper child care for Australian families, the National Anti-Corruption Commission and 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. We have implemented the Jenkins report in full and ensured women's safety is a foremost concern for government policymaking. We have supported a wage increase for aged-care workers. We have begun the work of modernising Australia's industrial system— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 20:08</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>