﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-03-30</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="">Thursday, 30 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>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </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>Environment and Communications Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Meeting</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment 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="r6957" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 and amendments (1) to (14) on sheet SK147 moved by Senator McAllister. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After that shameful adjourning of debate last night, when we were all prepared to go so late into the evening—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'Family friendly' says Senator White; well, we could talk about that. But let's talk about the bill before us and the question before the chair, which I think is extremely important. There was a high degree of interest last night in the modelling. We could get nowhere on that. We kept getting stonewalled by this Labor-Green government and their inability to be transparent about things—the facts, the figures, the assumptions, and the modelling that underpins the actions this government is taking to, they tell us, assist with driving down emissions. I don't think they'll be driving them down; I think they'll be driving them offshore. But we're going to just park that for a moment.</para>
<para>I want to go to one of the second reading amendments that the government agreed to a couple of days ago, I think, in this semi-protracted yet guillotined debate on this legislation. It was Senator Thorpe's second reading amendment, of which I have a copy here, and it was the one around First Nations verification, amongst other things. I just want to understand. It was the one relating to the requirement for scope 3 emissions to be offset in the Beetaloo. Firstly, Minister, what consultation has the Australian government had with the Northern Territory government about this change?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, thanks for the question. I'm interested in your description of it as a 'change'. It is my understanding that the previous government, of which you were a part, supported the findings of the Pepper inquiry. The government intends to use the safeguard mechanism to implement Pepper review recommendation 9.8 in relation to the direct emissions of any gas project in the Beetaloo Basin—that is, the scope 1 emissions—and the rules will therefore include provisions that have the effect of requiring gas facilities in the Beetaloo Basin to have net zero scope 1 emissions from entry. The government will refer the remainder of recommendation 9.8, concerning scope 2 and 3, to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council and continue to work with the Northern Territory government on the arrangements around the Pepper review, which we understand the Northern Territory government supports.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My specific question was on what consultation this government has had with the Northern Territory government on the amendment that was supported earlier in the debate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The government regularly consults with state and territory counterparts. Your government supported the Northern Territory in their acceptance of the recommendations in the Pepper review. We do also.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate being reminded what the former government, which is no longer in government, did. My question was as to consultation on this specific issue. What consultation has been had with the Northern Territory government about this change that was agreed to in the second reading debate?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't accept your characterisation of this is a 'change'. It's a continuation of a policy that's been consistent across governments, to support the Northern Territory government in their implementation of the Pepper review.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So the amendment had no effect, then?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The amendment has the ordinary effect of a second reading amendment in this chamber.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. So you supported an amendment that had no effect? That's fine. But was there any consultation with industry on that amendment that was agreed to—if not with the Northern Territory government, which it sounds like there was not?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have indicated to you that our position as a government is to support the Northern Territory in their commitment to implement recommendation 9.8 in the Pepper review.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So what consultation occurred with the industry around the supporting of that amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We were here in the chamber for an extended period of time yesterday and we talked about the very extensive consultation that has occurred about the entire package with industry over an extended period of time.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Did that extended consultation over an extended period of time that we talked about for an extended period of time cover consultation on that amendment?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't think I can add any further to the answers I've provided. The government has consulted broadly with the industry around the package. The government has consulted with the Northern Territory around the Pepper review, and that has occurred over successive governments, in fact. The government intends to work with the Northern Territory around Pepper review recommendation 9.8.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So I think the answer is no—there was not consultation on this specific amendment, which was only voted on in the last day or so. We refer to this consultation which occurred over an extended period of time in the lead-up to the tabling of the first draft of the bill, pre dodgy deal, pre second reading amendments, pre whatever it took to get this bill through the Senate. So no consultation with the Northern Territory government and no consultation with the industry—we've established that thus far, and I won't just accept 'can't add anything to this'. Madeleine King seems to be the only minister in the Australian government that actually stands up for fossil fuels and for those contributors to the majority of energy generation sources. What consultation happened with Minister King?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, the position that has been brought to this chamber around the safeguard mechanism occurred in consultation with all ministers, and that of course includes Minister King.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>And did Minister King consult with industry on this, or was it the responsibility of the environment and water minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not in a position to answer questions about Minister King's meetings or arrangements.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As part of the decision-making process to determine that the government would agree to this amendment, did the minister ask Minister King to consult?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, I've already indicated that in bringing the safeguard reforms to this chamber the government worked collaboratively. It's a decision of government, and those decisions are reflected in the legislation that is before the chamber at the moment.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We'll move off the lack of consultation on this and anything else that happened as part of this dodgy deal. But, on the broad issue of the amendment, I would like to go to some remarks from the Grattan Institute, which, on the issue of applying scope 3 to the Beetaloo, stated it was 'the weirdest thing' they've ever come across. They said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If the governments decide together to deal with scope 3 emissions, it will have significant financial implications.</para></quote>
<para>Noting that reflection on where things might and up, what modelling has been done relating to the financial implications since the time that amendment was tabled and subsequently agreed to?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, the government's position is to refer this matter to the ministerial council. Now, I imagine, dependent on the approach that the council take to it, that they may request some analysis at some future point.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Okay. So the government's position is to send something off to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council. Did the government—who were elected by the people of Australia to implement policies, not specifically all of the amendments arising out of a dodgy deal with the Greens and others—as a group of supposedly responsible people do any modelling on the financial implications of such an amendment before agreeing to it?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, the financial implications of referring a matter to a ministerial council I think are quite straightforward. We would expect the ministerial council to examine this in the way that it sees fit, and perhaps we'll be in a position to report to the Senate about the arrangements that are put in place by the ministerial council at a future point.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNI</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>AM (—) (): So there's no request or desire to even look at the outcome that might see scope 3 emissions here. We'll just accept that that is the case. I'm not going to get any further there. Was there any work done to understand the economic impacts in the Northern Territory as a result of perhaps going down this path?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, this is an interesting line of questioning. We could ask the same thing of you, although I do recognise that on this occasion you are not required to answer questions. But perhaps I may ask it rhetorically: what work did your government do before agreeing to the recommendations in the Pepper review?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm afraid you've missed the boat by nearly a year on asking me questions, and I might have answered them in a similar way to you. But the tables have turned and you are required to answer questions as fulsomely as you possibly can, so I'll persist in asking these questions of you. Was there any economic modelling done, given we didn't talk to the Northern Territory government about this before accepting the amendment; we didn't talk to the industry, either through the relevant minister or the minister responsible for this portfolio; and we haven't looked at the financial implications of where the work of the ministerial council might take us?</para>
<para>Has there been even a desktop assessment of the economic impacts of this in the Northern Territory?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, I'm not quite sure how many times I have to step you through this, but let's recall the sequencing. The Northern Territory commissioned the Pepper scientific inquiry into hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government accepted the recommendations of that inquiry, and, at the time, your government provided support for such acceptance. The government's stated position, as reflected publicly in statements and also here in this chamber, is that we continue that support. We intend to refer the specific questions in relation to recommendation 9.8 to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council.</para>
<para>The matters relating to scope 2 and 3 emissions are not matters that could be independently dealt with by the Commonwealth. The energy ministerial council is the appropriate place for this to be considered. You know, as well as I do, that the mere fact of referring a matter for consideration by a body does not have financial implications for government or for industry. We would expect that the ministerial council will provide a response to such a referral. That response could be any number of things. It may be commissioning analysis of some kind. As I've indicated already, if such a matter occurred, I'd be in a position to provide a report to the chamber at a later date.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the government simply accept the advice of the ministerial council, whatever that might be?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McAL</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>LISTER (—) (): The government will work with the ministerial council, as we do on every other question. I make the point, Senator Duniam, that it has been a feature of this government that we are actually capable of working with state and territory colleagues. You might recall that, shortly after our being sworn in, very significant challenges arose in the electricity sector as a consequence of the neglect of your government towards the policy issues in the energy sector over a very long period of time. The lack of a settled climate policy and the lack of a settled energy policy led to very significant problems in terms of the energy sector. There were 22 policies. None of them landed in a decade. Industry was crying out for certainty. There were real material consequences in the physical infrastructure that supports Australian households, businesses and communities.</para>
<para>Our approach to that was to work collaboratively with the states and territories and the market bodies, through the ordinary processes, to resolve that. It is a feature of the way our government works. It wasn't a feature of the way the government you were part of worked, and that was a really big problem for the country and for the Australian people. We will work within the ministerial council in the way that we ordinarily would.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I always love looking backward rather than forward, which seems to also be a feature of this government. For the last 10 months, all we've talked about is what's happened over the last nine years. But you got elected with a range of policies which you promised you would implement and which you said would do certain things. If we're to look forward, which is what we're supposed to be doing—I presume this legislation is mostly prospective rather than retrospective, so I don't know why we keep talking about the past. Actually looking to the future seems to be something this government has a problem with. On promises though, there was a promise in the energy space around bringing down power prices by $275. Maybe, Minister, you can confirm that the government intends to honour that promise of bringing power prices down by $275. I did try to ask you at estimates. You wouldn't even say the number. None of your colleagues on the frontbench, in the next row, in the row behind that and in the other place—nowhere—would say it.</para>
<para>A feature of this government—if we're going to talk about features—is not honouring promises and not living up to the promises you make. While you might talk about 10 years of policy failure, 22 policies and all of those ALP talking points, one thing Australians are going to be judging this government on is whether it honours its promises to bring down power prices by $275—not just downward pressure, not just a failed gas price cap that will actually have unintended consequences, yet to be realised but whether it will honour that key promise. If you want to talk about features, we can go toe to toe all morning on those sorts of things, and we'll continue to hold you to account. I look forward to—one day when Labor doesn't want to stitch up a dodgy deal with the Greens to prevent us from dealing with our private senator's bill—perhaps debating my bill to report on power prices every quarter. But, if you want to stick to the bill, I'll happily do it too, Senator McAllister. Under the Westminster system of democracy, a government sets out policies and promises at the election and then honours them, generally speaking. Is it the government's intent to eventually expand the safeguard mechanism to include scope 3 emissions for all projects or will there be a guarantee provided that this will be ruled out for every project?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If we are to speak about the bill before us, then let's speak about the bill before us. It deals with scope 1 emissions, as indeed the safeguard mechanism did under your government. I think the most surprising thing is that a framework that was established by your government, a framework that you supported up until the election last year, is now a framework that you say you can't support. Based on the contributions from your senators over the course of the debate, I fully expect that you will not vote for this bill at the conclusion of the debate. It's mystifying. This is your policy, a policy established by your ministers, the parameters of which are well understood. You said no to any changes to it before you even understood what they might be. You refused to engage. It's a very surprising approach indeed, particularly for a group of people who weren't able to settle an energy policy over the period that they were in government. I recognise your aversion to contemplating that past, Senator Duniam, but I might make the point that, just occasionally, looking at the past can prove fruitful. It might be that it's something that you and your colleagues want to consider as you think about charting your path forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to continue to reflect on the past if we need to, including those promises that will never be honoured. I note that you didn't actually confirm that it was still the government's intention to honour its promise to reduce power bills for every Australian household by $275. I'll take that and bank it, and we'll talk about it at a future opportunity in this place. I note also that you didn't rule out expanding the safeguard mechanism to include scope 3 emissions. You've talked about what this bill does. My question was around intent. I think it's good to understand exactly what it is government seeks to do over time as parliament agrees to a certain set of rules and laws and amendments.</para>
<para>Just on that, you talked about us not engaging with and saying no to something before we even had the chance to look at it. Well, the problem is: you tabled the blasted amendments within about three nanoseconds of debate commencing. This is not a transparent, genuine and good faith debate. This is a stitch-up between two political parties—the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. We know, generally speaking, when the Greens get their hands on the levers of power, bad things happen. When they get close to the economic powerhouse of our country, they turn the power down. They actually want the economy to tank. Their policies never generate good outcomes for households, for businesses or for the economy as a whole. So forgive us for being sceptical about your dodgy deal and saying no to the amendments that you tabled within three nanoseconds of debate beginning. That's not good government. For anyone who might happen to be listening, or who is one day reading the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, this is not the standard that people require of a government, but it is the one that is now being set.</para>
<para>Just reflecting on the policy we set up in 2016, the safeguard mechanism: this is nothing like what we established. This is materially altering it, which is why we are opposing the nature of what you're putting in here. So I'll ask one more time: will the government rule out expanding the safeguard mechanism to include scope 3 emissions?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, I have pointed you to the bill before you. The bill before you, like your mechanism, deals with scope 1 emissions only. The government has laid out its intentions in relation to reforms in the climate change area and the energy space very clearly, in our Powering Australia plan. We are implementing that plan. That plan set out arrangements to reform the safeguard mechanism, a mechanism which deals with scope 1 emissions. That is the focus of the government. That is where the government's intentions lie. I can't be any clearer with you than that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We're not ruling out the expansion of this mechanism to include scope 3. That's clear. We also talked about the Powering Australia policy, which of course, as far as I recall, had a promise to reduce power prices by a certain unmentionable number. If you're going to honour that policy as a whole, I look forward to that reduction in power bills.</para>
<para>Moving off that, not being able to secure any certainty for the people and industries of Australia, we'll talk about the hard cap, if we're able to. These new requirements around the proposed hard cap, I understand, provide that if it looks like the cap will be in any way breached, the minister needs to make an amendment or amendments, as needed, to the safeguard rules to achieve the cap. The legislation and the EM, as far as I can tell, fail to outline the types of amendments that could be made. But they could include, as I understand it, measures such as emissions decline rates that are far steeper than those the government consulted with industry on. Obviously these limits could target all facilities, specific sectors or even specific facilities. Any changes of that nature and with those characteristics could change the commercial proposition for existing and incoming potential investments, and what was once a profitable industry could be something very different when certainty is removed in the way that it would be.</para>
<para>It's been put to the community, in the public debate we've had on what has been proposed here as part of this cosy yet dodgy little deal, that there will be some tough choices needed to be made by government around which projects proceed and which ones do not. So I want to ask: how does the government expect businesses to have certainty in making any investment decisions when it's unclear what additional restrictions will be placed upon them and when these restrictions will come into force? I think it is important to understand exactly what's being proposed here and what the impacts might be.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I spoke yesterday at some length about the arrangements proposed, and they are these: the amendments before this chamber simply propose an information-sharing arrangement and regularise what already occurs between departments. However, to be clear and to repeat what I said earlier in the debate, should the minister for environment make a decision which would result in the increase of scope 1 emissions from a covered facility, the minister for environment would have an obligation to communicate such a decision and the information in that person's possession about the emissions associated with the decision. They would need to communicate that with the secretary, the department of climate change, the Climate Change Authority and also the minister for climate change.</para>
<para>Should the minister receive advice from either the Climate Change Authority or the secretary of the department indicating that the decision taken by the minister for environment presented a risk to the objectives of the NGER Act, the minister would then contemplate whether or not the safeguard rules needed to be amended or any other step that might be required. They would be required to undertake a consultation on that question, and in the ordinary course of events we would expect that such a consultation would involve industry. That is how we've approached this series of rule changes; that is how we would approach any future rule changes, and an amendment would then take place in the ordinary way. It would be, as was the case under your mechanism, a disallowable instrument and, again, this chamber would have an opportunity to consider such an instrument.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I mentioned specifically some of the possible responses or options available to the minister and to the government around what could be done by way of additional restrictions. Has there been any contemplation of what a tougher decline rate might look like? Has the government considered specific rates? Is it something like a six per cent or a 10 per cent rate that's being considered here? I would be interested to know how far government is looking to go or what sorts of limitations there are on government's response in dealing with this issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLI</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>STER (—) (): Senator Duniam, you asked about analysis. We don't anticipate that there will be a need for an adjustment of this kind, but the amendment makes clear what would take place in the event that the objectives of the act were not being met.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>So there's been no analysis undertaken around this because the government contemplates or doesn't believe it would be necessary to go down this path, it's just a tool that might be there if needed?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I've indicated, the government has consulted widely about the legislation before the parliament and also the proposed rules that might be made under the legislation. That's been an extremely lengthy and detailed process that's involved many stakeholders, both those covered by the safeguard mechanism and other stakeholders in the community. Our assessment is that it is unlikely that the circumstances that you're contemplating would arise. However, we are keen to ensure that there's clarity about what would happen under these circumstances, and the amendment before the chamber seeks to do that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I understand from answers to some question Senator Canavan asked last night, the government was unable to say what the size of the buffer was under the hard cap. If we're not going to get clarity on that, how can we reach the conclusion that you've just outlined that we're not going to require—chances are—alternative measures like this? It just doesn't seem to add up in my mind with, 'We can't tell what the buffer is, but we're certain, or fairly certain, we're not going to have to go down this path.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, I appreciate your interest in understanding this, but I think that you're failing to contemplate the actual amendment before you or the material that's been provided to you in the EM. In the unlikely event that a change of this kind was required and the minister did commence a consultation, the EM sets out what would happen, and I'll take you to paragraph 17, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If the requirement applies, the Secretary would be required to advise the Minister that they are so satisfied, and the Minister would be required to undertake public consultation as to whether the Safeguard Rules should be amended to ensure that they achieve that object and the content of any such amendments; and if they are satisfied that the Safeguard Rules need to be amended to achieve the second object of the NGER Act, amend the Safeguard Rules.</para></quote>
<para>It's really clear. It would be a consultation process aligned with any other consultation process undertaken by government.</para>
<para>The government, I think, has demonstrated our commitment to working in a really orderly and straightforward way with business. We've undertaken extended consultation, there have been papers, there have been round tables. We would expect to work with business in the ordinary way. I am surprised that you want to go down this path. Your government was characterised by an utterly chaotic approach to decision-making. The material before you today reflects a very, very thorough policy process engaging a very wide range of stakeholders. Any future policy process would, I imagine, look quite similar.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the purposes of actually accurately reflecting the pathway to where we're at, I wouldn't exactly call this orderly, transparent and straightforward. Part of it was fairly straightforward. It was what you'd expect from a government—round tables, discussion papers and consultation—but then it went into the big black box of the Labor-Green government, where we started doing dodgy deals and no-one was consulted and no-one was brought on the journey.</para>
<para>This Senate was treated with absolute contempt when the amendments were handed out as the committee stage began. I'm sorry, but that is not orderly. That is not thoughtful. That is not considered. That is not mature government. That is a rushed, dodgy deal. If you're telling me, Minister, that we're going to see more of this down the track—you go out, consult with industry, have round tables, do your discussion papers, have this orderly discussion and then say, 'We'll park all of that and get back inside our black box with our friends over here the Australian Greens'—then I don't think what you're saying will satisfy anyone or provide anyone with comfort. If it's going to be like what we've just seen, which is why we've had the extended debate this week on this bill, which will be voted on at one o'clock today, that is not a good outcome. Please don't be surprised at my wanting to understand this because, to the kids up there in the gallery who are watching this debate, this is not what good government is. This is dodgy deals to get something done so the Prime Minister at the end of this week can say, 'I won. I got a bill up.' The people who are going to be paying are the people of Australia—those businesses that are going to be penalised for this, the workers in those businesses who are potentially going to lose their jobs and those people out there who are going to pay more for power.</para>
<para>Again, I come back to the questions I was asking. If there has been no economic modelling done on growth under the hard cap and what might happen within that buffer, and putting aside your assurances of consultation, whatever that might look like—if it replicates what we've seen here, then we're in big trouble—how can you be certain or sure or whatever word you seek to use that you don't have to consider these amendments?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, it's a fascinating analysis, isn't it, because there's this real sliding doors moment. You like to talk about responsible government. I'd be interested to understand your perception of what a responsible opposition does because you dealt yourself out of this from the very beginning. Our government indicated a willingness to work with all willing partners across the parliament, and we engaged with those senators and members who were willing to engage with us. We consulted with them just as we consulted with community organisations and business organisations in response to an unequivocal call for policy certainty in the climate and energy space—a call which your government ignored and which we were determined to address because we understood the consequences for the Australian people if energy policy were allowed to continue to drift as it did under Mr Taylor.</para>
<para>Somewhere in that long preamble was an assertion that there had been no modelling done or no consideration of the way that a target would work, and that is simply wrong. There has been an extended period of consultation about that and some very explicit information is in the public domain, but perhaps I can communicate this. The proposed 4.9 per cent decline rate includes explicit consideration of emissions from new anticipated developments, consistent with <inline font-style="italic">Australia's emissions projections 2022</inline>. Those projections, as you understand, include information about future growth in emissions from a range of sectors arising from economic activity in those sectors. The 4.9 per cent rate also allows for an average annual anticipated production growth of 0.7 per cent.</para>
<para>The reserve referenced in the January consultation paper provided additional assurance in relation to uncertainty about production and emissions from new and existing facilities—that is to say, there was a buffer built in, first, for growth; second, for new facilities; and, third, for uncertainty. The quantum of the reserve was 17 megatonnes. Following consultation with stakeholders, as I explained last night, the qualification test for trade exposed baseline adjustments for the manufacturing sector has changed. That changes the sort of thing you'd expect when we speak to stakeholders. We are speaking to them and responding to the issues they're raising with us.</para>
<para>For this reason, the overall quantum of the reserve will be recalculated for the final safeguard rule amendments, as I indicated last night. It's anticipated that that final safeguard rule will be made by the end of April 2023 and will be accompanied by an explanatory statement setting out the detail of the arrangements.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I want to know the safeguards built into this bill against your safeguard bill. Senator Canavan, last night, exposed the economic underbelly of this bill—an underbelly that is sagging and that will hurt families, workers and employees, who will be dragging their arses along economically because of severe impacts on the cost of living and because we will be exporting jobs to China as a result of this, because they don't have this bill. I want to dive beneath the economics into the morality and the fairness, to see about your awareness of those considerations and, also, the protections. What safeguards are there for the people?</para>
<para>Let's go to the basics—the origins of your safeguard mechanism. Let's have a look at its pedigree. The father of global warming claims was senior UN bureaucrat and oil billionaire Maurice Strong. He then morphed global warming—which was never proven and has been disproven—into unlimited climate change, climate apocalypse or, as the Greens like to say, climate breakdown. I will give you some examples of his corruption in the UN public domain and also of his private corruption. He was involved in the UN Oil for Food scandal—corruption. He formed the United Nations environmental program, which was responsible for banning DDT, against the science, and responsible for 40 million to 50 million needless deaths before DDT was brought back by the UN. He was wanted by the United States police authorities for corruption with regard to water dealings in the western United States. He later formed the UN's climate science body that is really a political body—the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It has never produced any empirical scientific data or logical scientific points to back up your claim that we need to cut our carbon dioxide.</para>
<para>I'd like you to listen to this, Minister: he was the director and one of the founders of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which aimed to make billions of dollars trading carbon dioxide credits globally. He was joined in that by his accomplice, Al Gore, who headed up 50 per cent of his company, Generation Investment Management, on the Chicago Climate Exchange. Al Gore is not only known for corrupting and misrepresenting the science in his glossy propaganda movie <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Inconvenient Truth</inline>; he's also famous for coming out here, at Kevin Rudd's invitation, in April 2007 as part of the 2007 campaign, which saw Rudd elected based on climate fears. The whole thing is a scam designed to make billionaires richer, and it rewards other billionaires like Climate 200 carpetbagger Simon Holmes a Court, who is funding teals—including Senator David Pocock—who vote for policies making Holmes a Court richer. People know this yet remain silent on it. Crooks, like Maurice Strong, initiated the climate scam, the climate fraud. Crooks continue pushing lies that the climate is changing when it's simply varying naturally, as it has always done. These carbon dioxide credits are based on a scam, for which the people of Australia are paying through the nose. Why? To make crooks richer.</para>
<para>I draw your attention to a comment by Europol in around 2012, from memory. They indicated that 95 per cent of carbon dioxide trading in Europe is subject to corruption. To this needless complexity, you now add six pages of afterthoughts and corrections in the form of amendments. So many details are to be inserted by ministers and bureaucrats. Are you aware of these facts, Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I really wouldn't accept as facts what you've outlined. You characterise them as facts. I'd probably describe them more as opinions.</para>
<para>This government accepts the science of climate change, and, indeed, so do Australians. Australians do that because they, unfortunately, are living with the early manifestations of a changing climate. We have been through a period, over the last three or four years, of unprecedented fires and floods. These circumstances put many Australians in harm's way, saw immense destruction of property, and continue to have ongoing impacts on our economy. I understand, because you've communicated it very regularly here and in committees, that you don't accept this science. But the world's scientists are telling us that we have a problem. They're telling us that this is the critical decade to act, and the Australian people expect us to do that.</para>
<para>I trust the science. I trust the scientific process and the scientific method that allow contestability in published research. I recognise that, for reasons you've never entirely explained, you consider that the method of peer review produces inaccurate information. I don't share that view. I think that the world has been well served by the propagation of the scientific method. I think we've been well served by the many scientists, including eminent Australian scientists, who've devoted their lives to understanding the challenges that confront us, many of them devoting their lives to communicating properly with Australians about the impacts that will come about with a warming planet.</para>
<para>The IPCC is telling us that human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperatures reaching 1.1 degree Celsius above 1850 to 1900 in 2011 to 2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase with unequal, historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land use change, lifestyle, patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries and among individuals. They tell us that with high confidence.</para>
<para>These changes have real costs. I accept that you don't believe this. As I've said to you before, I'm not sure that anything I can say in this forum will change your mind, Senator Roberts. We've spent quite a bit of time together; I don't see you changing your views.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. We can come back to the science in a few minutes. For now though, when people buy carbon dioxide credits what's being purchased? To have a market, to have something that somebody is going to give money for, what need is being met? What is being purchased? The corruption I've just talked about is because there is no such need being met. Could you tell me the need that you think is being met and what buyers should buy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a good question, Senator Roberts, because it goes to a fundamental difference in our views. I believe and the government believes that the world must reduce its emissions if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. So the need is to reduce our emissions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yet never has anyone anywhere in the world, including you, produced a specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate, whether it be temperature, snowfall, droughts, floods, frequency, severity, storms—nothing at all. Sea levels, sea temperatures, ocean salinity, ocean alkalinity—never. So how the hell can you track progress towards achieving your goals?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, that is simply an incorrect statement. There are many, many, many peer reviewed studies which establish the relationship between increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and changes in the climate, and there are many, many, many peer reviewed studies which establish the observed changes as a consequence of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I again quote from the most recent IPCC report, which tells us this, with high confidence:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people …</para></quote>
<para>The report goes on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.</para></quote>
<para>Senator, the way that the IPCC does its work is by contemplating the peer reviewed research. You don't accept that research; I understand that. But I do and the government does, and I'd venture that the Australian people trust our scientists and the nature of the scientific process. You are quite welcome to continue to put your objections to science. This government accepts the science.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, thank you for confirming that no-one has produced the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate. The UN has never done that. You've just spoken in generalities. I'll accept that, thank you very much. I've talked about the corruption—the lack of specific quantified effect that anyone has produced. Minister, you implicitly smear and denigrate me because I challenge you on the science, yet, when I asked you for the science, you gave me 25 papers, not one of which produces the logical scientific points showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. You gave me papers that included the impacts of climate change, not the cause. Minister, you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.</para>
<para>Let's continue with this theme. Your safeguard bill doesn't even define what a safeguard mechanism credit is. It's not in the bill. If the parliament passes this bill, we'll just have to trust the minister or some bureaucrat to tell us later. The biggest producers of goods in this country will be told to cut their production of carbon dioxide, with the amount not defined in the bill. It may be 4.9 per cent a year; that's what the rumours say. If they don't, they'll be forced to buy undefined carbon dioxide credits. Companies will be forced to buy carbon dioxide credits—forced—and will add the bill to their prices, which the people of Australia will pay through increased costs of living.</para>
<para>Let's continue with the undefined components of your bill. We do know that the safeguard mechanism credits will be defined as eligible international emissions units, meaning they will be able to be traded overseas. If Maurice Strong was still alive, he'd be rubbing his hands together with glee. Al Gore is still alive, and he will be rubbing his hands together with glee.</para>
<para>Let's look at Australian National University environmental law expert Professor Andrew Macintosh. He said that Australia's carbon dioxide market is 'a fraud on the environment', suffers from a distinct lack of integrity and is 'potentially wasting billions of dollars in taxpayers' money'. He goes on to talk about the review. On 9 January he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The review panel acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says "it was also provided with evidence to the contrary". Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists.</para></quote>
<para>What are they hiding from the people of Australia?</para>
<para>The Chubb review was a complete sham designed to give a scam-filled industry—and I've talked about the fraud already—a green tick of health to pave the way for this bill. With Ian Chubb's whitewashed review conveniently in place, Labor has given itself permission to rush this bill through, while the scientists who originally raised the integrity issues scream that none of the problems have been addressed. Ian Chubb has repeatedly taken money from Liberal-National and Labor-Greens federal governments to peddle unfounded, false and scary claims. He's a paid gun for hire to push the government line. That's who you got to do your review.</para>
<para>The bill places huge power in the minister, with out-of-touch bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble left to later fill in the details. It's another ministerial power to decide the details. This is a bill to give the minister a blank cheque on who this policy will apply to—he or she will decide that—how much they will be forced to cut, how quickly they will be forced to do it and much more. Almost all of this policy will be made via legislative instrument and executive dictate from the minister. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</para>
<para>The Senate granting this wide-open power over some of the most significant changes to our economy is unconscionable, just as Senator Canavan highlighted brilliantly last night. The design of this bill—based on a product that is rife with corruption internationally, unfounded—is to minimise parliamentary scrutiny. It's a spit in the face of the parliament, it's a spit in the face of democracy and it's a spit in the face of the Australian people, who you are meant to serve in this chamber.</para>
<para>Let's go to Labor's talk about consultation. To consult means to actually listen, Minister. Labor obviously had no intention of listening. Numerous stakeholders noted the staggered release of the draft bill, the legislative instruments and the Chubb review. These steps combined limited the ability to consider the implications of the proposed reforms. How the hell can Labor claim to have consulted when many of the detailed operational elements and details of this entire policy are contained in legislative instruments which do not yet exist?</para>
<para>Minister, I'd like to discuss briefly the pedigree of this bill because of the needless complexity that I've discussed, because of this hiding way of details and because it gives the minister huge powers. I'd like to know what safeguards the people of Australia have in your safeguard bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Roberts. Perhaps I can deal first with some of the opinions you've offered around the Chubb review. I think it's unfortunate that you chose to impugn the integrity of Professor Chubb in the way that you did in your contribution. I can talk a little bit about the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units. You raised that and you raised a set of questions around the reasoning for that review.</para>
<para>The Australian carbon credit units scheme plays an important role in our pathway towards net zero emissions by 2050. In particular it does that by incentivising reductions and sequestration that wouldn't otherwise occur. The Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units was commissioned to ensure that ACCUs—the shorthand term for the units—and the carbon crediting framework maintain a strong and credible reputation. It's important it needs to be supported by participants and it needs to be supported by purchases, and the broader community needs to understand that the scheme is strong and creditable.</para>
<para>Professor Chubb undertook that review, along with a panel, and concluded that the ACCU scheme arrangements are sound and that there are appropriate checks and balances at the scheme, method and project level to protect the integrity of the scheme and the credits that are created under it. The panel did make some recommendations, and we're grateful to them for that. Their recommendations are sensible changes, and they seek to ensure that the scheme is aligned with evolving best practice and will increase public confidence in the scheme, supporting more participation and increased abatement. The key recommendations include separating the functions of integrity assurance, regulation and administration; maximising the transparency of scheme information to increase trust; fostering innovation in methods and project implementation; and supporting greater participation, including by First Nations communities.</para>
<para>When we received that report, we released it on 9 January 2023 and accepted in principle all of those 16 recommendations. It was a thorough process, Senator Roberts. There was a public discussion paper in response to that. There were over 200 written public submissions. They were all online, except for the people who requested that their submission be confidential.</para>
<para>The panel also met with technical and carbon industry experts, government agencies, regional councils, First Nations people, native title representative groups, academics, carbon service providers and scheme participants, industry bodies, environment and non-government organisations, and current and former scheme administrators. They undertook project site visits in a range of settings to investigate methods and project implementation.</para>
<para>They also commissioned and published advice from the Australian Academy of Science regarding the science that underpins four of the methods and the strengths and limitations of those methods. The panel was briefed by the Clean Energy Regulator on its administration of the scheme, including the compliance tools and the powers and processes that the Clean Energy Regulator uses to find and address any project non-compliance and ensure individual projects are delivering abatement.</para>
<para>We're grateful to Professor Chubb for the work that he did and the work of the panel more generally. I think it's unfortunate that you seek to characterise it in the way that you did in your remarks. Professor Chubb is an eminent person who has contributed a great deal to the Australian community. I don't think it's necessary to speak about him in the way that you did, Senator Roberts.</para>
<para>We are now moving to implementation. We're seeking to implement any of the recommendations that don't require further consultation with stakeholders. For example, the minister, Mr Bowen, has requested advice from the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee to revoke the avoided deforestation method, which was one of the recommendations. We are requiring further consultation, and we'll work with stakeholders on the implementation of the other recommendations that have implications for a wide range of scheme and market participants, government agencies and other stakeholders.</para>
<para>You also raised a set of issues, I think, about the legislation before us. The legislation before us creates a framework for crediting. The proposed changes include reducing safeguard mechanism baselines and enabling safeguard facilities that stay below their baselines to generate tradable credits that are known as safeguard mechanism credits or SMCs. The purpose of the bill is to enable the crediting element of the reforms.</para>
<para>You're right that other parts of our reform process will be dealt with through subordinate legislation, and a draft set of rules was released for consultation back in January. I'd like to step you through why we've chosen to go down that path, Senator Roberts. The amended framework will rely on a large amount of technical detail to achieve its aim of reducing scope 1 industrial emissions in line with Australia's emissions reduction targets. That detail would reflect a range of factors, including market dynamics, industry practices and available technologies.</para>
<para>As you'd appreciate, all of those things can change. Technology changes very rapidly at times. In order to operate as intended, it's appropriate that some details of the safeguard mechanism framework would be set out in delegated legislation so that changes in any of those factors—market dynamics, industry practices and available technology—could be quickly reflected and wouldn't cause unintended burdens or consequences. For example, the government-defined production variables and emissions intensity values include a large amount of technical detail, which might require updating at short notice to be appropriate for use.</para>
<para>Appropriate constraints on delegated legislation are included in the bill through the requirement that the minister only makes safeguard rules if the minister is satisfied that they are consistent with the proposed new second object of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. That helps ensure that any safeguard rules are consistent with the intent of the primary legislation. The government has carefully considered the split between primary and subordinate legislation. For example, penalty arrangements for an excess emissions situation are currently contained in regulations; that was the case under the previous government. This bill changes that, updating penalty arrangements for excess emissions situations. They will now be contained in the bill itself.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ROBERTS () (): Let's have a look at the history that's driving this bill and its pedigree. You've just talked about the prevention of warming, yet there's no specific need being met. Do you think people are just going to buy the idea of limiting the warming of the planet, with no specific evidence and no specific need? No wonder there is so much corruption in these carbon dioxide credit schemes overseas. Let's have a look at the history.</para>
<para>John Howard's government was the first party to have an emissions trading scheme as policy. Tony Abbott later correctly stated that an emissions trading scheme is a carbon dioxide tax. John Howard's government said it would not sign the UN's Kyoto protocol but would implement it. In doing so, it had to avoid shutting down industry and so stole farmers' rights to use their own property. Farmers are still paying that price right now, without the billions of dollars in compensation for the loss of the right to use their land, which they're entitled to under section 51(xxxi) of our Constitution. The Howard government got around that by getting the states to do its dirty work. Peter Beattie is on the record in the Queensland parliament <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> as saying that he put his native vegetation protection legislation in place to help John Howard comply with the UN's Kyoto protocol.</para>
<para>John Howard's government also brought in the Renewable Energy Target—at two per cent. Just recently, John Howard admitted that it's now out of control. John Howard's government implemented the UN's Rio declaration and the UN's Kyoto protocol, and the Liberals and Nationals have since implemented the Paris Agreement and the UN's '2050 net zero'—all driven by foreign bureaucrats and corruption. I'll come back to the minister citing the UN IPCC in a minute. Then we saw Kevin Rudd putting these initiatives of the Howard-Anderson government on steroids. Kevin Rudd pushed an emissions trading scheme, but it fell over thanks to the Greens; the Greens rejected it. Kevin Rudd dramatically raised the Renewable Energy Target. Julia Gillard then implemented a carbon dioxide tax and broke promises to do so. Tony Abbott, to his credit, rescinded that ghastly tax, which the Labor government is now bringing back. After Tony Abbott rescinded it, Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt put in place, through this parliament, in 2015, the basis of the safeguard mechanism, and now Labor is building on that. That is the pedigree of this shabby bill, the details of which those opposite have had to hide from the people. Let me ask you a question: why are China and India not doing what this Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock coalition government is doing? Why is Russia not doing it? Why is Brazil not doing it? Why are we punishing Australian employers and families?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Roberts. You and I have different approaches to this, don't we, because your fundamental proposition is that you don't think this is necessary at all, and the government certainly does. The government accepts the science, the government accepts that the globe must reduce emissions and, as part of that, we accept that it's a collective exercise. It's not something that can be done exclusively by one country; it's something that may only be achieved through all of the countries of the world collaborating together. You are right that different countries have different degrees of ambition. But as a responsible participant in the global community and as a government that accepts the science, we consider that our obligation is to work with the other nations of the world to build the necessary ambition to contain greenhouse gas emissions and hence to stop dangerous climate change.</para>
<para>I can run you through some of the targets that have been adopted by countries that we would ordinarily consider our peers, countries that we often compare ourselves to. As you know, our target is a 43 per cent reduction against a 2005 baseline by 2030. Canada has a target which is 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 by 2030, reasonably similar. Germany has a domestic target which is 65 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. Japan has a domestic target of 46 per cent below 2013 by 2030. New Zealand's target is 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. The United Kingdom's target is 60 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. The United States of America's target is 50 to 52 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Senator Canavan, you're right that not all countries—my apologies, Senator Canavan, I was listening to your interjections and I mistakenly named you. Senator Roberts, you're right that a range of countries have targets that are lower than ours. Some of them have targets that are more ambitious than ours. We have set a target that we believe Australia can achieve, and we do that because we know that it's absolutely essential that the world acts on this.</para>
<para>We've received stark warnings in recent weeks from the world's scientist, and they tell us that this is the critical decade for the kids. We have a chance to do something serious to contribute to the global effort to tackle climate change, and we intend do so. The Australian people voted for that, and we know, too, that there are opportunities here—opportunities for many of the communities that you seek to represent, opportunities for communities that I seek to represent, rural and regional communities around the country, especially in my home state of New South Wales. There are job opportunities here, opportunities for businesses, and there are threats too if we don't act because our trading partners increasingly expect us to act and investors expect businesses to act. Senator Roberts, we think this is an important reform, and I recognise that the foundation of our decision is one that you don't agree with. You don't accept the climate science and, therefore, logically, you don't think we need to do anything. We simply don't agree with that, and I would put it to you that neither does the Australian public.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister did not answer my question as to why China and India are not doing what this Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock coalition government is doing, nor Russia. The amount of carbon dioxide output China and India produce in a week is what we produce in a year. They're continuing to skate along. In fact, China and India buy our coal that you are trying to stop the use of here. These people in the Greens are also trying to stop the use of our coal. As Senator Duniam said, this is not about cutting carbon dioxide from human activity; it's about shifting it to our major competitors and giving them the advantage of our cheap, clean, high-efficiency coal. Japan is building coal-fired power stations. The United States allows gas—that's the only thing that's saved the United States.</para>
<para>You talk about jobs. For every job in the solar and wind sector there are 2.3 jobs lost in the real economy, so why can other countries have the benefit of our high-quality coal and gas and yet we cannot? We're the largest exporters of gas in the world; second-largest exporter of coal in the world—beaten by our neighbour right next door to us, Indonesia. We're killing our productive capacity and our children's future. We're already at net zero. We sequester, as a country, three times the carbon dioxide that we produce as humans in this country—three times, and that's not including what the ocean around us absorbs.</para>
<para>The cost of the Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock bill are extraordinarily high, and we notice you've been driven to this by the Greens, who will ultimate responsibility. You didn't ask my question: why are we publishing Australian families, Australian workers and Australian employers? Why are we gutting our country, because of the primacy of energy has been proven since the start of the Industrial Revolution?</para>
<para>Let's move to the science now because there's been no justification in science for cutting carbon dioxide from human activity—no empirical scientific data, no logical scientific points that prove that, and certainly nowhere that is showing the specific quantified effect of dioxide from human activity. That is the basis of policy. That's the only basis of policy, and you run from it.</para>
<para>We agree in some ways because I accept the science has to the basis of policy. You're saying that, but you're not delivering it. You've had many opportunities to give us the science and you won't do it. You've distorted the science, but you finish almost every statement about me with, 'You'll never agree, Senator Roberts'. I will agree the moment you provide me with the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate. I will agree immediately after I've assessed that science. This government, you say, accepts the science of climate change, but you cannot produce it. You've had six or seven years now, since I first came into this Senate, and you've never produced it once. That's because it's not available. How the hell can you have a policy about carbon dioxide from human effect if you can't specify the quantity, if you can't then assess alternative ways of meeting the targets, if you can't track the progress? How the hell can you have a policy? You're asking the people of Australia to jump off a cliff. How will you know how to continue, how to stop?</para>
<para>You talk about peer-reviewed papers. That's not my only gripe. Peer reviewed is false right now; we know that. The <inline font-style="italic">Lancet </inline>journal in Britain had a peer-reviewed paper that said up to 50 per cent of peer-reviewed papers are crap. You trust the science, yet you cannot produce it.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, I ask you to use language that's parliamentary while you make your points.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, there's conclusive overwhelming evidence from two global experiments that have overwhelming proven that cutting carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect on the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In 2009, after the global financial crisis, the world endured a recession—everywhere around the world, except for Australia, because we were rapidly punching out exports to China of coal and iron ore. But the rest of the world suffered a dramatic downturn. That led to a dramatic downturn in the use of hydrocarbon fuels. That led to a dramatic reduction in 2009 of carbon dioxide from human activity. Yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing. In 2020 we had another severe recession, almost a depression, around the world due to government COVID restrictions. Again we saw the use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—plummet, as it does in most recessions. That meant production of carbon dioxide from human activity plummeted, yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing without inflection. That shows, twice now, that massive cuts in human dioxide carbon output did not result in any change in the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. In fact the levels of carbon dioxide continued to increase.</para>
<para>It's pointless to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. Nature shows us. You don't have to listen to you or me; nature has already shown us that. Nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide; humans have no effect. Why are you corrupting the science? You've had unmeasurable assertions. I've given you the basis for crime in these policies, the corruption in these policies overseas, yet you don't blink. What I would like, Minister, is for you now to cite any report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has the specific location, page number and chapter number of the empirical scientific data as evidence within a logical scientific point—in other words, the data within the framework that proves cause and effect. Just give me the page number, the title and the date, please.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a few weeks ago the IPCC released its summary for policymakers. That document comes at the end of a cycle of analysis which examines all of the peer-reviewed literature and seeks to establish the foundation for understanding the impacts that human induced emissions of greenhouse gases are having on the climate, the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and also the effectiveness of adaptation strategies. That's a vast enterprise involving many thousands of scientists around the world, and it involves essentially an assessment of the peer-reviewed literature and assigning various conclusions in that literature a degree of confidence based on the extent to which the literature either converges or diverges on particular questions. It is an exemplar of the kind of analysis that you call for but don't accept. You know where that document is. I can look it up on the internet and I can provide it to you, or you can google it. But fundamentally you have already indicated that you don't accept the process of science as it is currently practiced, and that's a pretty fundamental stumbling block, isn't it?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It is.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You ask me to provide you science but, when I do, you indicate that you don't accept science produced by the peer review process. There's not really anywhere we can go.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>DYU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Roberts, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've asked the minister for the specific location.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, your point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Roberts</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister is not answering my question; she's dodging it.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's an app you can get called Let Me Google That For You. I do encourage you to examine the literature produced by the IPCC over many decades, because it provides a summary of the many thousands of papers that are available to you, should you choose to read them.</para>
<para>Senator Roberts, it might be that you and I don't agree on the science. Whilst you hold out the prospect for agreement, I am more pessimistic. But I do think perhaps we might find more agreement around questions of business. I know that you have a former association with the mining sector, and I wonder if I could point you to the evidence that was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia to the Senate hearing in February. Tania Constable said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The mining industry recognises that there is a very big task that is required to reduce emissions, and we have been on that path for a long time. The minerals industry has signed onto net zero by 2050. We have not been sitting on our hands waiting for policy change. We have been making that change over time. In 2020, the Minerals Council of Australia and its members released our first climate action plan. Since that time we have reported on an annual rolling basis our activities across the industry. It has been measured and, as I said, it has been recorded. MCA members have around about 39 separate activities that go from fuel switching—changing out of current energy sources to new energy sources—autonomous operations, renewable energy, battery storage, digitisation, a whole range of issues on site and in our headquarters, so across all of our operations. That is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing. It is a hard task, but every member is taking action.</para></quote>
<para>When I read Ms Constable's evidence, I went and got the report that she referred to, the progress report that they published in 2022. It actually talks a bit about how important this work is. It talks about the fact that it makes a difference not just here but internationally because it provides the opportunity for Australian industries to support people all around the globe—millions of people all around the globe—in their journey to decarbonisation.</para>
<para>Senator Roberts, the business sector has been calling for certainty around our climate and energy policies, and they have made the point repeatedly that the lack of certainty in this regard was a problem under the previous government. For example, BP, a company I know you would be familiar with, said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">bp reaffirms its support for reforms to the safeguard mechanism to provide incentives for large emitters to reduce their emissions in support of Australia's emission reduction targets. We support the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change and believe ambitious climate policies, like the safeguard mechanism reforms, will be essential to enable the world and Australia to meet these goals. We look forward to working with the government as the reforms are finalised.</para></quote>
<para>Rio Tinto has a similar story:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Rio Tinto supports the use of a reformed Safeguard Mechanism as part of a suite of policy measures to incentivise genuine industrial abatement.</para></quote>
<para>Origin said they are supportive of developing a policy framework that is consistent with ensuring safeguard facilities deliver a proportionate share of national emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. Woodside said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A fair, robust and transparent Safeguard Mechanism ('Mechanism') can support a reduction in Australian emissions, as well as encourage businesses and industries to further innovate and adopt smarter practices and technologies in line with our collective emissions reduction targets.</para></quote>
<para>APPEA said that, if appropriately designed, the safeguard mechanism can form part of an economy-wide package of measures that encourage low-cost abatement while supporting economic growth.</para>
<para>The business community understand that they are working in a global environment where their investors and trading partners expect us to have a plan to reduce our emissions as a country, and they expect businesses to have a plan to reduce their emissions. We've talked about it already in this chamber, but 80 per cent of the facilities covered in the safeguard mechanism have already adopted a net zero target by 2050 or a net zero target of some kind; some of them actually have one in advance of 2050. These decisions, these changes to business practices and these prospective investments in technology are already factored into the way that many covered businesses have been thinking about their businesses, their investment plans and their pricing. What the reform we are progressing here today will do is give those businesses certainty and give them a clear understanding of the expectations that will be placed on them by government. I reiterate that we are not the only entities that place expectations on these businesses. Shareholders increasingly make it clear that the provision of capital is dependent on a clear pathway being established towards decarbonisation. It's one of the reasons that so many of these businesses are already on this path.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm quite befuddled by the approach the government is taking to questions being asked by a member of the crossbench. I think that Senator Roberts, who will say things that others will disagree with, should be respected for his views and not be talked to in the way that he just has been.</para>
<para>I want to add something to the record. We had a quote from the minister relating to APPEA. I will put on the record some words that their CEO, Samantha McCulloch, put on record as a result of the dodgy deal we've seen done here:</para>
<quote><para class="block">New gas supply investment needs policy and regulatory certainty but instead, the Labor-Greens deal creates additional barriers to investment, further diminishing the investment environment and adding to the growing list of regulatory challenges facing the sector.</para></quote>
<para>While the minister is cherrypicking quotes that talk up the certainty in the environment and how businesses welcome the opportunity to work with government, we have to look at the hard, cold facts here of what actually is happening and what industry is saying in response to a dodgy deal having been done, rather than misrepresenting the attitude of some of these groups, including APPEA, who are very concerned about what's happened here and who haven't been, as far as I'm aware, part of any consultation on the last-minute dodgy deal done between the Greens and the Australian Labor Party. I'd love to know whether they were consulted on the way through on the Greens demands for their agreement to this legislation. Anyway, we'll come to that, I'm sure.</para>
<para>Yesterday I asked a question, and I wonder if, overnight, the government have gone and checked, across their records, whether they possess this information. The minister has spoken at length about the expectation and understanding the government has that many industries, many of those captured facilities, will have in place plans to reduce emissions that somehow mirror or match the government's own policies. I'll ask this same question again. How many of the 215 facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism had existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2030?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, I answered your question yesterday. You're asking the same question. I don't have anything to add to my previous answer.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to reflect on a few things today: just the level of frustration my colleagues and I have felt in this place over the last decade under a Liberal government doing absolutely nothing about climate change.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Canavan</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So it's all about you, Peter?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I arrived here in 2012. I'll get to you in a minute, Senator Canavan. Don't you worry. It's not all just about me. Actually, what I'm about to say is all about people like you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Whish-Wilson. Please direct your comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll get to Senator Canavan soon, because actually it is all about him and people like him.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I could have the respect of the chamber to make my contribution. Chair, I know why Senator Canavan's trying to disrupt my contribution, because it makes him deeply uncomfortable.</para>
<para>I've been in this chamber, as Senator Waters has, for over a decade. I've witnessed the Clean Energy Future Package being passed into legislation. At the time, it was considered right around the world to be the gold standard in legislation, with a price on carbon, money for renewable energy through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, money for higher-risk investments in research and development and innovation through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and so much more. Then we witnessed the Liberal-National coalition getting into government, using three-word slogans and shamelessly tearing up climate action. The period during which we had the Clean Energy Future Package in place was the only time emissions in this country have gone down.</para>
<para>It is also a source of frustration to me and my colleagues that that great work the Greens did with the Gillard government seems to have been written out of history by both the Labor Party and the mainstream media and is totally forgotten in discussions in the lead-up to this so-called safeguard mechanism debate that we're having here today. Of course, it's also frustrating that, after nine years of the Greens carrying the torch in this place for climate action and for future generations, what we get is actually Liberal Party legislation, first brought in by Tony Abbott, a climate denier, and then perfected by Mr Angus Taylor from the other place, who you would have to say is a climate sceptic, and Mr Scott Morrison in the other place. I swear I heard Senator Wong in the chamber just a few weeks ago in question time goading you guys for not supporting the legislation, because it's yours. In fact, she even said that the changes the Labor Party were hoping to bring in in the unamended safeguard mechanism were signed off by your party room. How fricking cynical is that? How cynical is it that the legislation the Labor Party was bringing to the parliament is actually your legislation? The Australian people need to know that you can't even vote for your own crappy legislation, because it's all about being in opposition, isn't it? It's all about saying no to everything.</para>
<para>And then, Senator Duniam—through you, Chair—you had the cheek to stand up in here and point to children in the gallery and say that this legislation, which is some kind of climate action, is not good government. How outrageous!</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, Senator Whish-Wilson! I have Senator Duniam on his feet.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Point of order: he's misleading the Senate. I didn't actually say that. I said this is bad process and a dodgy deal, and you know it.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you for that, Senator Duniam. Senator Whish-Wilson, you have the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the point of order, Senator Duniam. I've obviously hit a raw nerve there. The fact that this Liberal Party is in opposition is a good thing. For anybody who wants action on climate change, this is a good thing, and I'm proud of my political party for getting amendments to this legislation that have improved it and have made it a lot more difficult for fossil fuel projects to proceed, because that is what the science tells us we need to do. That is what the IPCC report which coincidentally landed last week told us we need to do. That is what the conservative International Energy Agency tells us we need to do.</para>
<para>But I want to be really clear about this. This legislation we're going to pass today is not enough. It is nowhere near enough. The fight must go on. If we're going to stop new fossil projects going ahead, we need to let the Labor government know at every turn that this is not acceptable. I want to put on record today that yesterday in the parliament—in fact, they've been here for three days—there was an alliance of ocean groups from around the country, who have been having many meetings with MPs, calling for an end to all fossil fuel exploration in our oceans and to the endless acreage releases that these fossil fuel companies are given by governments every year. I remember when Mr Scott Morrison phoned in from climate negotiations in Paris just three years ago—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Canavan</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Stop driving cars, Peter!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator, have some respect in this chamber. I know it doesn't suit your political charades to let me finish my contribution.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Canavan</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Have some respect? Give me a break.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senators, interjecting is disorderly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're probably squirming in your chair, over there, Senator Canavan, but let me continue—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mate, you're always laughing when we talk about climate action and the importance of this for future generations. Mr Scott Morrison phoned in from a climate conference in Paris to deliver to the APPEA conference in Western Australia, at the time, via video link, 80,000 square kilometres of new ocean for oil and gas companies to go out there and explore. But you know what? It wasn't just the Liberal-National government. Last year the Labor government handed 46,000 square kilometres of oceans for oil and gas companies to go and explore as well.</para>
<para>While this Ocean Alliance was here yesterday, Zali Steggall, in the other place, tried to suspend standing orders to bring on a bill to ban the PEP-11 project that the Liberal-National government stopped. We know they stopped it because Scott Morrison used secret powers to stop it. That's how important the Prime Minister felt stopping an oil and gas project was. He knew it was political poison for the Liberal-National government in the last federal election.</para>
<para>It's also, by the way, the only fossil fuel project that Anthony Albanese, our Prime Minister, in the other place has publicly opposed. At the same time we're negotiating the passage of this legislation in the parliament, Minister King, the resources minister, in the other place yesterday was talking up the future of fossil fuels in this country. She talked up that she wanted to see exponential growth of oil and gas and coal in this country. So that's where the Labor Party are at. And I hope that it's noted by the Australian people.</para>
<para>I want to get this on the record today: thanks so much to the communities around this country—like those off King Island in Tasmania, off the Otways, off Western Australia, off the New South Wales coast and off South Australia in the Great Australian Bight—who are fighting to stop fossil fuel exploration. In particular, I want to thank Drew McPherson and Kate Coxall from the Surfrider Foundation; Lisa Deppeler from the Otway Climate Emergency Action Network, OCEAN; Uncle Rob Bundle from the Southern Ocean Protection Embassy Collective, SOPEC; Freja Leonard and Belinda Haydon from Friends of the Earth; and Craig Garland, who's well known to Senator Duniam, a Tasmanian fisherman who's a lot more than that. He's been an absolute champion for our oceans in Tasmania and elsewhere.</para>
<para>People know when they're being conned. Community Alliance were in here yesterday lobbying to try to stop new oil and gas projects. By coincidence, they're here the week we're to pass the safeguard legislation, the week after the IPCC report landed. They got to see Minister King, in the other place, talking up how Labor want to see more fossil fuel and gas development.</para>
<para>I want to make it clear today that the Greens have done a really good job, in really difficult conditions, to get some kind of improvement to this legislation that will make a difference. But it will not be enough. I call on all environmental groups around the country, all communities—anyone who cares about the future of climate and climate action—to hit the streets and let this government know that every single fossil fuel project they approve is not acceptable. And then, at the next election, vote for the Greens and crossbench MPs who do care about this. At the next election we can get the balance of power in both houses, and we will stop new fossil fuel development across the board.</para>
<para>That's my message today. I look forward to listening to the contributions now of other senators in the chamber—in silence and with respect.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Se</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>nator McALLISTER (—) (): In brief, in response to a couple of the contributions, there are two things. Senator Whish-Wilson, as you know, we were appreciative of the willingness of the crossbench, including the Australian Greens, to work with us on sensible amendments to our reforms. We have the view that the reform package we're bringing before the parliament will make an important change. It will be important for Australian businesses and it will be important for the Australian climate.</para>
<para>We don't agree with you, as you know—we didn't agree and continue to disagree—on the question about whether or not new coal and gas facilities should be banned. Nonetheless, we do appreciate your willingness to engage constructively with us and, again, I reiterate the invitation that's been on the table since we formed government, which is that we are willing to work with all willing partners. It is a shame that the opposition chose to deal themselves out of this discussion, as they have on so many other questions that are before the parliament.</para>
<para>I want to provide some additional information to Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts asked me about quite a number of matters. In particular, at one point he was asking me about implementation of the Chubb review, or at least some of the findings of the Chubb review. I want to add that, in addition to seeking advice on revoking the avoided deforestation method, the minister has now actually revoked the method. That wasn't clear in my remarks before.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We attempted yesterday to get some information relating to the impact on specific facilities. I don't accept that the government, who is foisting this upon the Australian community and economy, can sit here and say that they will not talk about specific facilities, because the impact is important. I want to turn to V/Line, which is a public transport provider in Victoria. I understand it's a captured facility, which, of course, will be required to reduce its emissions by 4.9 per cent. How much will it cost for V/Line to meet the government's emissions target? Has any work been done—any consultation, any communication? I'd be grateful to know.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll seek advice, Senator Duniam, but there are 215 covered facilities, and I'm not in a position to provide detailed information about each one of those businesses.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I find it absolutely astounding that there's been a huge amount of consultation—in-depth, genuine, good-faith consultation with industry, with all state and territory governments, with the crossbench et cetera—and we can't talk about the impact on 215 facilities of what we knew was coming before this parliament by way of legislation mandating emissions reductions. You refused again to answer whether any of the 215 facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism have existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2030. That was a question I asked yesterday. You said perhaps the department would be in possession of the information. Today you said you have nothing further to add. I can only assume the government hasn't even gone and checked with these 215 facilities.</para>
<para>You don't have any information on that first question. You don't have any information on how much it will cost V/Line to meet the government's mandated emissions reductions targets. Therefore, I suspect you won't be able to tell me how much more Victorian passengers will have to pay in fares to meet the costs associated with this safeguard mechanism, so I'll skip over asking that question; we can just take it at face value that they'll be paying more as a result of this. Let the record show that that's what is going to happen. Do we know how much it will cost V/Line to convert from diesel locomotives to electric as a measure to meet the emissions reductions baseline that this legislation is going to establish? Do we know how many batteries are going to be required, for example? I would hope the government have gone and done some work with V/Line, a massive contributor to public transport in the state of Victoria.</para>
<para>Of course, AEMO has warned the state of Victoria, and the government, that Victoria could face electricity rationing or blackouts in the coming years due to the government's mismanagement of the grid. How much electricity in megawatt-hours is going to be required to power electric locomotives in Victoria if they choose to try and comply with the enforced baselines under the safeguard mechanism?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The purpose of consultation is to establish a framework for good policy. It is not to take responsibility or seek to otherwise manage the business decisions of individual entities. Yes, of course the government has sought to consult as widely as possible. We've been through this before. We released a public consultation on the safeguard reforms in August and an exposure draft of the bill last October. The department has met with environment groups, with covered facilities, with industry bodies, with government agencies, with carbon market participants, with other industrial businesses and with other interested parties. I can seek information about whether or not V/Line elected to participate in that. I don't have that information with me at the moment. Over 240 stakeholders made submissions on the safeguard consultation paper and over 50 made submissions on the draft bill. Many of those stakeholders said that they support the government taking action to deliver on our climate targets and to support reforms to the safeguard mechanism to reduce emissions from the industrial sector.</para>
<para>The government released details of the full proposed reforms to the safeguard mechanism in January for consultation. We talked about this last night. That included draft rules, which contained quite a lot of detail because, as you observed, whilst this bill creates the architecture for the reforms, for reasons that I have explained this morning to Senator Roberts, many of the decisions are necessarily and appropriately contained in subordinate legislation, and it was appropriate that the draft rules be put out for consultation as well. Consultation closed on 24 February 2023 and, again, more than 250 submissions were received. The bill before us incorporates a number of the stakeholder suggestions from that period. A new objective has been added to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to ensure that the net emissions of safeguard mechanism facilities must decline overall. It requires that the minister must be satisfied that any new safeguard rules are consistent with this objective, and it strengthens the compliance regime. Penalties for exceeding baselines will reflect the amount of exceedance and may require that businesses make good by surrendering credits to meet their baseline. There's also an anti-avoidance provision commencing from the date of introduction that will prevent businesses structuring themselves in a way to avoid obligations under the reforms.</para>
<para>Senator Duniam, I think we have had a healthy conversation in the chamber. I have sought to answer your questions, but I really am not in a position to talk or speculate about the individual business decisions that will be taken by individual entities that are covered by this mechanism.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I find it absolutely astounding that, with only 215 captured facilities, with months of consultation and with a government claiming to be interested in issues like the cost-of-living, driving down power prices, not offshoring jobs and making sure that legislation actually works, that the minister can't tell me in a general sense how many of the 215 facilities—we're not talking about millions of entities here. We're not talking about tens of thousands. We are not even talking about thousands. We're talking about 215 specific facilities that the government haven't gone to seek to understand the material impact these laws and, in addition to the laws that were put on the table, the amendments that were made as part of the dodgy deal between Labor and the Greens would have. I don't find it acceptable, as we are hurtling towards being forced to vote on this legislation, that we can't be told whether every single punter in Victoria that uses V/Line to get to work, to go to visit their parents in aged care or whatever they might be doing, is going to be paying more to catch a train because of the safeguard. You don't know where these entities are at, yet you want us to vote. The Greens are content, having scored their deal, to support this and wave it through. You can't tell us about V/Line and you can't answer general questions about the 215 facilities and where they were at with 30 by 30. Let's move to a couple of other specifics. Hopefully there will be some advice forthcoming.</para>
<para>Aurizon have three facilities listed under the safeguard mechanism and Pacific National have one. In the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline> today—and I'm sure that, if you're not aware of the article, others that are supporting you will be or will take this time to familiarise themselves with this reporting—there is a report that Pacific National will invest hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years to reduce emissions. It will have to spend a further $12 million a year by 2030 on offsets to avoid being penalised under the government's changed safeguard mechanism. According to this article, the extra costs that are going to be imposed on rail freight will be passed on to the customer. This goes back to the point that we are not talking about millions of facilities here with some sort of blanket coverage where it's all very nebulous and hard to quantify. We're talking about 215 specific facilities. Can you tell me, Minister: as we hurtle towards a guillotine that Labor and the Greens have agreed should be in place to have this economy-changing and economy-destroying legislation brought into place, what are the extra costs that are going to be imposed on Australian consumers who utilise these services? Does the government or the minister agree that transporting freight by rail produces less emissions than moving goods by heavy trucks on the road network?</para>
<para>Perhaps you could also tell us whether any modelling has been done around the extra emissions that will be generated through the use of road transport to transport goods as opposed to rail transport. Noting that this is all about driving down emissions, I argue that it's about driving up power prices and driving emissions offshore. In this case it seems, based on the information being provided by rail freight companies, it's about driving up emissions here, because chances are, we'll be putting goods on trucks that are not covered by this mechanism, and there will be more carbon emissions because people will not be able to put goods on trains. So let's start with that. Let's see how we go. I hazard a guess we won't get an answer, but I'll get some rhetoric and some Labor talking points, and then we'll go to the next question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand that the coalition policy position was once that Australia should reach net zero by 2050. It's unclear to me whether that is still the position. I think it is. Can anyone tell me it's not?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Technology, not taxes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can anyone tell me it's not? No idea? We don't know?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you inviting me to?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sure.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the invitation of the minister, I will indicate that the coalition have a proud record of dealing with these issues. We don't believe in taxing the life out of the Australian economy. We don't believe in shutting down businesses to achieve some ideological outcome. We don't believe in doing dodgy deals with the Australian Greens. That's the difference between the government and the opposition. The government are the government today because they conned the people of Australia into voting for them. That's why they're there—because they promised the people of Australia they were going to reduce power bills by $275 for everyone. Do you know what? That promise, made 97 times of course, is now not one they're going to stick to. It's one they won't even mention.</para>
<para>The minister asks me what our position is. We care about the environment. We care about carbon emissions and dealing with them. But we're not going to tax the life out of the economy just to offshore our emissions. When it becomes unaffordable to do business here, when it becomes unaffordable to manufacture cement, aluminium and steel, do you know what they're going to do? They're going to start doing it overseas. They're not going to do it here. They're going to be doing it in countries where they don't give a damn about the environment, where they don't have a mechanism like the one we're doing. This is what companies will sadly do. When we push the emissions out of our backyard so we can't see them and we can all feel good about our lattes on a Saturday morning, do you know what we're also doing? We're sending jobs offshore from places like Georgetown in Tasmania, where smelters are going to be impacted by this. Norske Skog in the Derwent Valley, the only newsprint mill in Australia, will be captured by this. That's the difference between us and you. We do not want to destroy the economy on the altar of Labor-Green ideology. You want to talk about our policies? We stand with consumers, we stand with households and we stand with businesses, not with Labor talking points.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Duniam. I note you didn't make any reference to net zero by 2050, and I'm still unclear about whether or not that's a policy that is part of your suite of policies.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it is. But we won't be doing it by destroying the economy. You want to talk about coalition positions because you can't answer questions about the impact of Labor policy and Labor legislation. We don't know how many of the 215 facilities are going to be able to comply with this baseline without shedding a single job. I note that no promise has been given about that. I'd love to know whether the government commits to there being not one job lost out of these 215 facilities. I guarantee you that I'll get an answer about extensive consultation and working collaboratively with a very willing crossbench—very willing, indeed—but there will be no promise given because 'we can't speak about specific entities,' or 'we can't speak about specific facilities,' or 'we can't speak about Australian jobs'. You know what? That is not the priority of this legislation. That is not the focus. It is a siloed, myopic approach to dealing with something that they are doing a deal with the Greens on and are doing with no regard for the impact on the economy.</para>
<para>The perverse outcome here in dealing with this issue this way is that, not only are you not going to get the environmental outcomes you promised Australians, you're going to get worse environmental outcomes. It's all going to go offshore to countries where they don't care about the environment, so our global responsibility as global leaders, as responsible citizens on this planet is all just talk. It isn't reality, according to this government. We're going to have bad economic outcomes.</para>
<para>Minister, we remain committed to our policy on net zero, but let me tell you, I expect an answer. I expect a guarantee today that not one job will be lost because of your safeguard mechanism and the deal you've done with this mob down here, the Australian Greens.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate it. It took a while, but we got there. It is an intriguing—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, you’re the minister.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Duniam, you offered. It was a rhetorical question. I do accept that you don't have to answer my questions in this forum—I accept that's not how it works—but you chose to. I was interested to hear that net zero remains your policy. The issue was that your implementation arrangements in government were catastrophic. You didn't land an energy policy. You had 22 different energy policies; none of them landed. And what did business say about that? What did they say about it? The Energy Supply Association said this about your government:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The current uncertainty will itself drive up prices. Banks have put away their cheque books on energy projects. Policy uncertainty has rendered electricity generation projects unbankable—</para></quote>
<para>unbankable—</para>
<quote><para class="block">That cost has been masked because lower demand has meant we haven’t needed new projects but when new assets are needed, that risk premium will be there and it will push up … prices.</para></quote>
<para>That's what the Energy Supply Association of Australia said. They're the suppliers. What do the users say? The Energy Users Association said there was 'a dysfunctional political environment'—dysfunctional—'that had dramatically increased the risk associated with investment.' And it is why, prior to us forming a government and since, organisations have lined up to call for clarity around how the safeguard mechanism could be improved to give certainty to covered facilities.</para>
<para>Senator Duniam, in all of the contributions you've made, you have given no indication about whether or not you think that reform of any kind is necessary. It appears that you think the status quo is fine. That is the only thing that we can conclude from your engagement, or your failure to engage, with the policy process that has been undertaken over the last eight months. It's the only thing we can conclude. One of your frontbenchers went on television and said that you are the opposition and don't have policies, and I suppose that that is true. I suppose that is true in relation to climate and energy. It was certainly true when you were in government, and it caused the problems that we've been discussing this morning and that we'll continue to have to deal with on behalf of the Australian people from government.</para>
<para>Business is looking for us to implement these reforms, and it's a reality that you have failed to engage with over the course of the debate. The Ai Group talked about the approach:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The treatment of new facilities appears to strike a workable balance—</para></quote>
<para>a workable balance—</para>
<quote><para class="block">providing pathways for new projects that stack up to go ahead without adding to burdens on existing facilities or threatening national emissions goals.</para></quote>
<para>Those groups essentially confirmed those views earlier this week in response to the remarks made by Minister Bowen.</para>
<para>There is a need for reform, and the government would have happily engaged with the opposition had the opposition been willing to do so. We made it clear that we would work with anyone across the government and across the parliament who was willing to engage but, regrettably, you chose not to do so, and that will be for you to explain.</para>
<para>The decisions taken by individual businesses in response to the revised approach to the safeguard mechanism will depend on the specific circumstances of those businesses. As we've canvassed already, the design of the mechanism includes a whole range of flexibilities so that businesses can choose the least-cost pathway for compliance. There are options, of course, for businesses to reduce their emissions on site. There are options for businesses that choose to make those investments to generate credits that may be sold if such an investment reduces their emissions below their allocated baseline. There are options for businesses to borrow credits from the future if they plan to make an investment at a future point. There are options for businesses to purchase ACCUs from the market.</para>
<para>These are features of the design—a design to provide business with flexibility—and they are a consequence of the consultation undertaken with business over the eight-month period we've described. But they necessarily mean that government can't prescriptively say how an individual business will respond. That would be for an individual business to decide, and they will make their best judgements based on their assessment of the technology, their assessment of their operating environment and their assessment of their investor appetite. The question you're asking is a question for business. But we have consulted with them and engaged with them about the mechanism, because we want to deeply understand what they think would provide the necessary flexibility for them to be on the path to net zero. As we've pointed out, there are costs and consequences for the Australian economy and for businesses if we don't get on this pathway. They arise from uncertainty, they arise from the response from the international community, they arise from responses that might be made by our trading partners and they arise from decisions that might be made by investors.</para>
<para>All the information before us suggests it is important that we make clear how we are going to achieve our targets. It's why the BCA said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia needs a credible, durable framework to reach its climate targets and grow the economy.</para></quote>
<para>It's why the Investor Group on Climate Change said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The reforms will help to unlock investment in the new and existing industries that will maximise Australia’s competitive advantages in a net zero world.</para></quote>
<para>They also said this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The willingness of a diverse range of lawmakers to work together provides investors with the greater clarity they require to deploy the billions of dollars Australia needs to reach net zero by 2050.</para></quote>
<para>It's important, isn't it, because these reforms will help to unlock investment in the new and existing industries that will maximise our competitive advantage. I don't know why the opposition wasn't interested in the conversation about how to do that, because our stakeholders wanted it. Your business stakeholders wanted it. But it wasn't a conversation you wanted to be a part of.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this false claim that there was an invitation to sit down and work through bad policy. I've said it already in this debate: you can't improve the unimprovable. We said before the last election that it was all about technology, not taxes, and the best way to work with the big emitters, the 215 facilities caught under the safeguard mechanism, was to work with them to incentivise investment in R&D, technology, to find ways to minimise their emissions. That is a good way to go.</para>
<para>The minister herself has said through this debate that a number of entities caught under the safeguard mechanism had in place plans to meet targets. That's an acknowledgement that working with them to incentivise investments in R&D and better ways to do what they do to minimise the impact on the environment, namely reduce carbon emissions, is a good way to do it. Taxing the life out of business is not a good way to do it. I've run through the impacts that that will have. I note, in answer to my question, which was: 'Can the government guarantee that not a single job will be lost as a result of taxing the life out of these entities caught under the safeguard mechanism?' no guarantee was given. So in Australia, in addition to not knowing how much more train tickets are going to cost in Victoria, in addition to not knowing how much higher power prices are going to be, in addition to not knowing whether cement manufacturing is going to be a viable industry in this country, we don't know whether people are going to lose their jobs over this. But I have a hunch, a little suspicion, that they will, that we're going to make ourselves uncompetitive through this bloody minded approach to driving down emissions through tax, not technology, and working against business, not with them.</para>
<para>All of the quotes that the minister has read out talk about businesses being willing to work with government. I'm not so sure the feelings they have today about this brave new world we live in, where Labor and the Greens collude in a smoke-filled backroom of this parliament to cook up schemes that are going to be disastrous for business, disastrous for jobs and, in fact, bizarrely, bad for the environment with more trucks on the road, less trains on the tracks and power prices going up. And, of course, as I said before, we have this global responsibility to countries across this world to help them reduce their emissions. It's something this government have talked about a lot, but instead what we're doing is we're sending our emissions over to those countries to get in the products that we depend on. I don't understand why this government thinks that this is a good way to go.</para>
<para>I appreciate this repeated invitation for us to be a part of the solution and to work with this government. But, I will tell you what, the baseline, the red-line issue, for this government is, 'You can come and work with us provided you agree with taxing business more.' We promised at the last election that there would be no taxes of this nature being brought in. You didn't. You did also promise that power prices would go down, and $275 a pop was promised. I note there's no reference to that anywhere in this debate, apart from coalition senators and those who've made contributions to this debate who highlighted them.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Brockman</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a number the government can't now say!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection from Senator Brockman, which was, 'It's a number the government can't now say.'—except when it comes to a tax! Eerily enough, that promised power price reduction of $275 has materialised as the amount of tax businesses are going to have to pay per tonne of carbon emissions over the baseline—$275! So, they dubbed the Australian people by making a false promise, a promise they knew they couldn't keep and had no intention of keeping on election day, as evidenced by the fact that not one Labor member, not one Labor senator, has said in this building or on TV or in the papers that it remains their promise. I invite the minister to—at some point before one o'clock today, before the guillotine comes down on this debate, on this horrendous piece of legislation, where the Labor-Green deal will be voted on in this brave new world of backroom deals where we'll have consultation and collaboration if you agree with us but not if you don't, and of we'll freeze you out and you can just suck up the consequences.</para>
<para>The minister also talked about those costs and consequences of not acting, with no reference to the costs and consequences of doing what this bill will do. There's no modelling, or, if there is, we're not allowed to see it. We don't know of the 215 facilities captured under this legislation how they'll be impacted. As I said before, it is not beyond expectation to be able to go out to 215 facilities and say: 'Hey, if we impose on you a 4.9 per cent per annum reduction in emissions, how will it affect you?' They haven't even done that. We don't know what the impact will be. How many jobs will be lost? Many. Power prices going up? Guaranteed. And do you know what? It's the beginning of the end.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! As it is 11.15 am, the committee will report progress to the Senate.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>22</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>22</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Withdrawal</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to notice given on 29 March 2023 on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, proposing the disallowance of the Telecommunications Amendment (Disclosure of Information for the Purpose of Cyber Security) Regulations 2022, to the next sitting day, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, proposing the disallowance of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Amendment (Code of Conduct and Banning Orders) Rules 2022, for four sitting days after today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>22</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator URQUHART</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the fourth report for 2023 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT NO. 4 OF 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">30 March 2023</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Ralph Babet</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">REPORT NO. 4 OF 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 7.16 pm.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The committee recommends that—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 August 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 April 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 and Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred immediately </inline>to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 May 2023 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the <inline font-style="italic">provisions </inline>of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023 be <inline font-style="italic">referred im</inline><inline font-style="italic">mediately </inline>to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 28 April 2023 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3. The committee recommends that the following bills <inline font-style="italic">not </inline>be referred to committees:</para></quote>
<list>Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023</list>
<list>Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019</list>
<list>Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020</list>
<list>Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021</list>
<list>Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023</list>
<list>Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</list>
<quote><para class="block">4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:</para></quote>
<list>Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023</list>
<list>Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021</list>
<list>Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023</list>
<list>Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020</list>
<list>Fair Work Amendment (Right to Disconnect) Bill 2023 [No. 2]</list>
<list>Family Law Amendment Bill 2023</list>
<list>Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Productivity Commission Amendment (Electricity Reporting) Bill 2023</list>
<list>Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 [No. 2]</list>
<list>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support Measures) Bill 2023</list>
<list>United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.</list>
<quote><para class="block">5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:</para></quote>
<list>National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023</list>
<quote><para class="block">(Anne Urquhart)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Chair</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 March 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Complicated issue</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">April to July</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 AUGUST 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 2</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for cons ideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Complicated issue</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Education and Employment Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">April to May</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible repor ting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 April 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nature Repair Market Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<list>Area of multiparty policy interest</list>
<list>World first initiative</list>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<list>ENGOs (ALCA)</list>
<list>Experts</list>
<list>Large corporate bodies</list>
<list>First Nations Groups</list>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8/6/2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Anne Urquhart</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 Nature Repair Market (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To examine details of the bill including the use of offsets, measuring long-term outcomes, integrity and transparency.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissi ons or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment stakeholders, private sector, experts and scientists.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 June 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 August 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick McKim</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Assessment of effectiveness/uptake.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Industry, sector groups, individuals who interacted with NAIF.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">April or potentially on the papers</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4th May 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Nick McKim</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appendix 5</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Name of bill:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Complicated issue</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible submissions or evidence from:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Committee to which bill is to be referred</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Economics Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible hearing date(s):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">April to May</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Possible reporting date:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">28 April 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(signed)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Wendy Askew</para></quote>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>231199</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the report be adopted.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</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">At the end of the motion, add "and the following bill not be referred to a committee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2023."</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Greens oppose this amendment by the government. We believe firmly that legislation such as this, which deals with core aspects of our national security legislation, needs to have public scrutiny. National security laws and outcomes are far too important for them to be signed off in a private deal between the government and the opposition. Too much of that work in this space is done secretly. It's not the subject of debate.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the rabbiting over there of the coalition. We have had a day and a half of debate—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Order on my left! If you wish to make a contribution, seek the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Sena</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We have had days of public scrutiny of the safeguard mechanism. But, when it comes to national security, the faux concerns of the coalition about public scrutiny all just disappear. They all get put into a dark, smoke filled room somewhere at the back of ASIO and it all just gets quietly put to bed. The major parties have got form on this, and no doubt we're going to see yet more efforts of secrecy involving AUKUS. We're likely to see the major parties coming together again to try and put defence expenditure and the review of the nuclear submarine program under another cloak of duopoly secrecy which is some sort of cooked up non-constitutional rubbish that they bring forward to this place. The so-called parties of government can cut their secret deals on nuclear submarines, on defence expenditure, on secret powers, on more powers to ASIO and more covert surveillance of Australians. You name a toxic increase in the surveillance state and the coalition and the government are on board, pushing it through, without public scrutiny—and that's what they're trying to do here. That's why we oppose the government's amendment.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:24]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>27</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>17</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</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>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Original question, as amended, agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>26</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:26</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 notice of motion No. 211 be considered during general business today.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>26</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reporting Date</title>
          <page.no>26</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>27</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senator Ruston, move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 September 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The adequacy of Australia's preparedness to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Victoria and the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Brisbane, and to leave a legacy of sporting infrastructure to encourage more Australians to participate in elite and community sports and live active lifestyles, with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the adequacy of existing sporting infrastructure to host Games events;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) investments in provision of new or upgraded sporting infrastructure to host Games events, which will have legacy applications for elite and community sports;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) consultation by responsible state and Australian government agencies with peak national and state sporting representative organisations to ensure any new investments in Games sporting infrastructure meet the needs of elite and community sports now and into the future;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the adequacy of oversight and accountability processes for investments in new or upgraded sporting infrastructure to host Games events;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) investments into the provision of transport infrastructure to facilitate the involvement of more Australians in the Games;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the adequacy and accessibility of, and planning for, accommodation to host athletes, organisers, support staff and Games attendees and future use;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the adequacy of planning for visa requirements for athletes, support staff, officials and visitors seeking to participate in the Games;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(h) the costs and benefits to the Australian community of investments in infrastructure to support the Games, including any impacts on local government, communities and business in host locations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) claimed economic and tourism benefits of the Games;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(j) impacts on housing affordability in areas where proposed Games venues will be located and surrounds;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(k) the potential for regions to benefit in the short and long term from Games investments;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(l) consideration of solutions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(m) any other related matters.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education and Employment References Committee</title>
          <page.no>27</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>27</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 relating to a committee referral.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, move the motion as amended:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 August 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The potential impacts of the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme on small businesses and their employees, both before and after legislative changes come into effect from 1 July 2023, with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the experiences of small businesses in administering the Parental Leave Payment (PLP) on behalf of the Commonwealth, including an assessment of any administrative impacts, cost impacts and any challenges transacting with Services Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the experiences of employees accessing the scheme and receiving the payment through their employer or through Services Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the relative contribution of current arrangements in preserving the relationship between small business employers and employees while an employee is on parental leave;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) current Commonwealth PPL arrangements acting as an incentive or disincentive to employment and boosting female workforce participation in small businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the merits and costs of an opt-in or opt-out model for small businesses to administer the Commonwealth PLP, or other arrangements that would help to alleviate any administrative or financial burdens;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the process by which the Department of Social Services and Services Australia could best engage with small businesses and their employees in the design and implementation of any future changes to PPL policy; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any other related matter.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee</title>
          <page.no>28</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference</title>
            <page.no>28</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Colbeck, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 December 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The economic contribution and effects on agricultural and environmental land and seas of major energy infrastructure developments, with particular reference to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the impact on productivity and environmental integrity of land and seas;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the economic impact on agricultural and fisheries enterprises;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Commonwealth's role in conjunction with states, territories, private enterprise and local communities in the identification and activation of zones and corridors for major infrastructure developments to reduce the potential for infrastructure to negatively impact agricultural, fisheries and environmental assets;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the impact on national growth goals and projections relating to agriculture, fisheries and environmental protection;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the Commonwealth's role in the development and approval of projects; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any other matters.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3, standing in the name of Senator Colbeck, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:34]<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>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. 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>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </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>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>29</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) On Tuesday, 9 May 2023, the hours of meeting be midday to 6.30 pm and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8.30 pm to adjournment, and the routine of business from 8.30 pm be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Budget statement and documents 2023-24; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) adjournment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) On Thursday, 11 May 2023:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am to adjournment;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 5.30 pm till the ringing of the bells (at approximately 8 pm); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) on resumption, the routine of business be:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) Budget statement and documents-party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) adjournment proposed, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) adjournment.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Question agreed to.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>29</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>29</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="s1374" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>29</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Antipoverty Commission, and for related purposes.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</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>29</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The speech read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Poverty is a political choice. I have said it repeatedly, and I will continue to say it, in this place and across Australia, for as long as we have to.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Greens believe that a socially just, democratic and sustainable society rests on the provision of an unconditional liveable income, complemented by the provision of universal social services. That is why we took a clear platform to the last election, calling for income support payments to be lifted above the poverty line, to $88 a day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have continued to advocate for that immediate increase, including through amendments to legislation that were opposed by both the major parties. We will continue to advocate for that immediate increase that is so urgently needed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But we also need an approach that ensures that if government makes that immediate increase, we have protections, ensuring that payment rates are adequate so that people aren't living in poverty in the future. We cannot allow a once-off increase to become an excuse for further decades of inaction.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Travelling across the country, as Chair of the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee's inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia, we have heard powerful evidence from individuals and community organisations. It has reinforced the devastating impact of poverty on those who face it, and made it clearer than ever that poverty is a political choice—it is something government could choose to act on, but has failed to.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The idea of an independent body, to provide clear advice to Parliament, is something the Greens have long advocated for. In 2016, in the election policy document <inline font-style="italic">Equality and Compassion: Strengthening Our Social Safety Net</inline>, the Greens election platform set out a clear proposal for an independent equality commission, saying:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Australian Greens will establi</inline> <inline font-style="italic">sh an independent Equality Commission. The Equality Commission will provide independent advice to the Government and Parliament on setting rates of income support as well as guidance on broader strategies to reduce inequality within Australia </inline> <inline font-style="italic">…</inline> </para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">In additio</inline> <inline font-style="italic">n to providing regular, independent advice to the Government and Parliament on income support payment rates, the Equality Commission will advise Government and Parliament on the impacts of policy and legislation on inequality. It would undertake and overse</inline> <inline font-style="italic">e work on how to transform our income support system into a more flexible and responsive system able to support a productive modern economy. This would include examining best practice models from around the world and trialling new approaches, such as a gua</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ranteed adequate income model.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have had a similar proposal in subsequent platforms. We have continually called for an urgent, immediate increase to income support payments, and for the changes that will ensure there is a clear analysis of what needs to be done no-one is living in poverty.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This bill is a constructive step towards ending poverty in Australia. As I have said, repeatedly, we think the first step is an immediate increase to income support payments to $88 a day. And then this Bill is an important part of the longer term work that is needed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">There are a number of features of this Bill that we think are important, and that as well as setting out a clear proposal, set out components of a framework that we will use to analyse any government legislation in a similar vein:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A focus on poverty—we think that the framework you use is important. This is, fundamentally, about addressing poverty—and the legislation should reflect that.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A clear requirement for the development of a national poverty line—for far too long, governments have used the lack of an accepted measure of poverty as an excuse to keep people living on inadequate payments. We need a national definition of poverty—one that takes into account different needs and contexts, and one that government can be held accountable to.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A requirement for government to respond to recommendations—we think government must respond publicly to recommendations made by an independent commission, and this Bill would ensure that happens.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A clear requirement for legislated reviews—we think to preserve the independence of the body, it is important that we have a legislated requirement for reviews of payments, and for reviews of the poverty line.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An independent Parliamentary Committee, that can scrutinise appointments to the body. This cannot be another place that the old parties stack with retired ministers and staffers—it must be where the right people with the right skills and experience are appointed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A focus on lived experience—this bill specifically enables people with direct experience of poverty to be Commissioners; and we think that is an important benchmark, so that it is not a set of politicians making decisions, but rather draws on people who understand the issues they are discussing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We think this is an important bill. It sets out a clear framework, and it goes further than any other proposals in this place. We urge the other parties to support it, and we will be using it as a blueprint for our deliberations on legislation in this area.</para></quote>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RICE</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>30</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Federal Police</title>
          <page.no>30</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>30</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 218 relating to an order for the production of documents.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 8 April 2023, all documents held by the Australian Federal Police mentioning and/or in relation to a GoFundMe page titled 'Supporting the SASR family'.</para></quote>
</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. 218 standing in the name of Senator Roberts, as amended, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:40] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>45</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</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><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DAVID POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>256136</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—President, my apologies. I was talking and didn't move. Please could a note be made that I do support Senator Roberts' motion.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Peters, Mr Brian</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>31</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STEELE-JOHN</name>
    <name.id>250156</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 9 May 2023, the following document:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Indonesia: NSW Coroner's Court inquest into the death of Brian Peters, written by Justin Lee.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CHISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): 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>The document sought is the subject of an application under the Freedom of Information Act. On the basis of damage to international relations and that certain information was communicated in confidence by a foreign government, a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade decision-maker found that some of the information in the document was exempt from release in accordance with the provisions under the act. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is reviewing the department's decision, and it would be inappropriate to comment on matters before the tribunal. Given this matter is still before the tribunal, the motion should not be supported by the Senate.</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. 219 standing of the name of Senator Steele-John be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:47] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>15</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>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>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</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. <br />Additional information if needed. </p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Reconstruction Fund</title>
          <page.no>32</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>32</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ASKEW</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the request of Senator Brockman, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, by 6 April 2023, in relation to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, any briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence, letters or any other written records of advice provided to the Minister regarding:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the constitutionality of the bill;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) any risks or avenues for legal challenges to the bill in the High Court;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the constitutional head of power within the Australian Constitution under which the provisions within the bill are made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other risk assessments as regards the constitutional validity of the bill.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</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>The government will be opposing this motion. Material of the nature requested by Senator Brockman constitutes legal advice. Governments have a long-established practice of not disclosing such 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. 220 standing in the name of Senator Brockman, moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:54]<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>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Brockman, W. E.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</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>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Farrell, D. E.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Gallagher, K. R.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Walsh, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </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>Freedom of Information Commissioner Resignation</title>
          <page.no>33</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>33</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move general business notice of motion No. 221:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that order for production of documents no. 183, relating to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner, has only been partially complied with;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister that the release of the required information would disclose Cabinet deliberations since much of the information is patently not connected to the deliberations of Cabinet;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) accepts the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister with respect to privacy, so far as it relates to the withholding of personal contact details of individuals, but not the more general claim relating to grounds, including the effect of disclosure on the personal and professional reputations of individuals (particularly where those individuals are statutory office holders);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) expresses particular concern that, despite the clear terms of the order, the Minister has not produced the Commissioner's resignation letter or any documents evidencing its receipt by the Minister or Department;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) requires the Minister representing the Attorney-General to attend the Senate after motions to take note of answers on Thursday, 30 March 2023 to provide an explanation for no more than 10 minutes of the failure to fully comply with order for production of documents no. 183;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (e); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) any motion under paragraph (f) may be debated for no longer than</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:58</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 PRESID</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Leave is granted.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The government does not support this motion. The government has complied with the Senate order. The public interest immunity claim made in respect of some material excluded from the return is made in accordance with longstanding and accepted Senate practice.</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. 221 standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [11:59] <br />(The President—Senator Lines) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>39</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>Birmingham, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Hanson-Young, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McDonald, S. E.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McKim, N. J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</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>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. 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>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>McCarthy, M.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Sterle, G.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E. (Teller)</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 agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>34</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:02</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 the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) on 10 May 2022, the Prime Minister (Mr Albanese) told Radio National that he supports people's wages 'not going backwards',</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) on 21 March 2023, Senator Farrell advised the Senate during question time that 'of course it is our policy that wages not go backwards',</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) on 29 March 2023, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Mr Burke) stated, in relation to submissions to the Fair Work Commission determining the minimum wage, that 'our submission goes in on Friday and I'll be making more public comments once the submission is in on Friday. If I put it in these terms: When our submission is in on Friday, people will see that our values haven't changed';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber at the conclusion of motions to take note of answers on Thursday, 30 March 2023 to provide a statement to the chamber, of no more than 10 minutes, that outlines the Government's submission to the Fair Work Commission, including whether the Government has maintained its pre-election promise that wages not go backwards, and if its submission will contain the same recommendation as last year's, which recommended that the Fair Work Commission ensure that real wages of Australia's low-paid workers do not go backwards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>35</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum Joint Select Committee, Cost of Living Select Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>35</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PRESIDENT (): The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum—Joint Select Committee—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed [contingent on the appointment of the committee]—Senators Cox, Green, Stewart and White</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Cost of Living—Select Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Sheldon</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Stewart</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Sheldon</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Bilyk</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Sheldon</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Bilyk</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Substitute member: Senator Faruqi to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Shoebridge</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>35</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023, Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>35</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="r6993" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6997" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6994" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6996" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving Our Tax System) Bill 2023</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r7002" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</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 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>35</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:05</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 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">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PRESCRIBED DENTAL PATIENTS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government is pleased to introduce the Health Insurance Amendment (Prescribed Dental Patients and Other Measures) Bill 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Prescribed dental patients</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Cleft and craniofacial services listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule provide patients and families with much needed financial assistance for major dental and skeletal treatment. In Australia, about one in every 800 babies are born with a cleft lip or palate, and early medical intervention is critical for improved health outcomes. Persons diagnosed with a cleft or craniofacial condition often require ongoing treatment, particularly during their growth and development years, to correct or improve their physiological irregularities which can lead to other significant problems such as issues with feeding, hearing and speech, ear infections, and dental decay.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill proposes changing the Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Scheme to remove the unfair age restrictions that deny a small cohort of patients a Medicare reimbursement for treatment beyond the age of 22 years. This Bill will confer Medicare benefits eligibility to disadvantaged patients, including those who did not have treatment organised by their parents before reaching the age of 22, or those who have their treatment delayed beyond the age of 22 for other reasons, for example due to the COVID-19 pandemic.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Age limits for access to the scheme were initially established on the basis that patients suffering cleft and craniofacial conditions would generally have completed most specialist dental work associated with their condition once their facial growth was complete. Age limits for some patients were amended under the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review and Other Matters) Bill 2002<inline font-style="italic">. </inline>A small number of patients, however, continue to be denied access to Medicare benefits for treatment based on age. These changes will provide equity of access to treatment for cleft and craniofacial conditions, by removing the age restrictions currently associated with these services so that access is based on clinical need, in line with other Medicare Benefits Schedule services.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will not significantly alter average patient numbers being treated under Medicare but will allow for a more structured treatment plan that considers individual patient circumstances.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Other Measures</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will also provide for Services Australia to develop a system to place a doctor on, and remove a doctor from, the Register of Approved Placements.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Specified bodies like the Department of Health and Aged Care and the general practice colleges are responsible for determining if a doctor is eligible to be placed on the Register of Approved Placements. The specified bodies notify Services Australia of their decision, and Services Australia places doctors on, and removes doctors from, the Register of Approved Placements accordingly.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline> does not allow for this step of the process to be automated through a computer system. This Bill enables Services Australia to achieve efficiencies by developing systems that support an automated approach. Specifically, systems to support placing doctors on, and removing doctors from, the Register of Approved Placements once a decision has been made by a specified body. There are over 10,000 placements processed each year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bonded Medical Program provides a Commonwealth-supported place in a course of study in medicine at an Australian university in exchange for a participant completing a Return of Service Obligation working as a doctor in a regional, rural or remote community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will further enhance the administration of the Bonded Medical Program by rectifying inconsistencies between the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance (Bonded Medical Program) Rule 2020</inline>, simplifying the length of a bonded participant's return of service obligation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For the benefit of bonded participants, the Bill will also clarify how the return of service obligation will be calculated—as well as support automatic calculation in the Bonded Return of Service System—and ensure that the administrative penalty will only be applied when it is appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Conclusion</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will allow persons diagnosed with congenital and hereditary cleft and craniofacial conditions access to appropriate and timely treatment, despite their age, which will improve their quality of life.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill will also streamline Medicare administrative processes for the registration of approved training and workforce placements. The efficiencies that can be realised through the implementation of these changes may lead to reduced processing timeframes and allow doctors to start working at a medical practice and providing services to patients in the community sooner.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Finally, this Bill will further enhance the administration of the Bonded Medical Program in the interests of bonded participants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Labor Government is committed to the task of saving lives and delivering a better future for the veteran community.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">When an Australian signs up to our Defence Force, they make a solemn vow to defend Australia, to operate in support of our national interests.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">They do so knowing that they may find themselves in harm's way and could make the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is why as a Government and as a nation we have a solemn obligation to look after our Defence force personnel, veterans and families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To make sure that for those who find themselves injured or needing support, that this is readily available.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am pleased to introduce the <inline font-style="italic">Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill introduces a number of measures that will improve the way we support veterans and their families, address some</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">technological anomalies, and make some minor technical improvements to the operation of veterans' legislation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments contained in the Bill, a number of which are long overdue, demonstrate the government's ongoing commitment to implementing practical support measures to better support defence personnel, veterans and their families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1 will require the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) to provide an annual report for tabling in Parliament. This item addresses the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's recommendation in their July 2019 report <inline font-style="italic">'Annual reports (No.1 and No. 2 of 2019)', </inline>that the <inline font-style="italic">Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 </inline>(VEA) be amended to publish an annual report. The RMA has, as a matter of practice, already been tabling an annual report, so this measure will convert this existing practice to a legislative requirement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The RMA have been consulted and supports this measure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 amends the language contained in section 330 of the <inline font-style="italic">Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 </inline>(MRCA) and section 58 of the <inline font-style="italic">Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988 </inline>(DRCA).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is important because the language in these provisions is reflected in communication with veterans, and the present phrasing regarding the Military Rehabilitation Compensation Commission refusing to process a claim of further information is</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">distressing to many veterans. This phrase will be replaced so the commission will instead "defer" processing of the claim, which reflects actual practice.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 3 fixes incorrect references in the Veteran Entitlements Act to a provision in the <inline font-style="italic">A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 4 amends the <inline font-style="italic">Defence Ser</inline><inline font-style="italic">vice Homes Act 1918 </inline>(OSHA Act) to clarify the determination, revocation, replacement, variation and content of the Statement of Conditions made under section 38A of the OHSA Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Statement of Conditions is similar to a Product Disclosure Statement. It is a legislative instrument that sets out the risks against which the Commonwealth will undertake insurance under the relevant part of the OHSA Act, and other terms and conditions relating to insurance by the Commonwealth under the relevant part of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The original drafting of section 38A left it ambiguous as to the extent the Minister may re-make or otherwise revoke and replace the Statement of Conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments in Schedule 4 repeal certain subsections under section 38A and substitute provisions that clarify the operation of the Statement of Conditions and the conditions to vary, revoke and replace the Statement of Conditions.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The new provisions continue to ensure that any revocation or variation of the Statement of Conditions must not remove the right of a person to receive a payment to which the person had become entitled before the revocation or variation took effect.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5 will automate the alignment of the private vehicle allowance rate in the <inline font-style="italic">Mili</inline><inline font-style="italic">tary Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) </inline>and the <inline font-style="italic">Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-Related Claims) Act 1988 </inline>(DRCA) continues to align to that of the <inline font-style="italic">Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 </inline>(SRCA).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This will ensure consistency and create on-going administrative efficiencies. Clarity and certainty will be provided for both clients and the department through the creation of a transparent and legislated process for the rate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill is just one of many ways that the Albanese Labor Government is working to better support veterans.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We came to Government with a commitment to invest in a better future for Defence personnel, veterans and families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The October 2022 Budget delivers on this commitment, with significant investments including;</para></quote>
<list>$46.7 million for 10 new Veterans' and Families' Hubs across the country.</list>
<list>$24 million to deliver the Veteran Employment Program.</list>
<list>$4.7 million to develop the Op Navigator smartphone app to better support Australian Defence Force personnel in transition</list>
<list>$97.9 million for a $1,000 increase to annual Totally and Permanently Incapacitated (TPI) payments.</list>
<list>$46.2 million to boost Defence personnel and veterans' home ownership.</list>
<quote><para class="block">We're also responding to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's Interim Report:</para></quote>
<list>We've invested $233.9 million to engage 500 new frontline staff at OVA to eliminate the compensation claims backlog, delivering on a key election commitment—we've already employed 275 of those.</list>
<list>$87 million to modernise IT systems in OVA, improving claims processing;</list>
<list>$24.3 million to provide increased support to veterans who are having their claims processed and to improve modelling capabilities needed to forecast and manage future demand for OVA services; and</list>
<list>$15.5 million to support DVA's continued and timely engagement with the Royal Commission.</list>
<list>And vitally, we've invested $9.5 million into developing a pathway for simplification and harmonisation of</list>
<quote><para class="block">veterans' legislation. Consultation on that Pathway is now underway.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This government is committed to implementing practical support measures to better support defence personnel, veterans and their families.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments contained in the Bill before us today, while modest, demonstrate our government's ongoing commitment, while we also work on our Veteran legislation Reform Consultation Pathway.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We want our service personnel, veterans, and veteran families to know that they will get the support that they not only need, but deserve.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I commend the Bill to the House.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (INCORPORATION OF PROPOSALS) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2023 amends the <inline font-style="italic">Customs Tariff Act 1995</inline> to incorporate the measures in five customs tariff proposals and to correct references to new tariff headings and subheadings made by the 2022 Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (the Harmonized System). The Customs Tariff Proposals were tabled in Parliament in August and November last year. The measures in the Bill support improved access to essential hygiene and medical-related goods, greener technology, and respond to the illegal invasion of Ukraine and follow from Australia's international obligations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill inserts into the Customs Tariff Act a new provision for the temporary application of a 35 per cent additional duty to goods that are the produce or manufacture of Russia or Belarus. The additional duty applies to goods imported between 25 April 2022 and 24 October 2023 that left for direct shipment to Australia from 25 April 2022. This duty applies in addition to the general rate of customs duty applicable to imported goods. Importers of these goods are able to access concessional treatment under certain items of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act. This ensures that Australia is meeting its commitments under various international agreements. This measure commenced on 25 April 2022 for an initial six month period and was subsequently extended for a further twelve month period. The measure and the extension are a response to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the support provided by Belarus for this invasion. The measure and the extension are necessary for Australia's essential security interests as Russia continues to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermine the rules-based international order. Australia is committed to upholding these principles that are essential for Australia's international, regional and domestic stability and security. Economic measures against Russia and Belarus are a necessary part of the international community's response to their flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill incorporates a provision which provides for a temporary 'Free' rate of customs duty for goods that are the produce or manufacture of Ukraine, other than tobacco, alcohol, and petroleum products. The 'Free' rate of customs duty applies to goods that are imported into Australia from 4 July 2022 to 3 July 2023. The measure complements the additional duty applied to Russian and Belarusian goods and seeks to assist the economic recovery of Ukraine.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill incorporates the extension and expansion in scope of concessional item 57 of Schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act. This concession provides for a 'Free' rate of customs duty for imported hygiene and medical-related products. The measure was first implemented in 2020 as a temporary response to the pandemic, extended on several occasions and was ultimately made permanent on 1 July 2022. At this time, the scope of the concession was extended to cover ingredients to be used in the production of certain medicaments and containers for medicaments, in addition to goods such as facemasks and gloves. This permanent tariff concession ensures that Australians continue to have access to critical hygiene and medical-related goods.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill incorporates a measure that provides a 'Free' rate of customs duty for new passenger motor vehicles with a customs value less than the luxury car tax threshold. The 'Free' rate of customs duty applies to electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and hybrid vehicles with an engine capable of being plugged in to an external source of power. This measure commenced on 1 July 2022 and complements other measures aimed at accelerating the uptake of these vehicles.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill will also amend a reference to the tariff heading for blood-grouping reagents in a note to Chapter 13 of Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and insert the correct tariff subheading for certain goods that are herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth regulators to ensure that these goods are subject to the correct preferential rate of customs duty as agreed under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SPECIAL RECREATIONAL VESSELS AMENDMENT BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Special Recreational Vessels Amendment Bill 2023 will extend the sunsetting date of the <inline font-style="italic">Special Recreational Vessels Act 2019</inline> (the SRV Act) from 30 June 2023 to 30 June 2025. This Act allows foreign special recreational vessels (also known as superyachts) to apply for a special recreational vessel temporary licence to operate on the Australian coast, if they choose to opt in to the coastal trading regulatory regime. This allows these vessels to be offered for hire or charter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The proposed amendment means these vessels can continue to operate under temporary licences, bringing overseas dollars into regional communities around Australia. Encouraging special recreational vessels to come to Australia to charter is important, particularly for post COVID recovery.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Special reactional vessels bring a range of economic benefits—Australian producers and service industries all stand to benefit from the continuation of superyacht charters. The opportunity to supply food and beverages to the vessels as well as the onshore demand for tourism, accommodation, cafes and restaurants will provide much needed business.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Extending the repeal date of the SRV Act for two years will allow more time to consult stakeholders on a longer-term solution for special recreational vessel regulation. Earlier consultation was paused because of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting supply chain issues, and will not be completed prior to the SRV Act sunsetting.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In the interim, the SRV industry needs certainty to continue to operate in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government is committed to ensuring Australia's regulatory framework for our maritime industries remains fit for purpose, meets community expectations and supports Australian businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Government appointed a Taskforce to provide advice on how to establish an Australian strategic maritime fleet and is expected to provide advice on any changes to the coastal trading regulatory framework required to support establishment of the fleet. The Government will consider the Taskforce's advice, which is due by 30 June 2023, before determining whether wider regulatory reform is required to support and grow Australia's maritime industry more broadly, including consideration of a longer term solution for regulating superyachts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The superyacht industry will no doubt make an important contribution to our post COVID-19 recovery as we look to reopen the economy and permit more leisure activities in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government recognises the economic opportunities that superyachts afford Australian business, as well as regional and urban communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill permits special recreational vessels to continue to charter in Australia and have these opportunities realised.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (REFINING AND IMPROVING OUR TAX SYSTEM) BILL 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Treasury Laws Amendment (Refining and Improving our Tax System) Bill 2023 contains a number of measures to remove unnecessary administrative and compliance burdens associated with our tax system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the <inline font-style="italic">International Tax Agreements Act 1953</inline> to give the force of law to the new tax treaty signed by Australia and Iceland on 12 October 2022.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The number of Icelandic people in Australia is not large. The 2021 Census counted 405 Icelandic-born people and 1328 people of Icelandic ancestry. However, Iceland's GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world and this tax treaty will make Australia a more attractive investment destination for Icelandic capital. It will also reduce the tax barriers to Australian businesses trading with Iceland.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The treaty also reflects the Government's commitment to ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As part of our first Budget last October, we have already taken meaningful steps:</para></quote>
<list>We are making it harder for multinationals to shift profits by charging themselves for intangibles that happen to be based in countries with low tax rates;</list>
<list>We are strengthening Australia's thin capitalisation rules to reduce the amount multinationals can deduct from their tax bill as debt;</list>
<list>We are increasing reporting requirements for large multinationals to enhance tax transparency; and</list>
<list>Recognising that a well-equipped public service pays off in the long run, we are investing over $1 billion to strengthen the Australian Taxation Office's Tax Avoidance Taskforce.</list>
<quote><para class="block">This treaty builds on that work by incorporating important integrity measures from the G20 and OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project and providing mechanisms to support stronger cooperation between tax authorities to detect and combat tax evasion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This treaty presents a welcome opportunity to strengthen our economic and cultural ties with Iceland, a country with whom we share many values.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the law to exempt wholly owned Australian incorporated subsidiaries of the Future Fund Board of Guardians (Future Fund Board) from corporate income tax.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, the Future Fund Board is exempt from income taxes, but this exemption does not extend to its wholly owned subsidiaries. Extending this exemption will remove the administrative burden associated with the payment of tax by these subsidiaries and the subsequent claiming of a refund by the Future Fund Board.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The legislation will not change the net position for either the Commonwealth or the Future Fund—that is, no income tax is collected by the Commonwealth from the Future Fund Board.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 3 to the Bill transfers administration of four unique Deductible Gift Recipient categories to the Australian Taxation Office, and repeals provisions relating to maintenance of departmental registers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The ATO currently administers 48 of the 52 categories under which an organisation may be eligible for endorsement as a deductible gift recipient. Four deductible gift recipient categories—Environmental Organisations, Harm Prevention Charities, Cultural Organisations, and Overseas Aid Organisations—are currently administered by Ministers through departmental registers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments transfer practical responsibility for assessing deductible gift recipients from these four Ministers to the ATO. The amendments will make all deductible gift recipient categories consistent in administration, reducing the regulatory burden imposed on endorsed organisations and streamlining application and reporting requirements for organisations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Approval times for these four categories will be reduced from up to two years to around one month. It will prevent the situation that we saw prior to the last election, in which worthy charities that were not politically aligned with the Morrison Government did not receive their deductible gift recipient listing in a timely fashion. This included the Grace Tame Foundation, which had to await the election of the Albanese Government before receiving its deductible gift recipient listing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These changes are just part of our commitment to strengthening the charity sector.</para></quote>
<list>We have ended the war on charities, and the needless attacks on charities that engage in charitable advocacy;</list>
<list>We have completed the largest consultation of NGOs and charities in Australia's history;</list>
<list>We have launched a once in a generation Productivity Commission review of philanthropy—aiming to double giving by 2030;</list>
<list>We have secured an in-principle agreement with the States and Territories to harmonise fundraising laws; and</list>
<list>We have appointed the highly respected Sue Woodward to head the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 4 to the Bill provides deregulatory benefits to small and medium businesses that engage with the fuel or alcohol excise system or import excise-equivalent goods. Instead of the existing ability to apply for weekly or monthly reporting and payments, such businesses can also apply for permission to lodge and pay their duty quarterly. This measure will reduce administrative burdens and help small and medium businesses with cash flow.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The proposed amendment will commence on 1 July 2023. Eligible businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $50 million in an income year, who pay fuel and alcohol excise or customs duty on excise-equivalent goods, will then be able to apply for permission to the Commissioner of Taxation or Comptroller-General of Customs to move to the new reporting schedule.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, businesses are required to lodge and pay excise and customs duty on excise-equivalent goods when goods enter home consumption unless they have permission to defer lodgement and payment. This permission can only be given for lodgement and payment weekly or, for certain eligible businesses, monthly.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This new quarterly schedule will better align fuel and alcohol excise and customs duty on excise-equivalent goods with other indirect taxes such as the GST. Fuel and alcohol businesses will benefit from reporting and paying excise and customs duty at the same time as they lodge their Business Activity Statement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5 to the Bill provides deregulatory benefits to retail and hospitality venues who repackage beer from bulk quantities into small containers for immediate retail sale. From 1 July 2023, this measure introduces a targeted exemption from alcohol excise licensing requirements for the repackaging of the first 10,000 litres of beer from kegs into non-pressurised containers of no more than 2 litres capacity—commonly known as growlers—for immediate retail sale at particular premises in a financial year.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Currently, businesses that package duty-paid beer into these containers are required to hold a manufacturing license for excise purposes and pay duty again, in effect paying double duty. These licenses carry significant obligations which are more appropriate to entities fermenting, brewing or repackaging beer on a commercial basis in order to protect the lower alcohol excise rate of keg beer. However, filling specified containers in retail settings does not pose this integrity risk. This measure will benefit the hospitality sector, and reflects the Australian Government's commitment to our local bars and clubs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While the first 10,000 litres of beer in a financial year is exempt, subsequent amounts are captured by existing arrangements. This will ensure that larger businesses engaged in this practice in more significant commercial quantities remain appropriately regulated.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sale of takeaway alcohol in retail settings will continue to remain the regulatory responsibility of the states and territories. This amendment is intended to remove disproportionate regulatory requirements on this practice created by the alcohol excise system.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The measures in Schedules 4 and 5 reflect the Australian Government's strong commitment to a thriving small business sector. It complements small business measures that we are already implementing, including:</para></quote>
<list>Strengthening protections for small businesses from unfair contract terms;</list>
<list>Making it easier for small businesses to access Government procurement contracts;</list>
<list>Funding an energy savings grant program for small businesses, helping them reduce energy use and lower energy bills;</list>
<list>Providing more than $15 million to support small business owners with free mental health support and financial counselling; and</list>
<list>Improving payment times for small businesses.</list>
<quote><para class="block">Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Ordered that the bills be listed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Paper</inline> as separate orders of the day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>41</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="r6989" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill 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>41</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHISHOLM</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a 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">Today I am introducing the next step in the Albanese Government's election commitment to reform Income Management—the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Income Management Reform) Bill 2023.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill builds on changes made by the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (A</inline><inline font-style="italic">dministration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Act 2022</inline>, which established the enhanced Income Management program and repealed the Cashless Debit Card program.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by this Bill will facilitate an effective and efficient transition to enhanced Income Management for existing Income Management participants who choose to access a superior banking product, and ensure that new entrants into the program are provided with the contemporary technology of the SmartCard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This is to be given effect through three key reforms, to be implemented from a date to be set by proclamation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Firstly, the Bill extends the enhanced Income Management regime to include all of the measures that are in place for the Income Management regime. This will allow eligible welfare recipients to enter an enhanced Income Management regime that offers improved technology and access to over one million outlets across Australia as well as 'Tap and Go' transactions, online shopping and BPAY.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Secondly, the Bill gives people subject to the Income Management regime under Part 3B the choice to move to enhanced Income Management from the commencement date, thereby allowing them to access the BasicsCard bank account and superior SmartCard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Thirdly, the Bill directs all new entrants to the enhanced Income Management regime, ensuring no new participant is issued the BasicsCard—all new participants will receive the SmartCard. We will undertake further consultation on the long-term future of Income Management.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Former Cashless Debit Card participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York and Doomadgee regions, and those who chose to remain on the Cashless Debit Card program in other areas, transitioned to the enhanced Income Management program on 6 March 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill offers that same choice to use the contemporary technology to more than 24,400 existing Income Management participants, in the Northern Territory and other place-based locations nationally. It will also ensure that all newly eligible participants will be part of enhanced Income Management, to ensure no new participants are given a BasicsCard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The more modern SmartCard provides banking functions including 'tap to pay' payments, online shopping and BPAY bill payments. Importantly the SmartCard is delivered by Services Australia and has a PIN number for added protection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our absolute priority is to ensure participants are supported and given access to a modern financial experience.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The service offering of the BasicsCard has become increasingly out of step with modern expectations. Submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee enquiry into the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of the Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022</inline> also gave us a clear message that the BasicsCard is out of date, and not sufficient to meet the needs of people in communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The former government did not invest in the BasicsCard because they were focused on pushing more people onto their privatised Cashless Debit Card.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We have listened, this Bill responds to the clear message that the BasicsCard is out of date—that is it is important for this Bill to be dealt with as soon as possible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Albanese Government is working with communities on what the future of Income Management looks like for them. Any decisions about the future of Income Management will be based on genuine consultation with affected communities, state and territory governments and experts in the field. Until that time, this Bill will ensure Income Management is more in tune with the needs of participants, based on the feedback we have already heard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Further, this Bill will specifically exclude Age Pensioners and Special Needs Pensioners as eligible payments for the Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipient (VWPR) measure of enhanced Income Management. This reflects the Albanese Government's strong view that this was never an appropriate measure under the existing Income Management program, and ensures that any future governments are unable to enact this change without standing here in this place and attempting to justify it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will also specifically exclude Veterans' Payments as eligible payments for enhanced Income Management.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is important to be clear here to provide communities with certainty about what these changes mean for them. This Bill does not remove the Income Management program or amend the underlying policy, which is based on applying restrictions to an individual's welfare payment when they meet specific eligibility criteria, to ensure a portion of their payment cannot be spent on restricted goods.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The Bill does not change the eligibility criteria which determine whether an individual is placed on income management. As such, no participants will exit the scheme who would otherwise be subject to income management. Any new participants who will be placed on enhanced Income Management would otherwise have been placed on Income Management.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Bill does not change the portion of payment which cannot be spent on restricted goods, which will remain consistent with the portion currently restricted based on eligible measure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It also does not change the items to be restricted, which are alcohol, gambling services, pornography and tobacco.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Importantly, it also does not change the current ability for state and territories to refer people to income management where there are concerns, for example relating to child protection. This ability exists in the income management regime and will be protected by inserting equivalent sections into the enhanced Income Management.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Feedback from First Nations community leaders told us more consultation was required on the future of Income Management. We heard that any change needs to be measured and respond to community needs. Decisions that impact First Nations people will be made in partnership involving extensive consultation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">As I said in this place when I introduced our Bill to abolish the Cashless Debit Card last year—we will continue consulting with, and listening to, a wide range of stakeholders, including First Nations leaders, women's groups, service providers, communities, people receiving welfare payments and our state and territory government counterparts.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These diverse perspectives on local needs will strongly inform what the future of Income Management looks like. Consultation is central to everything we as a government will do. We want to ensure changes or measures we implement are helping those who need it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Our focus and our objective as a Government remains clear—to empower people and communities, and provide individuals and communities with a range of supports that they can choose to use when and how it suits them best.</para></quote>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6955" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of House of Representatives Message</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="s1363" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from the House of Representatives</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>42</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>42</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>42</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>39801</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CHISHOLM (—Assistant Minister for Education, Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (): by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate concur with the resolution of the House of Representatives proposing the appointment of a joint select committee on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>43</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>43</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="r6957" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>In Committee</title>
            <page.no>43</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The committee is considering the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 and amendments (1) to (14) on sheet SK147, moved by Senator McAllister. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek further information around some specific entities, noting that there are only 215 facilities caught under this mechanism. I do this in pursuit of clarity around what impact the safeguard mechanism and the dodgy deal that's been struck between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens will have on the cost of living and the cost of doing business. I'm trying to understand what is characterised as being this unbelievably difficult task to get to the bottom of, to go and ask these 215 facilities exactly what impact their legislation and the dodgy deal will have on these facilities and the people who do business with them or rely on their services or pay a fee for that service.</para>
<para>I turn to the state of Western Australia now. In particular, I'm talking about the Red Hill Waste Management Facility, which provides waste disposal services to residents in Perth's eastern region. Under the government's changes to the mechanism, this entity—like V/Line and some of the other businesses or facilities we've talked about—will be forced to reduce its emissions by 4.9 per cent per year. I'm wondering whether there's been any interaction between the government and the East Metropolitan Regional Council about how this facility will work to meet Labor's targets and any other flow-on implications out of the dodgy deals struck between Labor and the Greens.</para>
<para>We've heard about the in-depth and extended consultation between the government and these entities affected. I'm wondering, based on this lengthy extended consultation, what the impact is, how it's quantified, whether there'll be, as a flow-on from that, an increase to the rates that are paid in this municipality as a result of this dodgy deal with the Greens. If you can't tell us, can you at least guarantee that there won't be a rate rise as a result of increased costs for the management of the Red Hill Waste Management Facility?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have talked at length about the consultation process, and thank you for acknowledging the work that went into offering stakeholders an opportunity to contribute. As I've explained to you already, the purpose of the consultation was to understand the design parameters for the government's scheme. It wasn't to elicit detailed information from businesses about their business intentions in running their businesses; it was to ask them how they believe such a scheme should be constructed.</para>
<para>As I have indicated previously, it was extensive. Stakeholders were invited to respond to a consultation paper that was released back in August 2022. That paper sought feedback, appropriately, from anyone who wished to provide it, including covered entities, on matters including the share of the national abatement task, the scale and rate of change in that sector, how the safeguard mechanism baselines are set, crediting and trading, the role of domestic offsets and international units, the treatment of emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses, how to take account of available and emerging technologies, and indicative baseline decline rates.</para>
<para>A public online information session was held on 31 August, in that same year, to outline key elements of the consultation paper. A recording of that was made available on the department's website shortly after, and about 220 people registered for that webinar. There were five in-person round tables around the country.</para>
<para>Invites were sent to stakeholders in safeguard covered sectors, including transport, resources, aviation, minerals and cement, government agencies, consultancies, carbon market advisories, environmental non-government organisations, think tanks, academia, financial services, industry groups, unions and First Nations groups.</para>
<para>Round tables were attended by approximately 140 people. Submissions were open on that consultation until 20 September. The department granted extensions to all stakeholders who requested one and over 240 submissions were received, and all of the non-confidential submissions were published.</para>
<para>After that, in October, exposure draft legislation was released for public comment. Submissions were open on that until 28 October 2022. Again, the department granted extensions until November 2022. Fifty-five submissions were received, and again the non-confidential submissions were published. There was then a position paper in January on the proposed design and supporting exposure draft legislation. The position paper outlined the proposed design of the reforms, including the share of the national emissions target that safeguard facilities will deliver; the framework for setting baselines for existing and new facilities, including the rate of decline; arrangements for issuing credits; access to flexible compliance options, including access to credits, offsets, banking and borrowing arrangements; multiyear monitoring periods; a cost containment measure; and tailored treatment for emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities.</para>
<para>The draft National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Safeguard Mechanism) Amendment (Reforms) Rule 2023 implements the mechanism as was set out in that paper. Key provisions include the baseline-setting arrangements for existing and new facilities; declining baselines over time so that safeguard facilities contribute a proportional share of the national emissions reduction task, flexible compliance options, including below-baseline crediting; interactions with ACCU projects; and tailored treatment for trade-exposed facilities. The draft Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2023 prevent new government contracts for purchase of ACCUs from projects that solely credit abatement of covered emissions from safeguard facilities. They also enable the proposed cost containment measure by allowing the regulator to sell ACCUs.</para>
<para>There was then a public information session on 19 January to outline the key elements of the consultation paper. Again, a recording was made of that and placed on the department's website. Around 790 people registered for the webinar, and approximately 640 joined. There were then further in-person roundtables to provide a forum for discussion. Again, invites were sent to stakeholders in the covered sectors, government agencies, consultancies, carbon market advisories, environment and non-government organisations, think tanks and academia, financial services, industry groups, unions and First Nations groups. These roundtables were attended by 140 people. Submissions were open on this round of consultation until 24 February 2023, and the department again granted extensions until 28 February to all stakeholders who requested one. Over 280 submissions were received, and all non-confidential submissions were published on the department's website.</para>
<para>I ran through that again, Senator, because the purpose of this was to gain feedback about the mechanisms. It was not to obtain a record of all the decisions expected to be undertaken by businesses, but, where businesses provided information, it was incorporated into the design of the reforms that are before us now. We've canvassed a number of examples of changes that have been made over the course of this consultation period as a response to the feedback that was provided to us by stakeholders. You're asking for something quite different, which is specific analysis about the specific impact on a specific business. It's not the case that government consultation goes down that path. Our role is to establish a framework, which incidentally has been called for for a long time by leading business organisations because of the certainty that is required for people to take investment decisions. That's our role, and the purpose of the consultation was to seek feedback about the approach we proposed. We're confident that the very detailed and extensive consultation that occurred, as I've just set out to you now, was effective in obtaining the information that we wanted but also giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again I really want to emphasise the point that there are 215 facilities. It's not as if we have thousands or millions of entities out there who would be subject to some blanket rule. This is a very targeted and specific program. This mechanism covers a specific set of entities. I congratulate those in the community—those stakeholders you talk about—that have engaged with government on the way through. That's fantastic—the roundtables, the written submissions, the granted extensions from the department. All of that sounds fantastic. But what I cannot get past is the fact that the government have not gone to the 215 facilities and said: 'Here's what we are doing. How does it impact on you?' I'm not sure that it passes any test for a government that is the custodian of our economy and of our country's economic wellbeing to say, 'Well, we put it out for consultation and they never told us that it might be harmful or, if they did, we've sort of blended in with everything else.' That is not okay—to not be able to tell the Senate specifically what might happen as a result of passing this legislation with its bolted-on dodgy deal with the Greens and to not be able to tell us what might happen for the ratepayers of the Eastern Metropolitan Region of Perth. I asked you a specific question: would you rule out that there would be rate increases? You failed to tell the people of that municipality that they won't have rate increases as a result of your safeguard mechanism, much in the same way that you failed to rule out that tickets on a V/Line train will not become more expensive as V/Line is forced to comply with your safeguard mechanism. These sorts of things are in questions, and I'm surprised the government is not prepared to answer, much the same as you weren't prepared to answer that very basic question I asked three or four times about the 215 facilities. I remind the Senate that it's 215 facilities—not 215,000, but 215—which we have had 10 months since the election to consult with.</para>
<para>You've talked about the in-depth extended consultation that occurred—well done, except for the fact that you didn't go and check with them about how your laws would impact on their businesses and their capacity to maintain employment. You have not guaranteed that not a single job will be shed as a result of your safeguard mechanism. You couldn't tell us, in an overall sense even, which of the 215 facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism had existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. You've acknowledged there were some that had plans, but you can't tell me which ones. I just don't understand why the government haven't gone out to properly assess the impact and model it. Maybe you have and you just don't want to tell us; I don't know. But I think the people of Australia deserve to know whether they're going to lose their jobs; whether they're going to pay more for electricity; whether, in the case of the council area I mentioned, they're going to pay more for rates; and whether V/Line ticket prices are going to go up. Indeed, they deserve to know whether you've modelled the impact of the cost going up for getting goods on freight trains, which therefore would mean more trucks going on the roads as businesses opt for road transport instead of rail. That, of course, has the perverse outcome of there being more emissions heading into the atmosphere.</para>
<para>This scheme, of course—as we recall, ladies and gentlemen—has been designed to bring down emissions, as we were told. That's either going to send them offshore to countries where they have no scheme like this, making us out to be very bad global citizens, or increase emissions here in Australia because these individual owner-operator truck drivers aren't going to be caught under this mechanism. This is the ridiculousness of this approach.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Indeed, Senator Hughes makes a point about the increased cost of food because of increased costs for fertiliser. We talked about the modelling that the IMF, I believe, did that talked about a one per cent increase in the costs of the inputs for fertiliser resulting in a 0.45 per cent increase in the cost of food at a time when we know people are choosing between paying rent, paying power bills, which are going to go up, and putting food on the table. It's also a time when these cost-of-living pressures are becoming acute—10 interest rate rises, a rental affordability crisis, food's more expensive, power's more expensive, and there is no attempt by the government to understand what impact the laws they're seeking to run through this place at one o'clock this afternoon will have on the pressures Australians are facing. That shows contempt for Australians and that's on top of, as I said before, the attempt to ignore the promise that was made to Australians 97 times to bring power prices down by $275. Not only have we completely erased that one in a Stalinist revisionist-type approach to rewriting history, we'll pretend it never happened and hopefully the people of Australia, by the time 2025 rolls around, will have forgotten that promise. I tell you what: we will not be letting you forget the promise you made, Labor government. We will be making sure that everyone remembers that, and we've got a great private senator's bill which we will debate at some point in the near future.</para>
<para>I'll go to another entity covered under the safeguard mechanism, and that's of course the Ampol refinery in Lytton, Queensland, which is certain to be impacted by the changes to the safeguard mechanism by Labor and their good friends the Australian Greens, who are big fans of business and economic activity.</para>
<para>According to Ampol, the cost of Labor's safeguard policy will be passed on to Australian motorists through higher fuel prices. I'd loved to know how the laws you're seeking to pass in 35 or 36 minutes will affect the fuel price. How much more can Australians expect to pay for fuel as a result of your laws and your arrangements with the Australian Greens, the backroom deal that we got the amendments from as we were commencing debate—no consultation, no chat with industry, no figuring out whether there would be an adverse impact? Again, along with the people that could lose their jobs, along with people that are paying more for train tickets, along with the people that are paying more for rates at a time when they can least afford it, I'd love to know this for every Australian that drives a car, every truck driver, every user of fuel products: how much more are fuel prices going to rise? Also, will the rises—if there's any modelling that's been done—apply evenly across all states and territories or will they be targeted to population centres? I'd be interested in that. Indeed, would there be an impact on inflation with these price rises, if they occur?</para>
<para>You might be able to rule them out. You might be able to tell us that Australians are going to be paying more for fuel. I'd love it if you did. I note you have not ruled out job losses, you have not ruled out rate rises, you have not ruled out increased costs for transportation like train tickets and getting goods from A to B in trucks. Maybe you can rule out an increase in the cost of fuel as a result of your safeguard mechanism changes for which you have done with a dodgy deal with the Australian Greens. If you can't rule it out, why do you think it's okay for Australians to pay more for fuel? Minister, I ask you those questions, and I'll be keen to examine some of the other amendments in the 35 minutes you've left for us to consider this bill.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>McALLISTER (—) (): Thank you, Senator Duniam. It's a curious thing, isn't it, to be asked these questions by an opposition that, in government, proposed to use the safeguard mechanism for exactly the purpose that we propose to use it, which is to reduce emissions. At the National Press Club back in 2015, what did Greg Hunt say? He said, 'The safeguard mechanism will come into effect from 1 July next year, and it will generate approximately 200 million tonnes of emissions reduction by 2030.' It's interesting, isn't it? It's a very similar number to the number proposed under this reform.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Duniam</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Technology not taxes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection because you refer to technology not taxes. This is, of course, not a tax. We propose to use the safeguard mechanism, and, if I just take it back to the comments made by Mr Hunt at the National Press Club, he said the safeguard mechanism, the mechanism he proposed to use for emissions reduction, will come into effect and it will generate approximately two million tonnes of emissions reduction by 2030. That was your government's plan, and it's not so different to the plan that's before us, is it? The original rules that were made in 2015—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The TEMPORARY CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>283601</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We've got half an hour left because of the guillotine of this government. If you could assist the minister in answering the question, it's not history lesson time. Senator Duniam asked a very sensible question about the price of fuel. It affects every single Australian that has a car and every single truck owner, and I think the minister should give Australians the courtesy of directly answering.</para>
<para>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hughes, that's a debating point, not a point of order. While I'd like to be able to direct the answer, but that is not my role.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was speaking about the commitments made by your government, Mr Hunt, at the National Press Club, and it is immediately relevant because the mechanism before us has very similar objectives and uses the same mechanism as was proposed by the government. The original rules in 2015 set up a framework for all new entrants from 2020 to be given best-practice baselines. Again, it's quite similar to what's before us now. The explanatory statement for that rule promised to make the first tranche of best-practice benchmarks by 31 December 2016. Unfortunately, as was so frequently the case with the previous government—there were a lot of promises—that promise, the promise to make the first tranche of best-practice benchmarks by 31 December 2016, was not met when they left office last May, in 2022.</para>
<para>So, the suggestion that your government never intended the safeguard mechanism to reduce emissions is false, or at least doesn't reflect what the ministers responsible for the legislation promised. It might be the view more broadly of those on your side of the chamber, and I think that was one of the challenges for the last government, wasn't it—that you weren't able to obtain agreement amongst yourselves about what to do, let alone bring a coherent policy to industry or the parliament. It brings us back to that question of engagement and consultation, because this government does want to work with stakeholders and with the parliament to establish policies that give businesses the certainty they require.</para>
<para>Senator Duniam, over the course of the debate you've made a series of assertions about cost, and I've indicated to you the processes the government went through to develop this mechanism in a way that minimised cost impacts and gave businesses maximum flexibility to mitigate any impacts of the mechanism. I make the point again that the mechanism we propose backs in businesses' existing commitments. Most are already planning for or pricing in the transition to net zero—already doing it. So, your assertion about additional costs doesn't reflect the fact that these businesses were already engaged in a process. Around 170 facilities, or 80 per cent of safeguard facilities, are covered by corporate net zero commitments and, given that they have made those commitments, we can anticipate that responsible businesses have been working towards them. It was 86 per cent of scheme emissions.</para>
<para>I can point you to some of the public research. The Grattan Institute indicated that direct impacts on household electricity, gas and petrol prices are likely to be negligible. And I point you, again, to your repeated assertion that you're interested in technology, not taxes. Well, we are interested in using the mechanism you established for the purposes you said it was established for.</para>
<para>The proposed reforms are carefully designed to moderate and mitigate cost impacts. The hybrid approach to setting baselines moderates initial scheme impacts while encouraging production to occur where it's lease emissions-intensive, lowering the overall economy-wide cost. The flexible compliance options, which I've spoken about previously, including borrowing, multiyear monitoring and the use of domestic offsets, helps safeguard facilities to meet their obligations at a lower cost. As we discussed last night, assistance will be available to ensure that businesses are not competitively disadvantaged, including the Powering the Regions Fund, which will assist businesses by supporting decarbonisation activities. There is also tailored assistance for emissions-intensive trade exposed facilities.</para>
<para>Senator, we are at a point in the debate where senators are asking questions that have previously been asked and answered. There is a motion before the chair, and obviously at any time the Senate is free to deal with it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>These words of false hope are espoused here—that most businesses have commitments of their own, so therefore there'll be no impact. Well, if that is the case, Minister—if this bill is not what we are saying it is; if our concerns are unfounded; if the quotes I've read into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> on behalf of businesses and communities who are worried about this and the impact it is going to have are not correct—then I don't understand why you can't give us a guarantee, why you can't tell us that power prices won't go up, why the price of train tickets in Victoria won't go up, why the rates in the Eastern Metropolitan Council Area of Perth won't go up and why not a single job will be lost.</para>
<para>I did find it a little odd, to use this term out of some report—I think it was from the Grattan Institute—that the increase in the cost of fuel will be negligible. I don't know what 'negligible' means. It's an indication that there will be an increase in the cost of fuel. But this is at a time when people are scratching around to find the money to pay the bills they have, because money doesn't grow on trees, as we understand; it's a finite resource. You can't just go down to the bank and say, 'I'd like to get an extension on my overdraft for the 10th time this year.' You actually have to make the books balance. Households have the same responsibility that business do and that government does.</para>
<para>To have an increase as a result of government legislation that we are currently debating is not a good outcome. I don't think it's acceptable for the minister to stand in here and say: 'You know what, we've consulted, and that's enough. We don't know what the impact will specifically be. We've got a range of measures that might help them with the problems they will face as we force them down the path of transition faster than they were planning.' Again, I think the answer to the question I asked multiple times, around how many of the 215 facilities are going to have a plan to reduce by 30 per cent of their emissions by the year 2030, which mirrors the government's commitment here under the safeguard mechanism, was no answer. I tell you what, as a senator for Tasmania, if I only had to go out and consult with 215 individuals about what it was they wanted me to do, I'd be doing it every day of the week. What a walk in the park to go and understand what 215 facilities need from government to ensure we don't have disastrous economic impacts flowing through into our communities—through our businesses, through local government entities, through transport providers—having an impact on every aspect of life.</para>
<para>Today—and the day before, and the day before that, and every day of this debate—we have seen a refusal by this government to make commitments to give assurances to the people of Australia that there won't be the problems we are asking about. Rule out job losses as a result of the safeguard mechanism. Give Australians that assurance that we will not lose jobs—that not a single job will go because the government is bringing in laws attached to dodgy deals with the Australian Greens, who have some ideological problems with many of our heavy emitting manufacturing industries. Give us that guarantee, and then everyone will be happy. The problem is we can't. Yes, they're business decisions. No, they're not the responsibility of a specific cabinet minister. But the government as a whole has a responsibility to the people of Australia, as custodians of our economy and economic wellbeing, to ensure that the laws and policies put in place in this building don't have a detrimental impact.</para>
<para>All I am asking, Minister, is: do you understand the impact on these businesses of your laws? Has there been any specific work done with these 215 facilities around what the laws, as set out in your bill, as set out in the dodgy deal reached with the Greens, state? Have you gone to the 215 facilities? It's not a massive task, noting the huge amount of consultation which has happened in a broad and nebulous sense with stakeholder groups and communities and those who bothered to write back in; and noting most of these entities are busy doing business, refining fuel, running train lines, processing our waste or whatever it might be, creating fertiliser for us to be able to grow the food we need to eat and keep costs down. The government haven't gone and done that. They don't know how many of these 215 facilities will have reduced, or will have plans to reduce, their emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2030. I would have thought that would be the first question you would ask specifically these entities captured by the safeguard mechanism. It's a targeted group. These laws will affect them.</para>
<para>Then, of course, there are all the flow-ons: the people that work for these facilities, the people that engage with these facilities or depend on the services from these facilities. I think about the fuel refinery we talked about in Queensland—two in the whole country. Here we are bringing in some laws that will have a detrimental impact on their ability to keep costs down. Of course, they are not going to absorb them themselves, and a government handout shouldn't be the answer. It'll be passed on to the consumer—the consumer that is already paying through the nose for everything they use to live their lives.</para>
<para>But the point is that there have been no assurances given around this. There has been no ability to assuage the concerns held—and held for good reason—by people in this chamber. It is not just some ideological bent. This is going to have negative impacts. With every question we have asked about whether the government have gone specifically to these 215 entities and sought to understand what impact these changes will have, we're met with, 'That's not the job of government. We've consulted. We're proceeding. There'll be some flexible arrangements.' That doesn't cut it. Australians want better. We're asking for better in this chamber. That we received the amendments not at the 11th hour but one second before debate started shows the contempt and, indeed, the desire to avoid scrutiny on the changes that are being made here. Had I more time, I would ask the Greens about their amendments, but I will go back to the fuel refinery because it's not just the people who work in it and it's not just the millions of Australians out there who drive cars every day to get to work, to take the kids to care or school or to pick up the groceries or whatever essential item of daily life they conduct by way of a motor vehicle but also the contracting businesses in regional towns and communities that employ many Australians. They're not directly caught up in a safeguard mechanism, but they're the people we're not even able to contemplate the impact on. What are the flow-ons? There's been no modelling about the impact of the flow-on consequences of this legislation. We don't know.</para>
<para>In 20 minutes we will be voting on disastrous laws that will have disastrous impacts, that will drive up the cost of electricity, that will chill the life out of the gas exploration sector and other sources of energy generation, that will drive up the cost of fuel, that will drive up the cost of train tickets in Victoria, that will drive up rates for ratepayers in the council I mentioned earlier, that will drive up the cost of fruit and veg, that will drive up so many elements of everyday life, and the minister cannot tell us why the government haven't gone and specifically sought responses around what might happen if we go down this pathway. Two hundred and fifteen facilities—I don't think it is a stretch of resources for the Australian government over the course of 10 months to engage directly with each of them, to understand what might happen in all of the areas I've talked about. In all of those—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Less than one a day.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exactly. Senator Scarr is right. It's less than one a day to go and work with and speak to about this. We are exhausted by the debate and the lack of answers forthcoming, answers we need to satisfy ourselves as we hurtle towards a vote being forced upon us by a deal between the Labor Party and the Australian Greens to get their dirty little agreement enshrined in law, an agreement that the people of Australia will be paying for through the nose through increased power prices, more-expensive fuel and more-expensive food, and no assurances have been given. What are we left to do but to assume that the worst will happen?</para>
<para>I feel very sad that we actually have no attempt by government to quantify that, to understand that, to demonstrate to Australians that 'don't worry, these things won't happen'. That's not happening. We just get the repeated answers in response to direct, specific questions, which I am so flabbergasted that the government isn't prepared to answer, around impact on these specific facilities. But here we are, with very little time before us, and the government will end this week having driven up power prices, having driven up the cost of fuel, having driven up the cost of food, with all of these jobs going offshore and worse environmental outcomes. I say, 'Well done,' but it's a dark day for Australia. Frankly, they should hang their heads in shame.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have it all on display, don't we? This is an opposition that has entirely vacated the field when it comes to the battle of ideas. This is an opposition that, when in government, was so divided internally that they were completely unable to land any kind of climate policy or any kind of energy policy. It was a government that received, under them, condemnation from business groups, particularly in the energy sector, for the uncertainty that you created—through your, Chair—through your inability to establish clear policy settings and create the policy settings that would allow businesses to invest.</para>
<para>Now we find ourselves with a shadow minister who seeks to ask questions about the policy process—a policy process that they could have sought to influence. We were very clear, when taking government, that we were interested in working with people across the parliament who wanted to put in place durable and sustainable policies for energy and climate. We might have expected, actually, that this opposition would be interested in that. It might have been that this opposition, having received the verdict of voters—who clearly voted for climate action, who were clearly dissatisfied with the approach taken to climate change by the previous government—it might have been an opportunity for those opposite to think about the way that they approach these policy questions. That opportunity was before them, and certainly our government would have facilitated engagement. We publicly said that we were willing to talk with people across the parliament. These were sincere offers, but they weren't taken up.</para>
<para>Regrettably, it's actually characteristic of the approach taken by the opposition more generally, across a whole range of policy areas. We've got to a position where Mr Dutton is setting himself up to be perhaps the most negative opposition leader since Tony Abbott—and that is coming off quite an impressive benchmark. But it's a no every time, isn't it? And the thing about no is that it's not a policy. No is not a policy. Actually, it's not even a talking point, as evidenced by the fact that, over the course of the debate, coalition senators have come in and—</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McALLISTER</name>
    <name.id>121628</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm happy to take questions, but there hasn't really been any engagement with the detail of the bill before them. Nor has there been any serious engagement with the policy task before the Australian people, which is to reduce emissions.</para>
<para>Previously, under your government, there was an assertion that the safeguard mechanism would be the thing that you would use to reduce emissions. You didn't do it. Mr Hunt went down to National Press Club and made a whole series of propositions about what was going to happen to reduce emissions from the economy using the safeguard mechanism, but that didn't happen. Despite this having been a feature of your policymaking, you reach opposition and you still say no.</para>
<para>The bill before us matters a great deal. It will take us a step closer to reaching net zero by 2050. It is about emissions reductions, Senator Duniam and Senator Hughes, but it's also about the economy, and these two things can't actually be separated in the way you assert that they can. Our opportunity is to ensure that our economy is geared up to take advantage of the opportunities that will come as the world transforms itself and moves towards net zero. There are opportunities there for our industries: export opportunities, opportunities domestically, jobs in our regions—good jobs, secure jobs. And the reforms we are putting in place are designed to make sure the Australian people can benefit from those. It's why they have been supported by industry, including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group. These are the organisations that called for certainty, these are the organisations that expressed such disappointment about the approach taken by the previous government.</para>
<para>Our reforms will help limit the exposure for Australian industry to carbon border tariffs, or carbon border adjustment mechanisms, that many countries around the world are implementing. And so the coalition, sitting over there, having learned nothing from the last 10 years, proposes on this occasion, like so many others, to say no. To just say no to the proposition before them. They've always got fear up their sleeves—it's an oldie but a goodie for the coalition. Frightening people is not the approach we take. We want to work with communities; we want to work with industries.</para>
<para>I've heard the comments about the consultation. I've heard you dismiss the significance of our efforts to work with stakeholders, but it's not insignificant, Senator. It's actually very important that we talk with the businesses in our community, and we have done so. Actually, I can't tell you how frequently since coming to government that people have said to me: 'This is so refreshing. It is so refreshing to have a government that we can talk to and that will actually listen.' Interestingly, that's not confined to any particular stakeholder group. It's right across the board, including the stakeholder groups that the coalition so frequently asserts they have a special relationship with. Plenty of businesses have been delighted to have the opportunity to actually talk with a government that is focused on the national interest rather than focused on squabbling amongst themselves, as your government was.</para>
<para>So, Senator Duniam, I have sought to answer the question that you've asked and the questions that other senators have asked. You have asked them repeatedly and in different ways and I've provided you with answers. I do think that I've tried to engage in good faith. I gather we are shortly to start considering the amendments before the chair, but I invite other senators to make any final contributions.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are shortly to vote, as was rightly pointed out by the minister. This is the guillotine that Labor and the Greens set up to confine debate to a certain period of time on what is probably going to be one of the most important pieces of legislation this parliament deals with—because the economic impact of this will be felt for a very, very long time.</para>
<para>It was most telling, though, in the minister's last answer, her last contribution, when she said this legislation is all about emissions. That absolutely is the case, clearly it's the case, because that's all we're focused on here; not the impact of the policy to deal with emissions, the flow-on impact, the cost to the economy, the threat to jobs, the cost-of-living pressures that we're going to be seeing as a result of these laws. This is the problem when you look at something in such a one-eyed fashion and don't reach out to industry, to the 215 facilities. As Senator Scarr said earlier on, in the time this crew have been in government they could have gone out and spoken with one of them a day. Instead, what they've done is they've hatched up this deal. They've had what's been described as consultation. They've tabled a bill and then gone and done a deal with the Australian Greens.</para>
<para>This is a far cry from the claims by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, who said on 6 December 2021 that as a result of Labor's climate policies not one miner's job would be lost. Now, it's a bit like that promise they made before the election that $275 would be coming off your power bill. So they'll say something before the election, like, 'No miner's job will be lost as a result of these laws,' but then when we ask about it here, when we're dealing with the legislation they brought in as a result of that promise, plus some dodgy deals cooked up in a smoke-filled backroom with the Greens, that same promise is not there. It is missing in action. They can't promise today that not one miner's job will be lost, because the indication, the signal they're giving to the market, is not going to secure employment, is not going to secure investment decisions, is not going to make sure that those regional communities that depend on these entities—and, of course, those of us who use electricity every day—will now face increased costs. They can't make this promise around the miner's job being secure.</para>
<para>What's changed? Oh, I know, they never intended to honour those promises. And I don't think it's right to characterise questions, specific in nature, around the impact on specific facilities as a result of Labor's laws to, as they say, drive down emissions because that's all they were focused on. They were not focused on the economic impact, the jobs, the cost of living or the cost of fuel. These are the things that we asked to see modelling on and these are the things we sought to understand the government's thinking on. It seems to me that, based on those specific facilities I referred to—fuel refineries, train operators, refuse disposal sites—they're going to be faced with increased costs as a result of Labor's laws.</para>
<para>But Labor, in partnership with the Greens, have not gone out and asked these entities what increased costs they will be facing. 'How will this impact on your business? How will you comply with our regime to drive down emissions at 4.9 per cent per annum each year until the year 2030?' If they had done that, of course, I'd have answers to these specific questions. I'd have answers to those questions around: can you guarantee that one job will not be lost? Can you outline for us what modelling has been done on the increase to fuel Australian drivers will be facing? How will it eat into their household budget, which is already under strain? Of course, as we've seen characterised as repeated questions that are somehow irrelevant—hang on. No. Everything we do here has an impact on the way Australians live. To try and dismiss our concerns on behalf of all Australians as irrelevant or climate denial is mad.</para>
<para>I tell you what: it's that attitude which is going to come back to haunt the Labor Party and remind people of the deal they've done, the $275 promise not honoured and the promise that not one job will be lost for miners as a result of Labor's climate policies. I look forward to interrogating that over time. I can only assume, given the broken promises and given the inability of the government to outline to us exactly what impact their policies in partnership with the Australian Greens will have on jobs and on the cost of living, that they just didn't go and talk to people that disagree with them. They reckon there was an invitation out there to engage, but why are there so few answers when it comes to the negative impacts of this bill? Did they just go out and talk to people that said yes? Did they just go out and talk to people they knew would agree with them? I think the answer is 'absolutely'. If you went out and looked anywhere else, you'd have considered these flow on impacts.</para>
<para>As I say, I can't get over the situation we find ourselves in, where a government have left a minister—who is a very diligent individual; who works very hard at her portfolio and her responsibilities as a senator for New South Wales—to not be able to answer questions about what impact these laws will have on everyday Australians: how much more they will be paying for fuel, how much more they will be paying for food and groceries and how much more a train ticket in Victoria will cost when V/Line is forced to comply with the safeguard mechanism. I find it astounding that the minister has been left unable to answer these questions because the government deemed them irrelevant, somehow, to a long and in-depth consultation process.</para>
<para>I was pleased to hear that all these stakeholders who have come to see the government feel so refreshed by the new approach that has been taken—an interesting approach, I suppose. A new government in town for three years. You'd probably want to be on their right side, so you'd probably tell them what they want to hear anyway, despite the bad policies that we see tabled every other day of the week. The reality is that, when I go out and talk to people, they're very nervous about what this crew are going to do in partnership with the Australian Greens, just like Tasmanians were before the 2010 state election, when Labor did a deal with the Greens—and I tell you what, it did not end well at all. To boot, of course, we have a Labor Party on their own, without the aid of the Greens, that decided: 'You know what? You know that little promise we made about power prices, of $275 off your bill? You can take it to the bank, ladies and gentlemen.' Without the aid of the Greens, they decided they would not honour that promise made 97 times to the Australian people. It wasn't worth honouring. In the same way, sadly, we are seeing a promise made to miners across regional Australia and states like Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia: 'Your jobs are safe under our climate laws—until we get elected! Then, of course, everything is off the table because we have to consult and work our way through.'</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DUNIAM</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think that's right, Senator Scarr, and Senator Hughes made the point: it's this deal with the Greens, which no-one saw coming—except those who know what happens. Labor return to form, Labor-Green power-sharing agreements and Labor-Green laws which don't do anything to grow the economy. In fact, they send it in the other direction.</para>
<para>As I said at the beginning of my contributions, this is not just about emissions reductions. It is about the impact this will have on the economy. There are better ways to do what the government says they will do. There are better ways to treat Australians, and that is with respect and integrity of policy rather than breaking your promises.</para>
<para>Government senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Se</name>
    <name.id>263418</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Some in this chamber find it amusing, but, I can tell you this now: no-one will be laughing when power bills are opened and they're higher than they were before, no-one will be laughing when fuel costs are higher. This will be the hallmark of this government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Duniam. We have reached the appointed hour.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Hughes! Senators, it being 1pm, I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet SK147 moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [13:04]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</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>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</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>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1892 be agreed to.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Senator Thorpe's </inline> <inline font-style="italic">circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 23) to page 4 (line 10), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">associated provisions</inline> means the following provisions:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the provisions of a legislative instrument made under this Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the provisions of a legislative instrument made under the regulations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) sections 134.1, 134.2, 135.1, 135.2, 135.4, 136.1, 137.1 and 137.2 of the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code</inline>, in so far as those sections relate to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) a legislative instrument made under this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) a legislative instrument made under the regulations.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4A Section 7 (at the end of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">baseline emissions number</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "and subsection 22XMA(4)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4B Section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Registry account</inline> has the same meaning as in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4C Section 7 (at the end of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">covered emissions</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "and subsection 22XMA(2)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> 4D Section 7 (at the end of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">designated large facility)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add "and subsection 22XMA(3)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4E Section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">issue</inline>, in relation to a safeguard mechanism credit unit, means issue under section 22XNA.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), after item 30, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">30A At the end of Division 3 of Part 3H</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">22XMA Onshore shale gas facilities</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section applies in relation to a facility that involves the exploration or production of onshore shale gas if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the facility was not a designated large facility for any financial year ending before 1 July 2023; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) on or after the commencement of this section, the undertaking of that exploration or production is extended to new areas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite section 22XI, for the purposes of this Act, the <inline font-style="italic">covered emissions</inline> of greenhouse gases, in relation to the facility, are:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) scope 1 emissions of one or more greenhouse gases; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) scope 2 emissions of one or more greenhouse gases.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Despite section 22XJ, for the purposes of this Act, the facility is a <inline font-style="italic">designated large facility</inline> for any financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Despite section 22XL, for the purposes of this Act, the <inline font-style="italic">baseline emissions number</inline> for the facility is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for a financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2023—nil; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) for a period other than a financial year that begins on or after 1 July 2023—nil.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [13:08]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>12</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>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>39</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Stewart, J.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</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>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheets 1903 revised, 1907 and 1915 be agreed to.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 1903 REVISED</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 29), after paragraph 22XN(1)(a), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(aa) if the surrender includes one or more Australian carbon credit units—the surrender meets the requirement in subsection (1AA); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 33), after subsection 22XN(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AA) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(aa), the requirement is that the number of Australian carbon credit units included in the surrender does not exceed:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) in the first year of operation of Division 4A of Part 3H—more than 90% of the abatement amount; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in each subsequent year of operation of that Division—more than the greater of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 90% of the abatement amount minus 10% of the abatement amount per year of operation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) 20% of the abatement amount.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1AB) For the purposes of subsection (1AA), the <inline font-style="italic">abatement amount</inline> is the difference between:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the net emissions number for the facility for the period (assuming no reductions have been applied under section 22XK); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the baseline emissions number for the facility for the period.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 4, page 50 (after line 16), after item 7, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7A After section 150A</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">150B Price of Australian carbon credit units not to be capped</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Despite anything in this Act, or in any other law of the Commonwealth, there is no cap on the price at which Australian carbon credit units may be purchased by a person who is the operator of a facility to which Part 3H of the <inline font-style="italic">National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007</inline> applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 1907</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 4, page 51 (after line 15), after item 12, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">12A After Part 23</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 23A — Judicial review</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">238A Extended standing for judicial review</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term <inline font-style="italic">person aggrieved</inline> in the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977</inline> for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a decision made under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a failure to make a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) An individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) An organisation or association (whether incorporated or not) is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the organisation or association is incorporated, or was otherwise established, in Australia or an external Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) A term (except <inline font-style="italic">person aggrieved</inline>) used in this section and in the <inline font-style="italic">Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977</inline> has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 1915</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 26), omit "Safeguard rules made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) may", substitute "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), the safeguard rules must".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 28, page 8 (after line 12), after subsection 22XK(2A), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2AA) In making safeguard rules for the purposes of subsection (2A), the Minister must ensure that they are consistent with the principle that, to the extent that the number of Australian carbon credit units surrendered exceeds 50% of the abatement amount for a facility for a period, the value of those units in reducing the net emissions number for the facility for the period should be discounted by 20%.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2AB) For the purposes of subsection (2AA), the <inline font-style="italic">abatement amount</inline> for a facility for a period is the difference between:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the net emissions number for the facility for the period (assuming no reductions have been applied under this section); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the baseline emissions number for the facility for the period.</para></quote>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [13:13] <br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>13</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.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Rice, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Shoebridge, D.</name>
                  <name>Steele-John, J. A.</name>
                  <name>Thorpe, L. A.</name>
                  <name>Waters, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>38</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Bragg, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Lambie, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Lines, S.</name>
                  <name>McAllister, J. R.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Sheldon, A. V.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Smith, M. F.</name>
                  <name>Tyrrell, T. M.</name>
                  <name>Urquhart, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</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>13:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will now deal with the amendments moved by the Australian Greens.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">Australian Greens</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'s</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> circulate</inline> <inline font-style="italic">d amendments—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">SHEET 1920</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 13), after Part 2A, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2B — Amendment of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Industry Research and Development Act 1986</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">66G Subsection 33(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) A program may only be prescribed under subsection (1):</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to the extent that it is with respect to one or more legislative powers of the Parliament; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if it is not a program to subsidise the extraction of coal or natural gas.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 67, page 31 (after line 22), at the end of the item, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) The amendment of section 33 of the <inline font-style="italic">Industry Research and Development Act 1986</inline> made by Part 2B of this Schedule applies in relation to a program prescribed under subsection (1) of that section after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The CHAIR</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1920 be agreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The committee divided. [13:21]<br />(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</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>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</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>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</name>
                  <name>Cadell, R.</name>
                  <name>Canavan, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Cash, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Chandler, C.</name>
                  <name>Colbeck, R. M.</name>
                  <name>Davey, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, 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. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill, as amended, agreed to.<br />Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>55</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The Senate divided. [13:28]<br />(The President—Senator Lines)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>32</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Allman-Payne, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Brown, C. L.</name>
                  <name>Chisholm, A.</name>
                  <name>Ciccone, R.</name>
                  <name>Cox, D.</name>
                  <name>Faruqi, M.</name>
                  <name>Green, N. L.</name>
                  <name>Grogan, K. (Teller)</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>Payman, F.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, B.</name>
                  <name>Pocock, D. W.</name>
                  <name>Polley, H.</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>Watt, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Whish-Wilson, P. S.</name>
                  <name>White, L.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>26</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Antic, A.</name>
                  <name>Askew, W.</name>
                  <name>Babet, R.</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>Duniam, J. R.</name>
                  <name>Fawcett, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Henderson, S. M.</name>
                  <name>Hughes, H. A.</name>
                  <name>Hume, J.</name>
                  <name>Liddle, K. J.</name>
                  <name>McGrath, J.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, B.</name>
                  <name>McLachlan, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Nampijinpa Price, J. S.</name>
                  <name>O'Sullivan, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Rennick, G.</name>
                  <name>Reynolds, L. K.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, M. I.</name>
                  <name>Ruston, A.</name>
                  <name>Scarr, P. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Van, D. A.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a third time.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>56</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="r6976" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Royal Commissions Amendment (Enhancing Engagement) Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The time allotted for debate has expired. The question now is that this bill be read a second time.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>56</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</title>
        <page.no>56</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY SENATORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aston By-Election</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I wish to put on the record the clear choice the people of Aston face this Saturday in selecting their next member of parliament. If elected on Saturday, the Liberal Party's Roshena Campbell would be a very strong voice for the people of Aston. I had the honour of talking to local residents with Roshena at Scoresby and Rowville shopping centres in recent weeks. We heard firsthand about the local impact of our cost-of-living crisis, driven by nine increases in interest rates and a record inflation rate, all since the election of Labor. Not only have power and gas bills gone up under Labor but Labor have also broken a raft of promises by changing the rules for superannuation, by claiming real wages would rise under Labor when they simply haven't, on franking credits, and much more.</para>
<para>Just as concerning for local residents in Aston is Labor's dumping of a number of local road and rail projects in their first budget, just six months ago. Labor cut funding for vital upgrades like the Wellington Road and Napoleon Road duplications, the Dorset Road extension and the Rowville rail project. They also removed money set aside by the former coalition government for the vital East West Link, and reports have emerged that more local road project funding is on the chopping block in the next budget.</para>
<para>Voters in Melbourne's outer east need to send Labor and Prime Minister Albanese a very clear message: this is not good enough. The Liberals' Roshena Campbell knows how to get things done. She is a barrister, a councillor and a mum. She knows how to fight hard. She did it as a solicitor following the Black Saturday bushfires. She will fight hard if she is elected as the next member for Aston.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to talk about the free trade agreement that Australia has finally been able to seal with the United Kingdom. We heard the welcome news that royal assent was given to legislation to bring the free trade agreement with the United Kingdom into effect. We've been speaking a lot about the very deep relationship that exists between our two great countries, particularly through the AUKUS arrangement, and this free trade agreement is another example of that strong relationship between our two great countries. We should not underestimate the significance of the fact that the UK's first new trade deal since Brexit is with Australia.</para>
<para>Apart from the strong relationship that this deal represents, the strong economic benefits that will be delivered to Australians through the deal should also be celebrated. There are far too many benefits for me to mention in my two-minute statement, but I do want to say that it is good to see that there will be the elimination of tariffs on a number of products and the immediate access to duty-free quotas, particularly for goods from our agricultural sector, as well as faster customs clearance time frames. These are all fantastic outcomes, particularly for Australian farmers, and consumers in the United Kingdom will enjoy increased access to Australia's finest products.</para>
<para>I want to put on the record my appreciation for the work of one of the finest trade ministers this country has ever seen, Senator Farrell. He's done an outstanding job—magnificent, as Senator Farrell would say—in sealing the deal with our friends over in the United Kingdom. Good on you, Don; well done. And it will be good to see more trade deals like this in the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence, Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATERS</name>
    <name.id>192970</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Domestic violence shelters in Queensland are at breaking point. Frontline services are struggling to find space for women and children who are escaping violence. With a 15 per cent rise in DV, it is only going to get worse. Crisis accommodation is a critical safety net for women and children when they leave. It provides a temporary sanctuary in the initial dangerous phase after escaping while they seek support and start to rebuild their lives and keep themselves safe. But the housing crisis in Queensland means that many women and children cannot find somewhere to move to after that crisis phase. They're staying in refuges for months or years, because there is nowhere else to go. This is putting further pressure on the drastically underfunded women's safety sector. The sector is dipping into limited funds to put women up in hotels because crisis centres are full. They're referring women to refuges and accommodation in other towns, away from work and school and their support networks. They're having to turn women away, forcing them back into unsafe relationships or to live in their car or a tent.</para>
<para>Across Queensland people who are barely getting by are facing rent hikes of hundreds of dollars and no option to find another home. The Queensland government's decision yesterday to restrict rent rises to once a year will make next to no difference. Women have an impossible choice: stay in an unsafe home or leave and put themselves and their kids at the mercy of a system with inadequate support, stretched DV services and housing shortages. Single mums are particularly vulnerable, and they are making sacrifices every day. Since the Gillard government's cruel decision a decade ago, single parents lose about $100 in support each week when their youngest child turns eight. There is no logic to this. It's just an arbitrary cut-off that makes life harder for single mums and their kids. It's a change that can tip people into homelessness, and the government must act to fix it—restore the single parenting payment for children up to 16 years of age, raise the rate, make an investment in crisis accommodation and affordable housing to actually fix the problem, and fully fund frontline services.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Road Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator DEAN SMITH</name>
    <name.id>241710</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You can't get very far in Western Australia unless you travel on a road. So, why is it that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers, supported by WA Labor members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, are cutting or delaying road projects in Western Australia? The Broome to Cape Leveque road and the community access roads: delayed. The Goldfields Highway works between Wiluna and Meekatharra: delayed. Works at Forrest Highway and the intersection of Victoria Avenue: delayed. And work at the Albany ringroad will now be delayed. This is outrageous from a government that won the election on the back of Western Australian voters. Why does WA Labor keep insisting on turning its back on WA voters?</para>
<para>The Karratha to Tom Price Corridor upgrade: cut. The Great Eastern Highway upgrades: cut. The Great Northern Highway roadworks between Nellie Springs and Arthur Creek: cut. When you think about that, how outrageous that on the one road that connects Broome to Kununurra in the far north of Western Australia roadworks are being cut. It's outrageous.</para>
<para>It gets worse. The Tanami Road, which supports regional and remote Indigenous communities and supports mining research projects, is an important access road when there are floods and natural disasters across our Far North. Its upgrade of $8 million: cut. It's outrageous. I'm one of the few people in this national parliament that has driven down the Tanami Road to the border of Northern Territory and back—that's why it's better described as a track and not a road—and $8 million would make the track a road and better support Indigenous communities. This is an outrage. WA voters deserve better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Capital Grants Program</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Since my election May 2022 I have had the pleasure of visiting schools around Victoria to see the new facilities and spaces funded by the government's Capital Grants Program. The Capital Grants Program provides money to non-government schools to fund much-needed upgrades and new facilities.</para>
<para>My first visit was to Hillcrest Christian College in Clyde North to officially open the new primary multipurpose centre. The modern and light filled multipurpose centre includes a children's learning room for before- and after-school care and outdoor areas for learning and play. It's a facility that the whole community has access to after-hours and on weekends.</para>
<para>Next I was off to Little Yarra Steiner School in the heart of the Yarra Valley. This fantastic school was not only surrounded by a fabulous landscape but had the learning spaces to match. The new buildings are a kinder centre and a multipurpose gymnasium centre. The architecturally designed school meets the needs of each class and creates inspiring working and learning environments. It certainly reflects the Steiner philosophy of combining purpose with form and beauty.</para>
<para>My most recent visit was to St Patrick's School in Lilydale. It was a fitting visit on St Patrick's Day to see the fantastic upgrades to their learning spaces and courtyards. I even got to plant my first commemorative tree.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What was the tree?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It was a gum. From a muddy and underused space, the central courtyard has become an amphitheatre of timber benches where the students can play, and sit and chat and eat their lunch. The upgrades to these schools are making a real difference and were rightly celebrated in the local community newspaper.</para>
<para>Over the next four years the government will be investing around $875 million on facilities at schools like Hillcrest, Little Yarra and St Patrick's, including over $42.2 million in Victoria this year. We want every Australian child, no matter where they grow up, to have the best schooling and facilities possible. Now I've two plaques and one tree under my belt, I can't wait to keep visiting schools that are getting much-needed funding for spaces that help our kids learn and grow.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicinal Cannabis, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me give you 25 billion more reasons to legalise cannabis, because, according to data on cannabis use, supplied by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the currently illegal cannabis industry is worth something north of $25 billion annually. Every year that's a whole lot of cash going to the wrong people. The profits from this massive illegal industry are currently being pocketed by bikie gangs and organised crime.</para>
<para>If the argument for justice or the enormous public support for legalisation haven't yet swayed you, let me try to make my appeal in terms maybe Labor and the coalition do understand—revenue. A regulated legal market could see $25 billion transferred from an unregulated market run by the criminal underworld to a legal market that can be taxed and oversighted. If we tax it, even very lightly, we know that there are billions every year in public revenue to be had. So, the next time a politician tells you there isn't any money for your local school or hospital, tell them you've got an answer ready to go: legalise cannabis. There are literally billions in it for good.</para>
<para>Parliaments across the country removed the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse matters because the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse told us that victims of abuse will often need decades before they are able to say what happened to them and often years more to stand up to their abuser in court and demand justice. Despite this, new evidence shows institutions, including churches, are using a fresh legal tactic called permanent states to deny victims fair compensation. A recent New South Wales Court of Appeal judgement has endorsed this backward step. It's empowering the worst institutional abusers to defeat victims' claims by saying, 'The abuser has died,' or they kept no records.</para>
<para>Victims are being told by the legal system that because their abuser is dead their case against this institution is put on hold forever. It means the law in Australia is reviving what used to be called 'dead man's statutes', but only doing it for survivors of historical child abuse. The same offensive reasoning is not used for other legal disputes like wills or property settlements. It's obscene to see this centuries-old, discredited and unfair legal theory being used to stop victims from getting justice. We can't let this continue. If the High Court won't fix it, then parliaments must.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RENNICK</name>
    <name.id>283596</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak today to call out the hypocrisy of the Labor and Greens parties, who are pursuing a big Australia policy. We'll have more than 600,000 immigrants arrive in the next two years. That is going to put a lot of pressure on carbon emissions, household rents and, of course, the cost of living. Why should Australians have to suffer? Seventy-five per cent of these immigrants are students who go to universities. The groups who will profit from this include universities, who don't have to pay tax on their profits from foreign students. I think that's unfair given that foreign students add to the demand side of the economy. They use infrastructure paid for by the taxes of working Australians.</para>
<para>I think Labor and the Greens need to reduce the population if they are serious about reducing emissions, serious about reducing the cost of living and serious about reducing rents. At this stage all they're doing is helping the universities as well as the big end of town corporations who are using immigrant labour to undercut the wage market and create a bigger market size. So, Labor, it's time to stop your hypocrisy if you're serious about cutting emissions. Today we passed a bill that is going to stick a carbon tax on Australian industry when other offshore countries don't have a carbon tax. It's going to drive many of those industries offshore. How about you look after the people here in Australia first, in the small end of town and the battlers and the Australian workers, rather than the big end of town who are only transferring many of their profits offshore.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>New South Wales Election, Economy</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last weekend, New South Wales voted for a Minns Labor government. They also voted to scrap the punitive wage cap that the Liberals and Nationals forced onto essential public sector workers, including nurses, firefighters, allied health workers and teachers.</para>
<para>Just like at the federal election last year, voters said that they are sick of the Liberals and Nationals deliberate policies to keep wages low. It turns out, during a cost-of-living crisis, that people support fair pay rises for essential workers. Now who would have guessed that? Obviously not those opposite.</para>
<para>We also saw reason for cautious optimism on the inflation challenge this government is dealing with when the inflation data released yesterday showed inflation had slowed to 6.8 per cent. As sure as night follows day, the release of the inflation data was followed by the Australian Industry Group CEO, Innes Willox, calling for real wage cuts. Mr Willox said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We appear to be on track for further falls in inflationary pressures …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   …   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The data reinforces the need for continued … wage moderation and will add to arguments for wage restraint in the coming National Wage Review …</para></quote>
<para>Of course, this time last year when inflation was on the rise, Mr Willox said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it is imperative that inflation is brought back to normal levels—</para></quote>
<para>and—</para>
<quote><para class="block">Further increases in prices or wages will only exacerbate inflationary pressures …</para></quote>
<para>So we need wage restraint when inflation is falling, but we also need wage restraint when inflation is rising. Mr Willox has become a parody of himself. The Liberals, the Nationals and the Australian Industry Group have never seen an economic challenge that couldn't be solved by cutting wages and working Australians have simply had a gutful of it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Work-Life Balance</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BARBARA POCOCK</name>
    <name.id>BFQ</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday I introduced the right to disconnect bill in the Senate in response to the public's call for better working time regulation in line with the recommendations of the Senate inquiry into work and care. Evidence to the inquiry told us that our constant connection with work has no limits, and it has many and varied negative consequences for people's health and relationships. It affects people in insecure jobs where they're constantly waiting for the phone to vibrate, letting them know when their next shift will be or whether they'll earn enough money this week.</para>
<para>It also affects people in full-time jobs who are expected to check for texts and emails outside of hours, often panicked that they might have missed an important piece of information long after they've knocked off for the day. Laptops taken home to enable flexibility also allow and, in practice, demand that tasks be done at all hours. As a result, as a nation we find ourselves inadvertently working massive amounts of unpaid overtime worth $93 billion across the economy and an average of 4½ hours a week each. This amounts to time theft.</para>
<para>The Greens want to see a right in law to disconnect from work, and Labor has endorsed this position, which was a key recommendation of the majority work and care report. Our bill, if passed, would create a law to prevent employers from contacting employees outside work hours. Our current workplace laws were not drafted at a time when everyone had a smartphone in their back pocket. It's time to update our standards in this area, as has been done in France, Spain, Ireland and Canada. Australia's workplace relations systems need to reflect our 21st-century workforce. Half of them are women. Forty per cent of them have responsibility as a carer while they're at work. They need a barrier between their job and the rest of their lives, and we must introduce limits to working time with a legally protected right to disconnect.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator THORPE</name>
    <name.id>280304</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This morning, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023 was introduced in the other place. The voice is supposedly about giving First Nations people a say in this country. Yet this week we have seen that it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. The intention to listen to us is not real. We know that the parliament will decide which advice to take and which not. But it is now clear that the government doesn't even have the intention to let us decide what we should actually provide advice about. The voice proposal states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples …</para></quote>
<para>However, Prime Minister Albanese thinks he knows what relates to us and what doesn't. When asked if the voice could provide advice on matters like the safeguard mechanism, he said, 'That was a strange question.' He said that the voice was about matters that directly affect First Nations people. Well, believe it or not, climate change affects us directly and its impacts hit us often harder than others. But apparently that is not something we should get a say on. The government also thinks that AUKUS doesn't affect us. But it affects our lands and waters, which we have cared for for thousands of years. If you ask me, this is really saying that we are too dumb to provide advice on complex matters. I can't tell you how much knowledge, expertise and wisdom there is in our own communities. We as people certainly don't get to judge whether something affects us or not. The comments from the PM and others are insulting to our self-determination. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>PRICE () (): I want to address what I believe to be a complete failure of this chamber yesterday. A motion for reference to a committee of the matter of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative organisations was voted down by one vote. All 30 of the noes denied vulnerable Australians who have been crying out to have their voices heard the chance for an inquiry of land councils and other Indigenous bodies—no surprise, though, that they came almost exclusively from the Labor government and the Greens. When last week I hosted a delegation of 22 Aboriginal community leaders right here in Canberra, no Labor or Green MP who voted no yesterday came to meet with them—not a single one. Not a single Labor MP in the building came to meet with them—not one. Not a single Green came to meet them—not one.</para>
<para>But one of the no votes—in fact, the deciding no vote—did meet with them. I refer to the so-called Independent senator for Canberra, who sat with three elders in his office and nodded along while they shared their concerns, while they made their case to him directly, while they used their voices to plead for help. But he did not listen. He thinks he knows best about who should have their voices heard and who shouldn't. We were simply asking for an inquiry to see what was really happening, and he would not even support that. Why? Because he claims he doesn't want to interfere with the voice referendum. What a joke! How's this for logic. The senator from Canberra doesn't want to listen to the voices of Aboriginal Australians in case it interferes with a campaign for a body that they claim is about Aboriginal voices. Shame on every single one of you who refuse to listen to these voices, and shame on every single one of you who don't want to listen to Aboriginal voices who have a differing view to your own.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ciccone?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ciccone</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order. I don't want to take up too much time, but some of the comments made by Senator Nampijinpa Price were a personal reflection, I think, on Senator David Pocock, and may we review the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>? I ask that some of them be withdrawn.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Brockman, on the point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Brockman</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was listening very carefully to Senator Nampijinpa Price's contribution and I do not believe there is anything in that contribution that needs to be withdrawn.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for your view, Senator Brockman. Senator Nampijinpa Price, on the contribution you made—I want to remind senators to use the correct title when referring to other senators in this place. Senator David Pocock is, in fact, a senator for the ACT, not the senator for Canberra. Taking Senator Ciccone's point of order, are you happy to withdraw some of those comments that were made in a personal nature or are you happy for us to review the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am not happy to withdraw comments I made. I don't feel they were of a personal nature. I'm happy to correct in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> that he is, in fact, a senator for the ACT.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19: Vaccination</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>266524</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, this Easter I refer to Luke 23 describing governor of Judea Pontius Pilate's trial of Jesus. Under the custom of thou shalt pardon, Pontius Pilate offered the Jerusalem Passover crowd a choice between pardoning two people convicted of sedition: Barabbas or Judas.</para>
<para>Barabbas was a violent revolutionary who rebelled against Rome and killed indiscriminately. Jesus, though, was convicted of sedition following his Palm Sunday arrival, which led to Pontius Pilate fearing for his own power. As history records, the crowd chose to spare Barabbas in the hope he would protect them from the Romans. The crowds shunned Jesus, who had spoken against violence and in favour of quiet endurance in the knowledge that better times would come.</para>
<para>While Luke 23 is a parable about Jesus dying for the sins of others, there is another interpretation. The crowd chose a person who they falsely hoped would protect their physical selves over someone who fought for their spiritual selves. In a decision that mimics the Jerusalem crowd, during COVID many Australians abandoned spiritual values of love, family and fellowship to achieve what we now know was a false sense of physical safety.</para>
<para>Australians embraced the message from the Pfizer empire's modern day Pontius Pilate. It was a message broadcast in daily brainwashing sessions from politicians, health bureaucrats, media mouthpieces and over shopping centre public address systems, all with the same billionaire owners as Pfizer. They were messages designed to turn society against those who stayed true to spiritual beliefs.</para>
<para>This Easter let's reflect on Pontius Pilate's faith. Emperor Caligula recalled Pilate to Rome, accused him of cruelty and oppression and then executed him. As it turns out, washing one's hands of blame does not work. In the end, God always wins.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tasmania: Housing</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKIM</name>
    <name.id>JKM</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Tasmania is currently facing a housing and rental crisis. There are over 4,000 people on the public housing waiting list, and Hobart is the most unaffordable city to rent in in the entire country. It is a moral and political failing of the highest order.</para>
<para>What is the Tasmanian government's response to this? Build a football stadium! Apparently we can't afford to put a roof over the heads of Tasmanians who are sleeping rough on the streets, but—you'd better believe it—there's 750 million bucks sitting in public budgets that will put a roof over the corporate section in a brand-new stadium that Tasmania doesn't need.</para>
<para>Message to the AFL: Tasmania will not bow to the blackmail of Gil McLachlan. We are a heartland footy state and we deserve our own AFL men's and women's teams, without having to build a stonking big stadium that we don't actually need. Invest in social and affordable housing, do not invest in building a stadium we don't need at significant cost, using money that would be better invested in the things that Tasmanians do need— a functioning health system and putting rooves over the heads of Tasmanians who desperately need them.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! It being 2 pm, we will move to question time,</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>61</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. How many suburbs chosen as part of your solar battery grant program are in Labor held seats?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Ruston for the question. I assume that should actually be addressed to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, but I will check who has responsibility for that program and the status of that program and where approvals under that program are at. I don't have personal knowledge of that, and, frankly, you wouldn't expect me to. But I would make this point: today we have—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If you read the hometown papers, you absolutely would know.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESID</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take it on notice, and I will return with some further information from the relevant minister, as is appropriate. But I would make this point: what we saw today in this chamber was the majority of this chamber vote for a plan to get to net zero. Senator Ruston, you support net zero, don't you? Do you?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I assumed so. I assume the moderates in the Liberal Party still support it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very happy to give you time to talk—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Ruston</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On direct relevance, President: if the minister doesn't know the answer and has taken the question on notice, and she doesn't wish to be relevant to the question in her additional comments, I would ask her to perhaps just take it on notice.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Ruston, that's not a point of order. The minister has taken it on notice and is entitled to continue her remarks.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I do recall, we had a very clear election commitment to roll out community batteries across Australia. We announced a number of batteries as an election commitment. I understand that the proposals for the first 50 locations are currently being assessed via the government's business grants hubs, after submissions closed in January. I also am advised that commitments were made in number of coalition seats, including Leichhardt and Bowman. But I would make this point: Senator Ruston—and I know that she has a lot on her mind—comes in here—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You cannot help yourself!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, I have just called the jabber to order. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, it would be useful if those of you on that side who actually believe in the net zero commitment you made to South Australia would come in here and tell us how you would get to it. <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 Ruston, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My second question to the minister is: we would be keen to understand, if you could advise the Senate, how many sites under the improving mobile coverage round of the mobile blackspots program are in Labor held seats.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>If I'm repping the PM, certainly I'll take that on notice. From memory, that would be in the Communications portfolio, so they should have been asked as the appropriate ministry.</para>
<para>But I'm happy to return now to community batteries. The Community Batteries for Household Solar program will maximise the benefits for Australia's rooftop solar transformation, supporting the grid and providing shared storage for up to 10,000 households. The first 48 community batteries, which were announced publicly as election commitments, will be delivered by the business grant hubs. The remaining 342 batteries with unspecified locations will be delivered by ARENA, with applications to open later this year.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Watt</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Probably without a colour coded spread sheet.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd hesitate to take that interjection from Senator Watt. I think from that, Senator Ruston, you would see that yes, there are 48 that were announced as election commitments. There are also 342 which are, as I am advised, subject to— <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 Ruston, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator RUSTON</name>
    <name.id>243273</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 29 July last year, your finance minister tweeted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… taxpayer money must be spent in the best interest of the community, not an election outcome.</para></quote>
<para>Isn't this statement, along with countless others that have been made by your leader and other Labor ministers, a case of complete hypocrisy, when the answer to the two previous questions is 'three out of every four recipients in the solar battery program or the Mobile Black Spot Program are miraculously in Labor seats'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That is incorrect. Senator Ruston, the assertion in the question—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please direct your comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Sorry. Through the chair: Senator Ruston is being very loose with the truth in her question. I told her that 48 batteries were announced as election commitments, and the remaining 342 are to be delivered by ARENA, with applications to open later this year. This is the problem with drafting a final supp without listening to the answers.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order: the minister should be directing her comments, as you stated, through the chair and not pointing directly at Senator Ruston.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cash. I remind the minister to direct her comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very happy to address you, President, but I am somewhat amused by Senator Cash, who is well known for a lot of pointing in this chamber, telling me about pointing. But if Senator Ruston wishes me to speak to you, I will, and—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> the policy point I'm making, Senator Cash—I will take that interjection—is that I have told you that the numbers that you have asserted are incorrect, but you persist in putting misinformation in front of the Senate because you want to make a political point. It's not founded in fact. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Political Exchange Council: Socialist Republic of Vietnam</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of the Australian Political Exchange's 24th delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.</para>
<para>Honourable senators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023</title>
          <page.no>63</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="r6957" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. In the last hour, the Senate has agreed to the government's Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, which is another landmark in the Albanese Labor government's proactive approach to taking action on climate change. Minister, how are the Albanese government's safeguard reforms a step forward for the nation's action on climate change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Payman for her question, and I thank all of my colleagues on this side, the Greens and the members on the crossbench who supported this historic legislation. I know those opposite are fools returning to their folly over and over again, but one of the things that they seem not to have understood is that the Australian people at the last election returned a parliament—not just a government, but a parliament—supportive of action on climate change. Those opposite are still stuck in the fights of years past. In fact, I listened to some of the debate, which Senator McAllister handled extraordinarily well, and I thought: I remember this. I remember Senator Joyce standing down there asking the same questions. I remember then senator Ian Macdonald. I remember a whole range of people, like Senator Minchin, who said that climate change was a left-wing conspiracy to de-industrialise the Western world.</para>
<para>These people have not changed. They have not changed. I would say two things to those opposite. The first is: this legislation is one part—not the only part, but a critical and important part—of ensuring that Australia can thrive and prosper in a world that is moving to net zero by 2050.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Canavan</name>
    <name.id>245212</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Have you listened to the speech?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Canavan—I know you're not going to be worried about me talking at you! Despite your best efforts, the coalition did sign off—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask you to draw the minister to preface her comments through the chair. It's not about whether Senator Canavan minds or not; it's actually in the standing orders and it's about being respectful to the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator McKenzie, when you call a point of order—I reminded senators of this earlier in the week—please state your point of order without making a statement. I will remind the minister to direct her comments through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Nobody wants to have fun anymore! No matter how much Senator Canavan tried, those in his party still signed up to net zero by 2050—at least, that's what they told the Australian people, but you know what? They have no plan to deliver it. They're not even interested in a plan to deliver it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There's too much disorder and noise in the chamber. Senator Payman, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. After a decade of policy delay, denial and dysfunction, how will these reforms deliver overdue policy certainty? What has been the response to the parliament progressing these reforms?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the senator for her question. It's a question that goes to the heart of why this reform is needed. It goes to the heart of why this reform is good not only for action on climate but also for the Australian economy and for Australian business. One of the irrationalities from those opposite has been that they have misunderstood, for over 15 years, the importance of certainty in markets. The 22 energy policies that they put in place ensured that there was no investment certainty and that the private sector would not invest in accordance with its desires, much of the time, which is why we have this bizarre situation where most of the business community is not where the coalition is. That really must be hard for the party that thinks it's the party of business. What I've noticed in some of the debate is that they seem to say that somehow it's because business don't understand. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Payman, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator PAYMAN</name>
    <name.id>300707</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has said that these reforms aren't just a plan for the climate; they are a plan for the economy. Minister, what will these reforms mean for investment and the economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll pick up where I left off. The reality is that the investor community, the business community, is well ahead of those opposite. It says something about the delusion of a party that goes to an election saying: 'We had 22 policies for 2050. We had no investment certainty, so there was no investment in the energy sector, but guess what? We now, after the election, know better than all of the investor community, all of the business representatives and all of the businesses in this country, who are seeking certainty from the parliament and from the government.' Can I say what an abrogation of responsibility it has been that a party of government has left it to the crossbench and the Greens—we welcome their support, but what does it say about those opposite? As a party of government that says, 'We support 2050'—they're the 'no-alition'; they're nowhere. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Referendum Engagement Group</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I draw to senators' attention members of the Referendum Engagement Group who are in the visitors' gallery.</para>
<para>Honourable se nators: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How appropriate! My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can you please outline to the Senate what mechanism the Labor Party intends to use for determining a person's Aboriginality for the purposes of voting for or serving on the proposed Voice to Parliament body?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will first acknowledge the leaders in the chamber.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Rennick!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would have hoped that, regardless of Senator Rennick's views about the Voice, he might acknowledge and respect leadership. I say to the leaders of First Nations who are here: we have appreciated the leadership you have shown with your peoples and in engagement with the government, the parliament, the cabinet and the Prime Minister. It has been a very important and, frankly, very moving process of working through these issues to get to the point we are at today. Senator Price, I'm frankly quite disappointed in that question—</para>
</continue>
<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 Cash, I have a senator on her feet.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Nampijinpa Price</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd just like to correct the senator that my appropriate title is Senator Nampijinpa Price.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I apologise, Senator Nampijinpa Price. I am disappointed in the question. It's a question I have heard from those who seek to undermine indigeneity.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not suggesting—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But I accept that you wish to put that to me, and I will answer it. I am advised that there is a three-part test which is widely accepted and has not changed. I am advised that the Australian government generally applies the following common-law criteria for the purpose of determining eligibility for First Nations specific services. They are that a person is of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent, identifies as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which they live or have previously lived. I am advised that this is a widely accepted test by government agencies, by First Nations organisations and community organisations, and, if I may say, it would appear to be common sense.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Nampijinpa Price, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Will the senator please confirm: will the Albanese government follow at all the example of the South Australian government and allow people to simply make a statutory declaration of their own Aboriginality?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In response, I would make the point that I think I have responded in—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, order! It is disrespectful to keep calling out across the chamber, especially when the minister is on her feet answering. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I refer to my previous answer, which I think goes to these issues, but the senator raises what has occurred in South Australia. In South Australia, Thomas Mayo and others who are involved in South Australia would attest to the importance of the announcement on Sunday, in which I think there was bipartisan support from memory. Is that right?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McCarthy</name>
    <name.id>122087</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And Voice commissioner Dale Agius.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Agius is here? Thank you for your work too. It points to the sort of unity across the community that this process, when done well— <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 Nampijinpa Price, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE</name>
    <name.id>263528</name.id>
    <electorate>Northern Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the Albanese government concerned about people taking advantage of the criteria for establishing Aboriginality, and will it consider strict requirements for those who wish to vote or serve on the Voice?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Again, I have answered—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Ruston, I called you during the last question and I'm going to call you again. You are being disorderly and disrespectful. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have answered the approach the government takes as a matter of course, in response to the first question, but I would make this point. The proposed wording of the constitutional change makes it clear, amongst other things, that the structure and process associated with the Voice and its composition would be the subject of determination by the parliament. So, obviously, if the Australian people agree to the constitutional change that has been proposed, members and senators will have engagement on some of those issues, including the issues that Senator Nampijinpa Price raises today.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to Minister Wong in her capacity representing the Prime Minister. Minister, I'm asking this question on behalf of Australia but also Julian Assange's father, John Shipton, who went to San Diego in mid-March hoping to hear that his son would be released. Did the Prime Minister raise the ongoing prosecution and detention of Julian Assange with President Biden during their meeting on 14 March this year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Shoebridge for his question. I'd make a few points about Mr Assange. I understand that there is strong interest in the case, that there is a depth of community sentiment, and we have made clear publicly, before the election and since, that the government's view is that Mr Assange's case has dragged on too long and should be brought to a close. It is not generally my practice to give chapter and verse of everything that is said in every diplomatic communication. But in the interests of transparency on this issue I have said that I have personally expressed this view—the view that Mr Assange's case has dragged on long enough and should be brought to a close—to the government of the United States and the government of the United Kingdom, and I will continue to do so.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister has also made clear in the parliament, and I'd refer you to his answers, that he has raised this case at the appropriate levels. What I would say is this—and you would know this, Senator Shoebridge, as a lawyer. We are not able, as an Australian government, to intervene in another country's legal or court processes.</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it is true. You would understand—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, there is a thing called the rule of law. There is a principle called the separation of powers. No amount of bellowing at me from that end of the chamber is going to change the fact that a court has to determine the legal process. So, we can raise these issues, as I have and as the Prime Minister has. But we are not able to alter the judicial processes of another country.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, those comments are disrespectful and disorderly, and I would ask you not to call out.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, how would you propose that we do that? Send the Australian Army into a court? I mean, really.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Whish-Wilson</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Seeing as I was asked a direct question, I can respond—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, the Prime Minister has said—and I think you have too—'enough is enough', and the Prime Minister said he wants a resolution of this matter but that this, to use his words, requires 'quiet diplomacy'. How could a conversation between resident Biden, PM Albanese and PM Sunak, which he was in just two weeks ago, not be the most important kind of quiet diplomacy to use to free Julian Assange? And why wasn't it used?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That isn't what I said, and you've made a set of assertions that may or may not be true. I would again say that we have at the Prime Minister's level and at foreign minister level been very clear in our views that this matter has dragged on too long and it should be brought to a close. But I again make the point that there is a legal process which is in accordance with the tradition of the separation of powers, which I regard as an important part of democracy. It is not something that the Australian government can resolve. Having said that, it is appropriate—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Whish-Wilson, I called you to order twice. I expect you to come to order. Minister, did you wish to continue?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are doing what we can between government and government, but there are limits to what that diplomacy can achieve, until— <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 Shoebridge, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a simple question, Minister, that Julian Assange's family are asking and that as Australian citizens they deserve an answer to. Did their Prime Minister ask President Biden to drop the United States' prosecution and allow Julian to come home when they met just a few short weeks ago? Please answer the question.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has made his views clear about this matter having dragged on too long. But I again would make this point: whilst we are doing what we can between government and government, there are limits until Mr Assange has concluded the legal processes.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Rice</name>
    <name.id>155410</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>He's a political prisoner.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, there are legal processes which are still on foot, which cannot—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, Senator Rice!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would also—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. My point of order is on relevance. My question was about a meeting between the President and the Prime Minister—not about court proceedings but about a meeting between the President and the Prime Minister—and the minister is refusing to address it.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. I believe the minister is being relevant to your question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I did respond to it. I'm actually trying to be helpful. If you perhaps listened to what I'm saying, Senator Shoebridge, what I'm saying to you is that, while soever there are legal proceedings on foot, it is very difficult for there to be resolution between governments. I think that is an observation of fact.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is plain rubbish, and you know it.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, there are some countries where—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge, this is not a debate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Shoebridge, order!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order on my left and my right. I've called you to order. This is not an opportunity to debate. There are other opportunities during our sitting for you to make whatever comments you want. You asked the question and you listen with respect.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I would also make the point, because the senator mentioned Mr Assange's family, that I have engaged with his family.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change: Agriculture</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've got a ripper for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. After a decade of inaction on climate thanks to those opposite, the Albanese government is taking decisive action to combat challenges of climate change. The passage of the safeguard mechanism legislation delivers landmark reforms that will result in the reduction of 205 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to 2030. Minister, why does Australian agriculture support action on climate change?</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>Thank you, Senator Sterle. It's really nice to get a question about agriculture. I've had questions from Senator Sterle, Senator Ciccone and Senator White—all sorts of senators over here—but I never get a question from the National Party about agriculture. It seems that they've given up.</para>
<para>Due to the Senate's efforts today, Australia is one step closer to reaching net zero by 2050—not just meeting the target but ensuring our economy is geared up to take advantage of the opportunities that will come with it. The safeguard mechanism reforms passed by the Senate today will deliver 205 million tonnes of emissions reduction by 2030. So, after 10 long years—and a couple more days—of delay and dysfunction, Australia now has sensible reforms to ensure Australia's largest emitters reduce their emissions while remaining competitive in a decarbonising global economy. We know Senator Canavan and his mates will never accept reality. We know they'll never open their eyes to what is happening around the world. But the rest of the world is moving on. I'm telling you it's moving on.</para>
<para>That is fantastic news for farmers, along with everyone else in our agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors, because the truth is that, as much of the former Country Party used to recognise, our farmers are on the front line of climate change in this country. Whether it's repeated flooding, more intense fires, more severe cyclones, larger hail or more prolonged drought, the impacts of climate induced disasters are hitting our farms and their bottom line, driving up the price of fruit and veggies for consumers. In fact, we know from ABARES modelling that climate change has reduced annual average farm profits by 23 per cent, or around $29,000 per farm, due to seasonal weather changes over the last 20 years. It is well beyond time for this country to take action.</para>
<para>We're not telling the ag industry something they don't already agree with. Whether it's the National Farmers Federation, Meat & Livestock Australia, Dairy Australia or the Red Meat Advisory Council, they've all moved on, and one of these days the National Party might too. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sterle, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian people, businesses and farmers have long been calling for action on climate change. What opportunities will the Albanese government's strong action on climate change create for Australian farmers, Minister?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks again, Senator Sterle. I think you've asked five times as many questions about agriculture as the National Party have since the election, but, you know, that's just the kind of guy you are.</para>
<para>The latest ABARES figures show that, on the back of good conditions for the past few seasons, farm incomes are at record highs. While obviously this isn't the case for everyone, on the whole it is a good time to be in the agriculture sector. But imagine how high those incomes could have been if action was taken on climate change 20 years ago, not today. As I say, we know what difference it would have made. ABARES tells us that farm incomes have suffered by 23 per cent due to seasonal climate and weather conditions.</para>
<para>We also know that climate change presents an ongoing risk to farmers, especially given the inevitability that drought is around the corner. That's why having a diversified income is vital for our nation's farmers. Increased activity in the carbon market will provide that opportunity, along with the activity in the nature repair market, which will be able to happen now that Labor has introduced legislation to make it happen. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Sterle, a second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator STERLE</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Under the previous government, climate inaction was a deliberate policy choice and, as a result, we saw increases in emissions. What risk do farmers face if we do not take action on climate change?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you again, Senator Sterle. Of course there are long-term natural impacts that come with not addressing climate change. I see them almost every day in my role as Minister for Emergency Management. In fact, I was recently in the Gulf of Carpentaria after the floods there. There were more media reports this morning suggesting that early estimates from gulf flooding are that tens of thousands of head of cattle could have perished. These are the events we will see more often if we don't take action on climate change.</para>
<para>It's not just those economic and environmental impacts that farmers face as a result of climate change. It is crucial to our position as a trusted trading partner around the globe that we continue to increase our sustainability effort. Who could forget those embarrassing images of former prime minister Scott Morrison giving an empty speech to an empty room at COP26 in Glasgow? Anyone who knows anything about agriculture and trade knows that we need to take more action on climate change to shore up those international markets, and I'm surprised the National Party doesn't get it. <inline font-style="italic">(T</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macquarie Point Stadium, Tasmania: Housing</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. With $240 million proposed to be spent by your government for the Hobart stadium, you could lift rent assistance for nearly 40,000 Tasmanians by 40 per cent. If those 40,000 people were meeting with you this week, like the stadium lobbyists were, what do you think they'd want you to do?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. Despite the very few questions you have the opportunity to ask, I think you've asked me more questions than the National Party has since the election as well. It's always a pleasure to answer your questions.</para>
<para>Senator Tyrrell, obviously the issue around the Hobart Stadium has been a matter of some debate within the Tasmanian community, and, having spent some time in Tasmania, I know that there are very strong views about this on both sides of the debate. Our government is working with the Tasmanian government around this proposal. The Tasmanian government are, I think, on the whole, strongly supportive of it. But we're very conscious that there are a range of views on this topic. What I'd put to you is that, wherever we end up on the issue of the Hobart Stadium, it doesn't mean that we can't also be taking action when it comes to rental affordability and the housing pressures that Tasmanians are undoubtedly under.</para>
<para>I can take you through some of what we're doing about rental affordability, but, in the end, the answer to rental stress is a sustained boost to the supply of homes to rent and a substantial investment in new and affordable houses. Senator Tyrrell, you won't be surprised to hear me say then that the best thing the Senate can do is back the Housing Australia Future Fund. I'm actually not across what your position is on that issue, but I certainly know the views of some other Tasmanians who you're sitting right near over there. Hello, Senator Whish-Wilson. It'd be a really good thing if Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator McKim and every other Tasmanian senator joined with the government to back the Housing Australia Future Fund so that we could have that investment in affordable housing, in social housing, in housing for veterans and in housing for domestic violence victims in Tasmania and in every other part of the country. It is odd that we have the Greens and the coalition joining together as the new coalition in Australia to block affordable housing investment.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Hobart stadium's own business case says the project will lose $2 for every dollar it makes. When the project itself is telling you it's going to lose all of your money twice over and you think that represents good value, what's your argument against raising the rate of JobSeeker?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks again, Senator Tyrrell. I probably can't add a huge amount to my previous answer in terms of the Hobart stadium. As I say, it is something that our government is in negotiation with both the AFL and the Tasmanian government on, and I'm sure that in due course our position will be finalised and then determined. But, again, Senator Tyrrell, I do know how we can assist Tasmanians who are doing it tough through the affordable housing crisis, which is undoubtedly the case across the country, including in your state. I know, Senator Tyrrell, that you are a strong supporter of greater investment in social and affordable housing and that's something that we would like to continue working with you on. All I can do is say that the best solution that we have before us is a policy that the government took to the election to create this Housing Australia Future Fund, and we can get going as soon as the Senate passes it to build that housing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator TYRRELL</name>
    <name.id>300639</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Budgets are about priorities. You could build 2,900 homes in Tasmania with the funding slated for the government spend on the Hobart stadium. This would be enough to give every single homeless Tasmanian a place to call home. What's your government's priority—putting a roof on a stadium that retracts, by the way, or putting a roof over their heads?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, again. Of course, any budget that the federal government brings down undertakes and provides funding for a broad range of activities, and I'm very confident that when this budget is finalised—and I know Senator Gallagher, in particular, has been putting huge effort into framing it—it will deal with a number of really important challenges that Australians are facing, whether it be in Tasmania or elsewhere around the country. Assisting people with cost-of-living relief will be a real centrepiece of this budget and providing more investment in housing will be as well, provided we can get that legislation passed.</para>
<para>Senator Tyrrell, I'm sure you're aware, we are already taking action on affordable housing in Tasmania, with 48 new affordable homes provided in Launceston in partnership with Community Housing Limited and 181 new homes in north-west Tasmania funded by the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, so there's a lot of action. We know there needs to be more, and that's what that housing fund's about. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Investment</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. IMPEX is one of the most important foreign investors in Australia. Shortly before question time today INPEX's global CEO, Takayuki Ueda, spoke at an event hosted by the Minister for Resources, Madeline King. Ueda-san said in his speech about the government's gas market policies: 'We are concerned that market intervention will only compound the situation of price challenges. Price intervention is likely to discourage investment in exploration and production while simultaneously driving up demand. The energy policy environment in Australia today appears to be driven almost by ideology and domestic concerns that the investment climate in Australia appears to be deteriorating.' I ask Senator Farrell, as the minister responsible for investment: how much does the government believe its interventions reduce investment in Australia? Does the Albanese Labor government accept responsibility for the deterioration in Australia's reputation? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></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>Zero. Zero is the—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">S</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Zero responsibility, yep!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, zero impact on our relations. Seriously, zero is the answer. It won't have any impact on our international reputation or our reliability or our stability as a supplier of, amongst other things, gas. I've followed the INPEX story in Australia very closely for a long period of time, since my great friend Mr Paul Henderson shook hands with Mr Kitamura all those years ago to start the process of building one the great Japanese investments in this country. To sit and watch those gas ships go out of Darwin harbour, on their way to supply something like 10 per cent of Japan's gas needs, is a wonderful thing. I can recommend it to anybody.</para>
<para>I've met with the gentleman that you referred to, and I have met with Mr Kitamura. In fact, I had the privilege late last year of awarding Mr Kitamura an Order of Australia at the Australian embassy in Tokyo. We're a democracy just like Japan, and companies in Japan can express points of view that don't always agree with the government of the day or, in fact, other— <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 Birmingham, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIRMINGHAM</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ueda-san also said that Australia is competing for global investment, and the changes we are seeing to Australian policy settings will 'choke investment and strangle the expansion of LNG projects in this country'. The consequences of these well-intentioned policies will mean the 'increasing energy demand in our region that will be met by coal and not by natural gas'. Senator Farrell, will Labor's gas market intervention increase demand for coal and, as Ueda-san says, make net zero by 2050 an impossible task?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senato</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>r FARRELL (—) (): No is the answer to that question. We are making sensible decisions in the interest of Australian consumers. After 10 years of doing nothing about these sorts of issues, you left the electricity system in a complete mess.</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Calling out, shouting out, is disorderly, and I'd ask you to stop.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Canavan knows what I'm saying is exactly correct.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKenzie</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, President. Going to <inline font-style="italic">Odgers'</inline> explanation to the rules of debate around standing order 193, ministers are to direct their comments through the chair, and Senator Farrell was yelling and pointing at Senator Canavan rather than respectfully answering the question through you.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Let me first of all remind all senators that shouting out across the chamber—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Canavan! Shouting out across the chamber is incredibly disorderly. That's the first point I'd make. The second point I'd make is that Senator Farrell was directing his comments to me except for a slight deviation. I will remind him to direct his comments to the chair, but I would also remind other senators not to keep calling out to a minister on their feet who is answering a question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that protection from Senator Canavan. We were left with a situation where the potential was that, as a result of those 10 years of neglect in the electricity sector by the former government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Se</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on direct relevance. The question actually related to the gas market interventions. Particularly the question went to the observation by one of the largest foreign investors in this country as to whether those interventions would increase demand for coal. I ask you to draw the minister to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, the minister answered the question when he first stood. That's my understanding. He has answered your question directly.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FAR</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, President. My first comment was a direct answer to the question. With all due respect to Inpex, I don't agree with their assessment of the situation. <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 Birmingham, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BIR</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>MINGHAM (—) (): Ueda-san also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">On the geopolitical front, Australia's 'quiet quitting' of the LNG business has potentially very sinister consequences. The question of who will replace Australian supply into the market is front and centre. 'Alarmingly, the "inconvenient truth" is most likely that Russia, China and Iran will fill the void.'</para></quote>
<para>Will Labor's interventions create new market opportunities for Russia, China and Iran, and why should Australians take the word of Senator Farrell ahead of one of our largest foreign investors and experts in this field? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Birmingham for his question. You can rely on my word. I'm a minister in a fantastic Labor government. We are all about providing a stable political environment in which to continue to supply, reliably, Japan gas supplies. In the case of INPEX, that's—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not what they—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator FARRELL</name>
    <name.id>I0N</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> With all due respect, I had a long meeting with the gentleman that you're talking about before that lunch. It was an extremely amicable meeting, at which I made it very clear that this country continues to be a stable, reliable supplier of gas into the Japanese market. Of course, Japan is not the only place we're supplying gas— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired) </inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. Minister Gallagher, we meet again. Your October 2022 budget included a figure of $77 million that was in the Services Australia portfolio budget statement. This figure is the allowance for the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme payouts for 2022-23. At the time, this represented an 80-fold increase in allocation from the previous federal budget of just $937,000. My office is contacted every single day by people who, in good faith, trusted their government but are now paying for this decision with injury. They are suffering, and some in this place mock them to this day. Can you please update the Senate on the total amount that has been paid out by the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme this current financial year?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Babet for the question and for his advice, ahead of time, that he was going to ask a question on this. It greatly assists in being able to provide the information that the senator is seeking.</para>
<para>As the senator outlined, the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme was put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and after the announcement of the approval of the vaccines and the vaccine program across Australia. The scheme was established as a fit-for-purpose time limited claim scheme to respond to the unprecedented circumstances of COVID-19. It was designed to ensure that people who have suffered a recognised adverse event as a direct result of the COVID vaccine have faster access to compensation than a costly and complex court process.</para>
<para>There are seven recognised clinical conditions that are eligible under the scheme, which I can go through. Specifically, in relation to Senator Babet's question, there was a provision of $77 million made. Total expenditure as of 28 March 2023 is in the order of $7.2 million. Services Australia, who administer the scheme, has received 3,374 claims under the scheme. At the moment, 126 claims have been approved for that total figure of just around $7.2 million.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister. The TGA's most recent report shows that they've received 137,970 reported adverse events following COVID vaccination. That's the equivalent of 2½ packed Marvel sports stadiums in Melbourne—a big stadium. It appears that the number of claims will continue to grow. Minister, what amount will your government be allocating to the scheme in the upcoming budget?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Babet for the supplementary. My understanding of the TGA's adverse events report is that they report against a range of possible serious side effects, from less serious to more serious, as listed under the adverse events. Not all of those would necessarily be eligible for a claim through this scheme. But in the event that there was increased demand—it is a demand driven scheme; that is, you can make certain provisions—we would meet the cost of the successful applications that met the terms of the scheme and those seven recognised clinical conditions which are eligible under the scheme. So it isn't really a question of whether we have enough money. It's a demand driven scheme and that compensation would be paid.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Babet, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BABET</name>
    <name.id>300706</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've paid billions to pharmaceutical companies and, in return, Australians have been slugged with a huge compensation bill to pay for vax-injured people. What options does the government have to make these companies responsible and pay for the injuries that they created with a crappy product?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Senator Babet, for the supplementary. I don't agree with the characterisation of the COVID-19 vaccination as a crappy product. It has successfully vaccinated millions and millions of Australians and significantly decreased the chance of serious disease, particularly in vulnerable individuals, so I don't accept that. As to the commercial arrangements with the pharmaceutical companies, if people remember, at the time, because the vaccine was developed in a relatively short period compared to others, there were commercial discussions about how to manage schemes and claims like this, but I can't go into those details. They are commercial-in-confidence.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Earlier today the government's Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill was passed with wide support across our parliament. Can the minister update the parliament on how the government is advancing women's economic equality?</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 Smith for the question and, again, for all the work she does in relation to gender equality and women's policy in general. I really do appreciate it. It's so fantastic to work with such a great bunch of people and have such a great bunch of women across the Labor caucus.</para>
<para>I thank everybody in this chamber because this is a piece of legislation where the chamber came together as one and agreed that it should be a priority to get this bill passed. It has passed the House of Representatives now. It was work that was built upon by the former government—those opposite—who had started the review and agreed to the recommendations. So it is really good, at the end of a long and sometimes scratchy sitting fortnight, to be in a position where we can demonstrate to the women of Australia that the parliament has agreed that accelerating action on the gender pay gap is such a critical and important national reform.</para>
<para>The bill that passed the House this morning is going to change things. It is going to ensure that, at a business level, where a gender pay gap exists, that will be reported and people will be able to see that. It's important for transparency and accountability reasons but it's also about driving the reform that's needed to close the gender pay gap. There is absolutely no reason why men and women performing the jobs that they do in businesses should be paid differently for the same type of work. We know that this has a huge impact on gender equality and women's economic independence, or women's economic equality, as well.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, a first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE SMITH</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While this bill was being debated both in the House and in the Senate, many of us observed that there was more work to do. Can the minister provide an update on the government's plans to continue to improve gender equality?</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 thank Senator Smith for the supplementary. There is more work to do and we are, as a government, committed to getting on with that. As a government, from our early days with the Jobs and Skills Summit and in the platform that we took to the election campaign, we made clear that women's economic equality and the issue of gender equality was going to be a priority for this government. We recognised it in October with the investments that we made in social programs like early education and care to ensure that women can work the hours that they want to work, and we're also recognising it through the work we're doing now in progressing the work on a National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality. I would encourage everyone to get involved in that. We are wanting to hear from women from right across the country and all of the people we represent. Consultations are open. Have those conversations in your communities with your neighbours, families and friends about how we can make Australia a leader in relation to gender equality.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Smith, second supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator MARIELLE</name>
    <name.id>281603</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>SMITH () (): Can the minister outline how we can all contribute to improving gender equality?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank Senator Smith for the supplementary. Senator Smith is right: we all have a role to play in this place, in our communities, at home and in businesses, unions, schools, universities, churches and sporting groups. Wherever you are, we can work together, and women's economic equality and gender equality will make us a better country. In this place, we can help drive that change by getting around the table and working together as we have done on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Bill 2023, which passed the parliament today.</para>
<para>We know that there's a lot more work to do. We've been delivering some of those important investments to drive this change through cheaper child care, through 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave, through boosting paid parental leave and through our gender-responsive budgeting in the first budget in nearly a decade that cast a gender lens over the budget. We have the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children; a wage increase for aged-care workers, 96 per cent of whom are women; and the National Women's Health Advisory Council. I could go on. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, last week in your absence Minister Farrell was asked to name anywhere in Australia where electricity prices had gone down since the Albanese government was elected. Minister Farrell did not name anywhere but did say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I do not follow power prices closely enough to be able to answer the question.</para></quote>
<para>Minister Wong, do you follow electricity prices more closely than Minister Farrell?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Birmingham</name>
    <name.id>H6X</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Are you more in touch than Don?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the interjection from Senator Birmingham. I always think it's a very dangerous thing when politicians try to compete about these things—about being in touch, that is—because we're all politicians, aren't we? But we understand very acutely the cost-of-living pressures facing Australian families. Obviously, for a whole range of reasons, inflation has driven increases in costs. People are feeling it at the supermarket and they're feeling it in terms of utilities and services. That is why those of us on this side, along with the Australian Greens and others, voted for price relief for Australian families.</para>
<para>Every time someone from the other side comes in here and tells us about energy price relief, let's remember they voted against energy price relief. That is what the coalition did. You voted against a price cap for coal and gas. You voted against $3 billion in targeted bill relief for businesses and households most in need. You voted against a 12-month price cap on uncontracted gas at $12 a gigajoule and a 12-month price ceiling on domestic coal for New South Wales and Queensland. And then you have the gall to come in here and talk about who's out of touch. No-one who is in touch with Australian families and what is happening on the cost of living out there would have had the temerity to come into this chamber and vote against price relief for Australian families. If you want to talk about who's not in touch, have a look in the mirror, Senator Cash.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, first supplementary?</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, can you name anywhere in Australia where electricity prices have gone down since the Albanese government was elected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I know that everywhere in Australia would have had higher prices if you were in government. That's what we do know, and we know that prices have risen by less than they would have as a result of the government's policy which you voted against.</para>
<para>Opposi tion senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Those opposite—not only did they vote against price relief, they also think that the way you deal with energy prices—</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Wong! Order! It is not appropriate for the noise levels—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Birmingham, I've called the chamber to order. It is not appropriate for the noise level in here to get so loud that the senator can't hear me calling her to order. It is not appropriate to shout across the chamber on both sides. I would ask senators to listen respectfully. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Not only do those opposite think that an answer to rising prices is to vote against price relief, they think an answer to rising prices is to hide them. Before the last election, their response to rising energy prices was, 'Let's change what the DMO actually is disclosed to be'!</para>
<para>Opposition senators interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Senator Brown!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's what Mr Taylor did. Well, we on this side understand what families are facing and we're trying to do something about it. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, a first supplementary.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Why hasn't, Minister, the Prime Minister delivered on his promise to reduce electricity bills by $275, a promise that he made 97 times prior to the election? Why does everything always cost more under Labor?</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order. Before I—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Wong</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Minister, I haven't called you. Before I call the minister—Senator Polley, I'm calling you to order; it doesn't require a response. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let's talk about the default market offer. The Australia Energy Regulator published the draft DMO for 2023-24. What that showed—and this is what's happening to energy prices—is the DMO will rise up to 22 per cent for households and up to 25.4 per cent for businesses. That is a substantial increase. But what it also showed is without the coal and gas price caps, that you voted against, the price increase would have been 51 per cent and 53 per cent—51 per cent and 53 per cent!</para>
<para>Honourable senators interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Wong, please resume your seat.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cash, it is not appropriate to interject in such a loud voice as to try and outcompete the minister. She's been asked a question, she's entitled to answer it and she's entitled to senators listening respectfully and silently. Minister, please continue.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll just repeat that: that without the coal and gas price caps, that those opposite voted against, the price increases that Australians, households and businesses, would have faced would have been 51 per cent and 53 per cent respectively. So, if anybody wants to come in here and suggest we're out of touch, I suggest those opposite should look in a mirror. I ask the President that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Standards</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was asked to review the tape in relation to a matter that occurred on Tuesday.</para>
<para>I have been asked to review the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> of a series of exchanges during a speech by Senator Thorpe on the Safeguard Mechanism's (Crediting) Amendment Bill on 28 March 2023. In effect, the chair had conflicting points of order before her but was unable to deal with either of them because the chamber descended into disorder. This included Senator Hughes disregarding the chair by persistently interjecting and Senator Thorpe repeating an accusation before the chair had been able to rule on it.</para>
<para>It is unacceptable that senators continue to disregard the authority of the chair while points of order are raised and determined. This is happening far too often. The Deputy President and I will be looking to all senators in this place, and particularly senators in leadership positions, to assist in reversing this trend.</para>
<para>Consistent with this, I intend to take a firmer line in calling the chamber to order, particularly in question time. In order to preserve the dignity of the chamber, I remind all senators of the behaviour codes and your endorsement of these codes in this chamber and the other place.</para>
<para>It was appropriate in the circumstances for the chair to refer the matter to me for review. At the outset, I would like to praise the way Senator Reynolds managed the disorder in the chamber. She did so in a dignified and calm way that sought to take the heat out of the situation when she was regrettably placed in a very difficult position. The <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> records Senator Hughes commenting about Senator Thorpe acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land she was discussing. In response, Senator Thorpe asked the chair:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Is that racism? Can I just call out racism in this chamber right now, please?</para></quote>
<para>Senator Hughes, on a point of order, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We've just had an accusation made in this chamber, and I would like Senator Thorpe to withdraw.</para></quote>
<para>The matter involves the interpretation of standing order 193. Standing order 193(3) prohibits offensive words, imputations of improper motives and personal reflections against senators and members. It revolves around the idea that there should be constraints on language directed to other senators or members. This is intended to ensure that political debate is conducted in the privileged forum of parliament without personally offensive language. This raises the question of what constitutes personally offensive language. <inline font-style="italic">Odgers</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline> says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It is for the chair to determine what constitutes offensive words, imputations of improper motives and personal reflections under this standing order. In doing so, the chair has regard to the connotations of expressions and the context in which they are used.</para></quote>
<para>In other words, the rule isn't necessarily about particular words or expressions; it's about the use of such words in context. It is for the chair to determine whether, in all circumstances, the language amounts to offensive words, imputations of improper motives or personal reflections directed to a senator.</para>
<para>I now turn to Tuesday. First, a statement directed to a senator, accusing them of being racist, breaches standing order 193(3). Any such personal reflection upon another senator or a member of the House is highly disorderly and, if made, should be withdrawn. I am not sure that a senator asking, 'Is this racism?' in response to an interjection necessarily breaches that standing order. It would depend on the circumstances. However, Senator Thorpe subsequently made a direct personal reflection upon Senator Hughes, which should be withdrawn. Senator Thorpe asked the chair to consider whether the particular language used was racist. As the chair indicated, it is not generally the role of a chair to judge the character of language used by senators unless it breaches some rule of the Senate. In discussing standing order 193(3), <inline font-style="italic">Odge</inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline> says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The chair normally does not require the withdrawal of words unless the chair has determined that they are contrary to the standing order, but if a senator finds a remark personally offensive and considers himself or herself personally aggrieved, the chair may require its withdrawal to preserve the dignity of debate.</para></quote>
<para>In making these judgements, it is relevant for chairs to consider whether words may be particularly offensive to another senator because of their personal attributes or experience. However, it is incumbent on every senator to demonstrate a level of respect for their colleagues, which ensures that chairs are not required to adjudicate such matters.</para>
<para>In relation to the interjection from Senator Hughes, the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> records what appears to be a derogatory comment about the practice of acknowledging country, at the same time as Senator Thorpe was acknowledging the custodians of a particular land. As Senator Thorpe clearly found that to be personally offensive, I consider there would have been grounds for the chair to seek to have Senator Hughes clarify or withdraw her remarks. However, because of the subsequent disorder, that was not possible. In those circumstances, I think it would be appropriate for Senator Hughes to either withdraw or clarify her remarks. For absolute clarity, I am asking that Senator Thorpe withdraw her comments to Senator Hughes and for Senator Hughes to either withdraw her comments to Senator Thorpe or clarify those comments.</para>
<para>Finally, I endorse the comments of former president Ryan, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The standing orders and rules of this place are limits, not guides. Just because something can be said or done does not mean it should be. Common decency cannot be codified. It depends on all of us considering the impact of our behaviour on others. While this workplace isn't like a normal one, it is still a place where we all must work together, even across issues of profound disagreement.</para></quote>
<para>Thank you, senators.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Hughes</name>
    <name.id>273828</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If I can, I would like to acknowledge and thank you for looking at this matter and for coming back to the Senate with that statement. In order to maintain the dignity of the chamber, I withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>112096</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Hughes.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Vocational Education And Training</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In question time on Tuesday 28 March, I took elements of a question asked by Senator Lambie to me on notice. I have written to Senator Lambie to provide a complete answer, and I now table that answer for the information of the Senate.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>75</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Answers to Questions</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator BROCKMAN</name>
    <name.id>30484</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.</para></quote>
<para>I'm not sure if the jury was out before Shadow Minister Birmingham's question to Minister Farrell about whether Minister Farrell was the worst trade minister ever, but now the jury is certainly in. We had the global president and chief executive officer of INPEX, Takayuki Ueda-san, addressing a private function in Parliament House about the damage the Labor government has done to our trade relationship with Japan, and Minister Farrell just blows it off. He just acts as though that speech never happened. That is an extraordinary performance by a minister who is meant to be championing and defending the trading relationships of this country.</para>
<para>Our relationship with the nation of Japan is not just one of our most important trade relationships; it's one of our most important relationships in a geopolitical sense. We have the global CEO of a major corporation coming to this place and saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Certainty in policy direction and a stable regulatory framework will continue to encourage strong investment in Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Unfortunately, the investment climate in Australia appears to be deteriorating.</para></quote>
<para>I think everyone in this place would agree that the Japanese, in cultural terms, when they're speaking diplomatically, consider every single word they say extraordinarily carefully—every single word they say. For the global CEO of a Japanese corporation which is a major investor in this country to say that shows how far this government has caused the deterioration of a key trading relationship in just a few short months of being in government. Heaven help us after they've had the reins for a couple more years. What damage is this government going to do to our international trading relationships?</para>
<para>This isn't a minor industry. This is a key industry for Australia. The gas industry is a key industry for my home state of Western Australia, and foreign investment is a key driver of that industry. We need foreign investment to underpin the economic development of this country. We go back to the 1970s, when investment, particularly Japanese investment, into Western Australia saw the development of our great gas industry. And we've seen this government in 10 short months destroy 50 years of relationship building and being a reliable, stable key trading partner in the gas space with these major international corporations.</para>
<para>And it's not just about the dollars that flow, although it is a great export earner for this country, and it's a great employer in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. It's just a wonderful industry. But it's also about energy security for one of our key strategic partners. Japan is one of our key and most-enduring strategic partners, certainly in this region. For the government to trash that relationship to the point where we have a global CEO speaking in this place about the damage that's been done—let me quote a little bit more from the speech:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In Japan we say, 'don't cheat at rock, paper, scissors'. This translates to "don't move the goalposts after the game has started."</para></quote>
<para>Here we have one of our key trading partners saying that we, Australia, are cheating at rock, paper, scissors, and the trade minister stands up in this place and denies—is just oblivious to reality—the fact that this Labor government is having a negative impact on our key trading relationships. And they've got form. They're damaging key trading relationships in the Middle East through their decision to ban the live export sheep trade. They're damaging our relationship with Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. These are key relationships.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GROGAN</name>
    <name.id>296331</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm delighted to rise and take note of some of the responses we heard in question time today and particularly to have an opportunity to talk about how the Labor government is powering Australian communities with batteries—and not just individual batteries but community batteries, whereby we can support powering so many homes: 100,000 homes will benefit from this initiative. There are 400 batteries to roll out, and they will power entire communities. They will help entire communities to lower their electricity prices, which I'm very, very proud of.</para>
<para>One in three Australian households have solar panels, but very few have batteries. This community approach to powering our homes is going to make a big difference out there. And these things will help us get to net zero. A number of questions in question time today went to the issue of net zero. It was mentioned on a number of occasions. Looking around this chamber, we know that the majority of people in the Australian Senate are right behind the idea of net zero. And although it would have been difficult to see on the face of it, following the last couple of days of debate around the safeguard mechanism, there are even some people on the coalition benches who believe in net zero, but you wouldn't have thought it if you'd been listening to the conversation in here over the last number of days.</para>
<para>But that is where we need to get to, and the safeguard mechanism is another element that is going to help us get there—the safeguard mechanism that passed this chamber earlier today, after 10 long years of so much uncertainty. The safeguard mechanism, when put in by the coalition when they were in government, did nothing to reduce emissions, and its entire intent is to reduce emissions. But it did not. Emissions went up. You'd have to ask yourself, why was that? I think it was probably because there was no intention to do it in the first place—set up a mechanism and then set your baseline so high that nobody's coming down, which totally goes against the grain, totally goes against the intent.</para>
<para>I'm delighted that, today, this parliament has passed that bill, and the safeguard mechanism will kick in on 1 July. Last year, when the 43 per cent target was legislated in this parliament, we saw investment go up. We have seen organisation after organisation come and talk about how much the importance of certainty matters. The whole thing about moving the goalposts—well, let's put the goalposts in the ground first, shall we? The goalposts in the ground about where we're going and how we're getting there have seen a tick-up in investment. We know that, with the safeguard mechanism, 80 per cent of the organisations captured are already committed to net zero. They've made that commitment; over 80 per cent of them made that commitment, along with the majority of people in this parliament.</para>
<para>For the last couple of days and through question time we have been listening to all the puff and waffle. The fact is the Australian public placed Labor in government, and these are the things we will pursue. We will pursue renewable energy. We will pursue reducing emissions. We will pursue stronger relationships internationally. We will pursue that investment. That is exactly where we're going, with a broad vision that will make a fundamental difference to the people in this country, while you keep bleating on about small issues.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Small issues? Goodness gracious me, I honestly thought I'd heard it all this week and over this last sitting fortnight. But for Labor senators to be describing the cost-of-living crisis as just a small issue really does take the cake, at almost 3.30 on the last Thursday of the sitting fortnight.</para>
<para>I think many Australians listening in to parliament over the last fortnight wouldn't have been particularly impressed by some of what we're hearing. It's been another week, another sitting day, more broken promises from the government, more dirty deals to get their legislation through this place. We have a government that are unable to deliver on the commitments they made during the election. They promised to cut electricity bills by $275. They promised Australians cheaper mortgages. They promised there would be no changes to superannuation. They promised Australians could expect to see their cost-of-living expenses go down. But, since then, we have seen the complete opposite of all those things occurring. It's rank hypocrisy from government.</para>
<para>I note, in Senator Ruston's first question in question time today, this week we have seen yet another one. This was a government that promised transparency, accountability, integrity and all these things—these commitments they made to the Australian people in the lead-up to the election last year. They promised to be a government of integrity. Yet we now have a situation where it has come to light that the Mobile Black Spot Program, which has been used to great effect previously to support local communities with the necessary communications infrastructure, is now being used to direct funding to a number of seats that are all Labor held seats. Twenty-seven out of 27 grants in New South Wales, under this funding stream, went to Labor seats. There were only three locations selected in Victoria; they went to Labor seats. The minister has directed that 40 of the 54 chosen sites in the most recent Mobile Black Spot Program $40 million round are locations in Labor seats. This was a government that promised it was going to do better. This was a government that promised integrity and transparency and accountability, and, quite frankly, I don't think that is what transparency and accountability and integrity look like.</para>
<para>Like I said, this is just another one in the long list of broken promises from this government that are just piling up and piling up. It is amazing how fast the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, changed his tune from when he was telling Australians that their lives would be easier under a Labor government during the election campaign to then being in government and systematically going back on key election commitments he made. At one point he even stated, 'If you make a promise and a commitment, you do have to stick to it.' That sounds like stating the very obvious. But the Prime Minister hasn't really stuck to his word, has he?</para>
<para>It doesn't stop there. This week we have seen more scheming and broken promises from this government. In doing their deal with the Greens to push through their safeguard mechanism reforms, Labor will inflict further pain on Australians. Instead of working to make life easier for Australians, which I'm sure is something they probably committed to during the election campaign as well, Labor has again put the Australian people last. They have capitulated to the demands of the Greens in putting the safeguard mechanism through this place this week, and they have sown the seats for not only the next energy crisis in this country but the next economic crisis in this country. We know the impact that is going to have on hardworking Australians and their families.    This Labor-Greens deal is a hard cap on economic growth, it is a hard cap on new industries, it is a hard cap on existing industries, and it is a hard cap on jobs. It will cast doubt out over new mining and gas projects which have the potential to provide energy security. These projects are necessary for the production of renewable technologies and projects that will help drive down energy prices, and yet Labor, in bed with the Greens, are doing everything they can to completely run these projects off the road.</para>
<para>Apparently, lowering the cost of electricity isn't that much of a concern for Labor anymore. All this deal is going to accomplish is irreparable damage to the energy market. It will penalise consumers—apparently, consumers haven't suffered enough already under this government. If only they had found it within themselves to pass on the $275 decrease to our power bills, then maybe we wouldn't be in this position.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>How good is the community battery grant scheme? It is absolutely fantastic. It is being rolled out across this country in communities. It is the Albanese government delivering on an election commitment to roll out 400 batteries in neighbourhoods across the country, delivering more affordable and secure solar power to more Australians. It is a fantastic program which will allow ordinary Australians to store affordable solar energy for use during peak times and to share excess power with other households in their area—areas like Aston, in outer Melbourne.</para>
<para>Aston is a typical area in outer Melbourne which is facing a by-election this Saturday. They'll be weighing up the programs and the ways in which the Albanese government runs programs like the community battery grant—programs where you can clearly see what you need to do to get community batteries. The websites talk about how you apply, what the criteria are and how you could be successful. The people of Aston would appreciate that, I am sure, because in the past they have had a member of parliament who was involved in the significant robodebt scheme—he was partially an architect of that. They've also seen sports rorts, where the grant schemes were administered through colour coded spreadsheets. So I am sure the families of Aston will be weighing those things up.</para>
<para>Of course, it is difficult thing to win a by-election as a government—in fact, there hasn't been a by-election won by a government for about a hundred years, since 1920—but I'm sure that the provision of the community battery grant and the way it's being administered by this government will be something weighing on the minds of Aston residents as they think about the government they had previously and how grants had previously been administered. They'll compare that to this fantastic community battery grant scheme, which has already seen 58 community battery grants awarded, where clear guidelines had been available. They will know that it's possible for the community to have these battery grants. They know they will be offered by a group, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, and there will be a program to deliver the rest of those batteries, the 342 other batteries that the government has committed to. This will be done with stakeholder consultation and will be done with clear guidelines that people can follow and transparently see how they are delivered.</para>
<para>As my colleague Senator Grogan said, one in every three Australian households have solar panels. That is one of the highest rates in the world. There are lots of solar panels in Aston. I've been out there many times. There are lots of people who have taken up solar panels. They are looking forward to things like the community battery grant scheme: whether they can apply for them and whether they can be successful. Community batteries are going to allow the storage of energy and sharing with others, so your neighbours. And it's not just rooftop solar. What this program is doing transparently is putting downward pressure on household electricity costs. It's going to contribute to lower emissions. It's going to provide a benefit to the electricity network. It's going to store solar energy for later use, sharing and support. It's going to allow households like those in Aston that cannot install solar panels to enjoy the benefits of renewable energy through shared community storage.</para>
<para>That's one of the things that's going to be weighing on the minds of the good voters of Aston this weekend, not only what the government have already delivered but also what we will deliver. They have a fantastic candidate in Mary Doyle in Aston, who will be able to prosecute their needs and represent them. It's my great hope that this weekend she gets elected to be the member for Aston.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Labor Government, Energy</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today.</para></quote>
<para>I want to address two of the questions that were asked today. They were both directed to Minister Wong. The first one was from coalition senator Senator Ruston, and the second was from Senator Cash. I have to say, I think most of us on this side really rate the question time performance of Minister Wong when she comes in here. She's very good at standing up and delivering a response to questions that are given. I wouldn't say they are necessarily answers, because we ask questions and sometimes they are darted and moved around and there's not too much direct response to the questions that are asked.</para>
<para>The first question went to a very serious issue that's emerged, something that's been revealed recently, which is in relation to the Mobile Black Spot Program. Senator Wong was asked about that. Sadly, from her response what I'm getting is flashbacks of what Labor is traditionally known for. What we've got here is a situation where Labor have already conceded that 27 out of the 27 black spot program allocations in New South Wales are all in Labor-held seats. We've seen previous governments and administrations of the Labor kind have this in their history, in their pattern, where they deliver programs, essentially pork-barrelling, into their own seats in order to get an electoral gain come election day. The minister admitted that the minister involved in this program personally selected every spot. I imagine she had a map of Liberal and National electorates in front as she ensured that the constituents of those electorates would not benefit from that program. It so happens that a lot of black spot areas are actually in Liberal and National seats because they're often in rural and regional areas, where we tend to get a good Liberal and National vote, so no doubt that's what's happened. The mob over there like to point the finger, but I remind those opposite that they are, and always have been, the worst kind of offenders. They do it particularly artfully, I've got to say.</para>
<para>The Mobile Black Spot Program is designed to provide funding to improve mobile coverage in areas outside of the metropolitan area. In this round, the communications minister personally selected all 54 locations to receive funding. None of the locations were chosen based on departmental advice—none. Of the 54 locations chosen by Minister Rowland, three-quarters were in Labor electorates. Despite Labor holding just a third of the regional seats in New South Wales, 100 per cent of the 27 locations chosen by the minister in that state were in Labor electorates. In Victoria, three selected locations were in ALP seats. This program, this selection in round 6 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, is dodgy. It is dodgy.</para>
<para>I must point out the sheer hypocrisy of this government. I want to read you a quote. See if you can guess who might have said it, Senator Scarr and Senator Cash. It reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Taxpayer funds are ones that are paid for by hard workers … They deserve better than to have their taxpayer funds from their hard work funnelled into marginal electorates on the basis of a political whim.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We need governments to be held to account for their actions.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It sounds like Prime Minister Albanese to me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator O'SULLIVAN</name>
    <name.id>283585</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Prime Minister Albanese—that is right. Prime Minister Albanese said that when he was the opposition leader. The current Prime Minister said this in 2021.</para>
<para>The other point I wanted to touch on was Senator Cash's question, which went to electricity prices. Minister Wong was asked if she was in touch with the cost of electricity, and her answer demonstrated that she isn't. Every time we ask these questions, they point to their policy that they rushed through the parliament just before Christmas. If it was so successful, Labor, why don't you explain to the Australian people why their electricity prices have actually gone up? Why don't you explain how it's not doing anything to deliver on the reduction of price that you said you would deliver? You said 97 times before the election that prices would go down by $275.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Assange, Mr Julian Paul</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHISH-WILSON</name>
    <name.id>195565</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Shoebridge today relating to Julian Assange.</para></quote>
<para>Today Senator Shoebridge, on behalf of the Australian Greens and also on behalf of millions of Australians and even more people around the world, asked a very important question: did our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, raise the political persecution and freeing of Julian Assange with the American President and the UK Prime Minister when he met with them two weeks ago? The answer we had from Senator Wong was that somehow we can't intervene in the extradition of Julian Assange, because there are legal processes underway.</para>
<para>I want to deal with two things here. Firstly, Senator Wong didn't want to answer the question. She didn't want to say yes or no on whether the Prime Minister had raised it. I'll draw my own conclusions from that, as will the Australian people. The answer is almost certainly that it wasn't raised with the American President or the UK Prime Minister, the two men—in fact, they're three men, together—who can make a decision to free Julian Assange.</para>
<para>Secondly, what Senator Wong said in here was rubbish. It is patently false that some legal process being underway prevents a political intervention on behalf of Julian Assange. Let me make this really clear to the Australian Senate: Julian Assange is a political prisoner, and only a political intervention will free him. Our Prime Minister could ask the US President to drop the extradition charges, even while they're underway, and that would be it. Mr Assange would finally walk free.</para>
<para>We also know that in the UK, once a court makes its decision, the final decision on extradition lies with the Prime Minister and the Attorney General. Once again, it's a political decision, so why didn't Mr Albanese raise this with the UK Prime Minister or the US President? He could have ended it two weeks ago for Mr Assange, who's sitting in a maximum-security prison, Belmarsh prison in the UK, for telling the truth. For senators who aren't aware, he is being extradited to the US on espionage charges, the first foreign journalist conducting an activity on foreign soil to ever be extradited to the US. This is not only a massive breach of the US First Amendment—politically persecuting a journalist for doing their job—but an attack on press freedoms all around the planet.</para>
<para>The stakes couldn't be higher on the extradition of Julian Assange, and once again the Australian Greens will stand up in the Australian parliament for Julian Assange and for his family, including Mr John Shipton, who continually comes into parliament, tries to get meetings with members of parliament and works with the parliamentary friends of Assange group. I'd like to acknowledge the work that the parliamentary friends of Assange group do on behalf of Mr Assange. Right across the political spectrum, not just here in Australia but in parliaments all around the world, these groups are forming. As Senator Wong did acknowledge in her response to the question today, there is a very strong public sentiment in this country to free Mr Assange, an Australian citizen and a publisher who was just doing his job.</para>
<para>Senators, we can't let this stand on our watch—that an Australian citizen is seeking his freedom for doing his job, and our government does nothing. Mr Albanese said he agrees enough is enough and wants to see Mr Assange released. Senator Wong has expressed similar sentiments, and they've called for quiet diplomacy. As my colleague Senator Shoebridge asked so well in here today: why are we not putting the question when the three men are together behind closed doors? There couldn't be a better example of quiet diplomacy than those three men discussing the freedom of Julian Assange. So Australians would be very disappointed if Anthony Albanese didn't raise this, and unfortunately it appears from Senator Wong's non-answer to Senator Shoebridge's question today that this issue wasn't clearly enough a priority for the Prime Minister. So the campaign goes on to keep putting pressure on the Prime Minister, on President Biden of the US and on Prime Minister Sunak of the United Kingdom to free Julian Assange, and I call on all Australian people who care about democracy and press freedoms to continue to push their MPs to bring Julian Assange home.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Freedom of Information Commissioner Resignation</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today concerning the Freedom of Information Commissioner, I call the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 27 March this year, the government complied with the order for production of documents relating to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner and some related matters agreed between the Greens party and the Liberal-National coalition. On behalf of the Attorney-General, I tabled dozens of pages of documents in response to the order. Material irrelevant to the order was not produced. I also made a public interest immunity claim on behalf of the Attorney-General over parts of those documents and other documents. That claim, related to cabinet deliberations and privacy, was consistent with longstanding and accepted Senate practice. I commend my letter to the President for the details of that claim, including the harm that would result from disclosure. I note in particular that it is totally obvious that questions about resourcing of agencies go to the heart of the budget process and therefore the heart of the cabinet process. It's perhaps not surprising that the Greens party struggles to recognise that, not being a party of government, but the Liberal and National Party coalition, including failed ministers from the former government, understand it all too well.</para>
<para>The coalition's support for the original order and its support for the motion today are acts of wanton opportunism. During their nine years in office, the coalition had absolutely no respect for this chamber. The former government routinely ignored orders to produce documents; the former government routinely refused to answer questions from committees and senators; and, relevantly, it treated the freedom of information system with utter contempt. It left the position of FOI Commissioner unfilled for seven years. The position was filled on the eve of the last election, without a merit based selection process.</para>
<para>The former Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, created a sham cabinet committee to hide documents from scrutiny. He declared, without any basis, that National Cabinet was a committee of the federal cabinet. Mr Morrison also created a bespoke exemption when responding to FOI requests. His office used to tell applicants that he was above the law. The former Prime Minister refused to answer questions from the parliament and the press about his attempt to invite Brian Houston to the White House and about his QAnon house guests at the official residences.</para>
<para>The former government turned scandal into an art form, whether it be sports rorts, carpark rorts or the Leppington Triangle affair. Senator Cash famously hid behind a whiteboard so she didn't have to take questions about her refusal to make a police statement regarding her office leaking details of a police raid on a union office—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There's a personal reflection on Senator Cash, impugning her motive. Saying she 'hid' behind a whiteboard to avoid questions impugns her motive. It's a personal reflection on Senator Cash, and it should be withdrawn, especially in light of the statement earlier today from the President.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY</name>
    <name.id>10000</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To keep the chamber orderly, Senator Watt, I'd ask you to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. The now shadow treasurer, Mr Taylor, of course, was caught up in the incident involving fake documents to attack the Lord Mayor of Sydney, and he never explained or apologised for his role in the grasslands scandal involving his appropriately named company Jam Land. The now assistant shadow treasurer Mr Robert attracts more controversy by—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Scarr, on another point of order, I assume?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, it's another point of order. I think it's good that the minister withdrew his previous remark, but now he's just moved on to cast personal reflections on another previous minister and member of this place. Again, he should withdraw and take note of the President's statement.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't believe it reached the level of requiring withdrawal. I call the minister and ask him to be cautious with his statement to the house.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for that ruling, Deputy President. In fact, I revised the words of what I'd been provided to take note of your earlier ruling. But it is true that, in addition to Mr Taylor, Senator Cash and many other ministers, the now assistant shadow treasurer Mr Robert attracts more controversy by the day, sometimes by the hour. Let's not forget Mr Morrison's secret ministries. They were, in fact, so secret that he didn't even tell his co-portfolio ministers, let alone the parliament.</para>
<para>On behalf of the Attorney-General, I maintain my public interest immunity claim. I also note the misunderstanding present in the motion presented by Senator Shoebridge with the unflinching support of his new friends in transparency, the coalition. The order for production did not seek a resignation letter from the FOI Commissioner. Further, I refer the Senate to one of the documents tabled by the government, the FOI Commissioner's message to staff on 6 March 2023. That message begins:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Dear colleagues,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am writing to let you know that I've written to the Governor-General to resign my appointment …</para></quote>
<para>As I outlined in my letter to the President on 27 March this year, in the 2022-23 financial year the government provided the OAIC with $29.6 million in funding. The government will continue to work closely with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to understand resourcing requirements to ensure its effective operation. Unlike the former government, we will fill the position of FOI Commissioner, and it will be filled with a candidate selected through a merit based selection process.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:48</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 explanation.</para></quote>
<para>Rarely have I heard such tosh. The minister stands up here and has the gall to say that the order for the production of documents did not include the resignation letter of the commissioner, a commissioner who could barely spend 12 months in the job, with this government refusing to fund his office and refusing to fund freedom of information requests. Less than 12 months into the job he basically resigned in disgust. The order for the production of documents included:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… 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 …</para></quote>
<para>Did the commissioner not resign via correspondence? Was it a smoke signal that was sent from the commissioner? Did he do it by pigeon or some sort of weird hand signal from place to place?</para>
<para>Of course it covered the letter of resignation.</para>
<para>Of the specious nonsense we just heard from the government there, if that is really the quality of the legal advice coming out of the AG's office—saying that the letter wasn't covered by the order for papers—it's an embarrassment to the office. It's an embarrassment to the minister to come and repeat that rubbish in the Senate. Of course it was covered. If they have some ridiculously patently false legal argument for why it's not covered, give them credit for having tried to come up with some creative legal argument in the office about why it's not covered. Assume they did that—that they spent a week coming up with that rubbish. Assume they did that. If they did do that, then less credit to them too. If they did that, then less credit because obviously the resignation letter was being sought in this. If they have come up with some specious legal nonsense that satisfied them when they got around the water cooler and tried to come up with ways of defeating transparency, that's even less credit to the Attorney. I say again it won't end here. To the minister: produce the resignation letter. To the Attorney: live up to the rhetoric and you won't be embarrassed like this.</para>
<para>We've heard a lot of rhetoric about wanting to fix freedom of information. I want to be clear that it fell into deep disrepute under the previous government, with a gross lack of funding and contempt from ministers and departments about the system. But this government came in promising it would be different. We had all the rhetoric from the Attorney as a shadow. I've got to tell you, as soon as the shadow disappeared, there sure as hell wasn't any sunshine. We haven't come from a shadow A-G to one that wants to put sunshine on the workings of government. We've come from a shadow A-G to an even deeper shadow in government. This was a chance to try and do the right thing and to actually show us why the commissioner resigned. The public needs to know why the commissioner resigned less than 12 months into a five-year appointment. We're asking to shine some sunshine on the resignation of the FOI Commissioner. You couldn't have a greater example of political irony than the new Attorney-General responding to a call for papers about the resignation of the FOI Commissioner with a specious, rubbish legal argument about why it wasn't covered and then pages and pages and pages of blacked-out documents. This return was like high-level political irony.</para>
<para>But I have to say, if the Attorney-General and the minister think we'll be satisfied with a nonsense explanation and pages and pages of blacked-out documents on something as critical as why the Freedom of Information Commissioner resigned and why they won't show us the resignation papers, then I think there's going to be a surprise coming because it won't end here. It won't end with that ridiculous nonexplanation from the minister. The Senate deserves answers, the thousands and thousands of Australians who have been waiting years to get their FOI reviews resolved deserve answers, and the people of Australia deserve answers, not that tosh we just got served up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think it would be fair to say that it is not often that Senator Shoebridge and I are going to ever agree in this chamber. But, Senator Shoebridge, in relation to the response that has just been provided to the chamber by Senator Watt, I heartily agree with your comments. That was absolute tosh, nothing more and nothing less. Clearly, Senator Watt, on behalf of the Attorney-General of Australia, doesn't actually get the irony of what he was responding to—an order for the production of documents in relation to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner. One would think the mere fact that it was about the Freedom of Information Commissioner would actually trigger them, perhaps, as a government that allegedly believes in transparency and integrity, to be a little freer with the information that they provide. But, instead, all we got from Senator Watt on behalf of the Attorney-General was personal reflections in relation to ministers in the previous government. I often say, 'If you can't actually address the policy, why not just go for the person?' Well, guess what? That does not work when you are providing an explanation to the Australian Senate.</para>
<para>But I do note that the explanation was provided on behalf of the Attorney-General of Australia. The Attorney-General is someone who talks a very, very big game. But when it comes to practising what the Attorney-General himself loves to preach—to all Australians, not just to the legal fraternity—he fails in every regard, particularly in relation to the dismal response to the order for the production of documents.</para>
<para>I want to quote the Attorney-General from a speech he gave as we marked International Universal Access to Information Day, also known as Right to Know Day. This is the Attorney-General of Australia setting out the Albanese government's principles when it comes to access to information. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This global event recognises the importance of the community's right to know and to access to government-held information.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It also reinforces the role of government in promoting transparency and accountability.</para></quote>
<para>He then makes a comment in relation to the previous government. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Regrettably, the previous government did not believe that Australians have a right to know.</para></quote>
<para>But it's the next few words by which the Attorney-General will, unfortunately, stand damned. He says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In contrast, the Albanese Government is committed to restoring public trust and strengthening standards of integrity in our federal government.</para></quote>
<para>Well, he's certainly preaching. He continues:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Open access to information is essential for good decision-making, genuine engagement in democratic government, and combatting corruption.</para></quote>
<para>Again, the bad news is that he's only preaching here. Then—in fact, I'd almost believe that I would have got something better than what was provided to the Senate—he says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Citizens need this access to know how they are being governed.</para></quote>
<para>He also says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Today, we also acknowledge the importance of the Freedom of Information Act.</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">The proactive disclosure of government-held information promotes—</para></quote>
<para>Colleagues, wait for it—</para>
<quote><para class="block">open government and advances our system of representative democracy.</para></quote>
<para>The bad news for the Attorney-General of Australia—again, he loves to preach; he's well known for it, especially in legal circles around Australia—is that he is also known for the fact that he fails to practise. What was on display today was a justification by the minister representing the Attorney-General of Australia in relation to his failure to practise the standards that he so eloquently preaches to others around Australia when it comes to access to information but, not only that, the standards that he continues to tell Australians that Albanese government will be judged by.</para>
<para>This is how he concluded the speech:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I want to conclude by assuring you all that the Albanese Government is firmly committed to transparency and accountability, to ensure we have better government for all Australians.</para></quote>
<para>What an absolute load of tosh, as Senator Shoebridge so eloquently said.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>287062</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was going to give the call to Labor, but in the absence of someone seeking the call—is anyone from the Greens seeking the call?—I will call Senator Scarr. But I point out that if another Labor member later, after Senator Scarr, seeks the call, I'll give the call to Labor.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note that a reference has been made to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I'm the chair, in relation to the position with respect to Australia's FOI laws, and I congratulate Senator Shoebridge on being part of that reference. Like Senator Shoebridge, I must say that this is just bizarre; this is absolutely bizarre. I'm actually in the process of rereading Franz Kafka's book <inline font-style="italic">T</inline><inline font-style="italic">he Trial</inline>, and this Kafkaesque.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, there was a political metamorphosis!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Exactly. This order for the production for documents says—and there are people in the gallery listening to this, so I want to read this out. This is what this Senate ordered and provided to the Attorney-General with respect to this order for the production of documents:</para>
<quote><para class="block">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>
<para>any correspondence. And we hear that the letter of resignation, the actual letter of resignation, isn't captured on the basis of the Attorney's interpretation of the order for the production of documents. He didn't consider the letter of resignation to be captured in the order for the production of documents. This is absolutely bizarre.</para>
<para>In agreement with Senator Shoebridge, it baffles me that someone could look at the words in that order for the production of documents, look at the substance over form. You don't have to do that, but if you look at the clear intention of the document—'provide us with all of the documents in relation to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner'—would that include the letter of resignation? Yes, I think it might. I think that might be a relevant document in relation to the documents pertaining to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner. It might be directly relevant. It might go to the heart of the issue! And to actually have this debate in relation to the failure of the Attorney to meet the order for the production of documents in accordance with its clear terms, to have this debate with respect to the suppression of information in relation to the Freedom of Information Commissioner himself, it's even more bizarre and more Kafkaesque! It's just extraordinary stuff.</para>
<para>I feel sympathy for Senator Watt, from Queensland, that he actually had to come in and read that statement. It must have been embarrassing for him. And it's not the first time he's been forced to come into this chamber and read a statement on behalf of another minister, which no doubt caused him embarrassment. I can remember the time he had to come into this chamber and read the statement with respect to Nauru not being continued as a regional processing country because it had been overlooked by the Minister for Home Affairs. He had to come and explain that situation, and now he's had to come in and explain this. Just reflect on how silly this is, that the resignation letter of the Freedom of Information Commissioner was not considered relevant for an order for the production of documents—all documents—relating to the resignation of the Freedom of Information Commissioner. It is just bizarre. It is Kafkaesque.</para>
<para>Seriously, the Attorney needs to reflect on this. This is an embarrassment. The Attorney is the first law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia. He is the first law officer. He needs to reflect on this because this is an absolute embarrassment.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">S</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>enator McKENZIE (—) (): I rise to support not only Senator Shoebridge in seeking documents from executive government, as is the right of all senators in this chamber, and has always been, but also the comments of Senator Cash and Senator Scarr.</para>
<para>Sadly, what we have seen from this government over 10 months is the decline in transparency, the decline in accountability, the decline in integrity and, indeed, the decline in respect for this chamber. We've seen it this week in guillotine motions over significant legislation. We've seen it with the way they treat senators not in the executive or not in government, they way they allocate speaking time and the lack of answers to significant questions.</para>
<para>I listened to Senator Watt's contribution where he freelanced from Minister Dreyfus' comments. He severely reflected on ministers in the former government, current senators and former prime ministers—as if that is the only reason they haven't complied with a very sensible order for the production of documents from Senator Shoebridge.</para>
<para>We shouldn't be surprised because, indeed, it was Senator Watt who, whilst in here earlier this week, realised he'd actually forgotten another essential document to him actually complying with an order of the production of documents around Australian Organic. It slipped his mind that the letter from Australian Organic to him as agriculture minister in December was part of the documents requested. Only once that organisation had themselves publicly released that private correspondence did he suddenly rush in here and table it—just incredible—along with another 13 documents he'd actually forgotten to lodge the first time. It is casual disregard.</para>
<para>These ministers, who are senators, should know better, and they should not be spending their time assisting ministers from the other place to take this chamber seriously. This is a powerful house of examination. This is the place where the diversity of Australia's voting public is expressed in a unique way. So there are requests from this chamber that will be made periodically that would never happen over in the other place, because this is the only place we can hold the executive to account. This is our role, and it's one that we, I think, should take very, very seriously. In terms of <inline font-style="italic">Odgers'</inline>, I would just like to quote from page 7:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The most dangerous of all sinister interests is that of the executive government, because it is the most powerful.</para></quote>
<para>Therefore, the Senate has a unique and special role to play, and the executive government in this place needs to do their part by treating senators and this chamber with respect.</para>
<para>The Attorney-General talks a lot about transparency, accountability and integrity. They're not just words; they're actually character traits and behaviours that you must exhibit not just as a citizen in your personal life but also, clearly and essentially and desperately, as someone that is in a position of power. We were quoting the A-G on 28 September 2022:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we are serious about restoring trust and integrity to government.</para></quote>
<para>Well, if you're serious about restoring trust and integrity to executive government, guess what? Table the documents that are ordered by the Senate.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a low bar.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>207825</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Absolutely. Again, on 1 December last year he was concerned about 'a breach of the principles of parliamentary responsibility and accountability'. Attorney-General, you can't just go on ABC Radio Melbourne and make contributions in the parliament on <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> throwing these words around so casually. You must live by it. You must actually table the documents and treat this Senate with the respect it deserves.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If there are no further speakers, I will put the question that the Senate take note of the explanation. We will move on to the order agreed to earlier today concerning the national minimum wage.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Shouting from your seat and waving your hands around to me means nothing. Is there a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I wasn't waving my hands, and, secondly, I wasn't shouting. The point of order—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You were shouting at me, then there was the hand-waving. Don't argue. Have you got a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wasn't waving my hands, and I wasn't shouting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Have you got a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're reflecting inappropriately from the chair on a member.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Do you have a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What is it?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You failed to put the last question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I just put the question. Were you not listening? I put the question, and I'll do it again.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Shoebridge</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd just ask for courtesy from the chair. You did not put the question.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I put the question, and I'll do it again. Resume your seat. As I said before, the question is that the Senate take note of the explanation. Do you want the question read again?</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wages</title>
          <page.no>85</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>85</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was saying: pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today concerning the national minimum wage, I now call the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.</para>
<para><inline font-style="italic">(Quoru</inline> <inline font-style="italic">m formed)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WATT</name>
    <name.id>245759</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our government is acting to boost wages and close the gender pay gap to help workers with cost-of-living pressures, with no thanks at all to the opposition. Our values have not changed. The Albanese government will always stand up for workers. Let's pause for a minute and remember the coalition's legacy when it comes to wages, which is the subject of this debate.</para>
<para>While in power, the coalition refused to make a submission to the aged-care work value case. Senator Cash, as the then minister, and all of her colleagues have never met workers they thought had any value whatsoever, let alone in the aged-care sector. The former government refused to argue that the wages of low-paid workers shouldn't even go backwards, in their annual wage review submission. This was a major issue heading into the last election. We repeatedly called on the government of the day to make a submission to the annual wage review that at least said that workers' wages shouldn't go backwards, but they wouldn't even do that. As we all remember, one of the key policies of the former government was low wage growth; it was a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture.</para>
<para>For the coalition, there never seems to be a good time for a wage increase for workers. Under the coalition, Australian workers were told: 'Wait for low unemployment and then you'll get a pay rise. Wait for productivity increases and then you'll get a pay rise.' Of course, it never happened. We had falling unemployment—no pay rises, no real wage growth. We had productivity increases—no real wage growth. Under the coalition's watch, workers saw the slowest sustained pace of wages growth in Australia's postwar history, averaging just 2.1 per cent in nominal wages growth over its almost 10 years in government. The coalition voted no on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. They opposed it before they'd even read it. The coalition said no before they'd even read a bill that was about delivering secure jobs and better pay to Australian workers. Do you know why they were willing to do so before they'd even read the bill? It was because they were scared off by the name of the bill—'secure jobs, better pay'. There is nothing more anathema to the coalition parties of this country than those two concepts. As soon as they'd read the words, the coalition ran a mile and said they wouldn't support the bill.</para>
<para>If we look back at the various statements made by members of the coalition, we can see where they stand on wages and the annual wage review. Those opposite have a track record of saying no to anything that will push up workers' wages. As I say, the former finance minister and former leader of the government of the day in the Senate, Mathias Cormann, described low wage growth as 'a deliberate design feature of our economic architecture'. When the now Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, declared his support for an increase to the minimum wage, Mr Morrison, the then Prime Minister, labelled Mr Albanese 'reckless and dangerous'. I think it's all been recorded that that was a pretty decisive moment in the election campaign, when Australians saw what the coalition were about and they saw that there was only one party that was serious about delivering the wage rises that Australian workers deserve.</para>
<para>In Mr Angus Taylor's statements in September last year on multi-employer bargaining, he opposed it because:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It pushes up wages and pushes up prices … This is a bad place to go … what we saw coming out of that job summit was fuel on the inflationary fire.</para></quote>
<para>Of course it's not true to say there has to be a connection between increasing wages and inflation. In fact, I see that the most recent figures show that inflation is beginning to make to come down a little bit, which is a good thing. But yet again we see opposition from the coalition to the concept of wage rises. Of course, their leader, Mr Dutton, said in response to the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill that he was 'deeply concerned' that this bill was 'going to result in higher wages'. That was their objection to the Secure Jobs, Better Pay bill—that it might, after 10 years of workers being denied real wage growth, do something about wage growth.</para>
<para>We make no apologies, as a Labor government, for standing up for the interests of workers and standing up for their need to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That's why our government is acting to get wages moving and close the gender pay gap. In the first six months the Albanese government delivered the strongest jobs growth for any new Australian government on record. Gender equality and women's economic security is at the heart of the government's agenda. We amended the Fair Work Act to put gender equality at the centre of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making. We have asked the Fair Work Commission to ensure that it considers the impact of its annual wage decision on these objectives.</para>
<para>Unlike the opposition, who had a decade to get wages moving while in government, the Labor government under Prime Minister Albanese has not wasted a day in standing up for workers. In our first week in government, we made a submission to the Annual Wage Review to argue that low-paid workers should not go backwards. We've used existing structures to back workers and their wages—structures that were already in place under the former government but were never used by them to this effect. We made a submission to the Annual Wage Review, which, of course, delivered a 5.2 per cent pay rise for the low-paid last year. This year we will again argue that low-paid workers should not go backwards. Our government's values have not changed. We will always stand up for the needs of working people in this country. As I've already said, with the aged-care case, we made a submission arguing that aged-care workers are undervalued on gender grounds. As a result of that and the decisions that followed, on 1 July 250,000 aged-care workers will get a pay rise of 15 per cent, meaning $3.40 more per hour for the lowest-paid direct care workers. These are good things for workers and these are good things for the economy, because people who have more money in their pocket can actually spend more and pay the bills that they face every day and every week.</para>
<para>We've changed the law in a range of other ways to back workers and their wages: stronger gender pay equity laws, better access to flexible working arrangements, gender equality and job security as objects of the Fair Work Act, and improving our bargaining system for workers and employers. These laws are already working. The most recent Fair Work Commission data shows that there were 476 workplace agreements lodged in December 2022, 50 per cent more than in July 2022. There are employers who are now back at the bargaining table who haven't bargained in years. That's delivering certainty for employers and better pay for workers.</para>
<para>We're now moving on to changing the law to close a range of loopholes that were left by the former government. We're now consulting on our election commitment to deliver same job same pay, particularly for labour hire workers; to address the situation faced by employee-like workers; and to deliver fair minimum standards for gig economy workers. We're also tackling wage theft. We are acting to close loopholes, we're boosting wages, we're closing the gender pay gap and we're easing cost-of-living pressures, and to each one of these things the opposition just says no.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before I call anyone: Senator Shoebridge, I have reflected and I apologise. I did read the question, but I forgot to call the vote. My sincere apologies, and I won't blame late sitting nights. I slipped up. Sorry, Senator Shoebridge.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Acting Deputy President, what I was truly offended by were your comments directed to me while I was seeking the advice of the Deputy Clerk, and I'd ask you to categorically apologise for those comments.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've got a categorical apology from me, yes, and I mean that. I apologise. Is there anything I should add, Senator Shoebridge?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I can indicate I never had that level of discourtesy before from a chair in my time in the Legislative Council, and I hope to never see it again from you as a deputy chair in this chamber. I felt unsafe in the workplace, and I felt it coming from the chair. I would ask you to reflect seriously on your conduct because it was totally out of order. But I otherwise accept what I understand to be your apology.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>e68</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have reflected, Senator Shoebridge. Thank you for that.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHELDON</name>
    <name.id>168275</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>Isn't it amazing to see that we've got a situation where we've got those opposite raising the issue of the minimum wage because these are the same people that had a design feature of keeping wages down in this country. They went to the extent of having the case where workers were seeking a $1 an hour wage increase in the minimum wage, and they opposed it. When it came to job security and pay and the arrangements to turn around to make sure we had wages moving in this country, they opposed it because they have always been about making sure they can keep wages as low as they possibly can. What we've seen, case after case, is how it's inherently part of their make-up. It is in their DNA right across the opposition. Even more recently, when I was in a cost-of-living committee hearing on 1 March, we heard from Senator Hume, the shadow finance minister when I asked questions of the major supermarkets, who have had soaring profits during this period of inflation. We've seen Woolworths post a 25 per cent rise in profits. Coles posted a net profit that grew by 11 per cent. And Senator Hume said that the issue of raising issues with those particular retailers and retailers like them was inappropriate, when you talk about the cost of living and wages in the context of those real retailers. Quite clearly, when you're looking at wages in this country, you need to be looking at all the effects that the previous government's legislation had on the cost of living.</para>
<para>That's why we've turned around and made so many important changes. As I said, we supported the $1 an hour increase in the minimum wage, an increase that supported both men and women in low-paid roles, but 55 per cent of those workers in low-paid roles are women. It was opposed by those opposite. You see it in the various issues that have been brought up in the cost-of-living inquiry, as touched on before. We saw those opposite say that their view is that the wages factor in the cost of living is irrelevant, that it is inappropriate to ask some of the most profit-taking corporations in this country about what's happening with their wages and the cost of living for their workforce and other workers across the economy. They said it was inappropriate because they don't think that people's wages have anything to do with the cost of living. It is all about profit-taking. In fact, did they ask questions about profit-taking? No, they asked about the price of eggs, the comparison between barn eggs and cage eggs and free-range eggs. They said this was an inappropriate way of pushing the cost of living. My goodness—I was in an inquiry about the cost of living, and we were talking about the difference between barn egg prices and cage egg prices and free-range egg prices, rather than talking about the issue that's actually at the heart of one of the biggest problems we have across this country, and that is the cost-of-living pressure on our family budgets.</para>
<para>I want to go what to the history of those opposite has been because, during the election campaign, the then Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was asked by the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, if all workers deserved to be paid the minimum wage. The Prime Minister refused to say yes. When asked a question about the pay rates and the minimum wage being paid to gig workers and food delivery workers—the workers who turned around and were some of the heroes of the pandemic, delivering to households that were in isolation and putting themselves at high risk—and some of the lowest-paid workers and underpaid workers in this country, he could not say that he supported the minimum wage being paid.</para>
<para>That's in their DNA. We've got the shadow minister for finance saying that the cost of living isn't a wage based issue either. We've got them opposing the $1-an-hour increase to the minimum wage. We've got them opposing legislation to get wages moving again through the secure jobs package. We've got the previous Prime Minister saying the minimum wage being paid to food delivery workers and gig workers is inappropriate. And, of course, as I talked about— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CASH</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to take note of the minister's statement. Isn't it interesting that, despite all the rhetoric we heard from the minister, on behalf of the minister for workplace relations, the bad news for Australians is: their wages are still going backwards. And despite all the political rhetoric we heard in relation to cost of living, Australians, when it comes to cost of living, are still struggling.</para>
<para>The Labor Party made a number of promises to the Australian people prior to the election. You'd actually think, based on the statement that was given by the minister—and even, I have to say, the taking-note that Senator Sheldon did in response—that everything was okay, that electricity prices weren't going up, that interest rates weren't going up, that inflation hadn't soared. In fact you'd almost believe that they were getting wages moving, as they promised the Australian people prior to the election. But, as we know, Labor are very good at spinning the narrative. Sometimes when you're spinning the narrative people forget to check behind what's really going on.</para>
<para>Let's have a look at what's really going on. We saw with the wage price index figures last month that the promises that Labor make—worse than that, the political rhetoric that has just been given in this chamber does not stack up not only to the promises that were made by the Albanese government prior to the election but also to the statement that's just been made in the Senate. This is the reality: Australians are seeing a real wage cut under the Albanese Labor government. Despite what they said before the election, that they would get wages moving, that they would make sure Australians were not going backwards—let's now talk about that in the cold light of day. Let's shine some sunlight on the reality that Australians are experiencing. Their wages are going backwards.</para>
<para>Here are the statistics. The level of wage growth in the economy is far below the level of inflation. Australians will tell you that. Guess what? Every time they walk into a supermarket they buy the exact same basket of goods as they did the previous week and the previous month, yet they know, when the person at the checkout says 'This is your bill', that their bill is getting higher. They also know that when they've received their energy bill, despite the promise prior to the election that their energy bill would be reduced by $275—forget about $275; their energy bills are now far in excess of what they used to be.</para>
<para>The level of wage growth in our economy, despite all the rhetoric, despite all the promises by those in the Albanese government, is now far below the level of inflation. Guess what? That's because of the policy decisions the Albanese government are making. They want everybody to see the headline: 'We will promise to get wages moving', 'We'll make sure Australians don't go backwards'. Yet what did the December quarter figures show?</para>
<para>They show the wage price index was 3.3 per cent and the CPI was 7.8 per cent. That is not getting wages moving. That is not ensuring that Australians don't go backwards.</para>
<para>Let's look at the reality versus the rhetoric. The December figures showed the largest real wage decline in a 12-month period on record. Despite the rhetoric and what you heard from those on the other side, under the previous coalition government we saw real wage increases. Why? Because of the decisions that we made. We backed in employers to prosper, to grow and to create more jobs for Australians. In doing that they could provide wage rises to Australians. Despite the rhetoric, Labor are failing. Based on their decisions, they'll continue to fail.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to contribute to this debate as well. I deeply respect Senator Sheldon and everything he has done in the industrial relations space, but the reality does not reflect Senator Sheldon's rhetoric with respect to real wage growth. I refer to an article written by Shane Wright, an outstanding economics journalist, in the <inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline>on 22 February 2023 entitled 'Australians hit by largest fall in real wages on record'. That is what it says—'Australians hit by largest fall in real wages on record'.</para>
<para>Someone who I suspect cares very deeply about this issue and whose words should be carefully reflected on is quoted in that article. The article quotes this person on the reality of real wage growth under a Labor Albanese government. Bear in mind that this was on 22 March 2023, some nine months after the federal election. So nine months after there was a change in government, this person with an intense interest in real wages said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"This is the greatest drop in workers' real pay in recorded history …</para></quote>
<para>Who was this person? Sally McManus, the ACTU Secretary. That's what she said nine months after a Labor government came in with promises of real wage growth. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"This is the greatest drop in workers' real pay in recorded history …</para></quote>
<para>How's that? How's that for not meeting a promise? She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"This is the greatest drop in workers' real pay in recorded history …</para></quote>
<para>Callam Pickering is also quoted in the same article. He's not a politician. He is the Asia-Pacific economist with the job website Indeed. Mr Callam Pickering, who is not a politician—no rhetoric here, just facts—is quoted as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"Adjusted for inflation, Australian wages have fallen by 4.2 per cent over the past year and by 6.8 per cent since their peak."</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"More than a decade—</para></quote>
<para>and that would be the decade under the coalition government—</para>
<quote><para class="block">of hard-won wage gains—our blood, sweat and tears—lost over the course of just one year.</para></quote>
<para>And nine of those 12 months of that one year were under the Labor Albanese government, which promised real wage growth. Those opposite can come in with rhetoric, but the Australian workers understand what the real position is with respect to real wages. Again I'll quote Sally McManus, Secretary of the ACTU. She said in March 2023:</para>
<quote><para class="block">"This is the greatest drop in workers' real pay in recorded history …</para></quote>
<para>That was the Secretary of the ACTU nine months after the Albanese Labor government was elected. I can't put it in any better words.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What we know about Labor is that when they enter the room the truth leaves the room at the same time, and that's no more so when it comes to election promises and no more so when it comes to telling the truth to the Australian people about not only the cost of living but also when it comes to your wages. What we've seen with the Labor government since the election has been a consistent streak of breaking promises.</para>
<para>The greatest bing-bong, the greatest blunder, of this Labor government was their promise prior to the election that they would cut your power bills by $275. How many times do you think they made that promise before the last election?</para>
<para>An opposition senator: Tell us!</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ten times!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to take some bids here, ladies and gentlemen. I've a 10 from Senator Cash. Do I have any higher bids? Any higher bids?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Scarr</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thirty-five!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thirty-five! Thirty-five from Senator Scarr. Anyone higher? I'm taking bids.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Senator Cox, I can't hear you! Interjections are always disorderly, but I did hear someone say—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Askew</name>
    <name.id>281558</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ninety-seven times!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ninety-seven times! Sold. Sold. Sold. Senator Askew wins by guessing correctly that the Labor government promised 97 times before the last election that they would cut your power bills.</para>
<para>What is interesting about this chamber is it's often not what is said in the chamber, as interesting as that can be sometimes. What is more interesting is what is not said in this chamber. There are three numbers, and when you put them together, they become one large number. There are three numbers that have not been said in this chamber since the election by a member of the Labor Party. It's like they've taken a secret blood oath, or maybe a spit oath—I don't know what type of oath they take in the Labor Party—where they've all agreed in their caucus meeting, where they've all held hands and done a little dance, and said, 'We will not say these three figures in the chamber.'</para>
<para>For the decorum of this chamber, I will not run an auction on what people might think those figures are, but I am going to say those figures. You will not hear a member of the Labor Party say the number 2, you will not hear a member of the Labor Party say the number 7, you will not hear a member of the Labor Party say the number 5 and I will bet a year's worth of eggs from my chooks on my farm that they will never, ever say 275 together.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Sena</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're all roosters!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're not all roosters! There are no roosters on my farm. Roosters cause you trouble, by the way—they get 'em pregnant and ruin the eggs. The issue here is that the Labor senators will not say 275. Do you know why?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator Cash</name>
    <name.id>I0M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Because they broke a promise.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McGRATH</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Senator Cash—'they broke a promise.' This is where I lower my voice, which I know people like, and I get very serious—it's like telling a bedtime story—and the reason why is because the Labor Party are embarrassed. They are embarrassed because they know that they misled the Australian people at the last election. The Labor Party misled them about so many issues, but the clunker, the massive one, is to do with the cost of living and the cost of your power bills. When they come in here and they've been asked questions by I think nearly everybody on the front bench, the middle bench and the backbench—all the benches on this side of the chamber; we've all asked questions to the Labor ministers—about the 275 figure, none of them say anything.</para>
<para>It's really fascinating actually. It's an exercise in human nature, that when we ask a question about the power bills the relevant minister gets up and starts fumbling away, like Inspector Clouseau on steroids, and what you see is that the Labor backbenchers immediately pick up their phones and become really interested in watching cat videos and things like that. It is fascinating. All the heads go down, like this, like they're doing a giant prayer towards all of us, which is brilliant, like we're minor deities. But we are compared to these people when it comes to keeping our election promises. We keep our election promises because we're on the side of the Australian people, whereas the Labor Party are only on the side of themselves. The Labor Party are only on the side of themselves, making sure that they scutter around the blue carpet like Dyson vacuum cleaners being very excited around this building, but where are they when it comes your wages? Where are they when it comes to standing up on your side?</para>
<para>They're not. They have forgotten about Australian families and Australian workers and shame on them. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>89</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>89</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Delegated Legislation Monitor</title>
            <page.no>89</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present <inline font-style="italic">Delegated </inline><inline font-style="italic">legislation monitor</inline> No. 4 of 2023, together with the ministerial correspondence relating to the report.</para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Bills Committee</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Scrutiny Digest</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present <inline font-style="italic">Scrutiny digest</inline> No. 4 of 2023 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and 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></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUDGET</title>
        <page.no>90</page.no>
        <type>BUDGET</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration by Estimates Committees</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present additional information received relating to estimates:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Community Affairs Legislation Committee—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Budget estimates 2022-23—Additional information received between 24 May 2022 and 15 March 2023—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Health portfolio.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Social Services portfolio.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Budget estimates 2022-23 (November)—Hansard record of proceedings, documents presented to the committee and additional information.</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>90</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator C</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>ICCONE (—) (): I present Human rights scrutiny report No. 4 of 2023 for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and 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 later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economics Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Additional Information</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Walsh, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<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>Northern Australia Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>90</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>90</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CICCONE (—) (): I present the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's <inline font-style="italic">First </inline><inline font-style="italic">report on the </inline><inline font-style="italic">cyclone reinsurance pool</inline>, together with accompanying documents.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to take note of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia's <inline font-style="italic">First report on the cyclone reinsurance pool</inline>. This is a terrifically important body of work that the committee has undertaken, inquiring into the ongoing work of the cyclone reinsurance pool.</para>
<para>It's important in the first instance that there be a Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, and it was devastating to see that one of the first acts of this incoming government was to abolish the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia—a committee that has done a huge power of work on inquiries into the under- and non-insurance in Northern Australia and the activities in Juukan Gorge, amongst other planning and bodies of work for Northern Australia. I was very pleased to lead the charge to have that joint select committee re-established. That committee is made up of the chair, Marion Scrymgour, from Lingiari in the Northern Territory; and the deputy chair, Warren Entsch, from Leichhardt—both terrific northern Australians. We also have a range of other great committee members including you, Senator Allman-Payne.</para>
<para>This inquiry is important. I want to acknowledge the important work that Warren Entsch from the seat of Leichhardt, Phil Thompson from Herbert and Andrew Willcox from Dawson have done in continuing to advocate for the need for there to be an intervention in the market. We know that in northern Australia either people were not able to acquire insurance or, if they were, they were underinsuring their properties in order to afford the premiums.</para>
<para>We know that this is true because the ACCC did a full inquiry into the insurance impacts. The final report of the ACCC was tabled on 28 December 2020, and that identified the serious impacts that this underinsurance and lack of availability of insurance was having not just on businesses—of course, if you don't have insurance, you can't get finance; businesses were incredibly adversely affected—but also on families and individuals right across northern Australia. The one that continues to break my heart is people who had retired and bought a unit on the Strand in Townsville or the lagoon in Cairns—somewhere where they intended to see out the rest of their retirement years. What has happened is that the escalating cost of insurance and the state government's inflexible position on how they have to meet premium payments—how the body corporate has to find insurance—was driving these people out of their homes. It has driven people away from homeownership in North Queensland. It is a very serious issue.</para>
<para>What was important about this inquiry is that this was the first examination of what had happened since the intervention of the coalition government in the $10 billion cyclone reinsurance pool. This was a terrific policy announcement, but it is incredibly important that we continue to hold the insurers to account to so that the work of the government—the reinsurance pool—and the interaction with the insurers mean that northern Australia is getting the outcome the government intended with the introduction of that pool.</para>
<para>We did hear a range of different pieces of evidence around the problems there still are for marine insurance and the challenges of getting flood insurance, as well as the challenges for people like the Townsville racing club. It has a capital rate that is higher than the $5 million that is set by the reinsurance pool. These are all things we heard about.</para>
<para>At this point, only two insurers have signed up to the reinsurance pool. This is in line with the expectation that there would be another six insurers signing up over the next six months and then an additional four by the end of this year, which should bring the majority of insurers into the reinsurance pool by the end of this calendar year, 2023. That will allow us—the committee, that is—to hold another hearing sometime in the early part of next year to continue assessing these impacts on insurance premiums and access to insurance.</para>
<para>It was always the intention that what this policy intervention would do would be to provide parity of access to insurance through cost and offerings that should be expected right across Australia. That's the outcome that we're searching for. I have to tell you that, having seen a number of councils from South-West Queensland just this week, we know that the challenge of insurance is now creeping right across Australia. There are regions that are not being offered flood insurance despite having a significant levee bank in towns like Charleville and Goondiwindi. So I can see that there is going to be a requirement for further inquiries into what is happening, what products are being offered to insurance companies and how we're going to address that going forward.</para>
<para>I commend the work in this report. I want to thank the chair, Marion Scrymgour, and the deputy chair, Warren Entsch, and the remainder of the members, as I have already mentioned: Senator Allman-Payne; Senator Dean Smith; of course, Mr Luke Gosling, also from the Northern Territory; Shayne Neumann, from Blair in Queensland; Andrew Willcox, the member for Dawson; Senator Patrick Dodson, from Western Australia; and Senator Nita Green, from Queensland. It has been a very collegiate committee on this very important topic, and I want to thank all of the members of the committee for the work they have done and the interest they continue to show, and I look forward to ongoing work in this regard. Thank you. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>91</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Delegated Legislation Monitor</title>
            <page.no>91</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WHITE</name>
    <name.id>IWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In respect of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's <inline font-style="italic">Delegated Legislation Monitor: m</inline><inline font-style="italic">onitor </inline><inline font-style="italic">4 of 2023</inline>, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>I would firstly like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's comments on three instruments in the Treasury portfolio which create exemptions to primary legislation. The committee's longstanding view is that modifications to, or exemptions from, primary legislation should be set out in the primary legislation itself. However, when these measures are in delegated legislation, they should be time limited in order to facilitate regular parliamentary scrutiny and so that they do not operate as a de facto amendment to primary legislation. This is a significant and ongoing scrutiny concern for the committee more broadly, and accordingly it continues to closely engage with the Assistant Treasurer in relation to this issue.</para>
<para>The first two of these instruments are the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2022 and Treasury Laws Amendment (Rationalising ASIC Instruments) Regulations 2022, which I mentioned in my tabling statement on 8 March 2023. Both instruments introduce exemptions to primary legislation which appear to be ongoing, as they are inserted into regulations that are exempt from sunsetting. Further, the rationalising ASIC regulations have the effect of moving exemptions that were previously time limited, or at least subject to sunsetting, into principal regulations which have no such time limits.</para>
<para>For this reason, the committee sought the Assistant Treasurer's advice about the appropriateness of including such exemptions in delegated legislation that is exempt from sunsetting, and whether they could instead be included in primary legislation. The Assistant Treasurer's advice in response was that placing the exemptions in delegated legislation is necessary for reasons of certainty, to create consistency with similar exemptions which would assist with clarity and navigability. He also indicated that the rationalising ASIC regulations are part of the Treasury's law improvement program which will incorporate matters in ASIC-made legislative instruments into the Corporations Regulations and primary law. Unfortunately, these responses did not address the committee's scrutiny concerns, and the committee continues its engagement, including to seek further advice about the location of the exemptions, the appropriateness of time limiting some exemptions to the Corporations Act but not others, and further details about the law improvement program.</para>
<para>Finally, in this delegated legislation monitor, the committee has commented on the Corporations Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations—Income Management Regimes) Regulations 2023. This instrument similarly inserts ongoing exemptions to certain obligations in the Corporations Act for issuers of income management accounts. The committee notes that the explanatory statement indicates that the exemptions it introduces are consistent with those in the ASIC Corporations (Design and Distribution Obligations Interim Measures) Instrument 2021/784. However, while the ASIC instrument appears to be both subject to sunsetting and to self-repeal in October 2023, it was unclear to the committee why this instrument does not appear to be similarly time limited. Accordingly, the committee is seeking the Assistant Treasurer's advice as to the appropriateness of including the exemptions in delegated legislation that is exempt from sunsetting, and the inconsistency with the ASIC instrument.</para>
<para>The committee will continue its engagement with the Assistant Treasurer on this issue and carefully scrutinise delegated legislation which contains ongoing measures that modify or create exemptions to primary legislation. Parliamentary oversight and the duration of such instruments are key considerations for the committee under the Senate standing orders.</para>
<para>I would next like to draw the chamber's attention to the three instruments of which the committee has concluded its examination. This includes the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Amendment (Code of Conduct and Banning Orders) Rules 2022. While this instrument grants a broad discretionary power to the aged care commissioner, in response to the committee's request, the minister for aged care undertook to make further legislative amendments to reflect the limitations provided under the relevant act and rules, and to prepare an explanatory statement to reflect these limits. I thank the minister for her helpful engagement on this issue.</para>
<para>I am also pleased to report that the committee has concluded its examination of the Data Availability and Transparency Code 2022, following constructive engagement with the Minister for Finance and the data commissioner. In response to the committee's requests, the minister provided advice about the meaning of a number of discretionary terms in the code and undertook to include this information in the explanatory statement. With the inclusion of this information in the explanatory statement, the committee has resolved to conclude its examination of this instrument.</para>
<para>Finally, I would like to mention the Telecommunications Amendment (Disclosure of Information for the Purpose of Cyber Security) Regulations 2022. The committee initially raised concerns about this instrument because it had the effect of enabling the minister to expand by a notifiable instrument the type of personal information which could be disclosed to financial services entities and government agencies. The committee's view is that classifying instruments as notifiable, rather than legislative instruments, significantly limits parliament's scrutiny function, as these instruments are not subject to processes including tabling, disallowance and sunsetting. These concerns are heightened where the subject matter is significant, such as where it relates to privacy.</para>
<para>However, the committee resolved to conclude its examination of this instrument in light of advice provided by the minister for communications that the measures will self-repeal in October 2023. Further, in acknowledgement of the potential limits notifiable instruments have on parliamentary scrutiny, the minister indicated that if similar measures were introduced in future they would be included in primary legislation, where possible, and with regard to the Attorney-General's <inline font-style="italic">Privacy Act review</inline>. I thank the minister for her constructive engagement on these issues and welcome her undertakings.</para>
<para>With these comments, I commend the committee's <inline font-style="italic">D</inline><inline font-style="italic">elegated legislation monitor</inline> No. 4 of 2023 to the Senate.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economics Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Additional Information</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to present additional information received by the Economics Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I take note of the document, I'd like to compliment Senator White in relation to her chairing of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee. As a member of that committee, I think Senator White is doing a very commendable job of leading the committee in a non-partisan manner and I compliment her on it, as I compliment my friend Senator Dean Smith with respect to the chairing of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<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>Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>93</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>93</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CICCONE</name>
    <name.id>281503</name.id>
    <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the 494th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, together with executive minutes relating to several reports of the committee.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator REYNOLDS</name>
    <name.id>250216</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the report.</para></quote>
<para>I rise to take note of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's <inline font-style="italic">Report 494: </inline><inline font-style="italic">inquiry </inline><inline font-style="italic">into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's crisis management arrangements</inline>, which has just been tabled. In this inquiry, the committee reviewed the Auditor-General's report on the effectiveness of DFAT's crisis management arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic. This framework was implemented to facilitate the return of overseas Australians who were stranded due to travel restrictions and border closures.</para>
<para>At the outset, I would like to note that we in the committee warmly commend officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their dedicated work in assisting Australians stranded offshore during the pandemic and for the help they continue to provide to any Australians across the globe who require it. As a member of cabinet at the time, and having been involved in the response, I also acknowledge my cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister for their leadership in the response. The committee itself supported the areas for improvement identified by the Auditor-General and noted that DFAT objected to two recommendations.</para>
<para>Can I also note what we said in the 'Coalition member's additional comments'. It was important for us as a committee to remember that this was a once-in-a-generation pandemic. The circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic were extraordinary and the response was unprecedented, but there are certainly lessons to be learnt from a response of that magnitude. We said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Morrison Government declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 27 February 2020, before the World Health Organization declared it on 11 March 2020. The early acknowledgement and action in closing international borders meant the Government could put health and economic measures in place to protect lives and livelihoods.</para></quote>
<para>Remember that, at that time, there was no sight of any vaccine for this new virus.</para>
<quote><para class="block">During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's established crisis framework enabled it to successfully assist 61,755 Australians to return and facilitate 227 flights.</para></quote>
<para>Again, that is unprecedented in its scale, scope, time frame and challenges given that the global airline industry had, pretty much, shut down.</para>
<quote><para class="block">The response to the pandemic was tough but it allowed Australia to be one of the few countries to come out of the pandemic stronger, with over 95% of Australians vaccinated …</para></quote>
<para>This also saved at least 43,000 Australian lives. As of February 2023, more than 64 million vaccine doses had been administered here in Australia—that's despite misinformation and the undermining efforts of some in the community. Our comments continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the Department of Health's <inline font-style="italic">Is It True?</inline> portal opened on 14 March and provided information on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine rollout in more than 63 languages for multicultural communities.</para></quote>
<para>And that's across Australia.</para>
<quote><para class="block">In Australia from 3 January 2020 to 21 March 2023, there have been 11,380,700 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with 19,447 deaths reported to the World Health Organization – meaning Australia has only contributed to 0.28% of the world's—</para></quote>
<para>fatalities due to COVID-19 and 1.5 per cent of reported cases.</para>
<para>Other large comparable economies, such as the United States, China and India, that did not implement the measures that Australia did had significantly higher cases and also, sadly, deaths. The United States, for example, had confirmed more than 102 million cases, which was 13.5 per cent of global cases, and more than one million Americans died of COVID-19, which was over 16 per cent of global deaths. So the Americans have achieved 69 per cent of the population fully vaccinated, whereas here in Australia we had over 90 per cent—in fact, 96 per cent.</para>
<para>So there is no doubt that the JobKeeper payment government financial supports that the Morrison government implemented played a key role in supporting the nation's economy throughout the pandemic and also ensured that businesses could keep employees connected to them during those terrible times.</para>
<para>The Reserve Bank estimated that this payment alone, the JobKeeper payment, reduced total job losses by 700,000 between April and July 2020. Treasury estimates that the unemployment rate would have been at least five per cent higher than it turned out to be because of JobKeeper. The Morrison government's $314 billion in direct economic support included payments to individuals and support to businesses, also contributed to Australia keeping its AAA credit rating—one of only nine countries in the world to achieve this. They were extraordinary times. As the committee reported, DFAT certainly did a sterling job in dealing with Australians who were stranded overseas and repatriating them to Australia.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I thank all of the contributors to this inquiry, particularly the DFAT officers who appeared at the public hearing and also facilitated a site inspection of the department's crisis management facilities. I also thank all fellow members of the JCPAA who participated in this inquiry. They continue in the bipartisan tradition of this committee. Finally, I give a huge thanks to the amazing committee secretariat for their support and their professionalism throughout this inquiry. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum Joint Select Committee, Cost of Living Select Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee</title>
          <page.no>94</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>94</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice Referendum — Joint Select Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed [contingent on the appointment of the committee]—Senators Cox, Green, Stewart and White</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Cost of Living — Select Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Sheldon</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Stewart</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Sheldon</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Environment and Communications Legislation Committee</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Discharged—Senator Bilyk</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Senator Sheldon</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Bilyk</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee —</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Appointed—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Substitute member: Senator Faruqi to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Nazi Symbols) Bill 2023</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Participating member: Senator Shoebridge</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>95</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>95</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Randwick Barracks Redevelopment</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SHOEBRIDGE</name>
    <name.id>169119</name.id>
    <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I table a non-conforming petition seeking to stop the plans for the redevelopment of the Randwick Barracks site, with a total of 660 signatures.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>95</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Joint Statutory Committee on Law Enforcement report <inline font-style="italic">Examination of the Australian Federal Police annual repor</inline><inline font-style="italic">t 2020-21 and 2021-22</inline>. In 2020 the AFP announced the establishment of a First Nations unit. The purpose of this unit was to promote full and unhindered Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in the AFP's workforce and inform the provision of culturally aware policing services in the Australian community. The AFP's 2020-21 annual report states that this unit will have three initial priorities: embedding cultural awareness, strengthening cultural competence and supporting the AFP's First Nations members. The 2021-22 report states that the AFP will continue to work closely, enhancing partnerships and supporting the front line, which includes the establishment of the AFP's First Nations Advisory Board. This board would have responsibility for 'informing the strategic agenda and specific inclusion initiatives relating to First Nations matters for the AFP'.</para>
<para>As a former police officer and a First Nations woman, I'm glad to see the AFP is taking some action. However, I know firsthand that we, in fact, have a long way to go, not only in the police's dealings with First Nations people but also in the inclusion of First Nations people in police forces around this country. First Nations people have historically been disproportionately targeted by police. We are arrested more, we are more likely to be sentenced, we have longer sentences and, once we're in custody, as we discussed earlier this week, we're more likely to die. This is shameful. There are many stories about the injustices that First Nations people face within our so-called justice system.</para>
<para>The Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency has eight antiracism and cultural diversity principles that are aimed at ensuring that both countries fulfil their obligations under the international treaties, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and anti-discrimination legislation. I would like to highlight some of those to you. The first is to understand and respond to the historical context and ongoing lived experiences of First Nations people. The third is to actively take steps to ensure people from diverse backgrounds are recruited, promoted and retained within police forces. The seventh is to provide police with the awareness, skills and knowledge to enable them to identify and address how their own biases are both learned and unconscious and impact on their decision-making and on their behaviour. All eight of these principles are vitally important for having a diverse police force that understands and respects cultural differences, particularly those of First Nations people. I urge the AFP and all of the state and territory police forces in this country to fully adopt all these principles.</para>
<para>However, time and time again we read about First Nations people being shot, tackled, thrown to the ground and otherwise subjected to very, very brutal treatment. In fact, I had a phone call made to my electoral office last night about this type of behaviour. In my home state of Western Australia, just last year, the WA Police released police dogs onto a 13-year-old boy, which left him hospitalised and needing surgery. The use of police dogs has been covered in a CCC report in Western Australia by the chief, John McKechnie. He said, 'The present policies are not racist in intent but are racist,' by the way that they are carried out. Police dogs are disproportionately used against First Nations people. Some of those people in Western Australia are as young as nine years old. This is not a training issue for the dogs—a myth that some people have alluded to. This is about police officers and handlers having control of those dogs.</para>
<para>I urge both the AFP and other law enforcement agencies in this country to urgently make sure that they are enforcing and implementing those ANZPAA principles to address some of the systemic issues that are happening across police forces in Australia. We clearly have an exceptionally long way to go before First Nations people feel safe and have their own wellbeing looked after in this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.</para>
<para>Leave granted; debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Consideration</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>97</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Goods and Services Tax, Department of Finance: Discretionary Payments, Department of Finance, Department of the Treasury, Department of Social Services</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Order for the Production of Documents</title>
            <page.no>97</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the goods and services tax, discretionary payments to the Australian Labor Party, costs relating to parliamentary sittings, superannuation balances, and alcohol and drug related incidents in Ceduna.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>97</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Resources Sector</title>
          <page.no>97</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Minister for Resources, Ms Madeline King, I table a ministerial statement on resources.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator McDONALD</name>
    <name.id>123072</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate take note of the document.</para></quote>
<para>Australia may have ridden on the sheep's back, but it was the pursuit of minerals that accelerated our development as a modern nation, and it is the strength of our resources sector that continues to underpin our economic growth in the 21st century. The resources sector employs over 1.1 million Australians. This sector paid over $37.2 billion in wages and salaries last year—straight to Australian households. It is set to deliver $459 billion in export earnings over 2022-23, strengthening our budget and delivering funding for roads, schools and hospitals right across the country.</para>
<para>This sector made up 14.5 per cent of our gross domestic product, paid over 40 per cent of the $68.6 billion in company tax and paid $16.7 billion in royalties to the states and territories in Australia in 2020-21. This sector underpinned our COVID-19 recovery, and the government acknowledges this sector is propping up the budget bottom line. This sector, which was strongly supported by the coalition, has greatly benefited all Australians and it has the potential to remain an exciting and prosperous industry for Australia.</para>
<para>Australia is blessed with bountiful resource deposits—from coal, iron ore, gas and oil to vast pockets of critical minerals and rare earths, many of which are found in our everyday lives. Critical minerals are found in our phones, cars and banknotes. They play a crucial role in defence technology. They are even found in fertilisers that help feed the nation. Coal, gas and other traditional energy commodities are vital in manufacturing and continue to underpin our electricity grid, providing secure, reliable and affordable energy for households and businesses across the country.</para>
<para>On a human level, the resources sector invests heavily in regional Australia. It is one of the highest-paying sectors in Australia. In fact, mining jobs are among the highest-paid jobs in Australia. Many of these jobs are found across regional Australia, providing a lifeline to these communities.</para>
<para>Australia's high-quality coal and gas also play an important role not only domestically but in other countries around the world. Australia's coal is of one of the highest qualities in the world. We produce it more efficiently than most, meaning more energy and fewer emissions. As China and India increase their demand for coal, for both steel creation and energy generation, and as Japan and Korea demand more gas to fuel their transition it is in everyone's interest that our high-quality resources are the first choice for our partners around the world. Were we to shut down our coal and gas production or refuse to step up to meet demand around the world, those countries that need our resources would have no choice but to turn to lower-quality, higher-emitting resources from other countries. Moral grandstanding about Australia's coal and gas resources may make some in this parliament feel better—like the Australian Greens, like the teal greens and the Independent greens—but shutting down our industries will have the opposite effect that they hope for. If Australia withdraws from exporting our high-quality coal and gas, global emissions will rise.</para>
<para>Nearly everything that allows us to enjoy a First World lifestyle would not exist without mining—from high-tech manufacturing to the food on our plates and from energy generation to the steel frames that hold up our homes. Yet those who attack our resources sector cannot tell us where they would source those vital inputs that support our way of life. Gas plays a pivotal role in the production of fertilisers, like ammonia or urea, which in turn sustain the food security of billions of people around the world. Coal is vital in many non-energy industries, including steel and cement production, as well as coal-to-chemical processes, rare-earth extraction and carbon fibre production, to name just a few. Some 780 kilograms of metallurgical coal is required to make a single tonne of steel and over 200 kilograms is needed to produce a tonne of cement.</para>
<para>Whilst many in this chamber tout the end of coal, it would appear that they have forgotten that wind turbines require hundreds of tonnes of steel in the production of every turbine, as well as cement for the base. Additionally, thousands of different products have coal or coal by-products as components, such as soap, aspirin, solvents, dyes, plastics and fibres, including rayon and nylon. This just shows how disconnected from reality some in this parliament truly are.</para>
<para>The coalition has a strong record on delivering for the resources sector. On gas, our strategic basins plan program was bringing on new supply by unlocking new gas potential and accelerating development in key gas basins. The Beetaloo sub-basin is one of the largest undeveloped onshore gas resources in the world and could supply Australia's electricity markets for the next 200 years. It begs the question of why the government made concessions to the Greens to hamper the development of the Beetaloo when the Northern Territory Labor government explicitly supports its development. Who is being told what and what promises were made? Bringing on more gas supply and investing in pipelines, storage and infrastructure has remained a key issue the ACCC has raised to secure our future domestic demand. But the latest report by the Energy Market Operator, AEMO, confirms fears that we are being driven headlong into a gas and energy prices.</para>
<para>Despite the strength of the resources sector, poor legislation coupled with interventionist policies are creating an uncertain investment environment. In a world where capital can be fluid and investment decisions are global, a stable and attractive regulatory environment is vital to keeping a future pipeline of development. Direct market intervention is driving Australia's resource investment landscape towards a dangerous setting whereby companies and international investors are faced with increasingly difficult decisions regarding their future investments in Australia. Despite Australia's stringent environmental approvals processes and regulatory checks and balances, the funding of the Environmental Defenders Office, the creation of a Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency and unachievable consultation requirements and review processes are causing more harm to our investment environment. With newly legislated emissions targets, the risk of environmental activists and bad-faith actors purposely tying up projects in the courts on vexatious grounds until they fall over will increase, as we have seen in other jurisdictions around the world.</para>
<para>At a time when the pain of skill shortages has been felt across all industries, irresponsible industrial relations legislation puts the benefits that Australian workers reap from the sector at risk, despite the high wages and good working conditions they receive in the resources sector. And with worsening economic forecasts, the risk of tax grabs to plug holes in budgets is ever present. In Queensland the state government made a sudden tax grab last year by introducing a top royalty rate for coal of 40 per cent, making it the highest-taxing mining jurisdiction in the world. In one fell swoop the Queensland government put doubt in the minds of investors, including some of our closest international allies. Australia should not make the mistake of assuming that, because this sector has always been there to support us, they will continue to be there, no matter the burdens that are heaped upon them. This industry—this industry—matters to every single person in Australia. The government plays a key role in sending signals to business, society, schools and the media, both positive and negative, about the importance of mining to all of our lives, so it is disappointing to see the very week we stand here talking about the importance of the mining sector, a new carbon tax that will hurt the sector is being ran through the Senate with the help of the Greens. What signal does that send? The coalition will always back the resources sector—the jobs they create, the wealth they generate, the building blocks for a modern society that they provide, the communities they strengthen, the environmental work that they support. The coalition understands mining is part of the national fabric and it is crucial to Australia's future, both now and into the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator COX</name>
    <name.id>296215</name.id>
    <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to take note of the ministerial statement by the Minister for Resources. The minister opened this statement by saying there are very few bigger global challenges than addressing climate change, and that we will not meet our commitment of net zero without the resources sector. Whilst this is partly true, there's a very significant proportion of the resources sector that have contributed to climate change and continue to do so, and that's the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel is holding this government and this country back from achieving real change and real climate action that is in line with the science. I'd like to draw your attention again to the IPCC report that was released last week. I've already spoken about it this week, and there are some key findings that I think the government needs to be reminded of. This report made it very clear that there needs to be no more new coal or gas projects opened up and that we must stop giving public money to fossil fuel projects.</para>
<para>The report stated that removing fossil fuel subsidies would reduce emissions, improve public revenue and macroeconomic performance, and yield other environmental and sustainable development benefits. Now, doesn't that just sound great? Imagine what we could do with the billions of dollars that governments have chosen to give to corporations that are reporting those record profits, and in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, which we've heard about all week in this place. When people are having to choose between paying their rent and feeding themselves, governments in this country continue to give billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies.</para>
<para>This latest IPCC report was, frankly, a scary reminder of just how much we have to do in order to have any hope of keeping ourselves under 1.5 degrees of warming, which we are on track to fly right past. So, for the minister to stand in the place and say that we need the resources sector to fight climate change, without addressing the fossil fuel industry and the 116 fossil fuel projects in the pipeline, is misleading at its best. But there's some truth in the minister's statement, and we will need minerals like lithium, silicon and others to build batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. And I acknowledge the conversations I've had with Minister King about the government's new critical minerals strategy, mainly ensuring that traditional owners are not left out of this conversation. After all, every single resources project in this country is on the unceded lands, every tonne that is dug up and sold is stolen wealth, and every cent made from these projects is stolen. We have to remember that.</para>
<para>And we have to remember First Nations people being locked out of our economy for many years and in many different ways and across every sector. This includes having projects go ahead on their lands without their consent, with few royalties paid—just not enough. First Nations people need to be the owners of these critical minerals projects on their lands and be deeply embedded every step of the way—drawing up environmental plans, exploration and production through to rehabilitation. This is the only way we can be confident that our cultural heritage is being protected and we can avoid another disaster like Juukan Gorge.</para>
<para>We will continue to do mining in some circumstances, particularly in places like my home state of Western Australia. But the conversation now needs to be about how we can do this with as few environmental water, cultural and climate impacts as possible. We need stronger regulations and we need a climate trigger, and I am happy to share in the fruits that we've negotiated with the government this week. The balance between the need for these minerals and the impacts of mining them is a tricky one to get, but we simply can't continue making the same mistakes that we've made previously. That's led us to where we are now. We continue to work alongside the government, and I continue to work alongside the minister, to make sure that balance is not forgotten.</para>
<para>We are in a crucial decade of change for climate action. We have had so much delay from previous governments that we now need to sprint away from fossil fuels in this country and towards renewable energy. We need more-ambitious emissions reduction targets that are actually in line with the science. And we need a government that's not going to accept the dirty donations and be captured by fossil fuel industries in this country. Thank you.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the Senate takes note of the report.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>99</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Iran: Human Rights</title>
          <page.no>99</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator CHANDLER</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move general business notice of motion No. 211:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Senate—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) notes the joint statement from 23 groups representing the Iranian-Australian community, welcoming the report by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee into the 'Human rights implications of recent violence in Iran';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) further notes the support expressed in the joint statement for the committee's</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">recommendations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) also notes that the joint statement identifies four recommendations that the signatories believe require 'top priority' for implementation by the Government:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) categorising the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as an organisation involved in supporting and facilitating terrorism,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) minimising relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran to the greatest extent possible,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) increasing transparency and better informing the Australian public about the status of our diplomatic relations with the IRI regime and the security concerns in relation to the regime's behaviour, and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) the expulsion of any Iranian officials considered to be involved in intimidation, threats or monitoring of Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) urges the Australian Government to swiftly respond to the recommendations of the report and the requests from the Iranian-Australian community for further action.</para></quote>
<para>In moving this motion I bring to the Senate the views of a large number of Iranian-Australian community groups. Every senator here is aware of the appalling violence and human rights abuses that have been perpetrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran regime against its own citizens over the past six months. Women and girls who have been forced for decades to comply with oppressive laws dictating what they can wear and where they can go have been especially targeted by the regime with violence, indefinite detention, sexual assault and rape. It was very pleasing that, late last year, this Senate unanimously supported a referral to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for an inquiry on the human rights implications of the violence in Iran. The report that was tabled from that committee has been supported by a collective of 23 Iranian and Persian groups from around Australia on 24 February.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT</name>
    <name.id>217241</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The time has expired.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>100</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Days and Hours of Meeting</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator GALLAGHER</name>
    <name.id>ING</name.id>
    <electorate>Australian Capital Territory</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 9 May 2023, at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>100</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hogan, Ms Michelle Andrea</title>
          <page.no>100</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator WONG</name>
    <name.id>00AOU</name.id>
    <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to pay tribute to a force of the South Australian progressive labour and feminist movement, Michelle Hogan. Michelle died this month, and a loving family and community mourns her passing. She was a unionist, a feminist and a community organiser, a woman whose life's work was dedicated to advancing the cause of equality. She was a long-term supporter of the Anna Stewart Memorial Project, of APHEDA and of the May Day Collective. She served as a Port Adelaide Enfield councillor and was a member of the Port Adelaide National Trust. She was also the chair of the Working Women's Centre of South Australia, which provides advocacy and representation to vulnerable working women.</para>
<para>As a board member for 20 years, Michelle led the centre as chair for the last five years—including through the uncertainty and upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this distressing time for so many people in insecure work, she never faltered. She never faltered in ensuring the centre continued to support people who find themselves in precarious situations. She also steadfastly prioritised the safety and welfare of her dedicated staff, to whom she was a mentor, a confidante and a friend. Michelle's enduring contribution to the feminist and union movement cannot be overstated, and we will feel the benefits of her legacy for many decades to come.</para>
<para>On a personal note: when I was a young person engaging in politics and in the trade union movement for the very first time, I was privileged to be surrounded by a movement of incredible and courageous women—feminists and trade unionists who worked when I started working in Trades Hall for various unions, including the UTLC, the United Trades and Labor Council. Michelle was one of the women in this movement. As a young progressive Labor woman, these women made me feel as if I had found my place in the world—progressive women who, in their different ways, worked for a more just community and for a better world.</para>
<para>I extend my deepest condolences to Michelle's partner of 30 years, Rob, to her family, to her many friends and to all in the South Australian union and women's movements. I also acknowledge her friends in this chamber, including Senator Barbara Pocock, who made a moving contribution last week, and Senator Grogan, who is with me today. My thoughts are also with the staff and management committee of the Working Women's Centre. You've lost a leader, a friend and a comrade.</para>
<para>Michelle practised her values in all she did. She recognised feminism has to be applied to have value. She dedicated over four decades of her life to fighting for fairer working conditions, to a greater work-life balance and to helping women find their own voice. She also understood that working women deserve emotional sustenance alongside material sustenance, with so many since her passing quoting that famous song:</para>
<quote><para class="block">From birth until life closes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Hearts starve as well as bodies</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Give us bread, but give us roses</para></quote>
<para>Vale, Michelle Hogan.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Liberian Association of Queensland, Komatsu Australia</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator SCARR</name>
    <name.id>282997</name.id>
    <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise with two good-news stories. In the first instance, I'd like to pay tribute to my dear friends in the Liberian Association of Queensland, who held a very successful 'Sharing love through diversity' dinner in my home state of Queensland last Saturday night. It was a deep and great honour to attend that dinner. Also in attendance were my good friend Beny Bol, who is the President of the Queensland African Communities Council; Christine Castley, the CEO of Multicultural Australia; and Uncle Barry Watson, an elder of our First Nations people, who spoke about how close he'd become to members of the Liberian community, including young Liberian members who came here originally as refugees. Also in attendance were two delightful primary school aged boys, Zeka and Elijah, who brought great spirit and made a great contribution to the evening. I was particularly impressed with Zeka's oratory skills. He was actually referred to by the MC as 'Baby Obama'. Zeka, you've got a great future, I'm sure. It was just delightful to see your interaction with your dear friend Elijah.</para>
<para>Also in attendance were the enchanting elephant dancers from the Acholi tribe of South Sudan, who attended to put on a dance performance. I also call out the two members of that group: Santa Benon Ayulu and Concy Layet. Concy is actually the daughter of Santa, and I know Concy well from her work as the manager of the African centre in Moorooka, referred to as the African Village. I really do commend Concy on the great work she does in the community as a mentor at the African Youth Support Council. From my perspective, Concy, you and your mother, Santa, represent the very best of Australian values.</para>
<para>My second good-news story is to congratulate Komatsu in relation to its partnership with the Endeavour Foundation. Komatsu identified an issue with respect to the yellow plastic canisters it uses to engage in engine oil testing. They use something like 220,000 of these canisters every year, and, if they were not recycled, they would contribute approximately ten tonnes of landfill each year. So what Komatsu did was enter into an arrangement with the Endeavour Foundation, which provides great opportunities to disabled people in our community. Working together with the Endeavour Foundation, those engine oil testing canisters are being recycled and reused instead of going into landfill, and that is extremely commendable. I say this to the Endeavour Foundation first: thank you so much for all the work you do in providing opportunities for disabled Australians in meaningful work and employment. I've seen firsthand what a positive contribution you make to our society.</para>
<para>Secondly, I deeply congratulate Komatsu. I'm not sure that many members in the chamber know this—I didn't know this before looking into it—but Komatsu was founded by Meitaro Takeuchi. Excuse me for my pronunciation. He was the owner of a copper mine in Japan which closed in 1920. He was concerned about the impact on the local community of that copper mine closing, so he moved to diversify his business. That's how Komatsu was started, to provide employment opportunities for people in regional Japan, an issue which we've been talking about this week. I say to the leadership of Komatsu: I think the initiative Komatsu has taken with the Endeavour Foundation fits with the values of your founder, Mr Meitaro Takeuchi. I compliment you on it. It is noted by the Senate chamber in this country, it is appreciated, it is greatly admired, and it is a shining example, I think, of what it means to be a good corporate citizen.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Albanese Government</title>
          <page.no>101</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator POLLEY</name>
    <name.id>e5x</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Albanese Labor government has not stopped implementing positive reforms since we formed government. In the past two days, we've witnessed again a commitment to the Australian people to continue the path down economic security and opportunity with action to transition our economy to net zero.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government's safeguard mechanism reforms have now passed the House of Representatives and the Senate. This puts Australia much closer to net zero by 2050 and closer to cutting our emissions by 205 million tonnes by 2030. That's equivalent to taking two-thirds of the nation's cars off the road over the same period. This is a long-overdue reform which will keep Australian businesses competitive, decarbonising the global economy whilst reducing emissions. The Albanese government's plan is to look for future opportunities, for good environmental opportunities and for good jobs. All of this is very good for our economy. Being in government is about making the tough decisions and displaying leadership at home and abroad. Taking decisive action to reduce emissions and follow the rest of the world isn't just about being a good global citizen; it's about investing in upskilling the secure and renewable jobs of the future. It's about securing our economic future as a nation and not being left behind. Action on climate change will prepare our economy for the future, and I urge those opposite to get on board.</para>
<para>The government is also ensuring responsible cost-of-living relief because we know people are doing it tough in communities right across our country. Australians are doing it tough. That's why we are implementing cheaper child care, cheaper medicine and direct energy bill relief in the second Albanese-Chalmers Labor budget in May. Our fee-free TAFE policy for students across the country is investing in Australians. We're delivering our 'Made in Australia' commitment with the National Reconstruction Fund, which will assist businesses like Waverley Woollen Mills in my home state of Tasmania. We are addressing the homelessness crisis with more affordable housing and with our Housing Australia Future Fund. Those opposite talk often in this place about how expensive life is becoming and the cost-of-living crisis in Australia, but there's nothing more fundamental in helping Australians than providing a roof over their heads, providing an opportunity for those women and children who are fleeing domestic violence to have an affordable home.</para>
<para>You can't on one hand talk about these important issues without being prepared to address them and find solutions. We in government have legislation ready in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund—$10 billion we prepared to back our policy—but we need those opposite to support that legislation. You can't just come in here and oppose everything, because you are getting to be known as the opposition of no policy. No policy, no action. I'm urging Mr Dutton to bring the Liberals and the coalition into both chambers to support good policy. Support the Housing Australia Future Fund that will deliver affordable housing and provide opportunities for people not only to have affordable houses but to establish a home for their family. That is so important.</para>
<para>That needs leadership. The only political party at this point in time that is showing leadership to resolve the housing crisis we have is the Albanese Labor government. You can't come into this chamber and vote against energy bills that are going to give relief to Australians and their energy prices. You can't come in here and talk about your concern about jobs and skills if you're not prepared to support the National Reconstruction Fund. You have opposed both of those measures. You're not prepared at this point in time to support people to get an affordable home. What you are doing is adding the real, serious risk of higher inflation for much longer. You are damaging our economy and you are damaging Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women in Sport</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Senator</name>
    <name.id>264449</name.id>
    <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>CHANDLER () (): I believe women and girls are entitled to play single-sex sport, and I believe that women and girls are entitled to the privacy and safety of single-sex spaces. These are basic, simple requests for fairness, safety, dignity and privacy. They are rights that have been available to women for decades. It is hard to believe the intensity of attacks a woman receives in 2023 simply for saying these rights should continue to be available for women and girls in Australia. As the world has seen over the last two weeks, these attacks come from all angles. They come from social media, where a man in Canberra, the city where I'm standing right now, proudly tweeted that his community would burn a woman alive if she ever came back. They come in the form of physical violence, as demonstrated when a man taking part in a vicious baying mob punched a 70-year-old woman in the face in Auckland last week. They come from courts and tribunals, where women face punishment simply for offering a female-only service or even just for saying that women's sports and women's spaces should be female only. They come from the media and political leaders who defame, denigrate and punish women defending their own rights in order to appeal to the more authoritarian elements of the left, and haven't we seen this in action over the last two weeks!</para>
<para>This political and media culture has been created for one reason: to try and intimidate women out of raising completely legitimate concerns about the erosion of our own rights. Back in 2019, I asked Sport Australia whether it agreed that the purpose of women's sport was to ensure that females—women and girls—had the chance to compete fairly and safely. My proposition, then and now, was this: women and girls playing sport at all levels should be allowed to compete in their own sex category. Nothing in this proposition prevents sporting codes from making sure that everyone can compete in sport. Each sport can and should make sure there is a place in sport for everyone, and there are so many ways to achieve this without denying women and girls single-sex competition.</para>
<para>For more than two years the media, both here in Australia and around the world, insisted with everything they could muster that maintaining this position was bigotry, but last week World Athletics became the latest global governing body to recognise that protecting the female category from male advantage is essential for fair competition. They have joint World Aquatics and World Rugby in making this finding. In Australia, women are defamed and denigrated for holding the same position as the global governing bodies for athletics and for swimming. For three years now, I have seen journalists and media outlets repeatedly insist that nobody in sport is calling for female-only categories to be protected—that no female athletes are asking for female categories to be protected. Let's be clear: that is always a lie. I have had days where I've spoken to Olympic athletes in the morning about how important it is to protect single-sex sport and then been lectured in the afternoon by journalists insisting that no female athletes care about this issue. Many female athletes have been pressured and even threatened into not speaking out. It has only been through the sheer bravery and tenacity of female athletes, along with the biologists, coaches and supporters who have spoken out, that women's categories are now being protected. This should be a lesson to those who insist on using the power of the state, the power of the media and the power of their own positions to control what women say and when we say it. We were right about women's sport. We were right about women's prisons. If people had listened in good faith to us, instead of looking for any angle to attack and diminish us, they would have understood this before women got hurt.</para>
<para>Senate adjourned at 17:48</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>