2023-11-06 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 6 November 2023

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 10:02 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I refer senators to the statement made by Minister Farrell on 17 October 2023. 10:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. In response to the government's restatement of their previous statement: this is getting a bit ridiculous now, folks. This is a demand of the Senate for the government to comply with an order for the production of documents. This is a very serious matter. This chamber is given the power to request documents of the government. In going about the process of refusing to provide that information, the government, having made a public interest immunity claim, must satisfy the basic criteria of such a claim. Let me quote them directly so that the words are freshly in the mind of the government: 'The government must explain the harm that would be caused to the relationships between the Commonwealth, states and territories if that is the basis upon which the claim is made.' They have not made clear what specific harm will be caused to these relationships resulting from the release of this information. The Senate is requesting the details in relation to the NDIS financial sustainability framework that has been agreed to by the Prime Minister, the premiers and the territory chief ministers. Upon the basis of that framework, the government has booked tens of billions of dollars worth of reductions in NDIS expenditure. That practically means a reduction in the supports available to disabled people to have a shower, to meet up with our friends, to go to work, to interact with our family members, to access our therapies, to be able to get the wheelchairs and the assistive technologies that we need. This is serious stuff that impacts our lives. They got together in a room, agreed on a framework and are now refusing to release it when they used their own budget to book savings based on this framework. And now, in a blatant, flagrant disregard for the role of the Senate, they are not even, at every sitting period, as they are required, coming to this place and giving an updated explanation for their continued refusal to comply with the orders. This is beginning to look a bit shifty, folks! This is beginning to look like they've got something to hide. This is beginning to look like the Labor government, elected on a platform of ending the duplicity, the dishonesty and the disregard with which the former government treated disabled people, have instead decided to pick up the same playbook. This is completely unacceptable conduct from a government that promised a reset in the relationship between disabled people, the NDIS and the Australian government. This framework should have been made public the minute it was finalised in a form sufficient enough to be sent to the National Cabinet. The chopping and changing of stories in relation to this information beggars belief. First they told us it didn't exist. Then they told us it did exist, but they wouldn't give it to us because to give it to the Australian public would be to damage relationships between the states, the territories and the Commonwealth. What absolute nonsense! And you can see that it is nonsense because they ain't backed up the claim. All they would have to do to satisfy this order for the production of documents, to satisfy the basis of their public interest claim, would be to pony up and share exactly how it would damage that relationship, to cough up some correspondence between these premiers and chief ministers where they had requested the Commonwealth make this claim. They haven't because it doesn't exist. The Commonwealth is just playing a game. The Albanese government is insulting disabled people, and it is insulting this Senate. So far, this place has maintained a solidarity of pressure upon the government to comply. Let us see how long that lasts. But I can tell the chamber very clearly: the Australian Greens want this information on behalf of disabled people. We are in solidarity with the community that is demanding that the Albanese government be open and honest about what they have agreed in relation to our NDIS. 10:08 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I would like to echo the sentiment shared by Senator Steele-John. I can assure you, as long as I'm standing here, the coalition will also be standing up for people with disability, participants on the NDIS and their families. This is absolutely shameful—a request for documents that would apparently damage the relationship between the states and territories? Some of us that have been around the NDIS space for a while know that former prime minister Julia Gillard gave a leave pass to every single state and territory government to absolutely abandon the playing field when it came to disability services that are supposed to be developed, produced and rolled out by state governments. Instead, they have vacated the field. They have left everything to the sole responsibility of the NDIS. I know this because community health services stopped for my son because he had a diagnosed disability. We were told we had to go to the NDIS. The NDIS didn't exist in the rural and regional town we lived in, but that didn't matter. The community health run by the New South Wales state government told us we could no longer access those services because of a diagnosed disability. It was shameful. You can only imagine the phone calls I made about that, and it was rectified for children across the Hunter-New England region. That's no longer the case—or it certainly wasn't 10 years ago. It is absolutely disgraceful from a government that came to power claiming they'd be transparent and as opaque as possible when it came to the people who are the most vulnerable in our society. This government owes absolutely every NDIS participant and their family an apology. You are out there espousing, as a government, that there are savings to be made, that the growth will be capped. We don't know how. Are you going to start chucking people off? Are you going to start excluding disabilities? How is this going to be made possible? Apparently you know, because there is agreement between the state and the Commonwealth. But you are too cosied up and buddied up to be honest and up-front with people with a disability. Shame on you. This is beyond disgraceful. But if we ever needed to see what a shambles this government is, and how much disrespect they have for this chamber—because they constantly show it—it is the fact that their depth of talent is so shallow that we have four ministers in this place and at the moment we have only one in the building. They are so incompetent and so incapable of treating not only this chamber but the Australian people with any respect. They govern for their union mates and themselves and nobody else. They certainly don't govern for people with a disability. They do not govern for people with NDIS plans, nor support their families. They are a disgrace. They should own up to the disgrace. I look forward to standing up with Senator Steele-John—which is a very unusual partnership—to continue demanding these documents and anything else that will give certainty to those in our community who are most vulnerable. No wonder none of you can look up. No wonder no-one sitting in this chamber is from the government side. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. 10:11 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak again on this motion in relation to the NDIS Sustainability Framework. Last time I spoke on this I was almost speechless at the arrogance of the Labor Party. But to have Senator McAllister stand up here for less than 15 seconds to address the largest fraud that I think has ever been perpetrated on Australian taxpayers, and also on the 610,000 Australians with serious and permanent disability who are on the NDIS, is a complete disgrace. When I was minister I ensured that all key financial and actuarial data was regularly published in full, including monthly updates. And it is a shame, and it is a stain on those opposite, that not only did they get rid of the monthly reports—the last third-quarter report is nowhere to be seen—but also they have confirmed that they are not going to release this year's Annual financial sustainability report for the NDIS. And they've just dropped the annual report for the NDIS—funnily enough, a few days after estimates, so we could not scrutinise it at estimates. Having read the annual report of the NDIS, I can say that it is no wonder that those opposite are now trying to hide from the Australian people the fraud that they are imposing on them. Three years ago, as minister, I extended the hand of bipartisanship—in fact, multipartisanship—to those opposite, to start acknowledging the sustainability issues that the NDIS had and some of the fundamental structural issues that needed to be changed to ensure that this scheme could endure. Instead, Bill Shorten perpetuated the—I was going to say something unparliamentary—the untruth that there were no sustainability issues with the NDIS. And he promised before the election, 'There are no sustainability issues' and that he would not cut a single plan and that everything could go along hunky-dory. Instead of taking action, he's had yet another review, which will be a two-year review, which by all accounts will not be released publicly, and he has done nothing. But not only has he done nothing with the scheme; it is far, far worse. The government have now denied the Australian people and NDIS participants the actuarial data that demonstrates the basis on which they have made their budget forecasts. Let me go through a little bit. Under law, they have to provide the Annual financial sustainability report. The last one that we published was 239 pages of detailed actuarial data on the scheme. So, everybody could see the basis on which, out over a decade, the costs would be incurred for this scheme. But not only have the government suppressed the last financial year's Annual financial sustainability report; these 239 pages have been replaced with—how many pages in the annual report, do you think?—four pages. And it is four pages in big text which says pretty much nothing. You certainly cannot work out the actuarial underpinnings of their 10-year budget forecast, including the forward estimates. But one thing that probably galled Minister Shorten no end is that he could not stop the government actuary's report on the scheme going into the annual report, and—my goodness!—is this revealing. Project costs are higher than the previous financial sustainability report projected. The June 2013 projections assumed agency administration expenses would be 18 per cent higher than what they have budgeted out to 2026. Somehow, based on no actuarial public data, those on that side have ripped $74 billion out of the NDIS over the next 10 years. They are now hiding the actuarial data which would demonstrate how it is. What they have done in the forward estimates over the next three years, funnily enough, to get them through to the next election and past the next election, is invest $700 million. Over the forward estimates, that $700 million is supposed to find nearly $15 billion worth of savings without any data. It is a fraud. Everybody in the NDIS knows it. Shame on those opposite for having such contempt, with a PII claim that they have not explained. Shame on them. 10:16 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland This is deeply, deeply concerning. To explain to those in the gallery and those who are listening what is happening here, the Greens, the opposition and senators representing their individual states and territories are seeking key financial information with respect to one of the largest social programs this country has—namely, the NDIS, which provides assistance to hundreds of thousands of Australians and should be providing assistance into the future for hundreds of thousands of more Australians. What we are seeking is key financial information regarding whether or not or how this important program will be sustainable into the future so that it can continue to provide support to some of our most vulnerable Australians. The government is denying us the key information that Senator Reynolds has referred to and which Senator Steele-John has referred to. This is key financial information with respect to the sustainability of that program. Senator Reynolds referred to the fact that when she was the responsible minister that key financial information was being released on a monthly basis so that Australians—taxpayers and those with relatives, family or friends who are relying on this system—could actually see whether or not the system was sustainable. They have a right to know that information, and the Senate is seeking that information not for our own sake as individual senators but for their sake so that we can engage in the public debate about how we make this important program sustainable. With barely a sentence—I don't know if it even went to two sentences—the relevant assistant minister at the table refused to give us that relevant information under the cloak of supposed issues relating to federal and state relationships. So the argument is that, if this critical information is provided to this Senate, in some way it is going to harm federal and state relationships. You're all thinking what I'm thinking—how? How would releasing information with respect to the financial sustainability of the NDIS affect Commonwealth-state relations? How? There's no explanation as to how. There's no evidence being tendered to this Senate with respect to any objections that have been received from state governments. I come from the state of Queensland. If the Queensland government raised objections, I would be the first to go out there publicly and ask the Queensland government why they were raising objections, as I'm sure the opposition would be in Queensland. We haven't received any detail with respect to how it would damage state and Commonwealth relations. In fact, I put forward the contrary view: how can the release of key financial information with respect to one of Australia's largest social programs damage any relations? It's got to be a positive thing for the federal government, for the state government and for relationships between the federal and the state government. Then, the question arises as to why the Commonwealth government won't release this information in relation to the sustainability of the NDIS. Why? I'm coming to the same answer those in the gallery are no doubt coming to—it's because they don't like what the information says. They're concerned that if you become of what that information says, what the facts are, and what the actuarial evidence is, you're going to become concerned, and the promises that were made by those who now sit in the government benches will be proven to be wrong, that it's going to cause a political issue for them. That's why they're not releasing the data. That's the only possible explanation for why they're not releasing the data. The Senate is seeking this data not only on our own behalf but also on behalf of the Australian public and, most importantly, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who rely upon this scheme. Question agreed to. BILLS 4 BILLS Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 4

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

Second Reading 4 10:21 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The coalition welcomes the introduction of this bill for reasons I'll outline to the chamber now. The legislation we're debating is aimed at giving expression to two sets of amendments that were made a number of years ago now to the London protocol. In our view, these are each necessary and well-intentioned changes. If the bill passes then it's likely to provide Australia with improved flexibility and an opportunity in relation to the import and export of carbon dioxide streams and the rapidly emerging field of marine geoengineering. In turn, these changes would be likely to enhance Australia's capacity—and, indeed, the capacity of other nations—to manage carbon emissions, which is something that is quite essential these days, as we all know and accept. For background, along with the London convention, the London protocol is an international treaty that's aimed at protecting the world's marine environments from the dumping of wastes and other hazardous matter. Australia was an early adopter, being a relatively early signatory to both instruments. As a nation, we signed up to the London convention with effect from 1985—10 years after it first came into force internationally. We became a party to the London protocol in the same year as it came into force globally—in the year 2006. Generally speaking, both instruments have worked effectively for Australia and for dozens of other countries around the globe that are also signatories. Recognising that we live in a reality where we need to be able to both balance the economic imperatives of this nation and protect the environment was key in our thinking in our position on this bill, and it seems reflected in the government's thinking as well. It became apparent that there was a need to modernise the protocol in order to reflect a range of environmental issues and considerations in relation to the use of various emerging technology, such as carbon capture and storage—CCS—carbon capture utilisation and storage—CCUS—and marine geoengineering. This led to agreement on the development of two separate sets of amendments to the protocol in 2009 and in 2013. The 2009 amendments and permits allow the international transfer of carbon dioxide streams between countries for the purposes of placing CCS or CCUS materials into the sub-seabed geological formations. The 2013 amendments, meanwhile, allows for certain wastes and matter to be deposited into a marine area in order to facilitate scientific research through marine geoengineering activities such as ocean fertilisation. Around the globe, parties to the convention and/or the protocol have taken a considerable amount of time to assess their responses to these amendments. It should be stressed this has not been a reflection of widespread or deeply entrenched resistance to such changes—again, we recognise the fact we live in a reality where we do need to balance the imperatives of the economy and the environment. Instead, it's because countries have wanted to consider all of the many potential implications and effects that they may have. Australia has proudly adopted this painstaking approach too. It's been the sensible and correct path that both coalition and Labor governments have taken over a considerable period of time, along with a great deal of care, to endorse and prepare for such changes. There are many important issues at play here, including, as many environmental groups have pointed out, the need for the vigilant management and regulation of activities related to CCS, CCUS and in particular marine geo-engineering. In turn, work continues to be needed on assessing how Australia can practically extract the best value from each of these forms of endeavour. In all of these respects the coalition is very appreciative of the work that has been undertaken domestically, in particular by members of each of three sets of committees here in Australia over recent years. These committees are the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water, and the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Inquiries undertaken by each of these committees have elicited valuable information and evidence about the worth and potential environmental impacts and risks of CCS, CCUS and marine geo-engineering. Importantly, they've each concluded on balance, and taking into account the overwhelming majority of evidence presented to them, that the 2009 and 2013 London protocol amendments have the potential to deliver a myriad of benefits to Australia and to other nations, both, again, economically and environmentally. Significantly, those benefits include the very real possibility of substantially lowering carbon emissions, and that point has been expressed by expert witnesses on frequent and repetitive bases. Given, in particular, all of that context in the background, the coalition will certainly be supporting this bill. We also endorse the general points included in the various recent committee inquiry reports about the need for careful monitoring, management and regulation of the kinds of activities that are the subject of this bill, especially if and when they increase in frequency in relation to Australia. We hope the government will discharge the responsibilities they have in this area sensibly and vigilantly. At a time when certainty for international investors has been stripped away by actions of this government, such as under the safeguard mechanism, anything that improves our standing in this respect is welcome. Therefore, we thank the government for bringing this bill to parliament and we commend the bill to the Senate. 10:27 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania You know you're in trouble when the coalition is thanking the Labor government for bringing forward some legislation in this parliament! I'm just going to name it up. The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is a naked and shameless attempt to facilitate the dirtiest fossil fuel project in our nation's history—the Barossa offshore gas project in the Timor Sea. I want to talk about both the politics and the policy of this. The politics is simple. This is state capture at its finest. This is the Labor Party and the Liberal Party coming together to do a favour for Santos, one of Australia's biggest polluters. They've come together to do a favour for some of our foreign-nation partners, in particular the large multinationals out of Japan and Korea that are in a joint venture with Santos on this project. If anyone has any doubts about that, go to the submissions in the House inquiry, supposedly on the London protocol, and have a look at them for yourself. Look at the influence of DFAT on this. This is my 12th year in this place, in the Australian Senate, and I can't even begin to express how frustrated and saddened I am that we are still putting up and passing legislation—because, let's be clear, this will pass today with the duopoly of Australian politics getting together—to support the fossil fuel industry. I can't begin to express my sadness and frustration that after all this time, with everything that's been going on in the world, with all the clear signs that we're at a climate tipping point and that we're living in a climate emergency, we are still facilitating fossil fuel projects. This particular project will also risk turning our oceans into a dumping ground for pollution. Have a look at the name of the bill, 'Sea Dumping'. Does that sound good to you? No; we're dumping gases back into exhausted reservoirs to support the profits of fossil fuel companies and risking our oceans. There are a couple of points I want to make on the policy on this. This technology, carbon capture and storage, has not worked at any commercial scale around the world in our oceans. We saw lots of statistics from government departments—four of them, if I remember correctly; not just DFAT, Geoscience Australia, CSIRO but others—out there egging on this legislation. We saw information that there's a large number of carbon capture and storage projects around the world under development. Under development—unproven! There's only been one long-term carbon capture and storage project in the ocean off Norway, and I'll get to that in a minute. It's failed to achieve its objectives. What we've learnt from that project is that carbon dioxide leaks from reservoirs and that these reservoirs require significant seismic testing, constant blasting of our oceans with the loudest noises produced by human beings, a process we now know impacts marine life, threatens our commercial fisheries and threatens the basis of the food chain in our oceans, plankton. And, all around the country, people are coming together to say no to more seismic testing, yet here we have a project that is designed to breathe life into the fossil fuel industry, to allow for the development of more big carbon bombs in our oceans. And, if it breathes life into more fossil fuel development, it is a kiss of death to our oceans and our precious marine life and our commercial fisheries. Right now, we are preparing for an El Nino summer. Scientists last week—and I've been looking at the language of climate scientists for many years, and they're not political and they're very cautious and very conservative—have described what we've got coming for us this year off Australia's coastlines as an 'underwater bushfire'. We've already seen devastating mass coral bleachings on the Great Barrier Reef—record coral bleachings; unprecedented, back-to-back coral bleachings—that have had devastating impacts on the ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef and on our northern and north-western Australian coral reefs. We've seen the same marine heat waves destroy 95 per cent of Tasmania's giant kelp forests and all their marine life has disappeared with them. We've seen the march of invasive species on the back of these warmer currents, colonising our inshore and offshore reefs, completely turning them into underwater moonscapes because of warming oceans, flowing through to our commercial fisheries and our local communities and our First Nations communities. When do we stop and think? Surely we've seen enough, and we need to take action. Yet, here we are today about to pass a bill specifically designed to facilitate the Barossa Gas Project. Given the government, through NOPSEMA, have put up regulatory framework through regulations to approve at least another—potentially another nine—offshore carbon capture and storage projects, when are we going to learn enough is enough? This gas, if it's extracted, is only going to be exported overseas. It's not going to be for our domestic market. It's not going to be for our energy security. These companies, we can almost certainly say, will pay no tax on the profits they're going to make, so they're risking our oceans but they're not going to pay any tax. And even if this technology works, and that is a very, very big 'if' given it hasn't worked commercially anywhere else—we'll get into that detail in the committee stage by looking, for example, at the Gorgan project, a $3 billion project that so far has failed to capture carbon and emissions and which is not even operating at one-third of its capacity after multiple problems—the best we can expect is that these projects will store scope 1 emissions at the site. What about scope 2 emissions when this gas and these fossil fuels are burnt in our power stations? What about scope 3 emissions when all this gas, this LNG, is exported and burnt overseas? That doesn't even come into the equation. And what about the CO2 when it leaks? The Australian Marine Conservation Society put a very detailed Senate submission into the process around this legislation, talking about the impacts that leaking CO2 has on the marine life around these structures. By the way, that's why the two structures in Norway, and I'll make sure I pronounce their names correctly, the Sleipner structure and the Snohvit structure, are the most blasted and seismically tested geological structures on the planet: because it's so dangerous to pump CO2 into these reservoirs, because it's largely unproven, because every geological structure is different. There's no cookie cutter option saying: 'This is the way we do it. Go out there and do it.' We are going to see relentless seismic testing around these fields once they're approved without any evidence they're going to work. This raises the spectre that this is, very conveniently, a red herring for the fossil fuel industry and for a government that seemingly doesn't care about climate action or protecting our oceans. 'Look over there. We're going to store this stuff in the ground. We're going to build these massive carbon bombs and we're going to export all of this dirty energy around the world.' We know enough now that we need to rapidly transition to renewables. And I reflect on this government campaigning at the last federal election on a climate action platform. Now, we've seen two signature pieces of legislation in this parliament—more than we saw under the previous mob, the LNP, who gave us nothing but climate inaction—so why are we undermining that today? Why are we putting the profits of Santos and big multinational corporations before the planet and people on coastlines around this country? Why are we ignoring the thoughts of our First Nations people—I know Senator Cox is going to speak about this shortly—especially in relation to the Tiwi islanders and their cultural heritage up in the NT? Why are we going down this road when we don't have to? It is shameful, given all the other priorities we have in this place, that we are debating a piece of legislation that everybody agrees is designed to facilitate more fossil fuel projects? We're going to get into more detail on the policy in the committee stage. I heard the LNP say, 'Well, we agree there needs to be mechanisms in place to properly regulate these projects.' What amendments have the government been working on? We saw the amendments in the House, months ago, put up by the Greens and Independents. Have those amendments been adopted in this legislation? Not that I've seen. Has Minister Plibersek, who's got carriage of this, been working with those who have very valid concerns about how this is going to work? Or are you going to dump it all on the Timor-Leste government? We've got to do a lot better. For those who point to the fact that carbon capture and storage is some kind of unicorn technology and that this has been highlighted by the IPCC, the IPCC have made it very clear: in their own words, this technology is no free lunch. So far, collectively, if you add up all the carbon capture and storage projects around the world—and only a handful of them are exactly the kind of CCS we're talking about today, which is using depleted reservoirs in our ocean—they amount to about 0.1 per cent of global emissions. So much for 'this is the future of reducing emissions and turning dirty energy into clean energy'! It is a fallacy. It has failed everywhere. It has been talked about now for three decades, and here we are in 2023 talking about the same thing—the definition of insanity—when we know exactly what we need to be doing. My colleagues today have been in this place year in, year out fighting for climate action, fighting to protect the environment and fighting to protect our oceans. We know, along with all the great people who submitted to the Senate inquiry on this process, that this is a con. This is a sham. We should feel ashamed as a chamber, in this time of climate emergency, that we are about to pass legislation written for a fossil fuel company; written by a government that takes big donations from fossil fuel companies; and written by people who clearly think they're going to get away this, with the Australian people not noticing that companies out there are trying to find ways around the safeguard mechanism. This is a $4 billion project. Santos has around $1 billion of liabilities under the safeguard mechanism for Barossa. The fact they're prepared to spend $4 billion on this project tells you something. There will be a lot of other people wanting to dump their pollution in this field when it's built. Another thing comes to mind: the oil and gas industry has a $60 billion liability to decommission its infrastructure in the ocean. How convenient is it that now there are nine carbon capture and storage acreage releases around existing fossil fuel operations in the ocean that allow them to use those fields to avoid their liabilities? (Time expired) 10:42 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 implements Australia's international obligations under the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, referred to as the London protocol. The intention is to ratify both the 2009 and the 2013 amendments. This bill will amend the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act to allow permits for the transboundary movement of carbon dioxide streams from industrial processes for the purpose of sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. It would also allow for the placement of waste or other matter from marine geoengineering activity. As Senator Whish-Wilson has referred to: where things don't stack up, they won't happen. I do appreciate his passion in this debate, but, where projects are not going to stack up, they won't happen; but, where they do, they will. In 2009 we agreed as a country to an amendment to the London protocol which does enable the export of carbon dioxide for the purposes of carbon sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. Carbon capture and storage has been talked about for a very long period of time across the world and in Australia. There are a variety of views. There are projects that have shown great promise, and there are others that have not. This bill does not pick them. It merely enables the structure for us to explore these and stay in line with our international obligations. The 2013 amendment was to allow the placement of waste and other matter for marine geoengineering activities such as ocean fertilisation for the purposes of scientific research. This kind of scientific research could have a significant impact on how we deal with the challenges of our future. It will enable legitimate scientific research to be undertaken to determine the feasibility of methods to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. Examples of these scientific activities include microbubbles, which is the process of injecting tiny bubbles into the ocean surface or sea foam to increase sunlight reflectivity; marine cloud brightening or seeding; ocean alkalinisation, which is adding alkaline substances to seawater to enhance the ocean's natural carbon sink—a huge natural carbon sink that we can enhance to help us deal with the challenges we are facing into the future and our desire to hit net zero; the ocean has huge potential here—and, macroalgae cultivation, which is large-scale growth of algae that converts dissolved carbon dioxide into organic carbon through photosynthesis. Any permits for the above type of activities can only be granted after a robust, comprehensive assessment process, which would ensure that any activity is in accordance with the London protocol and has a minimal impact on the marine environment in Australian waters. The intent here is not to cause damage to the ocean, as laid out by Senator Whish-Wilson. That is absolutely not the intent here. The intent here is to use every option we have available to us to reach net zero by 2050, to reduce emissions and to ensure that we stop the planet warming. The proposed amendments will meet Australia's international obligations under the London protocol and protect and preserve the marine environment from potential environmental risks. Passing the bill will enable the government to administer permits for these internationally emerging activities and ensure legal certainty. Regulating this type of activity through a robust application assessment and approval process would ensure that only legitimate scientific research activities which explore options to reduce atmospheric CO2 proceed. This amendment also provides for regulating other potentially harmful marine geoengineering research activities, should they emerge in the future. This bill is also important because it will help our international partners, particularly the Timor-Leste government, in the development of the Bayu-Undan carbon capture and storage project. As the foreign minister said during her visit to Timor-Leste in July, Australia: … will keep striving to be the best possible partner, and a partner who will stand by you— Timor-Leste— today and throughout your future. We share the belief in the Timorese people's fundamental right to decide their own future, and the Australian Labor government has a deep appreciation of just how much economic resilience is key to Timor's sovereignty. Our support for their economic resilience and sovereignty is why we strongly support Timor's ambition to convert the Bayu-Undan field. It has been a main contributor to the Timor-Leste economy for over 16 years, and Australia wants to work with Timor to transition it to a commercial carbon capture and storage project. We know that this project is important to Timor. That's why it's so disappointing to see the narrow political interests of our friends in the Greens party claiming that everything that may happen under this bill will be a disaster, that it's all about encouraging fossil fuel activity, when nothing could be further from the truth. We want to help our friends in Timor. We also want to ensure that, in Australia, we can sequester as much carbon as we possibly can and that we use every opportunity available to us to deal with this problem. The future is important. We cannot be narrow minded as we look at ways to address the challenges we face. We've seen the inquiries. The House had an inquiry. The Senate had an inquiry. There's plenty of material and plenty of submissions talking about the upsides, the potential risks and the concerns. But, overwhelmingly, the evidence was not in line with Senator Whish-Wilson's passionate speech. It was more in line with a balance—yes, concerns that if it's not done properly there are risks. But it will be done properly, and we will manage those risks. Submitters to the inquiry included CO2CRC, who argued that carbon capture and storage is an: … increasingly cost-effective technology that can deliver large-scale reductions in emissions for a wide range of industries. They argued that projects enabled by this bill are: … an essential and urgent priority that is accepted as a critical component of the national and global emissions reduction strategies. Other submitters argued that reaching net zero by 2050 will be virtually impossible if we don't use all options available to us—and that includes the options that we may have in the ocean. They argued that carbon capture and storage is a technology with decades of experience globally—a proven technology for some applications. CCS plays a unique role amongst a portfolio of emissions reduction technologies as it can address emissions from existing facilities, mitigate emissions from hard-to-abate industries and support low-carbon hydrogen production and underpin large-scale carbon removal. Geoscience Australia have urged that we have an opportunity to continue to promote best practice through this bill by setting and adopting standards for environmental information that is used to understand the benefits and impacts of offshore carbon capture storage and geoengineering activities. Net zero by 2050 is this government's unequivocal priority in our fight against global warming. This bill is a critical aspect to us reaching that goal, and I urge the Senate to pass the bill. 10:52 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory We know how important it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We heard from the Treasurer just last week in his address in Melbourne that further action is required for Australia just to meet its emissions reduction targets, which we know are not in line with what scientists say a wealthy nation like Australia that is one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, a wealthy nation like Australia that is one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, should be doing as its fair share. Nevertheless, even with our very modest 43 per cent the government say they need to do more. Despite its name, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 is not about fighting climate change. The name 'using new technologies to fight climate change' is incredibly misleading and incredibly disappointing from the Labor government. At its heart, this is a bill to allow big oil and gas companies to continue and to expand the burning of fossil fuels and to shift their carbon pollution to other countries, with no liability if the carbon dioxide is accidentally released in the future. The bill amends the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 to enable the granting of permits to export carbon dioxide captured from burning coal and gas for the purpose of storing that carbon dioxide under the sea. This means fossil fuel companies can capture the carbon dioxide they produce and ship it to other country's waters, where it would theoretically be injected into undersea geological formations for long-term storage—we hope. By sending their emissions overseas, companies could transfer responsibility elsewhere and meet their safeguard mechanism emissions targets with little real reduction in emissions. We now hear Labor and the coalition are on a unity ticket on carbon capture and storage, spruiking it as the technology that's going to allow us to continue to expand the fossil fuel industry. We know that there are very legitimate uses for carbon capture and storage, and that's for the hard-to-abate sectors. There's some really good work being done with cement and with other sectors that are genuinely hard to abate. But I'll tell you what isn't hard to abate: opening up new coal, oil and gas projects. How are we, in 2023, rather than taking this seriously, having a Labor government that was supposedly elected promising more bold climate action, while this is what they're offering up? We know that taking climate change seriously means listening to scientists and not expanding the fossil fuel industry at a time when we simply cannot afford to do so. If we turn to carbon capture and storage and the promise versus the reality, Chevron's Gorgon project in WA aims to capture carbon emissions from their LNG facility on Barrow Island and inject it under the island. However, in the 12 months to June 2022, Chevron injected only 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 into the underground reservoir and vented 3.4 million tonnes to the atmosphere. The project has consistently failed to meet its carbon sequestration targets. This is similar to carbon capture and storage trials globally. It's my understanding that there are specific projects that will benefit from this bill. Santos has stated that to comply with the safeguard mechanism it is developing a carbon capture and storage project in East Timor's waters. This bill would allow Santos to export its carbon dioxide to East Timor for undersea storage. Just think about that for a moment. Offshore gas development from Santos's Barossa gas project, in Australian waters, will meet the safeguard mechanism by transferring its greenhouse gas emissions to a developing country for undersea storage using a technology that we can't get to work here in Australia. We know that carbon capture and storage is a tactic to delay the demise of the fossil fuel industry, and it's deeply concerning that the Albanese government is seeking to push it through the Senate instead of making sure we meet our net zero target through genuine emissions reductions. Again, the Treasurer acknowledged that the government needs to do more to secure renewable energy generation, transmission and storage. However, we're now lagging behind the US in incentivising the clean energy transition. We've heard next to nothing from the government, in any substantial way, in response to the Inflation Reduction Act—the biggest investment in climate and energy the world has seen. And the science is very concerning. According to last year's State of the climate report, produced by CSIRO and BOM, Australia's climate has already warmed by an average of 1.5 degrees. Heatwaves are increasing, rainfall patterns are changing, extreme fire weather has increased, and the bushfire season has lengthened, as we see across the country. According to Pep Canadell, a Canberra based CSIRO climate scientist, recent global investment in clean energy is still insufficient to keep us under 1.5 degrees. Emissions are still rising. Until now the best we've done is to meet the growth in global demand for energy with non-fossil-fuel sources. We haven't actually cut emissions yet. Professor Rod Sims from the ANU has set out three ways Australia can help reduce world greenhouse gas emissions. We can remove emissions from our own economy, we can stop approving new coal and gas projects—something the Labor government doesn't want to hear about—and we can pursue industries in which Australia has a clear comparative advantage in a net-zero world, something that I fear we're missing the boat on with a lack of a response to the Inflation Reduction Act. I have proposed three amendments to this bill. The first of these directly addresses Professor Sims's approach of stopping new coal and gas projects. If we allow new fossil fuel projects on the basis that the carbon dioxide will be exported, we are allowing global emissions to increase. We cannot assume that the carbon dioxide will be permanently captured using a thus far unsuccessful technology. Therefore, I'm proposing an amendment to exclude new coal and gas projects from the permit and export provisions of the bill. If the government is truly serious about taking the climate crisis seriously, I sincerely hope that they will support these amendments. This amendment is the same as that proposed by the member for Indi, Dr Helen Haines, in the House of Reps. The second of these amendments relates to who is responsible into the future for carbon dioxide stores under the seas released at a later date. It's easy to see how this could happen through failure to maintain equipment, deterioration of infrastructure over time, earthquakes, or other natural processes or events. The third amendment would allow for merits review of a decision to grant a permit under the proposed legislation. There is no good reason why decisions should not be subject to a merit review process. Given what is at stake, we have to ensure that decisions can be scrutinised. This bill should not be passed, but if it is these amendments will provide some limits on the amount of damage that this bill is likely to cause. Australians sent a strong message at the last election that they want to see the Australian government do a lot better, a huge amount more, when it comes to environmental protection, management and action on climate. This bill is nothing more than greenwashing for gas companies, with potentially catastrophic impacts on our marine environment and sea life. It allows companies to claim to meet emissions reductions targets while exporting those emissions to other countries. It would place the ongoing management of sequestered CO2 in the hands of developing countries, when it's been shown that countries like Australia are struggling to manage it successfully. It will enable the expansion of oil and gas projects that the IPCC and every credible expert say we cannot afford. It's tragic and incredibly disappointing that the government is more interested in supporting fossil fuel companies than it is in protecting our environment, our way of life and our planet. I ask the government to please consider supporting the amendments I've proposed to reduce the climate risks to future generations. At today's global average temperature rise of 1.2 degrees Celsius, we're seeing the consequences play out before our very eyes—bushfires raging across the country, tropical storms devastating coastal cities in Mexico—yet we have the major parties in Australia on a unity ticket when it comes to supporting the fossil fuel industry. We heard Senator Grogan accusing the crossbench of narrow political interests. The major parties' narrow political interest is looking after the fossil fuel industry, facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry, at a time when every credible climate scientist is urging us, pleading with us, to show some leadership on this. Dr Joelle Gergis, who was a lead on the IPCC's sixth assessment, which she describes as the last assessment—the last warning—before this window to act closes, talks about it in her bookHumanity's Moment: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope: … every fraction of a degree of warming matters. Every year of further delay matters. It's the difference between how much we destabilise the ice sheets, the amount of dangerous heat we are exposed to each summer, and whether or not millions of people lose their homes to rising seas. The longer we delay, the more irreversible climate change we will lock in. Any young person can tell you that stabilising the Earth's climate is literally a matter of life or death. It will impact the stability of their daily lives, their decision to start families, and their chance to witness the natural wonders of the world as their parents did. The ability of current and future generations to live on a stable planet rests on the decisions the world collectively makes right now. Here we are making those decisions, and what have we got? We have the Labor government facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. Dr Gergis goes on to say: There are corporate interests that are willing to sacrifice our planetary life-support system to keep the fossil fuel industry alive for as long as humanly possible, using unproven technology. Carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is based on the idea that you can extract carbon dioxide from the smokestacks of coal plants or steel factories, compress it, transport it and then inject it back underground, where, in theory, it will remain forever. And that's assuming you can find the right geologic conditions that are stable enough over millennia so that carbon doesn't leak out and back into the atmosphere. The problem is not only that the technology is enormously expensive, but that despite over twenty years of research, it is still unproven to work at the scale required to substantially reduce emissions. She goes on to point out how foolish it is for us to be facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry, yet here we have the Albanese government, aided by the coalition, doing exactly that. 11:07 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to add my voice to this debate and to associate myself with the comments made already by Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson and Senator David Pocock. This bill is a sham. This bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, is actually called 'sea dumping' for a reason, because all this bill does is dump on the planet while paving the way for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. Let's not forget who has put forward this bill—Australia's Minister for the Environment and Water. If our minister for the environment is the one shepherding through a piece of legislation that allows the continuation and expansion of fossil fuels, by allowing the big polluting corporations to literally sweep the pollution under the carpet, let's be clear about what this bill does. This bill allows the fossil fuel industry—coal and gas—to bury their rubbish and their pollution in the seabed. So, rather than stopping the pollution and rather than cleaning up, they want to bury it under the sea—unproven pseudoscience. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, warned of exactly this—that fossil fuel companies 'have humanity by the throat'. He warned that, if governments and parliaments around the world didn't stand up against this type of pressure, we would see more pseudoscience and PR spin from the fossil fuel industry, who do everything in their power to keep expanding their dangerous, toxic polluting operations that are putting humanity at risk. They will keep going and keep going until they can do no more. But we in this place have a responsibility. We know that the climate science is dire. We know that we are already hurtling towards a cliff when it comes to the global temperature rise. We are already seeing the real impacts of the climate crisis here in Australia today. We're only into the first few days of November and already we have seen bushfires in Queensland destroy over 60 homes in the last fortnight alone. We've had two people die in New South Wales in bushfires and 27 homes destroyed since July. In the Northern Territory we've seen 13 million hectares burnt in the last two months—and the list goes on. For those of us who live in the southern states, we fear what this summer is going to bring. I live in the Adelaide Hills, and I can tell you that I and every single one of my neighbours are on high alert. We know that this summer is going to be horrid. Only the other day we could smell smoke drifting through the valley, and everyone was worried: Is this going to be the summer that our house is lost? Is this going to be the summer that our community is devastated? Is this going to be the summer that fossil fuel companies burn our towns to the ground? That is what communities right around this country today are thinking about and feeling. Rather than tackling that and taking on the fossil fuel companies that are fuelling these climate fires, what we are seeing is the government of the day doing the work for the big fossil fuel companies, by not only paving the way to allow them to expand but giving them the cover of a green-washing bill like what we have before us today. We know that what has to happen is the pollution must stop being produced, not continue some pretence that we can keep going at the rate we're going and just bury it under the ground. Ask any primary-school-aged kid whether that argument would fly at home when their room is a mess: 'I'll just brush it under the bed and pull over the cover. No-one will see it.' It's not good enough. It's a disgrace and, worse than that, it is risking, in the sickest of sickest sense, the future of this planet, the health of our environment and humanity as we know it. So let's be clear: who really wants this piece of legislation? The reason this piece of legislation is being rammed through and rushed through this parliament this week is that it's Santos, the big gas company, who need this done. They want this done. They're donors to the major parties and they want a pound of flesh for their penny. They want this done. So rather than putting in place a plan to reduce pollution, to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and say, 'We need a proper transition. We've got to get out of this dirty, toxic industry and into energy production that is clean, green and sustainable,' we have ministers in this place coming along and handing up on a silver platter exactly what the fossil fuel industry and companies like Santos have asked for. This is all because of the safeguard mechanism legislation that was passed in this place earlier this year with, after strong negotiation by the Greens, amendments that meant the fossil fuel industry would have to do more to reduce their emissions and that there would have to be more transparency around how much pollution was actually being produced. What does that do? That costs industry and the company money. Well, they don't want to have to pay. So here's your quid pro quo, a facilitation to pretend that this industry can just keep going by burying its toxic rubbish and pollution under the sea. We know it's not just Santos; it's also other companies that are worried about what they're going to do and how they're going to keep expanding. They want to use Australia and our oceans as a dumping ground. There is a big push here on the Australian government from the Japanese government in relation to this issue, and that is another reason why this is being pushed through at warp speed today. The Japanese government and its state owned companies have behaved appallingly since this parliament passed the safeguard mechanism agreement. What has become clear is that they are simply not serious about climate action and are now using their diplomatic powers to push Australia to go slow on the climate transition. This bill is an appeasement to their complaints. To the Australian government, the Labor Party: stand up for what you believe in. You are either committed to climate action and reducing pollution or you're just going to keep handing up on a silver platter what Santos and the big fossil fuel companies want, and backflipping and bending over backwards for foreign owned companies, Japanese or others, so that they can keep expanding their dirty industries. Meanwhile, it's Australian bush and nature and communities that burn. How can it be that the Australian government, the Labor Party, stand here today and say, 'We need this bill because it will help deal with the pollution problem,' when all it's going to do is bury the pollution under the sea? It's ludicrous. As Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, himself said, this is pseudoscience and should be called out. It's all PR spin. And the Labor Party and the Dutton opposition are happy just to let it go, to facilitate it, because their election donations depend on it and there is pressure inside both sides. We know that there are some in government who desperately want a better climate policy from the Labor Party, but, gee whiz, they are held back by the fossil fuel and coal and gas rump that still dominates the government's decisions. I wonder whether the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, likes this bill at all. But here it is, under her name, facilitating more pollution, burying that toxic pollution in the seabed and trying to pretend that it's actually good for the environment. If you want a definition of greenwashing, this is it. The environment minister should stand up and call this out for what it is. It is not a bill designed to protect the environment. It is a bill designed to protect the profits of Santos and all the other fossil fuel companies that want to keep expanding for as long as they possibly can. While pollution continues to rise and while this government allows new coal and gas to expand, the climate fires in this country will get hotter and hotter and more deadly. That is what we do know. As you vote on this bill in this place today, rammed through by both sides of the chamber, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in lock arms, doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, just think about what you're going to say to your communities over summer when their towns are on fire, when the bush is covered in ash, when people have put their masks back on, not because of COVID but because of smoke and when the temperatures are so hot in our suburbs that the elderly and the sick are dying. What are you going to say to them? 'Oh, Santos asked us,' or, 'The Japanese government said we needed to do something quickly. They were not happy.' Think about what you are going to say to the elderly in your community who are suffering over the summer because of extreme heat. Think about what you're going to say when the bushfires are on our screens every single night. What is the Prime Minister going to say when he goes to the Pacific Forum later this week? What will he tell our neighbours about what he is doing? Think about that. 11:21 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I want to ask a question. If you want a perfect example of how insane the UN's net zero pipedream is, look no further than this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Why? We're going to spend billions on pulling natural trace gas out of the air and then spend billions more to try and inject it under the seabed and hope it stays there. Science and nature show that it cannot. You may have heard of the concept of carbon capture and storage, commonly abbreviated to CCS. The climate activists claim we need carbon capture and storage to save the world. That's a lie. I'll get to that later. But no-one really talks about what storage means in these schemes. It seems our government and bureaucrats and our opposition don't want to talk about the details, because anyone who explains carbon dioxide storage out loud will immediately realise the concept is stupid and dishonest. One might think that a bill titled 'environment protection sea dumping' would be an amendment saying, 'You can't dump things in the sea to protect the environment.' Think again! The fake environmentalists have decided that the best way to protect the environment is to dump stuff in the sea. Just like the koalas being euthanised to make way for wind turbines or damaged solar panels leaking toxic heavy metals into waterways, the United Nations net zero plan again involves killing the environment to save it. Carbon capture and storage can be summarised by the following steps: carbon dioxide—a harmless, colourless, odourless, tasteless, natural trace, atmospheric gas that is generated from the burning of materials containing carbon atoms, including digesting food in animal guts and including our own guts, burning trees and bushfires and burning coal in power stations to produce among the cheapest forms of electricity available for human progress. In the case of carbon capture and sequestration or storage, carbon dioxide is captured at the point of production. Carbon dioxide is transported then via ship and/or pipeline to a storage location. The carbon dioxide—wait for it—is injected underneath the seabed via drilling for storage, theoretically permanently. It's theoretically permanent because there is no guarantee that the carbon dioxide will stay there. History is full of episodes of spills where companies couldn't contain the oil they were drilling for. Natural leakage from reservoirs has been the case for nature since time immemorial. Even if it were necessary to bury carbon dioxide—and it's not—there's no guarantee it will stay there after being hit by some type of undersea seismic activity or even a very common underocean earthquake. It's worth remembering that carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04 per cent of the Earth's atmosphere. Human beings are responsible for just three per cent of the annual production of carbon dioxide, and Australia contributes just 1.3 per cent of that three per cent. Yet the net-zero advocates tell us that, if we take a fraction of our carbon dioxide and pay an oil-drilling company to dump it in the ocean by injecting it under the seabed, we can save the world. Wow! Amazing! Obviously it's a bloody lie, an absurd lie. Carbon capture and storage is just another scheme designed to make some multinational companies rich at the expense of Australians, and you lot are falling for it, while adding huge costs to power bills that will needlessly continue increasing, killing standards of living and raising the cost of living needlessly. That's what gets on my goat—you're doing it wilfully. The second part of this bill deals with allowing permits for research into ocean fertilisation. Ocean fertilisation is an untested, radical experiment with our planet's natural environment. It involves dumping elements like iron, nitrogen or phosphates into the ocean in the hope that stimulated phytoplankton will take more carbon dioxide out of the air. They're shutting farms down in Queensland, where I come from, because they say farmers are putting too much nitrogen into the ocean. One Nation supports research—scientific research, empirical data driven research. We'll never make any progress unless we test new ways of doing things. Research must be balanced though between the potential risks and the potential benefits. When it comes to ocean fertilisation, an untested form of geoengineering, the potential risks are too great and the benefits are non-existent. Let's be clear what we are talking about here. Ocean fertilisation is the wholesale dumping of chemicals into the ocean with the intention of creating systemic changes to the ecosystem, creating unplanned systemic changes to the ocean—unknown. Unintended consequences are almost guaranteed. If it works, we have no idea how a huge systemic change will affect the environment and the ecosystem. The potential risks are unquantifiable and frightening. The supposed benefit—sequestering more carbon dioxide out of the air—is negligible. We do not need to remove more carbon dioxide out of the air. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of vegetation on this planet. No-one has been able to prove to me that human produced carbon dioxide affects temperature more than natural variation does, because they can't provide that evidence. Ocean fertilisation has huge risks and no potential benefits. It should be opposed. I'll sum up this bill for the Australian people. The UN's net-zero lunatics are yet again saying they need to kill the environment to save it. The Greens; the teals, including Senator David Pocock; the Liberals-Nationals; and Labor all blindly sign up and hurt families, industries and national security. Australia must ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum net-zero pipedream and all of its insane requirements, including the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. One Nation will be opposing this bill designed to enrich predatory globalist billionaires who donate to the Greens and the teals. Every senator, by the way, should do the same—oppose this bill. Now I turn to the bill's underlying premise. I'll go through the carbon dioxide reality. We're exhaling it. Every one of us in this chamber is exhaling it. Every human and every animal is exhaling it. When we breathe all animals, including koalas, multiply the concentration of carbon dioxide 100 to 125 times. We take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at 0.04 per cent and we exhale it at four to five per cent. We increase the concentration 100 to 125 times. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth. This is a fact sheet on carbon dioxide. It's just 0.04 per cent of the Earth's air—four-hundredths of one per cent. It is scientifically described as a trace gas because there's bugger all of it. It is non-toxic and not noxious. Senator Hanson-Young called it toxic. That is straight out wrong! It's highly beneficial to and essential for plants. Greenhouses inject the stuff into greenhouses to stimulate the growth of plants. In the past, when carbon dioxide levels on this planet were four times higher than today—and they have been 135 times higher than today, naturally, in the fairly recent past—it has resulted in earth flourishing as plants and animals thrive with the benefits of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless. It's natural. Nature produces 97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. It does not discolour the air. It does not impair the quality of water or soil. It does not create light, heat, noise or radio activity. It does not distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive. It's not a pollutant. It does not harm ecosystems; it is essential for ecosystems. It does not harm plants and animals; it is essential for plants and animals. It does not cause discomfort, instability or disorder. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature's balance. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it back into plants, animal tissue and natural accumulations—and oceans. It does not contaminate, apart from nature's extremely high and concentrated volumes close to some volcanos, and then only locally and briefly. Under rare natural conditions, when in concentrations in amounts far higher than anything humans can produce—that we can dream of producing—temporarily due to nature, that's the only time it can harm. It is not a pollutant. As I said a minute ago, in the past it has been up to 130 times higher in concentration in our planet's current atmosphere than today. It's not listed as a pollutant. Prime Minister Gillard invoked the term 'pollutant', 'carbon pollution'—it's not even carbon. It's carbon dioxide; it's a gas. President Obama then copied Prime Minister Gillard on his visit to Australia during her tenure. That's where we got 'carbon pollution'. It doesn't exist. So koalas exhaling carbon dioxide are polluters. We do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We couldn't even if we wanted to. In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID mismanagement, we caused severe recessions around the world. In 2009, we actually didn't have one in Australia because we were exporting coal and iron ore, but, nonetheless, there were global recessions in 2009 and 2020. All of a sudden, the use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—decreased dramatically. Exactly what we're being told to do by the teals, by the Greens, by the Labor Party, by the Liberal Party and by the National Party. What happened to the level of carbon dioxide outside in the atmosphere? Did it start going down? No. Did it even inflect slightly and decrease the rate of increase? No. It continued increasing. Why? Because nature controls the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the UN IPCC, the fraudulent climate science mob, the oceans of the planet contain 50 to 70 times the amount of carbon dioxide in dissolved form than in the earth's entire atmosphere—50 to 70 times as much than when you invoke Henry's law of chemistry, which has been known for a couple of hundred years, and the level of carbon dioxide in the air depends on the quantity dissolved in the oceans and varies with the temperature of the oceans because solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans varies with temperature. In the annual graph of carbon dioxide levels, you can see the seasonal variation in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere. Carbon dioxide levels follow the temperatures of the ocean, especially the sea surfaces. We do not significantly in any way affect the level, and we cannot affect the level over and above natural variation due to nature. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not determine the temperature, unlike what the Greens, the teals, Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals are telling us. There has been massive increase in human production of carbon dioxide from China, India, Brazil, Europe, Russia, Asia and America, yet temperatures have been flat—flat!—for 28 years. Not warming; not cooling; flat. The trend during the massive industrialisation during the Second World War and the post-war economic boom saw temperatures from 1936 to 1976 fall. Over 40 years of massive industrialisation, the longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was cooling. Remember the predictions that we were going to be in for an ice age? In the 1880s and 1890s in our country, temperatures were warmer by far. Variation in everything in nature is natural. There's inherent natural variation within larger cycles of increasing and decreasing temperature, rainfall, drought cycles and storm cycles. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the United Nations have failed to show any change in any climate factor, just natural variation. It's not climate change; it's climate variation. Every uptick is heralded as catastrophic and every downtick is silently ignored. What's driving this political scam, this climate fraud? Ignorant, dishonest and gutless politicians are enabling scammers making money from it. Consider John Howard. In 2007, I sent him a letter of appreciation for his role as Prime Minister before I started researching climate. During his term, he introduced the National Electricity Market and the Renewable Energy Target, the first emissions trading scheme policy for a major party, and his government stole farmers' rights to use their property. He admitted in London in 2013 that he was an agnostic on climate science. Then we have parasites like Holmes a Court, Twiggy Forrest and Turnbull keeping it alive, relying on the subsidy. What's keeping it alive? Teals such as David Pocock and Greens such as Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young, invoking fear and doom, yet never providing the logical scientific points and empirical scientific evidence. I encourage people to watch their speeches and see the dearth of scientific evidence. 11:36 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. I want to associate my comments particularly with those of my Greens colleagues Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young on this issue. To name this bill 'sea dumping' is a disgrace. It's a weak attempt, again, at greenwashing. It should be called the 'greenwashing bill', in fact, not 'sea dumping'. This bill allows for the import and export of carbon for the purpose of carbon capture and storage, or CCS, as it's referred to. Before I go into the issues, I want to put on the record what this bill does. In fact, this bill does nothing about climate change apart from accelerating it. That's the only thing it does. This bill is the government throwing a bone to its international investors and to Santos because the changes that the Greens secured in the safeguard mechanism that Senator Hanson-Young already spoke about added significant costs and cast some doubt about the viability of the Barossa gas project in particular that is linked to the Darwin harbour and to the Middle Arm project that both sides of this chamber continue to support. They continue to do that. Santos is the only company that is wanting to export carbon for CCS on waters outside of Australia. The key element of the Barossa project is being able to use the depleted gas field, Bayu-Undan, in the Timor Sea for the storage of carbon which will be emitted from the Barossa gas field. This bill is not the government using new technologies to fight climate change. This bill is, in fact, as my colleagues have said, about the government doing the bidding of the fossil fuel companies in this country and enabling dirty gas fields to be developed and to destroy our climate but also destroying First Nations underwater cultural heritage. Let's start with Santos. They're proposing to drill and build a pipeline through some sacred songlines and some burial grounds. They originally failed to consult the traditional owners in the Tiwi Islands, leading to a historical case in the Federal Court that was upheld on appeal by that Federal Court. What a win for the Tiwi Islands people. As a result of this case, Santos had to go to the Tiwi Islands to talk to the traditional owners and consult with the traditional owners, not just send an email or leave a voice message, like they've done before, and have that unanswered. What I've been told by traditional owners is that they went there during the time of sorry business. Sorry business was taking place. Anybody that goes into our remote communities or any of our communities knows that sorry business is an important time. The anthropologists that were engaged to conduct a report have left because they were appalled by the way Santos was asking them to conduct this process. They actually left the consultation process, saying it goes against standard practice and goes against the code of ethics based on the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2018. When someone walks away from a project like that, you sort of have to think to yourself: 'Why would they do that? Why would they question that?' Because it's not ethical; that's why. You go into a community for a purpose, you want to capture a purpose and you use all of your power and all of your money to get the answer you want from that. You do not do that based on ethics. You do not base that on human rights and the human rights of First Nations people in those communities. It also goes against not just the Australian code for the responsible conduct of research but also the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. So not only are we contravening the terms of the Australian code; we're contravening the terms of the code built specifically for First Nations communities. Further, we have been advised that the people who were since engaged by Santos to complete this report were in fact only given a six-week turnaround. Imagine that: for a process that should have taken 18 to 24 months, Santos have said, 'Go into this community and ask about underwater cultural heritage, and you've only got six weeks to do it.' The traditional owners have told me that this information was not even collected in a culturally appropriate way. They didn't even talk to the elders and the knowledge holders, who were the right people to share that sacred knowledge. Instead, they went and spoke to people who happened to be sitting at a cafe or wandering the street. They talked to anybody who was willing to talk to them. They refused to pay people for their time and their knowledge, since Santos didn't even allocate any funding to collect any of stories in an appropriate way. This is business as usual for these types of corporations in our communities. The traditional owners worked exceptionally hard. They've worked with their legal team. Senator Whish-Wilson has been involved in some of the listening, and I know Senator David Pocock has also met with Tiwi Islands traditional owners, as have others in this place, to hear about the extensive work that they continue to do. They want to make sure that people who are speaking with elders and attending workshops are doing so at events organised by traditional owners, not running consultations that are disrespectful. Elders are being told things like, 'There's nothing you can do to stop Santos from putting up pipeline through your 160-plus sacred sites, and nothing you can do to protect your underwater cultural heritage.' This has in fact caused so much distress for some of those elders that they've had to seek medical attention. It is so profound to hear how damaging that is when people are saying: 'There's nothing you can do. You have to sit back and let Santos take everyone for a ride.' Does this sound like a company that needs a free kick from the government? I'll tell you what: this is the best gaslighting venture I have ever heard. This is gaslighting 101. It's that psychological abuse. It's that constant: 'Are you sure that's what you heard? No, I don't think you did.' It's the constant questioning. The narrative is always about destroying the psyche of those people, the natural resistance for them to stand up for country, for their land and their sea country, against a big corporate entity. I want to take this moment to congratulate those traditional owners from the Tiwi Islands. They put up a mighty fight against Santos. They have put the importance of consultation with First Peoples front and centre in this country, and they have helped further the conversation about how we as First Nations people and our culture, especially intangible cultural heritage like songlines, fit into a western legal system. They are making remarkable change. Just last week, the traditional owners had another victory, and it's worth highlighting in this place while I have the time. An emergency injunction was granted hours before Santos were due to commence laying their pipeline. This was in response to NOPSEMA's failure to consider reports of underwater cultural heritage, songlines, burial grounds and, in fact, the first human contact for this continent. How remarkable is that? That is Australia's story, not just First Nations people's, but we are custodians of that land and sea country. All of this is at risk if that pipeline goes right through the middle of that. I don't see anybody in this country sticking pipelines through cemeteries or the Shrine of Remembrance or the Australian War Memorial. That is not happening in this country. Why should it happen for Tiwi people? That is my question. My message to those traditional owners is to keep up this fight across this country, particularly Tiwi people, because you have us here in the Greens in your corner all the way. Taking on the fossil fuel industry is no small task. Traditional owner Antonia Burke said, 'We are the cultural giants'—we are the people taking that on—and she is absolutely right in her commentary. This behaviour from Santos is disgusting and shameful, but we expect nothing more from them, because they're all about themselves. They're just another fossil fuel company that is solely concerned about lining the pockets of its executives and its shareholders at the expense of the climate, First Nations people and the environment, particularly in our oceans. That's why I have the Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country Bill 2023 as my private senator's bill. Another example of their disdain for First Nations people is their use of the highly respected Kaurna and Ngarrindjeri elder Uncle Moogy without his consent. Santos have done that: they've put Uncle Moogy up there as a pin-up saying that they're doing the right thing by First Nations people. They're convincing us that they care about blakfellas in this country, but their actions tell a very, very different story. Like I said, we expect this dodgy behaviour from Santos, but we don't expect this from the government. This government is giving them a leg up for this project, for Barossa, for Middle Arm, for Beetaloo. They're doing that. They're masking the climate action that is required, and that is shameful. They should come into this place and hang their heads in shame. Mind you, this is support of a technology that has not been proven. Senator Roberts comes in here and talks about the science. It has not been proven to scale. It is not a viable option to reduce any emissions. All the current evidence points to solely that PR spin that Senator Hanson-Young talked about—the PR tactic to justify the continued use, the new and expanded projects, of coal and gas in this country. It is disgraceful. That's about as useful as CCS is. It's political and PR spin. This government should be taking tangible and meaningful steps toward fighting climate change, such as shutting down and not expanding fossil fuel projects; ending native logging, which my colleague Senator Rice talked so passionately about; investing in renewables; building new transmission; and reforming our environment laws. Yet this government is taking this so-called 'climate action'—wow. CCS has not met any expectations either offshore or onshore. Perhaps the most obvious example I would like to talk about is in my home state of Western Australia. The Chevron Gorgon facility at Barrow Island, which is being propped up by the government, is the largest CCS facility in the country, and it's only running at one-third of its capacity—more wasted time, energy and public money. In spite of this, this government is pushing ahead with this bill and propping up that unproven technology. This government is sinking taxpayer money into a review of this technology when it already knows what it is. I think all of us sitting in this block of the chamber know exactly what that outcome will be, and we'll continue to fight for the truth to be revealed and the science to be listened to. At the end of 2022 there were 30 operating CCS projects in the world, and if they were operating at capacity, they would sequester 42.6 million tonnes of CO2 annually. This might sound like a lot, but it's actually only one-tenth of Australia's 2022 emissions. It's important to note here that there are a number of operating CCS projects globally, including enhanced oil recovery, or EOR, which is where the technology for CCS originally came from. EOR involves pumping the CO2—and Senator Whish-Wilson already talked about this—into the wells and into these nearly depleted basins to get more oil out. It actually increases the life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions. The takeaway from this, folks, for noting, iswhat these projects could sequester if they were at operating capacity, and the actual numbers are a lot worse. The Australian Institute estimates that, combined, all CCS projects globally may be sequestering only 6.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gas per year. However, Santos claim that they're able to sequester 10 million just at their facility in the Timor Sea—how very ambitious of them! If only that were feasible or there were any scientific evidence to back up this claim! I find it very hard to believe that one project alone will store more carbon annually than every CCS project globally. This is all going to happen on your watch, Labor, as you're the government that are in power. There are so many flaws in this bill and in the technology that it seeks to facilitate. The Greens cannot support this bill. It is greenwashing and it is a shameful move, as has already been outlined by my colleagues. The government is claiming to take strong action on climate change—it's a joke. 11:51 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the so-called Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. I've got to stifle a chuckle. It would probably be more aptly titled the 'Using Unproven Technologies to Try to Hide Climate Change Bill'. That would be a more accurate description of this bill, which from cover to cover is an exercise in greenwashing. I pity the poor person that has to come up with the titles for these bills, particularly when they're the opposite of what the bill is seeking to do. What we have before us today is a con job that is there to facilitate more fossil fuels. This bill is an attempt to facilitate more oil and gas development in our oceans by pretending that carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is commercially viable and somehow an effective climate solution. More on that later. Again, you've got to laugh, or you will absolutely cry. Labor and the Liberals are ramming through this bill which benefits major gas giant and major donor Santos, and other fossil fuel giants. This is despite evidence that identifies CCS as a public relations con, merely a delay tactic by the coal and gas industry to pretend it's doing something other than jeopardising the future of this planet for its own private profits. Pumping carbon pollution under the sea from gas rigs and storing it underground simply does not stack up. The importing and exporting of carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration risks turning Australia's oceans and those of our near neighbours into dumping grounds for the world's pollution. We are incredibly concerned that this legislation appears to be motivated primarily to facilitate the Santos Barossa project and its related Bayu-Undan CCS and other fossil fuel projects off Australia's northern coastlines. As well as that, it's intended to provide this government and its mates in the fossil fuel cartel with political cover to open up new areas of our ocean to fossil fuel exploration. The Albanese government should be taking tangible, meaningful steps to fight the climate crisis by committing to no more coal, oil or gas and by ending the expansion of new fossil fuel projects, but instead it's taken the valuable and short time of the drafters to bring forward a bill that appears to have been written by the fossil fuel industry for the fossil fuel industry. It's very telling that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are in fierce agreement on this bill. We've seen mostly opposition from this opposition, but on this matter they are on a unity ticket. Nothing unites the two big parties like support for new coal, oil and gas. That's because they are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of the fossil fuel industry. You don't need to look much further than the $11 billion in subsidies given every year to the fossil fuel industry. It's taxpayer money, public money, being allocated to things like accelerated depreciation and cheap diesel fuel for fossil fuel companies—$11 billion every year. I thought we were in a cost-of-living crisis. Most people out there will tell you we are in a cost-of-living crisis. But we all know you can't turn off the tap of taxpayer subsidies for the fossil fuel companies! So we've got an absolute unity ticket from the two big parties on this bill to bury carbon pollution under the sea. Honestly, a three-year-old wouldn't think this up and think that it could work. We've got a unity ticket to continue giving $11 billion of public money to fossil fuel companies, even though they're raking in millions in profits and often not paying any tax at all, let alone the tax they should be paying under our pretty weak corporate tax structures. They're also ripping off their workers much of the time, I might add. But we've also got the fact there is a very weak greenhouse gas reduction target in this country. It's not based on science. It's a political target. It's not a science based target. We saw the Treasurer in the last few days admit that we're not on track to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets or our Renewable Energy Target. We've also got both of the two big parties that accept millions of dollars in donations from the fossil fuel industry. Often you see many of the former ministers who, apparently, were meant to have been regulating the industry go off and work for industry once they leave parliament. There are countless examples of that. APPEA, the gas lobby, is headed by former ministers. In fact, some of the frontbenchers in the government used to work for Santos before they were elected. There's a revolving door between the fossil fuel industry and this parliament, and it absolutely stinks. It's why we've got bills today that will permit and seek to legitimise the ludicrous notion of burying carbon pollution under the ocean in an effort for onshore multinational corporations to claim that they're meeting their greenhouse gas reduction targets! Who can get away with it—burying it and saying it doesn't exist? Let's hope it doesn't leak. Let's hope there's no seismic activity that can lead to it bubbling up to the surface. Let's cross our fingers, shall we? What kind of a climate policy is that? What an absolute joke! We see, today, a bill that attempts to subvert the effect of the safeguard mechanism. The government have taken the time to write this—or, again, perhaps the fossil fuel industry actually wrote the laws, and they've just changed the logo at the top! They've taken time to do this. They haven't taken time to draft a climate trigger in our environmental protection laws. They haven't taken time to actually fix our environmental laws. They certainly haven't taken time to write any other piece of legislation that says 'No new coal or gas'. Their priorities are speaking volumes, and it makes me sick. I'm from Queensland, where sadly we've just had yet more people die over the weekend as a result of the bushfires burning in my state. We had about 70 fires burning a few weeks ago. We're down to 40 now. But it's really early in the season. Two weeks ago two people tragically lost their lives during bushfires in Queensland's Western Downs region, just out the back of where I live, in Meanjin. Glenda Chapman is one of those people; she is believed to have suffered a heart attack while attempting to evacuate from the bushfire zone. And Ulrich Widawski is believed to have died while defending his property in Tara. Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of Glenda and Ulrich. This sadness extends to the families of the 16 homes destroyed as a result of those Tara fires and the 350 people who had to be evacuated while 11,000 hectares of land around Tara were burnt. We're up to at least 58 homes destroyed in Queensland in just the last few weeks from these fires. The fire season started pretty early and it started early last year as well, in September. That leaves less time to do fuel reduction managed burns. This is getting worse and worse, and this government's answer is a bill to let Santos and multinational companies bury their carbon pollution under the sea, while simultaneously giving them $11 billion of taxpayer money to shore up their corporate profits. Honestly, this is just ludicrous. I just don't understand what is going on in the heads of the people who are meant to be running this country. We see so many of them leave and go and work for those fossil fuel companies. I say to them: I'm sorry, but your job here is to represent the public interest, and, ideally, you should do it based on the science. When people are losing their lives, we demand better from you. Yesterday, three people supporting the bushfire response in Queensland tragically lost their lives in the crash of a firefighting surveillance plane. These people were trying to help, and now they're not with us anymore. William Joseph Jennings was one of three people killed. He was a 22-year-old who was a recent mechanical engineer graduate. These Queensland deaths come after two firefighters were reported dead in New South Wales last month. This stuff is deadly. It's burning through tens of thousands of hectares of native bushland, with countless millions of native species lost. It's wrecking homes, and we're now losing lives. Again, the coal, oil and gas frenzy that's supported by this government, with the complete sign-up of the opposition, is driving the climate crisis, and the climate crisis is what's making these extreme weather events more frequent, more damaging, more scary and more dangerous. I don't understand why they can't put two and two together. I don't understand why it's not a simple science based conclusion in the public interest to say, 'No new coal, oil and gas.' Australians voted for a change of government because they wanted a change of policy, including on climate policy, and so far they've been sorely disappointed. We face a really scary summer going forward. This government's response to all that overwhelming evidence is to approve five new coalmines under Environment Minister Plibersek—and now a bill that will do the bidding of Santos and help encourage the burying of carbon pollution under the ocean, in some laughable attempt to pretend it doesn't exist. I might also add that the minister was arguing in court just a few weeks ago that she didn't have a duty of care to think about the future of our schoolkids when it comes to acting on the climate crisis. They want to bury carbon pollution offshore, they want to give $11 billion of subsidies to fossil fuel companies and they don't have a climate trigger. What are you doing, people? I say to the schoolkids who were up in the gallery just a few minutes ago: I'm really sorry that your government is teaming up with the fossil fuel industry and that the two big political parties are in lockstep to facilitate new fossil fuels. We should be arguing about how quickly we should be transitioning off existing fossil fuels. That's the debate we should be having, and obviously the Greens want to do that as quickly as possible in a way that makes sure that no worker is left behind, that those resource based communities are asked what they want to come next for their community and that transition is planned arm in arm with those communities and those workers. That's the debate we should be having. Instead, we're begging you to not facilitate new coal, oil and gas in 2023. I've been in this place for a little while now, and I remember when last decade was called the critical decade for climate action. Well, it's 2023 now. What are we going to call this one—the really, really, truly critical decade? 'We're really not kidding this time.' I don't understand what is missing in this 'bozone layer', if I can be so bold, between the science and the two large political parties. I've already mentioned the large amount of donations that flow into their re-election coffers, and perhaps that has something to do with it, along with the incredibly overpaid lobbying jobs that no doubt await them. I want to make a few other points. This bill, in particular, is really designed to get around the safeguard mechanism. Of course, the Greens sought and secured some strengthening to that safeguard mechanism, which imposed considerable additional costs on the Barossa LNG development. An estimated cost of between $500 million and $987 million out to 2030 would have been incurred by Santos. Boy, are they unhappy about that. So they've rung up their mates in government and said, 'Can you fix this for us, please?' and this is the bill that has eventuated. What an absolute sham. A few of the non-government organisations who do excellent work have also made some comments about this bill. The Environment Centre NT says, 'This bill, if passed, will permit a new industry in Australia—the import and export of CO2 across international boundaries for subseabed carbon capture and storage. The bill is strategically significant since CCS is a crucial plank in the gas industry's sophisticated global strategy to maintain and improve its social licence by appearing to act on climate, while simultaneously opening up new fossil fuel projects against the advice of such bodies as the International Energy Agency and the IPCC.' I continue: 'This bill represents the Albanese government's collusion with and active pursuit of this gas industry strategy, including the greenwashing of significant fossil fuel expansion plans in Australia.' What an absolute farce that here we are debating allowing the carbon pollution of new fossil fuels to be buried under the sea when most of my state is on fire, people are dying and you guys keep taking the money from the big fossil fuel companies. For shame. 12:07 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria When are we going to get serious about the climate crisis which is facing the planet and every single person and species—every single living creature—on this planet? It is absolutely irrefutable that we are in a climate crisis. The massive impact of the climate crisis, the extinction crisis, that we are currently in is an existential risk to the future of humanity on this planet—the future of life as we know it. We know what's causing it. It is the ongoing burning of fossil fuels. This is what is causing it. There is no doubt about the science. The science has been clear for over 100 years. We know that the heating of the planet is being caused by the burning of coal, gas and oil. The science is equally clear as to what needs to happen to try and mitigate and pull back from the existential crisis that we are facing. It's very clear what we need to do. We need to stop the burning of coal, gas and oil. At the very least, we need to stop expanding the burning of coal, gas and oil. So why is it that, in 2023, we are in this place debating a bill that is going to allow for the massive expansion of new fossil fuels? It is just totally unbelievable when everybody, from the Tiwi Islands to New York and from Kiribati to the people who are suffering from fires in Queensland at the moment—anyone who has got any ounce of understanding of the crisis that we're currently facing—knows that what needs to happen is that we stop the burning of coal, gas and oil as quickly as possible. We need to be getting out of fossil fuel use and replacing it with a rapid shift to clean, renewable energy. Yet what we are doing today, with the support of the government and the opposition—hand in hand, total cahoots—is debating a bill that is going to allow for the massive expansion of new gas. And don't give me any garbage about how this is somehow about reducing the impact of climate change, that it's somehow going to be a magic bullet that means we can just keep on mining and burning this gas as much as we want. We know the reality about carbon capture and storage. It is a technology that has been touted by the fossil fuel industry for decades now. It is pseudoscience, as the UN have said. It is not going to allow us to continue the burning of coal, gas and oil and to expand that burning, and it is a complete fallacy—a lie—to say that it is. Maybe sometime in the future—look, I'm happy for scientists to keep on doing the work on carbon capture and storage, as long as they don't actually destroy the ocean environments with the seismic testing that's required for it and destroy the lives of sea creatures that are massively impacted by the seismic testing—there will maybe be a small future for carbon capture and storage for, as Senator Grogan said on behalf of the government before, hard-to-abate sectors. We know we need to be sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. We need to be doing everything we can to reduce the carbon levels in our atmosphere if we're going to have a future. So maybe there is a tiny role for CCS in the future. But it is totally unproven now, and it is certainly not something to be legislated for now, to be giving the green light for, to allow massive expansion. We know that if this goes ahead and if the Barossa project and the associated projects go ahead it is going to result in more carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. It is going to result in more global heating. It is going to result in intensification of the climate crisis that we are currently in. I want to spend my time here today just reminding everybody of how serious this is. It's not a minor thing that we are facing. It is the No. 1 existential crisis facing the world now. It's been facing the world for decades, and it's getting worse. When I started in this place, in 2014, I said I wanted to be able to look my grandchildren in the eye and say that it was during my time in the Senate that we made the shift towards tackling the climate crisis and the shift towards a safe climate. Sadly, almost 10 years on, we have made next to zero progress. But in that 10 years, what has changed is that we've gone from talking about the climate crisis that we are going to face in the future to talking about the climate crisis that we are facing now. The fires in Queensland are the latest example, after the fires of 2019-20—the Black Summer—and the fires being experienced in the US and Canada. These are places that have never burnt before in the history of humans on this planet. There are fires across the world, and they are continuing, because the world is getting hotter. I weep when I think of the lives that are going to be lost. Four years on from the 2019-20 fires we are facing what it looks like is going to be another pretty awful summer, and the Queensland fires are a foretaste of what that's going to look like. There will be much more loss. More people will die. Many more animals will die. Many more environments will be pushed to the brink—forest environments that are not going to recover from it. I look at the wonderful tall, wet forests that I know so well and love, and I think, how long are they going to be in existence? I think of the threatened ecosystem of the mountain ash forests in Victoria's central highlands and all the creatures that depend upon that ecosystem. If we have yet another fire season like we had in 2019-20 that rips through those forests at increasing frequencies those forests are not going to be there. It will be a huge loss. Just think about the heat that the climate crisis is bringing upon this planet. Think about the people who are living in poor-quality housing without air-conditioning and with poor-quality insulation in the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, where we're looking at a trajectory of having heat in summer hitting 50 degrees. People can't live in that heat. People will die. It will be the most vulnerable people. It will be older people. It will be people with pre-existing health issues who are going to die. We know in the Black Summer fires that many more people died from heat than died from the fires. That's just in Australia. Think of the heat in the tropics. In the last European summer, the heat that was experienced was on the verge of hitting levels that people just cannot survive. When you get that combination of heat and humidity, human beings just can't survive in those environments. Think of people who live in outback Australia. When you've got temperatures reaching 50 degrees, you don't survive. You die. This is what we are bequeathing to the future. Think about the huge impact on our water supplies that global heating is having. Think about our ability to grow food. The climate of our major wheat-growing areas in Australia under three degrees of warming is forecast to become the same as the climate of the central deserts. You don't grow wheat in the central deserts. The increasing temperatures of the planet is going to have a massive impact upon our ability to grow food. Again, look at people in the tropics. Currently billions of people rely upon the ability to grow food in the tropics. The climate of the tropics is going to mean they will not be able to grow food there. This will impact on billions and billions of people. This is what we are staring down the barrel at. This is why every Green in this place is getting up here and speaking to this bill today. This is not the legislation that we should be introducing and debating in this place today. It is not legislation that should have the government, the Liberal Party, the National Party and others joining together to be pushing through this parliament. This is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. We know we should be debating how we can quickly transition to getting out of fossil fuels altogether. We know that's what we should be doing and that that's the sort of legislation that would be giving us a future. But it's not. That shows where the power really lies in this place, when we've got the government, the Liberals and the Nationals teaming up to be passing legislation like this. It shows that they are puppets of the fossil fuel industry. They are puppets of the industry that is destroying life on this planet as we know it. The fact that this legislation that is going to increase our carbon pollution is being pushed through by this government shows that's where the power lies. Forget about democracy. Forget about the fact that you've got the majority of Australians wanting to see us drastically reduce our carbon pollution. The government are not listening to all of those Australians that want to see a drastic reduction in our carbon pollution. They are listening to their donors and they are listening to their mates. They are in cahoots with the fossil fuel destroyers. There's a revolving door. The same people who one day are a member of parliament are the next day a mining company executive. We know the fossil fuel industry makes a motza out of destroying the planet. They are making a huge amount of money out of it. We know that they're not going to give it up in a hurry. That's why we need to have governments to actually say: 'No. This is not in the interests of humanity. It is not in the interests of life on the planet.' When you have the UN, the IPCC and every reputable organisation on the planet saying, 'Stop new coal, gas and oil,' you would think that we could have a government that is responsible enough to be taking that to heart. But, no. Why should I be surprised? I was one of the founders of the Greens in Victoria 32 years ago because I saw that Labor and the Liberals weren't listening when it came to these existential threats. In fact it was about climate. Having studied climate science, having learnt about the science of global warming, global heating, the greenhouse effect—I learnt about that at university when I was 20, studying climate science, 43 years ago. And when I learnt about it, I said: 'This is really serious! The world needs to be doing something about it.' At which stage I finished my science degree and I set out on a career as an activist. I had a partner who ended up being one of the world's leading climate scientists, who kept me on track in terms of what the science was actually saying. And so we founded the Greens because we knew, we could see then, over 30 years ago, that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party weren't going to be listening to the people on this issue. They were going to be listening to their corporate vested interests, to their puppetmasters. Don't despair, folks, because it's very clear. This bill is laying that clear today. It's very clear what the role of the Greens is, and the crossbench who are speaking up and the teal independents who were elected at the last election. The Labor and Liberal parties are not listening to the people, they are not listening to the science, they are not looking at the disaster that's coming towards us, so they need to be chucked out. They need to be replaced. They are not going to change. It is very clear they are not going to change. The power of the fossil fuel industry has got their tentacles into them and they are not going to change, so chuck them out. Vote for people who are going to listen. Vote so that we would have a government in this place that would be respecting the science, that would not be bringing legislation like this into this parliament today. That's what we need to be doing. Chuck them out and vote for people who are actually going to be listening. 12:22 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill amends the current sea dumping act. The amendments to the act proposed by this bill would enable a permit to be granted for the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for the purpose of sequestration into a sub-seabed geological formation in accordance with the 2009 amendments to the London protocol, and enable a permit to be granted for the placement of wastes or other matter for a marine geoengineering activity for the purpose of scientific research in accordance with the 2013 amendments to the London protocol. This means that fossil fuel corporations in Australia get a free ticket to ship their CO2 abroad for the purpose of sequestration or storage under the sea. This bill is a gift to the fossil fuel industry. It allows the gas industry to use carbon capture and storage to continue its expansion, and let's these polluters launder their reputation. This bill represents the pure collusion between the Albanese Labor government and the gas industry by greenwashing what is actually the expansion of fossil fuels. This is written by the fossil fuel industry for the fossil fuel industry. Carbon capture and storage is nothing but a public relations campaign led by the biggest emitters in the world. The only purpose is to delay the closure of coal and gas. CCS allows these coal and gas corporations to pretend they're doing anything other than completely jeopardising our future on this planet. In a report released last year of the 13 flagship CCS and carbon capture utilisation and storage projects, it showed that more than half of them underperformed, two failed and one was mothballed. During the inquiry into this bill, the Environmental Defenders Office submitted: … policies such as CCS and geoengineering carry the risk of justifying ongoing use and extraction of fossil fuels, and strongly recommends they should not be promoted or encouraged in order to sustain the life of the fossil fuel industry. CCS in particular also carries significant risk of additional and unintentional emissions pollution in its operation, while the environmental and social risks of large scale geoengineering remain unknown. In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the Australian Marine Conservation Society expressed concerns about the impact of CCS on marine life, highlighting the effects of infrastructure, seismic testing and a lack of clear regulation. A prime example of the complete failure of CCS is Chevron's Gorgon CCS project, which sits off the coast of Western Australia. This project was due to commence in 2016, but they didn't start their carbon capture until 2019. Despite being years behind schedule and only reaching one-third of their promised emissions reductions, Chevron still receive millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for their project. The Chevron example is just one of many CCS projects failing to meet their targets already. CCS is not a viable method of reducing emissions at scale. It's a complete dud. It is a false solution that prolongs dependence on fossil fuels and delays their replacement with renewable alternatives. Along with my colleagues, the Greens are incredibly concerned that this legislation appears to be motivated to primarily facilitate the Santos Barossa project, it's related Bayu-Undan CCS projects and other fossil fuel projects off Australia's northern coastlines, as well as provide this government and its mates in the fossil fuel cartel political cover to open up new areas of our ocean to fossil fuel exploration. Santos claims it's Bayu-Undan CCS project will have the capacity of 10 million tonnes per year. But the maths just doesn't stack up for Santos, if it sticks by its claim, to have the ability to capture more pollution in one project than all of the world's current CCS projects combined, having no proven track record of doing anything anywhere of this scale elsewhere. The disastrous Barossa gas project, if it goes ahead, could damage ancient burial sites, dreaming tracks and cultural artefacts. I commend the Tiwi Island traditional owners, who've been fighting fiercely and relentlessly to stop this project from destroying their country. They have successfully won an emergency injunction to pause the Barossa gas project from going ahead, forcing Santos to pause its installation of the 263-kilometre-long gas pipeline. The destruction of tangible and intangible cultural heritage would be devastating to traditional owners, who have spiritual connections to significant sites, songlines, totems and ancient burial grounds. The power and financial imbalance between big fossil fuel companies and traditional owners is enormous and unfair, but this injunction buys time. That is critical because, once destroyed, the damage cannot be reversed. This is not the first legal challenge Santos has faced in relation to Barossa and traditional owners. Last year Santos lost an appeal against a landmark decision that overturned approvals for its $4.7 billion Barossa offshore gas project. This begs the question of why the Albanese Labor government is falling over itself to rush to the aid of Santos. Santos, like the rest of the fossil fuel industry in Australia, continues to reap the benefits of its buddies in the major parties, with Australian state and federal governments handing over $11.6 billion—I'll say that again: $11.6 billion—worth of tax breaks and subsidies to help them along. Considering Santos has donated over half a million to the Labor Party from 2015 to 2022, that's a pretty great rate of return for them. What do the Australian people get out of this deal? Well, off the bat, it's Santos paying no tax on its $68 million taxable income. In a cost-of-living crisis, it's absurd that the Labor government is prioritising the needs of fossil fuel companies like Santos while refusing to give more help to Australian families doing it tough. Add to this, we have the Santos CEO saying: … oil and gas is going to be here whether CCS is here or not. That's just a fact of life—you cannot replace oil and gas. So, to clarify: on the one hand, the Albanese government wants to increase CCS because of some vague commitment to stopping climate change, and, on the other hand, you have the CEO of Santos saying that actually they have no intention of ever stopping. The fact that this bill is being rammed through parliament shows just the lengths that the Labor and Liberal parties are willing to go to to appease their donor Santos and the Japanese government investors in Barossa. This bill is a cynical and blatant attempt by the Albanese Labor government to facilitate more oil and gas drilling in our oceans. To pursue such an outcome, in the service of the oil and gas industry, is ecocidal. Our ecosystem is being crushed under the weight of climate change. We are seeing accelerations of climate catastrophes like never before. As the UN Secretary-General says, 'The era of global boiling has arrived.' The forecasts are clear and unambiguous: 2023 will be the hottest year in recorded history. Earlier this year we watched in horror the catastrophic wildfires that ripped through Canada and Europe, and the devastation in Hawaii. In my home state of Queensland, the predictions of an early and destructive bushfire season are coming true before our very eyes, with hundreds of bushfires across the state and 80 per cent of the state at high fire risk. Gladstone, my home town, has not been immune, with fires in Oyster Creek, Deepwater, Mount Tom and Colosseum forcing people out of their homes. Central Queensland has been choked in smoke, and it's barely November. Bushfires are destroying homes and properties and devastating lives. Along with my colleague Senator Larissa Waters, I extend my sincere condolences to the families of the two Queenslanders who have died in the Queensland fires in recent weeks. Fire seasons are getting longer and more intense, and it's getting harder to prepare adequately. The Albanese government must stop pouring fuel onto the fire. The Albanese government should be taking tangible, meaningful steps to fight climate change by ending the expansion of new fossil fuel projects. Instead, it has taken valuable time and energy to draft and bring forward a bill that appears to be written by the fossil fuel industry for the fossil fuel industry. The Albanese government must implement the Greens recommendations to change the EPBC Act, including adding a climate trigger. Otherwise, bills such as this are nothing more than the Labor government caving to fossil fuel industry demands. The environment minister and the Labor Party need to stop doing the bidding of their fossil fuel mates and start doing what the Australian people elected them to do: to meaningfully act on climate change. Rather than favours for Santos, the vast majority of Australians want more action on climate change and they want an end to new coal and gas projects. If the government fails to deliver, there will be dire consequences for generations to come. In 2018 I went back to Gladstone as a teacher. I remember early on that year I was teaching a course in work education, and part of the program that I was given for that course was to encourage students to participate in community debate. The question that was before students in that lesson was: should we continue to dig up and ship out coal and gas? Keep in mind that this was a class of students in Gladstone, in Central Queensland, a town that was built off the back of processing and exporting coal and gas. The students were asked to put themselves on a continuum—to stand at one end of the classroom if they thought we should absolutely stop doing that as quickly as possible and to stand on the other side of the room if they thought we should keep going. I simply asked the students to stand and place themselves somewhere on the continuum so we could start the debate. Out of a class of around 28 kids, 27 went to the far end of the room to signal that they thought we should stop digging up and exporting coal and gas now—27 out of 28 young people. The young people in this country know that we cannot afford to continue to dig up and frack coal, gas and oil. They know that their future depends on it. They are looking to the adults in the room and the adults who are their political representatives to give them a future. We have every climate scientist, the UN and the International Energy Agency telling us that if we are going to give our young people a future that is livable then we must stop digging up and fracking and drilling for coal, gas and oil. This bill, far from doing that, gives cover to the fossil fuel industry to continue business as usual. I was a teacher for 30 years because I care about our young people. It is about time this parliament showed the young people of this country that they too care about their future. 12:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Here we find ourselves yet again with the political duopoly in this place colluding to do the bidding of big fossil fuel. In this particular circumstance, the Labor and Liberal parties are colluding to do the bidding of the gas cartel. Even more specifically, in this place, the Labor and Liberal parties are colluding to do the bidding of Santos. We should all understand the context of this debate. Fires are burning across the eastern seaboard of Australia. Globally, temperature records are being smashed, ocean temperatures are soaring and ice fields and glaciers are melting. Folks, if you can't actually feel—if you can't actually understand—the seriousness of the situation that we find ourselves in, you are simply not paying attention. The feedback loops have well and truly kicked in. The Gulf Stream is flickering. The great drivers of a relatively stable climate on this planet are beginning to falter. If you can't think about what that means for yourselves, think about what it means for your kids and your grandkids and their kids and their grandkids. We are in far more trouble than most of us realise. There's a very real possibility that we've left our run too late to avoid catastrophic impacts. There's a very real possibility that we've left our run too late to avoid a significant collapse in the society that we all take for granted. History is going to view us collectively in this place very, very poorly indeed, unless we get our act together and act now, act strongly and act urgently. We could do that and we must do that, but it will only happen if the Labor and Liberal parties divorce themselves from big fossil fuel companies. This legislation shows clearly that that is a long, long way from happening. Believe me; Santos, the gas cartel and the big fossil fuel corporations have got their hooks well and truly into the political duopoly in this place, and that is proven starkly by this legislation. Let's get back to first principles here. The Labor Party's policy of a 43 per cent reduction by 2030 is aligned to a world of more than two degrees of warming. We're going to see food shortages, mass displacement, mass involuntary migration, floods, fires, storm surges and sea level rise. The Treasurer acknowledged only last week that the government are not even on track to deliver on their pathetic 43 per cent target. But rather than actually do something about that, rather than actually taking some action to meet their legislated—although inadequate—emissions reduction target, what's the government been doing for the last week? Colluding with the opposition to enable gas expansion. The origins of this bill clearly come out of the safeguard negotiations, where the amendments secured by the Greens increased the capital cost of developing the dirty carbon bomb Barossa project and significantly increased the capital cost, in some estimations, by close to $1 billion. The people of the Tiwi Islands successfully challenged the project in the Federal Court and again pushed up the costs of that project—a beautiful thing! But now Santos is calling in its favours. And here we find ourselves today, with the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party all working together to get this bill through not for the planet, not for our children and our grandchildren, and their kids and grandkids, but for Santos. A valid question is: how can Santos just click their fingers and make sure this legislation sails through the parliament? Well, maybe Senator Chisholm could tell us about that because he came straight from Santos to the Senate. A former political strategist of Santos is sitting in this chamber right here, right now, as this legislation is debated. Maybe Senator Chisholm knows full well how Santos can click their fingers and get legislation like this through the Senate. Maybe it's the well over $1 million that Santos has donated to the Labor Party over the years. Maybe it's the over $1 million that Santos has donated to the Liberal and National parties over the years. Maybe it's their lobbyist Tracey Winters, a former employee of Martin Ferguson—who went, by the way, from being the resources minister who caused all the gas shortages and cartel behaviour on the east coast gas market straight to the job as head of APPEA. Last week in Senate estimates, the Attorney-General's Department confirmed that Ms Winters, who now runs a consultancy to advise Santos, should be on the lobbyist register but she is not. We also had it confirmed by departmental officials that they have met with Ms Winters this year when she should have been registered as a lobbyist and disclosing to departmental officials. So what have we got? A situation where an unregistered lobbyist for Santos is running around putting the squeeze on the major parties in this place. It's absolutely disgusting. Make no mistake, big fossil fuel has got its hooks into the Australian Labor Party and big fossil fuel has got its hooks into the coalition in this place. There is a revolving door that exists for Labor and Liberal-National Party politicians. They do their time in this place, delivering outcomes for big fossil fuel companies, and then they roll out the door into cushy, plum appointments in those very same fossil fuel companies. The list is nearly endless of former major party politicians and their senior staff who now hold cushy, plum appointments in fossil fuel corporations and PR firms advising big fossil fuel corporations. It is disgusting, it is corrupt and it needs to end. That's what it will take for this parliament to actually start passing legislation that will potentially save billions of lives this century. That is what it will take for this parliament to start passing legislation to ensure that we stop approving new coal and gas mines, that we stop clear-felling our native forests and that we stop publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels in this country. That is what it will take for this parliament to pass legislation that will mean that we're not going to face billions of people being displaced from their homes around the world, mostly poor, brown and black skinned people from the global south. That's what it would take to make sure this parliament fulfils its responsibility not just to everyone in Australia and around the planet now but to our children, our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren. That's what it will take, but we're a long way from that happening as we stand here and debate this legislation. The proof of that is the fact that we are standing here and debating this legislation, which is simply a barefaced scam designed to deliver for Santos. That's what we're doing here today. Sometime this week—possibly even sometime later today—the bells are going to go and we're going to find out who in this chamber is prepared to sit on the side of this beautiful planet that supports all human life, on the side of the complex, awe-inspiring ecosystems and ecological processes that support all life on this planet and on the side of unborn children, their unborn children and their unborn grandchildren. And we're going to find who's going to sit on the side of the ecocidal fossil fuel corporations. Here's what's going to happen, folks: the major party politicians, the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics, are going to sit with the ayes and pass this bill. There will be a small number of people—and I proudly let you all know that that will include every single Australian Greens senator—on the other side of the chamber voting no to this despicable piece of legislation. In voting no we will be standing up for the future, we will be standing up for a safe planet and we will be standing up for future generations. The people who will sit on this side will find themselves on the wrong side of history soon enough—mark my words. But today they're going to come in here—and they are in here right now—and do the bidding of big fossil fuel: the gas cartel and the fossil fuel corporations. Many of them do it to feather their own nests. Maybe Senator Chisholm is going to roll back out into the Santos boardroom. Who knows? We know where he came from—from Santos to the Senate. The list is a mile long, of major party politicians who've been spat out the revolving door and into plum, cushy jobs, cooking the planet. That's what they do, because that's just how politics in this country rolls. It is corrupt. It is shameful. It is disgusting. It is disgraceful. So I say to folks: When the bushfires are burning, as they are right now, when people are dying, as they are right now in Australia, in early November, folks, we ain't seen nothing yet. When people are dying, when they're losing their homes, when their insurance premiums are skyrocketing, when hundreds of thousands of people around the world, soon to be millions—soon potentially to be billions—are being displaced from their homes or dying of thirst or dying of starvation or dying from drowning in floods or dying of burning in fires, don't say you weren't told what's causing it and don't say you didn't know the role you played in this unfolding disaster we are living through. Our climate is breaking down. Our biodiversity is crumbling around us. The natural ecosystems that support all life on this planet are flickering and starting to collapse. And what are we doing in this place? The bidding of the big corporations, those ecocidal corporations, with the psychopaths in their boardrooms who are running them, who are prepared to put the pursuit of the almighty profit above the future of human life on this planet. That's what the major parties in here are doing the bidding of today, and that is what we will be proudly voting against when the bells go for the second reading on this debate. Someone has to stand up for future generations. Someone has to stand up for this beautiful planet that we live on. Someone has to stand up to this planet's capacity to support all life, including all human life. 12:52 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It turns out it is so cheap to buy the Labor Party. It is so cheap to put the Labor Party in the pocket of a fossil fuel industry that half a million dollars in donations from Santos is what it's taken for the Labor Party to mortgage the future of our kids. For half a million dollars delivered between 2015 and now, directly into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party, Santos have literally bought the future of our kids and bought the future of our natural ecosystems. It is so cheap to buy Labor, it turns out, if you're a fossil fuel company. It's despicably cheap, to literally sell out the future for half a million dollars in donations from a fossil fuel company, because, let's be clear, that's what Santos have got. They've been planning this for a while, going to the Labor Party fundraisers, delivering $10,000 here and $20,000 there. They've been doing the same with the coalition. Let's be clear: they play both sides. They're not investing in democracy when they're buying the Labor Party; they're investing in their obscene fossil fuel profits to be delivered by a future Labor government. They were paying that money in 2015, when they weren't sure Labor would get into office, and putting a saver on the coalition, and half a million dollars later what do we get? The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, a bill whose label was drafted by George Orwell—the 'Environment Protection Fighting Climate Change Bill'. It's an 'Environment Destruction Aggravating Climate Change Bill'. That's what this bill is. It's a naked attempt by Labor, paid for by their donors in Santos and the fossil fuel industry, to facilitate more oil and gas development in our oceans. It's particularly aimed at facilitating the Barossa project and other related projects off Australia's northern coastlines. And let's remember that the Barossa project is the project that a proud, strong, brave group of Tiwi Islands traditional owners managed finally to get an injunction against, because Santos, with their mates in the federal government, just ran roughshod over decent consultation, just ran roughshod over their rights for native title and to be respected. If this bill goes through it's a critical step to ramming through that 260-odd-kilometre pipeline, right through Tiwi Islands traditional land. Again, imagine delivering that destruction to the Tiwi Islands people's culture and their land. Imagine delivering this destruction to the planet, all because Santos slipped half a million bucks into the ALP coffers. How obscene it is to watch our parliament literally being bought and sold and to watch the Albanese government being literally purchased by the fossil fuel industry like this. This bill, which it looks like is going to be rammed through by Labor and the coalition, the planet-cooking parties, has come only after repeated pushes not only from Santos but also from large overseas fossil fuel corporations. Some of those overseas investors were deeply worried about the extra billion dollars in capital costs that the Greens managed to impose on this offshore gas development before they could get it started. So, they've been looking for ways to claw it back, to claw back some extra profitability from this offshore gas. And what have they got? They've got this Orwellian 'environment protection fighting climate change' bill, which actually is just a sea dumping bill—a sea dumping, sea destroying, ecosystem destroying bill. We know there's been a strong diplomatic push, particularly from the Japanese government, to try to reverse some of the protections the Greens managed to put into what was otherwise a hopelessly weak climate bill from Labor in its first year of this government. They've been pushing and pushing, and donating and donating, and then they get their sea dumping bill, which is a public relations and delaying tactic for the coal and gas industry to pretend it's doing something other than just cooking the future of our planet. And to think, at a time when we had a federal government saying they cared about Voice and cared about First Nations rights, that they're pushing through this bill, a result of which will be the destruction of tangible and intangible cultural heritage for the Tiwi Islands and for First Nations people across the north of this country. Within a month of losing the Voice referendum, they're ramming through legislation to literally tear up those spiritual connections to significant sites—to songlines, to totems and to ancient burial grounds. This is the same government, the Albanese government, that said they cared about a Voice, that they cared about First Nations peoples, and literally within a month they are ramming through destructive legislation to tear apart those songlines, those totems, and to destroy ancient burial grounds—all for $½ million in donations from Santos, and no doubt for the jobs that senior Labor staffers and broken, tired Labor ministers will get in the fossil fuel industry when they leave this place: $½ million for a board here, $200,000 for a board there, a $1 million exec job in the fossil fuel industry. That's what we're facing here—the extended corrupting of democracy through the direct donations and through offers of jobs for broken Labor ministers, for failed backbenchers, for senior staffers, who'll get their cushy jobs in the fossil fuel industry, take the cash and hopefully retire and shuffle off before the fossil fuel industry totally fucks the planet. That's the plan here, from Labor. That's what they're proposing to ram through with their mates in the coalition today. In '21-22 Santos drops $83,360 to the ALP. They'd seen a change in government, and they only put a $38,000 saving bet on the Nationals, with another 38 grand off to the Liberals. That's just in '21-22, and while they're handing this loose change from the fossil fuel industry off to the political parties, what are they giving the public? While Santos had more than $4 billion in revenue in '20-21, they paid not one cent in corporate tax—not one cent. Even when they cooked their investment figures and they skewed their capital expenditure and did every possible write-off that's been given to them under tax law—given to them by Labor, given to them by the coalition—no doubt to their horror, despite all of those write-offs they somehow had a $68 million profit. But they still managed to pay no tax, even on that: $4 billion in revenue, $68 million in profit, not one cent in tax. It's no doubt how they could afford to buy the Labor Party and buy the coalition. Of course, when it comes to carbon capture and storage, this is the long-term bullshit program of the fossil fuel industry. Senator Scarr 282997 Point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I know Senator Shoebridge is passionate about these matters, but if he could find another term. He's a very intelligent man and has a very wide-ranging vocabulary, so I'm sure he can find another word to express his view. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Yes. If you could mind your language, please, that would be preferable. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 In search of a preferred euphemism for carbon capture and storage, a lie a deceit, a complete and utter falsehood. Carbon capture and storage has been hanging around since Tony Abbott was a young politician, and it's about as reliable as a Tony Abbott speech or a Tony Abbott fact. It's about as reliable as a Boris Johnson political promise. Carbon capture storage is a lie from the fossil fuel industry, designed to somehow extend the life of a dying industry. That's what carbon capture and storage is, and to think that we're passing legislation pretending that carbon capture and storage works when we know it doesn't. Every credible report knows it doesn't. Of course, the report that came out of the House of Representatives here isn't a credible report. It was owned and dominated by Labor and the coalition. They just lapped up and repeated Santos's media releases. The majority report that came out of the Senate was much the same, just Labor and the coalition literally abusing logic, abusing fact, abusing science in order to find somehow some narrow path of deceit to pretend that this bill has any merit at all. But carbon capture and storage is a false solution to climate change. It's unproven at scale, and even at the tiny sequestration volumes claimed by the industry in past projects, they leak and they fail to deliver on the storage promises that are given. Even if the proposed storage that will be facilitated by this bill gets up, it will be a tiny proportion of the life cycle emissions of new fossil fuel projects. Carbon capture and storage has not been proven feasible or economic at any viable scale. At best it will be a tiny fraction of the emissions generated from these projects. One of the recent reports by the IEEFA about the Norwegian Sleipner and Snohvit CCS projects demonstrates that CCS has real material ongoing risks that will almost certainly negate all or any of the short-term benefits it seeks to create. That's from a project that was literally paid for by the Norwegian government—which is almost entirely funded by the fossil fuel industry—and even that report says it stinks, it doesn't work, it's dangerous and it's a problem for the future. CCS prolongs dependence on fossil fuels and it delays replacements with renewable energy alternatives. We know that it's going to create long-term environmental health and safety risks for any community in its vicinity and for any worker associated in any way with carbon capture and storage. It is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode to kill, injure and damage those in their vicinity, and to add to global boiling. As the Environmental Defenders Office said in its submission to the Senate inquiry: policies such as CCS and geoengineering carry the risk of justifying ongoing use and extraction of fossil fuels, and [they strongly recommend] they should not be promoted or encouraged in order to sustain the life of the fossil fuel industry. CCS in particular also carries significant risk of additional and unintentional emissions pollution in its operation, while the environmental and social risks of large scale geoengineering remain unknown. That's the evidence. Yet the ecocide lovers in the Labor Party and the ecocide lovers in the coalition want to pass this bill to open up the Barossa fields. They want to pass this bill to justify more offshore coal and gas. They want to pass this bill to keep their mates in the fossil fuel industry happy, to keep the donations rolling in. They want to pass this bill so that when they're pensioned off out of this place, they can walk hand-in-glove with the fossil fuel industry through that nice revolving door and get their job on the board, get the job from their mates, get the executive pay and sell out our future and democracy. Of course we're going to vote against this, but it'll be a spectacle that any person concerned about the future should look at. Watch how Labor and the coalition join together once again to mortgage our future and screw up our climate simply for the short-term money they and their mates will get. We oppose this bill, and I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for the work he's done on this. 13:07 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. The amendments proposed by the bill would, amongst other things, enable a permit to be granted for carbon capture and storage in sub-seabed geological formations. This bill is a naked attempt to facilitate more oil and gas development in our oceans. I was put here by the electors of South Australia who see the climate crisis unfolding around them, who want to see a safe planet for future generations, and who know the new and expanded oil and gas projects are a danger to our kids and to the planet. The science is clear. The experts are united. Our young people are especially clear that their future depends on an end to new fossil fuels around the world, and a rapid shift to renewables and a reduction in pollution. We cannot put out the fire of the climate emergency while pouring petrol on it, and this bill pours petrol on it. It enables the crisis. This bill is on the wrong side of history. Since I arrived in this parliament in July last year, there has been no good news on the climate crisis. I'm a social scientist and so I listen to the scientists. Global teams of climate scientists report that the earth's vital signs are worsening beyond anything we have previously seen, to the point that life on the planet is at risk. Recently, international scientists showed that 20 of 35 vital signs on the planet are at record extremes, pointing to the underlying issue of what they call ecological overshoot. Several facts really must alarm us, and they should be shaping the decisions of this parliament on legislation. This bill should be reflecting that science and that knowledge. We have droughts, floods, temperature increases, typhoons and changed rainfall patterns which are costing lives, homes and communities. They're increasing costs to businesses and to individuals and they're changing agricultural and food production. The costs and incidence of increased fires in Australia are there for us all to see. And it's not just in Australia—this year Canadian wildfires have pumped more than one gigatonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is greater than Canada's total 2021 greenhouse gas emissions. In 2023 there have already been 38 days with global average temperatures more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. According to the latest research, the highest average earth surface temperature ever recorded was in July, and there's reason to believe it was the highest surface temperature the planet has seen in the last 100,000 years. Dr Thomas Newsome, of the Global Ecology Lab in the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Sydney, said recently: The trends indicate the need to drastically speed and scale up efforts globally to combat climate change while more generally reducing our ecological footprint. Dr Newsome and his science colleagues make the point that without action—including an end to new coal, oil and gas—we're on our way to the potential partial collapse of natural and socioeconomic systems, and a world with unbearable heat and shortages of food and fresh water. Many scientists find it very hard to talk about what their science is telling them, and many of our young people find this very hard to hear, and turn away from the news as a consequence. Biodiversity is in decline so much faster than we have predicted—it's now frighteningly fast—and we must arrest its rate of decline and end the continuing deforestation, which is still unfolding in too many places in Australia. So many climate records have been broken by very wide margins in 2023, particularly those related to ocean temperature and sea ice. Scientists expect that, by the end of the 21st century, many regions will have severe heat, limited food availability and elevated mortality rates. We know the cost of this falls particularly on those at the bottom of the income scale—those in poorer countries. In this crisis we should be here in this parliament considering legislation that rapidly accelerates change in order to reduce carbon pollution. Instead, we're considering legislation that does the opposite. It enables carbon production by offering unproven technologies to store it and, indeed, to import CO2 from other places and to store it here. Instead of legislation to reduce pollution, we've got legislation before us that's a naked attempt to expand pollution. The legislation is to facilitate, essentially, the Barossa project and its related Bayu-Undan carbon capture and storage projects as well as other fossil fuel projects off Australia's northern coastlines. This bill will facilitate climate bombs that put our kids' future at risk. Barossa alone is expected to release 13 million tonnes of CO2 a year, which is around three per cent of Australia's total CO2 contribution. That's a massive climate bomb. This bill, and the manner in which it's being rushed through, shows that both Labor and Liberal are working very hard to do the dirty work of Santos, the Japanese government and the investors of Barossa—after the safeguard deal with the Greens, which added almost a million dollars to the capital cost of opening up this dirty gas field. My colleague Senator McKim has pointed to the revolving door of politicians into the oil, gas and coal industries, and the work they do to do the bidding of these large corporations. These companies are in a greedy race for profit, while the world knows we need to end pollution and stop new or expanded oil, coal and gas. The Japanese government and its state owned companies have behaved poorly after the safeguard agreement. What has become clear is that they are not serious about climate action and are using their diplomatic power to push Australia to go slow on the climate transition. This bill is a response to their complaints. Carbon capture and storage is a public relations delaying tactic for the oil and gas industries to pretend they're doing something other than risking the future of our planet. Further, sea based carbon capture and storage will mean the destruction of tangible and intangible cultural heritage that will be devastating to traditional owners who have spiritual connections to significant sites, songlines, totems and ancient burial grounds in the oceans. Pumping carbon under the sea from gas rigs or storing it underground just doesn't stack up. We know that many such projects do not work. They mostly underperform, and others simply fail. Chevron Gorgon has been cited by proponents of carbon capture and storage as an exemplar of a functioning facility, and, as we have heard in previous speeches, that is not the case. In the 12 months to June 2022, Chevron injected only 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 into the underground reservoir, while letting 3.4 million tonnes into the atmosphere, and, in the six years since export of LNG commenced from the Gorgon project, 20.4 million tonnes of CO2 has been extracted but only 6.5 million tonnes has been stored. The importing and exporting of carbon dioxide for sub-seabed sequestration risks turning Australia's oceans and those of our near neighbours into dumping grounds for the world's pollution. It is a fictional device used to enable more coal, oil and gas production. It is unproven at scale. Why should we encourage, and enable, other places to look to Australia for a dumping ground for their waste? South Australians have had some experience of this, with big promises of economic nirvana arriving on the back of taking the rest of the world's toxic waste. In South Australia's case, in 2016, it was high-level nuclear waste. The state was offered fictional amounts of money per tonne of waste, fictional accounts of safe, proven technology—it was neither—and fictional accounts of the cost of building storage for this extremely toxic waste. It was a giant model of unproven assumptions, and South Australians said no. We're looking at a similar kind of proposition here: one which is largely unproven at scale but which provides vital cover for the expansion of oil and gas. Our country should not be the dumping ground for other people's waste problems, especially when the technology is largely unproven and is being mobilised to create cover for the expansion of polluting oil and gas projects, as this bill does. The carbon capture and storage industry has largely been a ploy and a distraction, deliberately designed to greenwash a dirty industry and delay the inevitable: the essential shift to renewables. This bill is about political cover. It's designed to give the government and its friends and donors in the fossil fuel cartel political cover to open up new areas of our ocean to fossil fuel exploration. As my colleague, Senator Shoebridge just commented, this is about, and reflects, political capture. Let's not forget that, in 2021-22, Santos donated over $80,000 to the ALP, $38,000 to the Liberals and $32,000 to the Nationals. Santos has donated over half a million to Labor between 2015 and 2022, and these donations have opened doors. They have fuelled the rotating door to enable legislation like the bill before us, which boosts and protects the profits of Santos, while putting at risk the future of our planet and our kids. In a cost-of-living crisis, it is absurd that a Labor government is prioritising, through this bill, the needs of fossil fuel companies, while refusing to give help to Australian families doing it tough. Significant subsidies underpin the activities contemplated in this bill and related activities. That's public money, and our money has better places to be spent. The Albanese government should be taking tangible, meaningful steps to fight climate change, by ending the expansion of new fossil fuel projects. Instead it has taken the valuable time and energy of this place to draft and bring forward a bill that appears to be written by the fossil fuel industry for the fossil fuel industry. Carbon capture and storage is a false solution for the carbon crisis. It is unproven at scale and, even if sequestration volumes claimed by the industry were achieved, it would offset only a very small proportion of lifecycle emissions of new fossil fuel projects. Carbon capture and storage has not proven feasible or economic at scale. It can only take care of a very small fraction of emissions. It prolongs dependence on fossil fuels and delays their replacement with renewables. It creates environmental health and safety risks for communities. And what will be the impact of this bill on marine life? In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the Australian Marine Conservation Society expressed concern about the impact of CCS on marine life, highlighting the effects of infrastructure and seismic testing and the lack of clear regulation. It is also very likely in its enaction to trample on the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations people in its proposed uses and put at risk their cultural heritage. It is disappointing that the Albanese government has created space within the environmental legislative agenda for this bill in front of effective, future focused environmental laws that would actually help the environment. Urgent environmental matters wait for action while the needs of the fossil fuel industry jump to the front of the queue. We deserve better. Australians deserve better from this government. Our scientists deserve better—for their work to be taken seriously. Most importantly, our kids deserve better. This bill should be rejected. It goes in the wrong direction. The crisis we're in demands different actions that actually address it and create a safe planet, end the loss of biodiversity and give future generations the future, the lives and the communities that they deserve. 13:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia As my colleague Senator Pocock has just stated to the chamber, this proposal—the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023—goes in precisely the wrong direction at precisely the wrong time for all of the wrong reasons. Through the course of this debate, what you have heard from each and every Greens contributor is a factually based, impassioned and detailed critique of this legislation from MPs who were sent to this place to defend the planet and the environment from the clutches and maladministration of parties which have been captured by fossil fuel interests in this country. Senator Pocock spoke of the way in which South Australia is so often used and proposed for the dumping of poisons and types of waste that politicians elsewhere don't want to have in their back garden. That's very much the case also for the state of Western Australia. The state of Western Australia also has a really good knowledge of the absolute con which is carbon capture and storage. The Chevron Gorgon experiment illustrates to the world the moribund nature of this technology. In some ways, I sit here as one of the younger members in this chamber, still attempting, at times, to grapple with the reality that folks far older than me have been able to be convinced that you should get on board with a technology that is the embodiment of a cautionary tale that is given to kindergartners and primary school children. Primary school children are told, 'Don't sweep your problems under the rug,' and yet, as a technology, that's exactly what carbon capture and storage is. It sweeps emissions—or attempts to sweep emissions—under the rug. But it can't even do that properly, and yet we have spent decades in Australia investing billions of dollars of public funds into these proposals. People following along with this debate this afternoon would be wondering, I'm sure, why it is that we would do that. Why would we invest billions of dollars of public funds in a technology that doesn't work and basically flies in the face of a principle that we learn as children? Well, despite what it often may look like when you look into this space, I would put it to the community that the reason for that isn't actually that the vast majority of people in here are ignorant or unintelligent people. It certainly often appears that way, but that's not been my experience of talking and working with many of the people elected to this place. It's not a question of intelligence or access to information. What we see playing out before us is state capture. These decisions are made because the parties that make them in this place are bought by the corporations whom those decisions financially benefit. That is why we end up with these pieces of legislation. That is why we waste the precious time of the people and the planet on proposals like this. Then you might ask yourself, 'Well, what does it cost to buy an outcome like this from a legislative chamber like the Australian parliament? What is the price tag for the Labor and the Liberal parties in this place?' We do have some figures. We have some disclosed pieces of information around how much has been donated, so I'm able to share, as Senator Pocock has shared, as others have shared today, that in 2021-22 Santos, which stands to be the primary beneficiary of this project alongside the Japanese government, donated to the ALP some $83,000 then followed it up with $38,000 to the Liberal Party and $32,000 to the Nationals. It would be sad to be a National. I mean, you people come in here and you basically cosplay as rural Australians. You've never seen a gas project you didn't want to approve yet all you get is $32,000. You must feel robbed. The National party must feel absolutely robbed. Santos—it is hilarious to observe this—paid no tax on its $68 million in taxable income off more than $4 billion in revenue in 2021. I wonder who writes the tax code that lets them do that? Who writes that? Is it the same politicians that take those donations? I think it might be. What a shock. What a stunning surprise. So you have, on one hand, this corporation able to make $4 billion worth of revenue, pay no tax, and, on the other hand, be able to go through a process of approval for a project based on worming its way around Australia's climate policies using a defunct technology. Well, you wonder why people think that this place is rigged. You wonder why people think that this place is bought. This is precisely why. We are heading into a fire season, folks. We're already in one in WA. As I flew out of Western Australia to come here, our state was burning. Volunteer firefighters were fighting along multiple fire fronts. The climate crisis is a reality for the people of Western Australia, as it is a reality for the people of South Australia, as it is a reality for the people of Queensland and for the people of Tasmania. Yet what do we see? We see no declaration of climate emergency from this government, no opposition to projects like this. We see an environment minister who really loves to approve coalmines. We see legislation like this passing through this place to approve more dirty fossil-fuel-heavy projects, trying to game the system, putting hope in a technology that, in terms of emissions reduction, does not work, on the bidding of a company that will make so much money out of this project. And it will do so, by the way, via a tax system that allows it to make the primary profit off what should be treated, if it were ever extracted as sold, as a public resource. It's a joke yet it has such serious consequences for people. Senator Pocock and Senator Hanson-Young see first-hand what the climate crisis is doing to South Australia, is doing to the koalas, is doing to the biodiversity of that great state. I see it first-hand in Western Australia. We are losing precious species that we will never get back. We are losing biodiversity that we will never get back on this precious, ancient continent that we are so lucky to inhabit and share together, gifted to us to guide, stewarded by First Nations people for tens of thousands of years, yet this government and the opposition are determined to oversee its destruction for the sake of a few donations. It makes you sick. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Steele-John, you will be in continuation when the debate resumes. It is now 1.30 pm, so I will proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Economy 28 13:30 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I return to this place from my home state of Western Australia having spent many, many hours out in the community, at the recent Diwali festival at Langley Park, talking to businesses in rural Western Australia and talking to families across the metropolitan area. One word that I think summarises all those conversations is 'pressure'. Families and small business are under an extraordinary amount of pressure at the moment. They've seen their mortgage interest rates skyrocket. They've seen the cost of their business loans skyrocket. They've seen the cost of the inputs to their business skyrocket. They've seen the cost of their groceries, petrol and electricity all going up and up. Meanwhile, real wages are going down and down. We see it now, sadly, playing out in businesses going into administration; 7,942 Australian companies entered administration, according to the latest statistics for the last financial year. So far, the 2023 year is seeing a year-on-year increase of another 21.5 per cent of businesses going into administration. The government's own authority, the Australian Financial Security Authority, expects 14,000 personal insolvencies in the next year. That's 14,000 personal insolvencies in one year. Australians are under pressure, Western Australians are under pressure and the Labor government is asleep at the wheel. Daylesford: Motor Vehicle Crash 29 13:33 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Many in the chamber will have heard about yesterday's tragedy at the Daylesford Royal Hotel. I'd like to join the Prime Minister, local member Catherine King and all who have expressed their condolences to the families and the Daylesford community. I know our thoughts here in the Senate, too, are first and foremost with the families and friends of those who lost their lives—including children—with those who are injured and with the entire community. Many Australians will be shocked and saddened by what happened overnight. It was a tragedy that occurred right in the heart of town, in what should have been a moment of joy—a time when the community was together for Victoria's long weekend and a time when families were celebrating and enjoying each other's company. Instead, tragedy has irrevocably changed the lives of many families, friends and community members. I want to thank our brave first responders, including the SES, the CFA, Victoria Police and Ambulance Victoria, who were on the scene as always. Your commitment to serving our communities during some of our darkest moments is nothing short of exceptional. I also want to thank those community members who, without hesitation, offered their assistance before the first responders could arrive. You have shown us the best of Australia and deserve our deep gratitude. Words often feel inadequate in tragedies like these, but it's important that we do come together. Daylesford is a small, warm-hearted, close-knit community, and this tragedy will have a profound impact. Families are in grief. Communities are in pain. And I know all Australians across the country send you strength and support today and will do so in the days to come. Israel 29 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I stand here today alongside the millions of Australians and the hundreds of millions of people around the world calling for a ceasefire. I want to reiterate the condemnation of the war crimes of Hamas, I want to reiterate that the hostages must be released and I want to reiterate that the invasion in Gaza, the collective punishment of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the deaths of thousands of children, cannot be justified. The suffering of innocent people—the pain of these children, the deaths of innocent women and children—cannot be justified and must not be justified. Sadly, it seems that peace is now even further out of reach. We must all do better at ensuring a de-escalation of the violence and the war crimes and ensure that we all stand for peace, the respect of human life and international law. Violence against civilians and the collective punishment of a community are war crimes. The children in Gaza need a voice and they need leaders to hear, listen and act. We need a ceasefire now. Health Care 29 13:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Over the past 18 months, the Albanese Labor government has continually labelled the crisis engulfing primary health care as everybody else's problem. It was the responsibility first of the former coalition government, then of the state governments and then even of the private sector. But excuses do nothing for the burnt-out GPs struggling financially in regional towns, who feel unheard and ignored by this government. In the rural electorate of Lyons, in my home state of Tasmania, at least 10 GP surgeries have closed or reduced their hours in the past 18 months. These are in towns like St Marys, whose sole GP resigned due to burnout. The residents of Ouse have been without a permanent GP for over a year. Greenpoint Medical Services in Bridgewater, which services 8,000 clients in the area, recently announced their intention to close due to financial viability issues. It turns out that their problems have been known to the member for Lyons for over 12 months, yet he has done nothing to assist them. The Albanese Labor government talks up its bulk-billing initiative in support of GPs; however, bulk-billing rates have decreased every month since Labor took government. They are now at the lowest level since 2013, and there is no guarantee that there will be any increase in bulk-billing as a result of the initiative. In the absence of meaningful leadership from the Labor government, the Tasmanian Liberal government and Health Minister Guy Barnett have had to step in to find innovative solutions to support these communities. At St Marys the minister has secured the services of Ochre Health, who have agreed to open a private practice. Similarly, he is in negotiations with service providers to find solutions for Ouse and Bridgewater. The Tasmanian government also developed the nation-leading single employer model being rolled out across the country, and it recently committed $4.3 million for the Rural Medical Workforce Centre at the Mersey Community Hospital. The provision of primary health care is a federal responsibility. It's time the Albanese Labor government stepped up to deliver practical solutions to this crisis and deliver on their promises to Australians. Health Care 30 13:38 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Few things matter more to Australian families than being able to see their doctor. Especially when it's your little ones who are unwell, getting in to see a GP you know, and quickly, is so important. I've been there myself, with a little one feverish or with a cough that just won't shift, and feeling worried, anxious and desperate for the reassurance my GP can give or the extra support I need. For many in our community, not only getting that appointment quickly but having it bulk-billed is absolutely critical. But the fact is that, after some six years of frozen Medicare rebates under the former coalition government, our GPs are under pressure and too many families are unable to access the bulk-billed appointments they need. That's why our government is making the biggest investment in bulk-billing in the 40-year history of Medicare. Through our tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, 11 million Australians should now find it easier to see a bulk-billing doctor. They include five million children and their families and around seven million pensioners and other concession card holders. It represents about three out of every five GP visits in Australia. This will make a massive difference to Australian families. Our government is making the largest investment in bulk-billing in the history of Medicare, and we're making it because Australian families have been finding it too hard to see a doctor, our doctors have been under pressure, and our health system has been under strain. The contrast to the opposition couldn't be starker. We should never forget they froze Medicare rebates for six or seven years, making bulk-billing less accessible. We should never forget that, in the one year that Peter Dutton was Minister for Health, he drove Medicare to its worst state in 40 years. And we should never forget the $7 GP tax they wanted to install, which would have destroyed Medicare forever. Labor built Medicare. We'll always fight for it, and we'll always work to strengthen it for the benefit of Australian families. Senate Estimates 30 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, in my criticism of this and previous governments I often use the word 'accountability'. Here's why. When I was young, my local member was my electorate's representative in Canberra. Now my local member is Canberra's representative in my electorate. Parliamentarians don't work now for the people; the people work for parliament. In Canberra, decisions are taken in the best interests of the predatory billionaires who are behind every curtain and pulling every string. This fundamental change in the nature of parliament was brought home in the most recent Senate estimates. When asking questions on behalf of my constituents, the default position of those opposite was not to answer the question. Public Service speak has devolved into word soup, with no meaning, no accountability and often no truth. I have never seen more obsequious answers from public servants in my life. I've never seen ministers more interested in preventing truth from coming out instead of providing truthful oversight, and I have never seen committee chairs dedicating their sessions to supressing truth. Senate estimates is a parody of governance—a parody which sounds something like this: 'Senator: "Minister, the witness is stalling. Please instruct the witness to answer the question." Minister: "Why would I do that?" Senator: "Because it's your job to be transparent and truthful to the public." Minister: "No, Senator, it's my job to cover up the mistakes of the last government so they will in turn cover up mine." Committee chair: "Senator, your time is up."' What a farce! What a disgusting display I saw two weeks ago. Shameful. Everyday Australians are facing a huge challenge from insane immigration population growth, cost-of-living pressures and unaffordable mortgages, and this government thinks the answer is to cover up, deflect and lie. Have you forgotten that in the end truth always comes out? Myanmar 30 13:42 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Several years ago, long before I was elected to this place, I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Myanmar for the launch of Walk Free, a movement to eliminate modern slavery. Myanmar is a spectacular country. The people were warm and welcoming, and I have very fond memories of my time there. This is why I was especially pleased to welcome members of our Burmese community to Canberra as part of the delegation from Baptist World Aid last month. It's important that Australia continues to support Myanmar and its path to democracy. The brutal military regime which ousted the democratically elected National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi continues to wage civil war against the very people it is supposed to be defending. Peaceful demonstrations have been met by violent opposition from the military, and clashes between armed resistance groups and the military junta are now rife in this country. As a result, many have fled their homes and now live in makeshift shelters, relying on humanitarian aid to support their families. Some have left the country and are watching from afar, hoping that one day it will be safe for them to return home. I admire the courage and the tenacity of the Burmese, who continue to fight for democracy in their country, despite what may seem like insurmountable challenges. Like our Burmese diaspora here in Australia, I continue to pray that one day we will see peace in Myanmar and that we will be able to return to a country that has embraced democracy and the rule of law on its journey towards a prosperous and fair future for all. Queensland: Bushfires 31 13:44 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Bushfires don't discriminate. They wreak havoc in regional and rural communities, taking livestock and razing homes, and in tragic circumstances they can even take people's lives. These heartbreaking issues are what locals in the Western Downs, the Southern Downs, Central Queensland and north-west Queensland have been dealing with over the past few weeks. Our horizons have been a constant haze. Firefighters have worked for days on end to try and get ahead of these fires and prevent them from endangering life. To help assist tiring firefighters from local brigades, personnel from around the country have travelled to western Queensland to support efforts to fight these raging bushfires. Most notably, around 70 personnel from Victoria have been sent up to assist with the ongoing situation, and I want to take this opportunity to thank them and all the firefighters currently deployed around the country for their service. On Saturday afternoon, tragically, three people died in a plane crash whilst surveilling fire sites around 70 kilometres from Cloncurry, in Queensland's north-west. The crew had been heavily involved in efforts to map the terrible fires around Toowoomba, and I understand from reports that the plane was redeploying to Mount Isa to conduct line scan infrared mapping when it crashed. An Australian Transport Safety Bureau team will investigate the crash site. This incident is profoundly sad, and I would like to send my deep condolences to the family and friends of those who tragically lost their lives. I also want to take this opportunity to remind Queenslanders that the current fire bans have been extended today until 13 November. They have been extended in parts of the north coast and Far North Queensland. Stay safe and take care of each other. Voting Age 31 13:46 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Last week my office had the privilege of hosting year 10 student Audrey for work experience, and I would like to share her words on an issue that she is passionate about. When I was kid and I was told I could vote at eighteen, it felt like a far-off dream, inconsequential and distant. Now that I'm sixteen, eighteen couldn't come soon enough. At sixteen, we are told that we are powerless, that we are not allowed to have a say in who represents us in parliament or in which laws are passed. We are not allowed to vote. Yet sixteen year olds are allowed to work, drive a car, consent to medical procedures, pay taxes and enlist in the defence force. Sixteen and seventeen year olds are active and contributing members of society who deserve a say to help shape the policies that not only impact us now but also in the future. Our generation is politically active, engaged and motivated to be heard. We are the people who will inherit this country and grapple with the consequences left behind by politicians who we cannot yet vote for. Climate change, the housing crisis, the injustices and inequality faced by our first nations people, we will be forced to pick up the pieces of these challenges and the subsequent costs they will cause us. Lowering the voting age to sixteen gives our country a more equal and diverse range of opinions and ensures young people feel heard in a world where we are often overlooked and dismissed just because of our age. Lowering the voting age is a pledge to build a society where every voice matters, an opportunity to amplify youth voices and champion a more democratic society, one that truly listens to the concerns of all people. Healthy Masculinity 31 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The Labor government recently announced $3.5 million in funding for what it calls the 'healthy masculinities project'. It is to help teenage boys to be the right kind of masculine, a bit of a soy boy type. In other words, the government wants to spend more money to further emasculate young men. If the Labor Party were really worried about what they claim to be teenage boys following poor gender stereotypes online then Labor should seriously address the elephant in the room, and that is the number of teenage boy that grow up without a father in their home. Teenage boys should obviously be mentored predominantly by their parents, but they most definitely should not be mentored by the state, especially by the Labor Party and the woke far-left activists among their ranks. I know it is old-fashioned, but it has worked since the dawn of time. It is called the nuclear family. The government should try promoting and supporting that instead. It is only in recent times that we have thought that we could have a fatherless generation, a generation outsourced to the nanny state. A healthy masculinities project run by bureaucrats in Canberra is more likely to produce a generation of they/thems than a generation of healthy, well-adjusted, strong and confident young men. The government should be doing everything that it can to encourage families to stay together and once again make the nuclear family the bedrock of our nation—the bedrock of our nation. Weak men create hard times, and we are seeing this play out right now in Canberra. Scrap this project. We need to make boys masculine again—more masculinity, not less. Jeffriess, Mr Brian, AM 32 13:49 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'll change gear a little bit. I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a hero of the seafood industry in the state of South Australia by the name of Brian Jeffriess AM. He is retiring from his role as the head of the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association, a terrific contributor who has done an amazing job for that industry and the hundreds of South Australians in particular who've worked in that industry. He's leaving behind an amazing legacy. To touch on some of the things Brian was involved in in his many years in the southern bluefin tuna industry, I'll start with the innovation that he has spearheaded. He collaborated with government and brought together a partnership between industry and government, alongside the conservation movement and the recreational fishing sector, putting the southern bluefin tuna fishery in Australia in a world leading position, something that we as a country should be very, very proud of. Brian also stood up for our industry internationally, at the CCSBT and other international fora, defending the reputation and rights of the participants in the industry here against interest from overseas that didn't necessarily share our values. He also made sure that industry had a very strong standing when it came to government policy. Never was a call from Brian Jeffriess left unreturned, and he made sure those he represented were heard. Turning to those he represented, the tuna barons, as they were so called in the state of South Australia, were managed very well by him, I have to say. They are a group of people not to be trifled with. The final thing I'll say about Bryan Jeffriess, who I do wish well into the future, is that he did something no-one else was able to, and that was to create the first resource-sharing framework for any fishery in this country. Again, it is a world-leading legacy, something he should be proud of. So I do wish Brian Jeffriess well into the future. Northern Tasmania: Liberal Party 32 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania At home, we've all seen the news: the member for Braddon in the other place wants the member for Bass out of the party. Allegedly, the member for Braddon issued an ultimatum to the Tasmanian Liberals, saying it would be either him or her at the next election. Where do the people of Bass fit into this? Why is it up to someone from a different electorate to decide who represents Bass? Apparently, voters don't matter. Apparently, the Liberal Party is a broad church until the factional heavies decide this church is getting too broad for its own good. Voters are supposed to decide on their MPs, not the parties. Ending the career of your own colleague because you don't like being asked questions in the media about them is a pretty weird way to help your constituents. I'm pleased to see that the member for Bass has ignored the threat from her party's warrior and put her hand up for preselection yet again, not necessarily because I'll vote for her but because it shouldn't be up to someone in a different electorate to decide if she's my representative. That's the worst thing about it—while the two federal Liberal members of the lower house are fighting about who stays in the Liberal Party, who's actually fighting for the north of Tasmania? We deserve representatives who are focused on us—not themselves, not their party, not each other. This is what voters hate about major parties: they're focused on themselves. They're treating politics like a sport. Politicians are focused on who they sit next to instead of who they represent. The people chosen to run at elections are the people who play the games and pull the right strings in the party, not necessarily the ones best for the job. I'm happy for the people of Braddon to decide who becomes the member for Braddon. I just wish the member for Braddon were happy for the people of Bass to do the same. Gambling Advertising 32 13:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory According to the newspapers, the Minister for Communications will be announcing reforms to gambling advertising soon. Important to remember is what we're trying to fix here. On a per capita basis, Australians are the biggest losers in the world, losing around $25 billion a year. One in 10 16- and 17-year-olds are at risk of problem gambling, and 75 per cent of eight- to 16-year-olds think betting on sport is just a normal thing that you do. Gamblers Anonymous groups are reporting more teens seeking their help for addiction. Communities across the country are frustrated by not just the level of advertising but the impacts that they are seeing it have on the next generation of Australians. Our communities are expecting bold reforms that address the very well-documented harms. However, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, a well-placed source has said that the decision 'won't be about evidence and reports'. They said: It will be a high-level political decision driven by a desire to minimise blowback from TV companies and the sports. I'll give the government the benefit of the doubt, but I hope on this occasion that it chooses to back the voices of the people in our communities who have had enough. We seem to have a rare moment of multipartisan support on this. I want to recognise the work of the member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, in driving this conversation forward and for bringing every party together to agree on a way forward. What her committee recommended was a ban. I want to echo her statement on Sunday that anything short of this will not reduce harm. That's what the evidence shows. It's time to get this done. Human Trafficking 33 13:55 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As an Australian parliamentary representative to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, last month I had the honour of attending its 147th assembly in Angola. While there was a lot of global turmoil reflected, there was also some great news there. As the rapporteur on orphanage trafficking, I presented a resolution titled 'Orphanage Trafficking: the Role of Parliaments in Reducing Harm'. I'm incredibly proud to advise colleagues that this comprehensive action plan was endorsed by 180 national parliaments. In fact, it is the very first global action plan to combat any form of child-trafficking. Today, over 50 million people are trafficked into slavery. Eight million of those are children trafficked into residential accommodation, sometimes called 'orphanages'. These eight million children, mostly with parents, have been transferred or recruited from their families into these so-called orphanages for the purposes of exploitation and/or profit—profit from generous volunteers, many of them Australians, who do not realise that these children are in fact trafficked to gain money from them. This resolution is a comprehensive and very practical action plan, focused on assisting parliamentarians to take meaningful action through education, legislation and advocacy. I thank the very many of you who have assisted me on this journey, not least of all my colleagues Senator Deb O'Neill and Warren Entsch, and, of course, in the other place, fellow delegates at the IPU who were of great assistance. I'd also like to thank the parliament's IPU team, so ably led by Jane Thomson; the Geneva based IPU team of Kate van Doore and Rebecca Nhep; Hopeland; Global Citizen; and, of course, Anne Basham and the Interparliamentary Taskforce on Human Trafficking. In Australia, and globally, we still have much to do to eliminate orphanage trafficking. Thank you. Australia: Bushfires 33 13:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland For months now, the government has been preparing for a difficult bushfire season. All around us, we can see it has now arrived. On Saturday, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services confirmed the deaths of three people in a light airplane crash near Cloncurry in North West Queensland. They had been undertaking line scans to help with the bushfires in Queensland. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the victims' families and friends, and all who worked alongside them within QFES and throughout the national aerial operations fleet. I know that many within our fire services will be affected by this tragedy, and I encourage those who need support to seek it. We've also, sadly, seen more loss of life during the bushfires in Queensland. On Tuesday, a man was killed while trying to protect his property at Tara. A woman also suffered cardiac arrest the following day while attempting to evacuate. Again, I extend my deepest condolences to their loved ones. I visited Dalby last week in south-west Queensland and met with residents who had lost or been evacuated from their homes following those fires. They are being well cared for, but it is clear the recovery task will be challenging. We continue to monitor fires across Queensland, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and New South Wales, and offer support to states and territories where needed. Our emergency services are again showing their professionalism and dedication in the face of very difficult conditions. Interstate teams from Victoria and South Australia are stepping up to relieve exhausted personnel across Queensland and New South Wales. And, as is so often the case in these times of adversity, our friends from across the ditch have also offered a helping hand. On behalf of the government, thank you to the 66 personnel who arrived from New Zealand yesterday. I thank all the career and volunteer emergency services personnel who are working to keep people safe, protect properties and contain the blazes. We know you've really put your lives on the line for the rest of us. Financial support has been activated for the bushfire victims, and we'll continue to support people. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 We will now move to question time. MINISTRY 33 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 33 13:59 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I inform the Senate that Senator Wong will be absent from question time from Monday to Wednesday this week on account of ministerial business overseas. Senator Gallagher will be absent from question time for the same period, for personal reasons. In Senator Wong's absence, I will be the acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, and in the absence of Senator Wong and Senator Gallagher, Senator Watt and I will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and independent senators. 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—President, these are quite farcical arrangements outlined by the government. It's a farce of the Prime Minister's own making in the way in which he chose to structure his own ministry. There are just four Senate ministers here. There are just four Senate ministers in the Senate. The last time a government had only four ministers in the Senate goes all the way back to 1940. Back then, the Senate had only 36 senators in total, not the 76 there are today. There were only 16 ministers back then, not the 30 there are today. Senator Watt 245759 Ask a question! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I do have a question, Senator Watt, that relates to the ministerial statement: why doesn't the Prime Minister have any faith in the other 22 Labor senators to have made any of the rest of them ministers? On a serious point—it's all serious, but this is particularly serious—because there are only four ministers and the Prime Minister chose to put the foreign minister and the trade minister in the Senate, we've now had the unfortunate situation where Senator Farrell as trade minister has had to return early from China, rather than see out the mission he was undertaking. To finish the farce of these arrangements, Senator Farrell, who was just in China, is sworn to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio but is apparently not the minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. So, not only does Mr Albanese not seem to trust any of the 22 other Labor senators to sit as ministers, but—Don, why doesn't Penny trust you with Foreign Affairs? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Just a moment— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, I have already called you once. I am very reluctant when leaders of parties— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I also called you on numerous occasions. I am always reluctant to ask leaders of parties to sit down when they are making an address. I would expect when party leaders on their feet that the chamber behave accordingly, and that is with respect and in silence. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 34 14:03 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Farrell. With core inflation still almost twice the top of the RBA's band, what is the change in real wage—and I emphasise 'real wages'—since Labor came to office? 14:03 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hughes for her question. What we know about what has happened since the change of government is that, for the first time, you've got a government that is serious about looking after working people in this country. We don't have a leader of the government who proudly proclaims on television that low wages are a design feature of the government's policies. Senator Hughes 273828 A point of order on direct relevance: the question was very narrow and specific with regard to real wages, and, now that Senator Watt has handed some talking points over, perhaps Senator Farrell can get back to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I am listening carefully. Your question went to inflation and wages, and the minister is responding correctly. I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator FARRELL I0N You now have a government in this country who is serious about looking after working people in this country. The whole structure of this government's policies has been designed to lift the living standards of Australian workers and remove the impediments that you put on people getting decent wage rises. Senator Hughes, if you were serious about lifting— Senator Birmingham H6X Point of order: on the question of direct relevance, which is what the Senate standing orders do ask for—direct relevance by the minister—Senator Hughes asked not once but twice, to make it clear, about what has happened to real wages under this government. The minister has not mentioned real wages once in the three-quarters of his answer to date. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I'll give the same answer that I gave to Senator Hughes, but I will direct Minister Farrell to the second part of that question related to real wages. Senator FARRELL I0N An analysis of the ABS data shows that earnings for average full-time workers increased by 3.9 per cent in the first year of the Albanese government. In dollar terms that means around— Senator Hughes 273828 Point of order on direct relevance: the question was incredibly specific to real wages. Real wages are wage growth affected by inflation. Senator Farrell, could you please speak to real wages, not ABS data? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, the minister is responding to your question, and I'll call the minister again. Senator FARRELL I0N Senator Hughes, I can tell you that I've spent a damn sight more of my life working to raise the living standards of Australians, and I'm doing that right now as a government minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, I'll just remind you to direct your responses through the chair and not to the senator asking the question. Senator Hughes, are you standing for your first supplementary? 14:07 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Yes, I am. Minister Farrell, the reason you've worked for so much longer is you're so much older than me! Minister, can you confirm that last week the ABS living cost index showed employee households have seen a nine per cent rise in their living costs over the year? What items are driving up the cost-of-living pressures for Australians? 14:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hughes for her first supplementary question. I'll choose not to take advantage of Senator Hughes's youth, in my response to her question! There are a range of issues that we know are pushing up the cost of living. One obvious one is the cost of petrol. Having spent an amount of time overseas in recent weeks, these are not issues that are peculiar to the Australian economy. There's a war going on between Russia and Ukraine that's pushing up a whole lot of— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes. 14:09 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales That was the perfect prelude to my second supplementary. Why is core inflation in Australia higher than in Germany, France, Italy, the United States, Japan or Canada? After two Albanese Labor budgets, why is inflation so much worse in Australia when it's so much better in the rest of the world? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Hughes for her second supplementary question. It is simply because of the mess that you left this economy in after nine years of incompetent economic management. Now, what did the Albanese government do this year? For the first time in 15 years, we produced a budget surplus, having been left— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator FARRELL I0N I know you don't want to hear this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, resume your seat. Order on my left. Minister, continue. Senator FARRELL I0N I know you don't want to hear, but we turned your $70 billion deficit into— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham, I will refer to you on a point of order. Senator Birmingham H6X My point of order goes to relevance. The question was about inflation and you have to wonder why the government is happy to try to claim the surplus but won't take responsibility for inflation and cost-of-living pressures. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, that is a debating point, and you know that very well. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Look, what are we doing to push down the cost of living? Well, electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicine, boosting income support payments, fee-free— (Time expired) Israel 35 14:11 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Watt. Minister, can you update the Senate on the situation in the Middle East and how Australia is responding to the humanitarian situation? 14:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm surprised that on a matter of this seriousness the opposition continue to maintain their political point scoring. That is rather disappointing. I thank Senator Ciccone for his important question. The humanitarian situation that we are seeing unfold in Gaza is dire, and human suffering is widespread. We can all see that on our TV screens, and the government recognises that for many Australians this has a deeply personal connection. Australia has five core priorities in this crisis—supporting civilians, helping prevent conflict from spreading and reinforcing the need for a durable peace—all of which we pursue by working with countries that have influence in the region. At the same time, we seek to keep our country unified and assist Australians abroad. Food, water, medicine, fuel and other essential assistance must reach people in desperate need, and civilians, including Australians, must be able to get to safety. Australia has contributed $25 million in aid but more assistance is required from parties to the conflict if this aid is to reach Gazans. This is why so many countries like Australia have been calling for humanitarian pauses on hostilities as a necessary first step. The attacks on Israel by Hamas were abhorrent and have been described so by the government since day one. We know it is extremely difficult to defeat a craven terrorist group that has burrowed itself in civilian infrastructure using civilians as a shield. Israel has a right to defend itself, but Israel's friends, including Australia, have consistently emphasised the way it does so matters. It matters for innocent civilians, who should not pay for horrors perpetrated by Hamas, and it matters for Australia's own security, which faces grave risk if conflict spreads. The international community will not accept ongoing civilian deaths and the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. Australia will continue working with partners to that effect. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:13 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Today I read that more than 2,000 people have registered with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and have been able to leave Israel, West Bank and Gaza. Can the minister please provide the Senate with an update on efforts to support Australians returning home. 14:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I think all senators would have been pleased that, after a week's long international push to allow safe passage of civilians from Gaza, the Rapha crossing opened. Of those who crossed the border, 21 were Australian citizens, with two permanent residents and two family members. They were met by DFAT officials in Egypt who supported them, including with accommodation and onwards travel. Over the weekend, we saw most of these people return home. This included a family of four who landed in Adelaide and a family of three who landed in Melbourne. About a dozen people flew into Sydney last night, with lots of hugs and tears at the airport. Despite this progress, it is still extremely difficult to get people out of Gaza. DFAT is assisting nearly 80 individuals in Gaza, and we continue to press for them to be allowed to cross the border to safety. This has been a high priority for some time now for Minister Wong and her department, and I know that they'll keep working hard on it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary? 14:15 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It's fair to say that it's quite a distressing time for many, not just here in Australia but also, obviously, over in the Middle East. Minister, can you explain to the Senate the government's role internationally and here at home? 14:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Australian government is working with our international partners to protect civilians, to prevent the conflict from spreading and, ultimately, to achieve a lasting and durable peace. At the same time, we are working to keep our country unified, including with a $50 million investment to support communities affected by the Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict, and assisting thousands of Australians in the Middle East, including more than 2,000 who have returned home to Australia. On Saturday, you may have read the foreign minister's op-ed penned for the Guardian that clearly outlined these priorities. It highlighted that Australia is part of the international diplomatic effort, reinforcing the imperative of a just and enduring peace. That requires a two-state solution: an Israeli state alongside a Palestinian state, with Israelis and Palestinians living securely and prosperously within internationally recognised borders. (Time expired) Ideologically Motivated Extremism 36 14:16 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Media reporting over the weekend has revealed that an Islamic preacher in Sydney delivered a radical sermon that called on Muslims to wage jihad, declared Australia hypocritical for labelling Hamas's massacre of innocent Israelis as terrorism and claimed that Hamas terrorists who committed the 7 October attack on Israel were not terrorists but freedom fighters. Does the government condemn this radical rhetoric? 14:17 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Paterson for his question. I didn't see those comments. I understand that we as a government have made it very clear that we condemn these corrosive and irresponsible statements. Security agencies are aware of these statements. I understand NSW Police have commenced an investigation into this matter. All Australians should remember what the Director-General of Security recently said about the importance of considering the implications for social cohesion when making public statements. ASIO has seen direct connections between inflamed language and inflamed community tensions. So, as I said, we condemn these statements. They're corrosive and irresponsible. The security agencies are investigating the statements, as is NSW Police, and we'll await the results of those investigations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a first supplementary? 14:18 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The individual in question reportedly dared the government to deport him for his comments. Will the government take him up on this by immediately cancelling his visa, if he is found to have violated his visa conditions? 14:18 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Paterson for his first supplementary question. It's been a very consistent, longstanding practice that ASIO does not comment on individuals or investigations, and I'm happy to leave it to the relevant authorities to investigate the matter and to come forward with some advice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson? Senator Paterson 144138 On direct relevance, Madam President—I did not ask about ASIO or any investigations they were conducting but whether the government would cancel the visa if he's violated the conditions of that visa? The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant, Senator Paterson. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Where individuals pose a significant risk to the community, the Australian government will continue to cancel their visas and remove them. But, as is standard practice—and this was a practice adopted by your government, Senator Paterson, so it's a longstanding government practice—government does not comment on individual cases. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a second supplementary. 14:20 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Does the government reject inflammatory language and accusations, such as those accusing Israel of genocide? 14:20 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Paterson. The government has made it very clear that it condemns the actions of Hamas, a terrorist organisation. Of course, we came to this parliament with a joint resolution following the terrible events in Israel as a result of the attack by Hamas. What I do want to reject, though, are the attempts by the opposition to gain political advantage and to score political points out of the terrible tragedy that's going on in the Middle East at the moment. Senator McKenzie 207825 The lack of clarity from your government! Senator FARRELL I0N And I'm giving you a straight answer! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Paterson on a point of order? Senator Paterson 144138 Again, President, it's on direct relevance. I asked whether the government would condemn those accusing Israel of genocide. The minister has not yet responded to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant. Have you finished your comments, Minister? Senator FARRELL I0N Yes. Israel 37 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The State of Israel is carpet-bombing Gaza, targeting civilians and committing war crimes for the world to see. So far, Israel has massacred almost 10,000 Palestinians. Gaza has become a graveyard for children. People are watching whole families being blown to bits. Hospitals, schools, mosques, homes and refugee camps have been reduced to rubble, and yet the Labor government continues to shield Israel from any accountability. The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly called for an immediate ceasefire as a resolution, which this government, shamefully, abstained from. Tens of thousands of people have marched across Australia and are calling for the Australian government to call for an immediate ceasefire. Will the Labor government commit to calling for an immediate ceasefire today? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'm going to ask for silence across the chamber. This is a very, very serious issue on which there are many perspectives. Everyone is entitled to their perspective and the minister is entitled to be heard in silence. Minister Farrell. 14:22 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Faruqi for her question. Of course we have all witnessed the devastating loss of innocent life in the Middle East. That of course started with the attack by Hamas on innocent civilians in Israel. As a government, we have affirmed Israel's right to defend itself after that horrific attack. We have also said—and the foreign minister reiterated it this weekend—that it also matters in the way in which Israel responds to this completely unjustified attack by Hamas. This means that Israel must observe international law and the rules of war. Nobody— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. I called for silence, and that message was intended for every single senator in this place—including you, Senator Shoebridge, and, I believe, you, Senator McKenzie. Minister, please continue. Senator FARRELL I0N Nobody wants to see innocent lives lost in this terrible set of circumstances, and it matters that innocent civilians should not pay for the horrors perpetrated by Hamas. It also matters for Israel's own security, which faces grave risk if this conflict spreads, and I think we've already seen over the weekend the potential of it spreading in the north and in the east. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and human suffering is widespread. The Australian government has consistently called for the protection of civilian lives and safe, unimpeded and sustained— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The coalition is morally bankrupt when it comes to Palestine, and Labor have shown themselves to be heartless, gutless, cowards. You are watching the massacre of thousands of Palestinians by Israel, and you are not condemning Israel. You refuse to call for an immediate ceasefire. Well, we are not going to sit here and watch you pat yourselves on the back for doing nothing. Weasel words are not going to stop war crimes. Today we bring the people's protest into parliament. Free, free Palestine! The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Minister Farrell, that was a statement. Did you want to respond, Minister? 14:26 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I completely reject the implications in the question by Senator Faruqi. What has happened in the Middle East in the last month is a terrible set of circumstances. The unjustified, illegal attack on innocent Israeli citizens on 7 October was a terrible set of events, and of course we now see the consequences of that in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine. I don't think any particular political party seeking to make hay out of this terrible situation is going to advance the position in Australia, whether it's the coalition trying to take political advantage of it or the Greens. The government has a sensible— (Time expired) Trade with China 38 14:27 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Over the last 18 months, the Albanese Labor government has been hard at work repairing our international relationships and standing up for Australian exporters, because we know that free and fair trade is good for jobs and good for business. Yesterday, the minister accompanied the Prime Minister on an official visit to China, the first by an Australian prime minister since 2016. A key purpose of this visit was to showcase the very best of Australia's exports at the world's largest trade show, in Shanghai, while continuing to advocate for removal of outstanding trade impediments. How is the Albanese Labor government stabilising our trading relationship with China, and what benefits has it brought to Australian exporters, workers and communities? 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his question, because I know he knows just how important trade is for the continued growth and prosperity of this country. Of course, the Albanese Labor government is working hard to stabilise our relationship with China, and yesterday we took another important step in the stabilisation process when I accompanied the Prime Minister on an official visit to China. China is by far our largest trading partner, worth last year around $300 billion in two-way trade. That underlines how important this relationship is to Australia. We can already see the benefits of stabilisation. We now have our timber, our barley and our hay going back into China. This means more jobs in these industries, including in Senator Sheldon's home state of New South Wales. Last month, the Prime Minister announced we have reached an agreement with China to fast-track the review of the crippling tariffs affecting Australian wine exports. Under our watch, around 95 per cent of trade impediments, by dollar value, have been lifted. During my visit to Shanghai, I continued to advocate for the removal of outstanding trade impediments on Australian lobster and meat exporters. I also attended the world's largest trade show, in Shanghai, to showcase Australia's world-class offering in trade and tourism. Our government believes in free and fair trade. We are helping our exporters get their products back into China, because more trade means more and better-paying jobs for everyday Australian workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Thank you, Minister, for your hard work. In what other ways is the Australian government standing up for the Australian exporters and everyday Australians as part of our trade negotiations that make such a difference for the country? 14:30 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon for his brief first supplementary question. Last month I travelled to— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. I've called order about three times. I remind senators that interjections across the chamber are particularly disorderly. The minister has the floor and has a right to be heard in silence. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Last month I travelled to Japan for the G7 trade and investment ministers meeting and to negotiate with the European Union to conclude a free trade agreement. Since I became trade minister— Senator Scarr 282997 How'd that go? Senator FARRELL I0N Well, I'm about to tell you, Senator Scarr. You obviously haven't been reading the newspapers! I've been to Europe three times to progress a deal that benefits Australia's national interests. My job as Australia's trade minister is to get the best deal that we can for everyday Australians, including for our producers, our businesses, our workers and our consumers. But the deal we had on the table was not good enough, particularly for Australian farmers. Our government will continue to pursue trade agreements in the national interest to deliver benefits for everyday Australians and help our exporters diversify their trade. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales How is the government helping Australians exporters to diversify their trade while ensuring the benefits of trade are shared widely amongst the community, including workers across our regions and all our communities in Australia? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Sheldon again for his important question. Since we were elected, the Albanese Labor government has made great progress helping Australian exporters to diversify their trade. We passed legislation to bring our free trade agreements with the UK and India into force. We delivered a new South-East Asia economic strategy to 2040, helping Australian businesses create more jobs by seizing the opportunities right on our doorstep. Last week we delivered another election commitment to convene the first meeting of Australia's Trade 2040 Taskforce. This taskforce is made up of a diverse mix of civil society, business and union representatives. Our government will continue to work with all partners to ensure the benefits of trade are shared widely amongst our community. Housing Supply 39 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Australia has 300,000 hotel rooms and 140,000 Airbnbs. These are, of course, turned over many times. There are 26 million Australians as well using these rooms for their own holidays. Into this small stock of rooms the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in financial year 2022-23 there were 5.86 million arrivals staying, on average, 14 days. Minister, has this almost 500 per cent increase in tourists under your government motivated landlords to move their property from long-term rental accommodation for everyday Australians to short-stay accommodation for hotel overflow? 14:33 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Roberts. There's a lot in that. It seems to be as much about tourism and housing as it is about migration, but I will attempt to answer the question. The figures that you quoted there—I can't verify whether they are accurate or not. I presume the five million number that you said would include a substantial number of tourists. But, if your question relates to migration figures, the government has obviously already announced a number of measures to fix what is a hopelessly broken migration system that we inherited not just from the opposition but from the minister responsible for it: one Mr Peter Dutton. Mr Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs for the bulk of the former government and oversaw the migration system that we've inherited, which allowed for rampant exploitation and allowed for abuse of the migration system in some cases by education providers that we see now, and we are taking steps to try to address that. It's a shame that the opposition, who have got a lot to say now, didn't do a single thing about these issues when they were in government. We've ended the pandemic event visa, we've ended unlimited working hours for international students and work exemptions for working visa holders. We're increased the temporary skilled migration income threshold, which is the first increase in a decade. These are some of the steps that our government has taken to fix the hopelessly broken migration system that was presided over by Mr Dutton as the home affairs minister. I don't know, Senator Roberts, whether that directly addresses your question because, as I say, there was a lot in it. But we're taking steps to try to fix the migration system once and for all. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland According to departmental data in the 2022-23 financial year the department issued a record 687,000 student visas. Not many have departed because, due to COVID, most have only been here less than a year. Minister, Australia has 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Where are the other 500,000 or so students staying? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Roberts. I don't think you'd expect that I'd be able to give you a precise address for every single international student who is living in Australia at the moment. But, as I say, if those opposite had complaints about the number of international students who are in Australia at the moment, perhaps they could have done something about the system when they were in government for 10 years. Perhaps they could have done that. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 So now you're not supporting him. Senator Canavan is supporting Senator Roberts, but the Liberals aren't in agreement. Where are the coalition on these issues? Nationals are saying one thing, Liberals are saying another, and here is one of them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, on a point of order? Senator Hughes 273828 Perhaps you could encourage Minister Watt to direct his answers through you rather than people who didn't ask the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will certainly do that, Senator Hughes, and I will also direct, particularly those on my left, to stop interjecting with their comments. It is disrespectful. Minister Watt, please make your remarks through the chair. Senator WATT 245759 President, it is interesting to see that there seems to be a split between the Liberal and the National parties on this issue. Senator Canavan and the other Nationals are backing in One Nation, and the Liberals are wanting to run a mile. But, of course, apart from fixing the migration system, this government is doing more than the former government ever did when it came to the provision of housing, and, just to remind you of one measure, Housing Australia— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In the last financial year the department issued a record 441,000 business visas plus a record 195,000 permanent migrant visas plus another 10,000 humanitarian visas plus another 47,000 temporary work visas. After departures, the net increase here was another 500,000. Minister, where are these 500,000 people going to stay, and is this insane level of intake the reason that Australians can no longer find an affordable home? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In your previous question, Senator Roberts, you did acknowledge that one of the reasons that we have seen a spike in migration is that there has been a return to Australia of international students and workers—and tourists for that matter—since COVID, so it's no surprise that we have seen an increase in migration numbers, given there were at least a couple of years when people basically couldn't come to Australia, and there was always going to be a degree of catch-up in there. You ask what we are doing about housing, and again what I say is that this government has done more certainly than the last coalition government and probably more than any other Australian government to fix the issues that we do have around housing—and they are very real. We didn't see investment from the former coalition government in public housing for nearly 10 years, and we are fixing that. We're delivering the Housing Australia Future Fund, which, Senator Roberts, I remember you voted against last time. You cared so much about housing that you voted against a fund that was going to build more homes! We're also providing more money for social housing and rental assistance. (Time expired) Queensland: Infrastructure 40 14:39 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Today is day 190 of the 90-day review—making it 100 days overdue—that the minister for infrastructure told us would be short and sharp. More than 400 productivity-enhancing infrastructure projects have been put on hold by the government because of this review. Labor have spent $2.9 billion less on road and rail infrastructure last year than you said you would in your October budget. That was on top of the $9.6 billion in cuts to infrastructure in that budget. The Treasurer yesterday said that 'difficult decisions' would need to be taken on infrastructure projects as a result of the review. In response, the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Dr Miles, has said today that cutting road and rail projects in Queensland is a bad idea economically and politically. Minister, will you rule out any cuts to the Bruce Highway, beef roads or any other road projects in Queensland? 14:40 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Canavan for his question. What I will rule out is repeating the mess that the former government left us with in this space, making announcement after announcement which was never, ever followed through on. Senator Canavan, we're the adults in the room. We are trying to make sensible, economically sustainable decisions for this country, not simply issuing a press release and then doing nothing about it to follow through, in terms of either any construction or providing any funding for those projects. What we want to do, Senator Canavan, is get back to where we always should have been, and that is making sensible decisions on infrastructure for this country that are in the best interests of the country, whether that might be in Queensland, in my home state of South Australia, or anywhere else in the country. The comments by the Treasurer on the weekend are exactly to this point. We're going to make decisions in this country that are based on the best interests of all of our citizens and that are in our national interest, and that means doing a thorough investigation into all of those— Senator FARRELL I0N Well, you had 10 years to fix this up, and you didn't. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Brown, I've just called the chamber to order, and that includes you. Senator Canavan, a first supplementary? 14:42 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The New South Wales Labor Treasurer, Mr Mookhey, said that New South Wales was doing the most to accommodate the federal government's immigration numbers and that record immigration requires infrastructure. After months of sitting on the 90-day infrastructure review, there is speculation that the PM plans to release the report, together with the government's hit list of cancelled projects, while he is overseas. Will you give us a commitment that the government will not use the Melbourne Cup tomorrow as a smokescreen for Labor's road and rail project cuts? 14:43 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I don't know about you, Senator Canavan, but I am going to use the Melbourne Cup to put a bet on, and, hopefully, the horse I bet on will win. Unlike the government that you were a part of, Senator Canavan, this government is serious about dealing with the issue of infrastructure and infrastructure development, and of course the New South Wales government have an interest in that, because they want to work with a federal government that they know is serious about addressing all of the problems that you left behind. Can I tell you this: whether it's Melbourne Cup Day or any other day, this government will be working with the New South Wales government to absolutely get the best result for this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, a second supplementary? 14:44 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, can you guarantee that the Prime Minister will personally take responsibility for the government's cuts to infrastructure projects and that the Prime Minister will make the announcement himself, instead of having a department quietly put out a release like he did with the Darwin port? 14:44 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I can't remember how your government made the announcement about its support for the Darwin port, Senator Canavan, but I never heard any complaint from your government about the decision of Chief Minister Giles to lease that port to a Chinese company. But what we know about this Prime Minister is that he's a prime minister who actually knows something about infrastructure. So, when this government makes decisions about government infrastructure spending, you can rest assured that he's going to make the best decisions in the best interests of this country because he actually knows what he's doing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I think I've called you more than any other senator today, and I invite you to make a contribution at some other time and not at question time. Cost of Living 41 14:46 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Farrell. The Albanese government recognises that many Australians are doing it tough, feeling the pinch of rising costs as a result of global challenges. Can the minister update the Senate on the Albanese government's cost-of-living relief measures to support Australians who need it most? 14:46 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Walsh, because she knows firsthand some of the problems that her constituents in Victoria are facing with cost-of-living issues. We know that many Australians are doing it tough due to the economic mess left to us by the former Liberal-National government. Our government has taken a responsible approach to budget management, enabling us to target cost-of-living relief and long-term investment in the Australian people while easing inflationary pressures by half a percentage point. We've reformed childcare subsidies to better support Australian families. The ABS has confirmed that, without these reforms, childcare prices would have risen by 6.7 per cent. We're tripling bulk-billing incentives, benefitting 11.6 million Australians, and we're delivering cheaper medicines for millions of Australians. We've boosted income support payments to ensure that there's a safety net for every Australian. We're building more affordable homes, making home ownership more attainable and addressing the housing affordability crisis. We're supporting new parents through expanded parental leave, ensuring families have the resources they need during this crucial time. We've created more than 560,000 jobs since we took office—a record for any new government in this country. In the face of global uncertainties, our fiscal strategy is not just about economic numbers; it's about real-life impacts on households. We are committed to ensuring that every measure we implement brings real relief to Australians, helping them navigate these extremely challenging times. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a first supplementary? (Victoria) (14:48): Senator WALSH 252157 In just the past two weeks, the government has delivered another initiative to support the health and wellbeing of Australians. This significant announcement forms the largest investment in bulk billing in the last 40 years and will no doubt make it easier for millions of Australians to see a doctor. Can the minister inform the Senate of these changes and how Australians will benefit? 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Walsh for her first supplementary question. In the past two weeks, the Albanese government has once again demonstrated its commitment to the health and wellbeing of Australians. We've tripled bulk-billing incentives, ensuring that 11.6 million Australians, including children, pensioners and other concession holders, can gain access to essential medical services without the burden of out-of-pocket costs. This initiative is not just about health. It's a strategic fiscal measure designed to take pressure off inflation. In essence, every decision we make, every policy we implement, is designed to provide cost-of-living relief for Australians while not making the inflation challenge any worse. These measures, taken together, are helping to shield Australians from global economic pressures while making smart and targeted investments for the long-term— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:49 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria As you've outlined, Minister, the Albanese Labor government has delivered relief to Australians through reducing the cost of energy bills, reducing the cost of child care, reducing the price of hundreds of thousands of medicines and scripts and making it easier to see a doctor. Can the minister inform the Senate about any independent analysis of how much worse off Australians would be without the Albanese government's energy assistance package? 14:50 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Walsh for her second supplementary question. The global disruption, particularly in oil markets, is posing a significant inflationary challenge. Our government's targeted measures, such as our energy assistance, are designed to shield Australians from these global pressures. The ABS has confirmed that, without the action taken by the Albanese Labor government, electricity prices would have risen by 18.6 per cent in the September quarter. This action, of course, was opposed by those opposite, the same parties who failed us on energy policy time and time again and hid energy price rises— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N yes, that's what you did—leaving us to clean up the mess. Our fiscal strategy is not just about immediate relief but about long-term stability. By implementing measures that directly counteract global pressures, we're ensuring that the cost— (Time expired) Defence Procurement 42 14:51 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Can the minister guarantee that all nine of the scheduled Hunter class frigates, or any variation to them, will be built in Adelaide, as Labor repeatedly promised prior to the last election? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, thank you for that commitment from the government to all nine frigates being built in Adelaide. Minister Marles received the surface fleet review in September. Given that he has repeatedly recognised and referred to the deteriorating strategic circumstances faced by Australia and talked about the urgency that is needed—the urgent need for action—will the government actually respond to the surface ships review this calendar year, or will there be further delays? 14:52 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Fawcett for his first supplementary question. I don't know who wrote that question for you, Senator Fawcett, but, coming from South Australia, you witnessed time and time and time again the failure of the former government to do anything about providing support in the serious area of defence. Who was the government that cancelled the Naval contract? Who was the government that ended up spending—well, leaving the Labor government to spend—$6 billion to fix up the mess that you'd made in the defence space and— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Fawcett. Senator Fawcett DYU A point of order on relevance: the question was about the government's response to the surface ship review, nothing about the substantial investment the coalition government made in the defence sector. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Fawcett. I'll direct the minister to the question. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. So for the whole of the time that you were in government, Senator— Senator H6X President— The PRESIDENT 112096 Are you standing up? Senator Birmingham H6X I can if you need me to, President. On a point of order, President: firstly, you don't need a point of order to draw a minister to a question, and the minister was flagrantly disregarding your drawing him to the question. I invite you to do so, and encourage you to do so, without always needing a point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I will once again remind the minister of the question. Senator FARRELL I0N With all due respect, on the point of order I don't think you need those gratuitous comments from the deputy leader of the— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, a second supplementary. 14:54 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, there have been numerous representations from defence industry and their allies, urging faster decision-making and raising concerns that the number of reviews, the cuts in real terms to budgets and the slow speed of decision-making are harming investment and the delivery of critical military capability. When and how will the government respond to those concerns? 14:55 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Fawcett for his second supplementary question. We're finally back on track here; all of the chopping and changing in the defence space under your government is behind us now. That's— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett? Senator Fawcett DYU I have a point of order, on relevance. The question was about the fact that the government won't even define 'track', not whether or not they think they're back on track. He's not being relevant to the question that was asked. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will remind the minister of the question, thank you, Senator Fawcett. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. I don't think could be more relevant in pointing out the failure, after failure, after failure of the former government! Let's remember— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, I draw your attention to Senator Fawcett's question. Senator Fawcett, did you still want to make a point of order? Senator Fawcett DYU Yes, a point of order: the minister is misleading the house. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's not a point of order, Senator Fawcett, and you're well aware of that! Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N If that's the best he can do! Look, with defence Minister Marles we have a person who we know we can trust. He's a safe pair of hands in this place, and Australians know that this is a government that is serious about ensuring their long-term defence needs. Queensland: Bushfires 44 14:56 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. Minister, for the past few weeks I, like many Australians, have been monitoring the increasing fire activity across Queensland, particularly the devastating fire on the Western Downs, but also of course closer to home in north-west Queensland. Can the minister update the Senate on current conditions and what the Albanese government is doing to support these impacted communities during this challenging time? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Green; I know that you have been taking a great interest in those fires happening across Queensland. I'll start by again acknowledging the tragic deaths of three personnel in a plane crash while undertaking Queensland Fire and Emergency Services-tasked line-scanning over the weekend, as well as the two people who died in the fires in Queensland last week. I extend my condolences to all who are grieving these tragic losses. It's a stark and devastating reminder of the danger we are facing this summer. Today, we're seeing a reprieve in conditions across Queensland ahead of extreme fire danger in parts of the state for the rest of the week, with eight fires currently burning at an advice level. The worst of the fire activity was around Tara, where more than 30,000 hectares has been burned. It's reported that numerous structures have been destroyed and damaged across the state; the full extent will only become known when damage assessments are completed. On Tuesday last week I travelled to Dalby to understand the full extent of the impact. While I was there I met with the mayor and deputy mayor, and received a briefing from local authorities. I also visited the evacuation centre and met with evacuees, as well as with representatives from housing support and a range of government and non-government services, who are doing a fantastic job of looking after people who have been displaced. We are in lockstep across all three levels of government in our support for these impacted communities. The Albanese government quickly activated the Australian government disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery allowance. That has been open for people who live and work in the Western Downs and Toowoomba local government areas. The AGDRP is a one-off payment of $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child who have suffered a significant loss as a result of the fires, including a severely damaged or destroyed home or a serious injury. The disaster recovery allowance provides up to 13 weeks of federal income support to assist eligible employees or sole traders who experience a loss of income as a result of the disaster. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, your first supplementary. 14:59 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I thank the minister for the update. While the fire activity has been significant in Queensland, I know that there have also been fires across the Northern Territory and New South Wales. Minister, how is the Albanese government helping those fire affected communities in these states? 14:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Currently, most of Australia is experiencing a reprieve in dangerous weather with the exception of the Northern Territory, where the Barkly North region is experiencing extreme fire danger. I've had a lot of contact with Senator McCarthy, in particular, who is very concerned about the impact of those fires which have been going for some time in the Northern Territory. Over the weekend, we saw fires continue to burn across New South Wales and the Northern Territory, with lightning causing significant fire activity in Western Australia and the Northern Territory as well. As of a short time ago, there was one fire burning at a 'watch and act' level in Western Australia, with all other fires across the country burning at the 'advice' level or below. We're working with all state and territory governments to provide the support that they need to help the communities. In New South Wales, we've activated financial support for the local government areas of Clarence Valley, Inverell, Kyogle, Tenterfield, Mid-Western, Kempsey, Mid-Coast and Port Macquarie Hastings in recognition of the fire damage that has impacted those areas, and, in Victoria, assistance has been activated as well. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a second supplementary? 15:00 Senator 259819 Queensland GREEN () (): Minister, as we move from spring to summer, what steps is the Commonwealth taking to ensure that we are prepared for an increase in natural hazards and disasters across Australia? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Since the election of the Albanese government, we've been taking many steps to ensure that Australia is much better prepared for natural disasters than we have been in the past. We've created one unified National Emergency Management Agency, rather than having the two that existed under the former government. We've created the Disaster Ready Fund, which is already investing in disaster mitigation across the country. I'm pleased to say that, a bit over a week ago, I joined with the member for Boothby in South Australia to announce Humanihut as the supplier of mobile emergency shelter camps. This is a key component of what will be the first ever National Emergency Management Stockpile. This capability will support the stockpile needs of states and territories. It will have three main components. The first is a physical stockpile, including, as I say, temporary housing but also, over time, things like water purification equipment and other needs. There will be a standing offer panel to be able to meet needs urgently, and we'll be entering into a memorandum of understanding with governments as well. It will provide reliable, readily deployable life-sustaining resources for communities. (Time expired) Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership 45 15:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister presenting the Prime Minister, Senator Farrell. Should the Chinese government's attempted coercive trade sanctions against Australia be considered a reason not to support their membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership at this time? 15:02 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for his question. The CPTPP, as it's known, has recently acceded to the request of the United Kingdom to join that group. Only a few weeks ago, that request was acceded to. Senator Scarr 282997 The question was about China. Senator FARRELL I0N Senator Scarr, it's important that you put these questions into perspective. Having dealt with the issue of the United Kingdom, of course, the next question is: which country might next join the group? As you say, China has put in a request to join that group but so have five other countries, including Taiwan, Ukraine and a number of other countries. Those issues now have to be dealt with. At the next meeting of that group, which will occur next week in San Francisco, I expect that the group will deal with the issue of how to progress future requests for accession to that group. The reality of the situation is that it does require— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary? 15:04 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Have any other partners raised concerns with the Albanese government's more positive tone about China joining the CPTPP? 15:04 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I don't think it's appropriate to conduct in-public discussions about what other countries may or may not have said to us. As I indicated to you, next week this group is meeting on the sidelines of the APEC meeting in San Francisco, and I'm sure all of the countries will at that meeting have an opportunity to express their point of view on where we head next with the CPTPP. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary? 15:05 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia During his discussions with the Chinese government, has the minister given any undertakings in relation to Australia's consideration of foreign investment applications or raised the review into the port of Darwin? If so, in what context did the minister discuss foreign investment in the port of Darwin? 15:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you for that second supplementary question. No, and on that note I would request that further questions be put on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 45 DOCUMENTS Murray-Darling Basin Plan 45 Order for the Production of Documents 45 15:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I understand that the Senate has asked for an indication about OPD compliance. Of course, the government appreciates Senator Davey's interest in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and is working to comply with the order. Given the extremely broad parameters of Senator Davey's request, a considerable amount of departmental and agency resources is being expended to respond. An IT search of the department and MDBA systems identified over one million documents as in scope of the request. Within the department alone, the documents in scope number over 850,000. The standard assumption used in FOI requests is that it takes one minute to review each document. Based on this, to review each document would take one person working full time 8½ years. The department and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority are working to narrow the scope of the search, to identify a volume of documents that can be reasonably reviewed by officials to manage any sensitivities while ensuring that all documents that can be provided to the Senate given these constraints are, to fulfil the intent of the order. Continuing to order these documents will not speed up this process. 15:08 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. I rise to take note of the minister's response, and I appreciate Senator McAllister coming in to let us know that. But it really begs the question—over a million documents. Please note that our request for the production of documents was only pertaining to documents produced since May 2022, since this government came into power. Clearly, if they've been producing over a million documents in that amount of time, that will explain why the government has failed to adequately consult on an amendment that will be before this chamber in the very near future. The most obvious change since this government came to power is the absolute move away from having an open, transparent and accountable government. I note that the same observation was made this morning by Senator Steele-John, and I couldn't agree more. What we have seen from this government is a flagrant abuse of the promise for transparency that it made prior to election. They ignore those on the front line, whether they be irrigation communities, pharmacists or Western Australian farmers, and they ignore industrial relations and even some arts and communications policies. The government are not being accountable to the people whose lives are impacted by their policies. The reason we've requested these documents is that the government's policy in the area of water has had a significant impact on irrigation communities. We need the government to be accountable. We need to understand the conversations and assessments the government have had in developing their policy. The government announced on 22 August 2023 that they had reached an agreement with all the basin jurisdictions, bar Victoria, to deliver the Basin Plan in full. One of the specific requests in our OPD was for the government to provide that agreement. Why does that take time to review? That should be in the top drawer. That should just be a matter of, 'Here's that agreement.' We also want any documents that have been produced pertaining to the December 2018 Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council agreement. In such, has any position changed since this government took effect? That should be on the minister's desk, in the briefing folders. The minister must be considering options for delivering the 450 gigalitres of water for supposed enhanced environmental outcomes that she's considering. The minister should also understand what water recovery options she's looking at and how they're funded. But the government, in their efforts at 'transparency', in the budget papers put 'not for publication'. Let me remind people that when Senator Penny Wong was the Minister for Climate Change and Water she was very quick and very proud in announcing how many millions of dollars she was going to spend on buybacks and tearing water away from communities. But the new government, because they know how destructive it is and because they know no amount of public spending can make up for the demise of our rural and regional communities, are saying: 'We're not telling you that. It's commercial-in-confidence.' A tender process does not need to be commercial-in-confidence if you know the quantum of money you've got to spend. The government, by refusing to produce any documents until after this chamber has dealt with and voted on the very important matters related to water amendments before us, are absolutely throwing mud in the faces of those in this chamber. It is disrespectful. 15:13 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I rise to take note as a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community. It's no surprise to One Nation that the Senate is once again debating the lack of government transparency—transparency in this case being defined as: what's the government hiding this time? Consultation from the Labor Party always stops at 39 votes. Everyone else is on a need-to-know basis. In the case of Senator Davey's document discovery, the government has decided the Senate does not need to know the basis for government policy in a basin that accounts for $22 billion in food and fibre needed to feed and clothe the world, a basin that's home to 2.3 million Australians, including those in my home state of Queensland. Apparently, we Queenslanders do not need to know what informed Minister Plibersek's Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill—a bill on which this document discovery would have cast light. The fundamental failure of the Albanese government when it talks about consultation is its failure to understand that consultation requires disclosure. Already the government has been forced to make three pages of amendments to the bill to make it legally workable. How does anyone get a bill that wrong? Refusing to disclose—that's how. Refusing to consult—'consult' does not mean a quick whip around the staff room at the CFMEU or asking the luvvies at the ABC and the Guardian how to run the country. The Albanese voice referendum showed the stupidity of asking the Canberra bubble and inner city socialists what the rest of the country thinks is a fair thing. In real Australia, consulting means listening, sharing and learning. Senator Pauline Hanson and I have consulted with industry stakeholders and toured the basin, starting in Charleville, in Queensland, all the way to Goolwa, in South Australia. I've spoken to independent researchers and even shared a plane for three days with Topher Field as we flew over the basin to understand it and film it. I've driven the length of the Murray-Darling Basin three times and my staff another two times, most recently last Christmas. Along the way, I've listened to amazing farmers displaying a level of resilience that at times is superhuman. I've consulted with Aboriginal people, for whom the water in the river is their life, the centre of their culture and the centre of health and happiness. I've spoken with business owners fearful for their future in an agricultural industry this government is determined to replace with fake food made in urban intensive-production facilities. This is an amazing connected river system that has driven prosperity in our beautiful country and can continue to do if only we can save it from Labor's inner-city ignorance and ideologically driven policy. Today the Senate will vote on my motion to prevent the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 from being given further consideration until the Albanese government properly consults with the states. The Water Act 2007, upon which the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based, is very clear. The plan is a consensus document of the four states. The federal government does not get a vote, because it's a servant to the states, not the master of the states. The ACT does not get a vote as it's a territory, not a state, and that's fine since the ACT clearly runs the federal government anyway. Giving the ACT a vote would be, in fact, two votes. The bill digest contains all the information needed to support my motion. It admits Victoria has refused to sign the new agreement, because Victorian farmers have given up enough water already. Good on the Victorian parliament for standing up for its constituents. Good on New South Wales Premier Chris Minns for being brutally honest in saying the New South Wales government is only signing up to the $700 million in federal buybacks federally for water projects and he is not signing up for water buybacks until after those projects are completed in 2027. The government has no consensus on water buybacks, which are, at best, two all. The rest of the bill contains a lot of good reforms to add accountability, improve measurement and reporting, align spending guidelines and budgets with what is needed and extend the deadline for completion. The council of water ministers met in August, yet we still have not seen the communication from that meeting. It's now November. It seems clear that the states have not signed off on the bill in toto. I urge the Senate to support my motion to send the bill back to the minister with a clear message: take out the bits the states do not support, and let's get the rest of this bill, which is almost all of it, through the Senate this sitting. Let's complete the plan and let's do it properly for a change. 15:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to add a contribution to this debate. It is disappointing that the minister has not been able to cough up the details as requested by Senator Davey. Now, Senator Davey and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things to do with the Murray-Darling Basin. I come from South Australia, and we know what happens when the upstream states don't treat our rivers properly. But let me say this: what Senator Davey has requested is information that is crucial to help this Senate determine what we should do with this piece of legislation. This has been a longstanding issue of debate. I was in here in 2012 when we finally passed the amended Water Act and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I was part of a lot of the community consultations in putting that plan together. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting with scientific experts, who said all the way along that this is not enough. This is not going to save our river. This is not going to put the Murray-Darling Basin on a sustainable footing. The best available science was literally thrown out and ignored. But we had to take what we got. Of course, a big part of that was what South Australia, my home state, fought for, the extra 450 gigalitres to at least get some extra water for the environment. Over the last few years we've seen floods and rain and runoff at record levels, and some people seem to have forgotten that the dire state of the whole river system is still a problem. As we head back into a drying summer, into El Nino, this is actually when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is meant to be used. When it's meant to come into its own is in the bad times, not in the good. In the good there's plenty of water around, and people don't seem to have a problem. You need to be serious about sharing the water and looking after the river when there's less about. People get greedy. They want water for themselves. They want to be able to water their crop over there, and it doesn't matter what happens to their neighbour downstream. Communities are being told to truck drinking water in because the quality of water in the river is not for human consumption, or, for those who live in the lower reaches, 'Oh well, suck it up, wait for it to rain.' Or we have the words of Mr Barnaby Joyce, the former water minister, when he told South Australians that, if they wanted water, they should just move to Queensland. The whole point of a plan to share the precious water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin is to have it in place to protect the river and to protect the community when times get tough. I see nothing so far that's being delivered by this government in relation to this bill that guarantees that that will happen—nothing. I see that the bill is listed for introduction and debate this week. Well, good luck with that. I can tell you the Senate won't be passing it. We're not going to be passing it this week. We want to see the details and a guarantee for how that water is going to be secured, when it's going to be secured and who it's going to be secured for. There's no possible way that this Senate is going to be able to pass a piece of legislation, an amendment bill, that simply kicks the can down the road forever and a day without some ramifications. For far too long people have dragged this out. Too much water is still being taken out of the river system to give it a fighting chance. The whole purpose of this amendment bill is to reverse that: to give our environment the drink it needs and to ensure that towns and communities have clean drinking water. If you can't guarantee that, don't bother bringing the bill to this place. 15:23 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On this matter, I want to go back to the face of the New South Wales Nationals. We have a factional divide between the 'salties' and the 'freshies'. I have my southern 'freshy' National colleague with me, Senator Davey, and I am the northern 'salty'. Coming to this place as a Nat, you have to learn about water. I sat down with Senator Davey, and she unleashed this massive knowledge upon me about the history of the Murray-Darling Basin from The Nationals' perspective and what they think. I'd like to think I can take in things well, but all I was left with was that everyone upstream is stealing water and everyone downstream is wasting it. That seems to be the core. But what I do know is that this summer and next summer water will matter so much. We are taking water away from productive uses and we're taking water away from environmental uses in a way that's not properly regulated. There are things in this act that will clearly help to tighten up some things. I remember talking about this with the national inspector of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and he said that federal legislation combined with state legislation is a mish-mash in all the layers that you'd have to be a moron to be caught. When I asked him how many morons he had caught, he said none because of this. We know there needs to be change. I think everyone supports some change of different varieties, but you need change in information because you can't improve what you can't measure. We will see farmers killing animal in the next drought, we will see farmers' incomes taken away, we will see regional and rural communities, as Senator Hanson-Young said, without drinking water. We will see all of that. That is why this is so important. The fundamental needs of a sovereign nation are to provide its own energy, to provide its own food and to keep its people safe. If we get this wrong, our sovereignty is under threat because we won't be able to feed ourselves. We see our farmers out there suffering already with low protein prices. There is a write-up in the media about a sheep farmer in Western Australia who advertised to give away 600 sheep—give away, no money—because he didn't want to have to kill them. They're not worth anything and he couldn't look after them. These are the things we're facing across Australia. Farmers in Queensland, New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian catchments need a plan that is well-researched, that is well-thought-out, that has the agreement of the states—much like Senator Roberts said—and that can provide what we need for all our sources. A great way of getting out of a production of documents is to create so many documents that it's just not viable. It's a wonderful way to do it. If you can create a million documents on this in 18 months—how many years will it take to filter through them at one minute a document?—how long did it take to create them? Way more than 18 months. This is the inconsistency that comes here. There are so many orders for documents in this place that are just ignored or circumvented. It is wrong. The people in our country deserve the transparency and the vision of government. There are certain things—secrecy, I get that, security and defence, I get that—but when we're making decisions about livelihood and the future, there must be clarity. Without clarity, we can't be sure it is a fair or equitable decision, or that their interests are being looked after. I said in June this year that too many people spend time governing to be re-elected and not to build a better nation. Transparency builds a better nation. Clarity builds a better nation. Accountability builds a better nation. I urge the government and the minister to have a look at the documents, go through them. The key ones will be there. Bring them forward. We heard from Senator Hanson-Young—this bill ain't going nowhere until we get clarity and a bit of discussion. You've got the time. I'm sure that on this side—with Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens—they have vastly different opinions but they want to be able to deal with facts. They want to have certainty. They want these things, and these documents can give them those. If everyone stays strong, this bill will go nowhere until some material documents are put on the table. Australian regional towns, regional people, farmers and the environmental lands out there, deserve no less. It should be done immediately. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Cost of Living, Defence Procurement 48 15:28 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. The medical community talk about a condition known as the illusory truth effect. In layman's terms, that means if you say it often enough, people might start thinking it's true. We see that from the Labor Party all the time. In this question time, they started off, when asked about the cost of living, by talking about how much the Albanese government is helping the Australian people address the cost of living. They even had the audacity to mention power prices. Yet, when my office contacts people in South Australia, when I write to people and when I hear from people, one of the first things they talk about is the cost-of-living crisis and how much their power bills have gone up. So no matter how much the government say they're helping to drive down prices, the Australian people know better. The reality is different. That is also true in the space of defence. Today Minister Farrell made a poor attempt to repeat the line—again, coming back to the illusory truth effect—that the coalition was bad for defence and Labor is good for defence. They say it all the time. They keep repeating, 'Ten years of failure, but we have fixed up the mess.' Well, let's look at what independent commentators say about this government's record on defence. What is the title of this year's budget brief of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, partly government funded body? It's The big squeeze. What is the headline of subsequent brief? 'Budget doesn't reflect urgency of demands on Defence'. And what do some of Australia's most respected foreign affairs and defence journalists say? They say: In fact, the Australian Defence Force, the Defence Department and Australian defence industry are all in a desperate crisis of cost-cutting and complete confusion about direction, timetable, purpose and everything else. People are leaving the ADF, especially the army, at a rate of knots and cannot be replaced. The department is going through a frenzy of cost-cutting that is seeing all kinds of capabilities deferred, which often means abolished. It goes on to say: Consider the both parlous and chaotic state of defence spending. The budget generally compensates Defence movements in foreign exchange but not for inflation, and ASPI highlights the Albanese government has taken $1.5 billion from defence over the forward estimates in real terms. So the rhetoric that those opposite, the Albanese government, put on defence is not matched by the facts, not as assessed by me or by people on this side. With 22 years in the permanent armed forces and much of my time in this space working on national security issues, I think I do actually have some credible insight into when a government is doing well, and it is clear that the Albanese government are failing Australia when it comes to national security. Their comments, particularly in the space of shipbuilding are almost belong beyond belief. It was the coalition under Prime Minister Howard that commissioned things like the landing helicopter docks and the Air Warfare Destroyers. And it was the coalition that actually implemented the Naval Shipbuilding Plan and the continuous shipbuilding enterprise, built the infrastructure at Osborne, brought forward the offshore patrol vessel, contracted for the Hunter class so that we would actually have the defence capabilities when we need them, as well as a viable sovereign defence industry capability. When circumstances change, as they did with the submarine, rather than seeing that as a negative, you make a decision and you act, as the coalition did to then invest in nuclear powered submarines. You don't have a 12-month review followed by another review, which is actually deferring decisions, causing people to leave the industry, delaying the acquisition of new capability. The Australian public should be aware that the defence minister, Minister Marles, is correct when he said that Australia's strategic circumstances have radically worsened, requiring urgent action. He said in May, 'We have no time to waste.' I happen to agree with him on that. What I don't agree with or support are the decisions that he and the cabinet of the Albanese government are making to cut funds, to delay capabilities and to actually decrease Australia's ability to protect itself and its interests. 15:33 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It is interesting to listen to the contribution from the coalition time and time again where they seem to be trying to rewrite history. The Albanese government has worked through a number of stages now since coming into office trying to not just reform but enhance our defence capability for the future. The government has worked very hard to ensure that through the DSR and now that combat fleet review, which, I must say, was only received on 29 September. It is very appropriate for the government to give its recommendation due consideration, as you would expect of any government of the day. The Deputy Prime Minister has said on numerous occasions now that the government will respond formally in the early part of next year. The government has committed to continuous naval shipbuilding as part of its response to the Defence Strategic Review. This means that companies and workers at Osborne and Henderson should have confidence that we will continue building ships at those shipyards for many decades to come. Not just Osborne and Henderson but the whole supply chain will benefit from these ongoing projects. I know in my home state of Victoria there are a number of companies that feed into these particular shipbuilding projects. Getting the optimal surface combat fleet for our nation is critical not just for our national security but also for our industrial base. We will take the time that is needed just to make sure that we get it right, because we don't want a repeat of history. The coalition likes to forget that the Turnbull government did go down the path of acquiring those diesel submarines, and then the Morrison government decided to go with nuclear subs at much cost. The former coalition government mismanaged this acquisition at every step of the process, including that of the Hunter class frigate legacy. The coalition told the Australian public that these frigates would commence construction back in 2020 and cost $30 billion. We found out that both of those claims have proven to be false. The truth of the matter is that the Hunter class frigates are running about four years late and will cost billions more than the former coalition initially claimed. This is yet another example of where the Albanese government has had to come in and deal with the consequences of the coalition's disastrous decade in defence. Another point from question time that I wanted to touch on was about the government's excellent trade record and its response to the failures of the previous government, particularly in stabilising the relationship with our largest trade partner, China. Senator Scarr 282997 I raise a point of order, Deputy President. You may well have anticipated the point of order. Senator Ciccone is touching upon matters which weren't raised in any answer to the questions which are being debated during this period. He's talking about a trade matter. It didn't arise. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 There was a question on trade. The opposition moved to take note of all answers to coalition questions, and that included the minister talking of trade, so Senator Ciccone has a wide brief. Senator CICCONE 281503 Thank you for that protection, Deputy President. If I recall, Senator Farrell was answering a question from Senator O'Sullivan around the CPTPP. I'm assuming you were following the news, good senator. I'm sure Senator Farrell even singled you out, because if you had been listening to the news reports you would have learned that, apart from the Prime Minister being over in China, Senator Farrell himself was there recently and had to come back here to Canberra. On that note, on the CPTPP, the government's approach has been calm and consistent. The PM and the trade minister have done an excellent job in ensuring that we have been stabilising our relationship with one of our largest trade partners. The PM's visit to China is the first since 2016, and it marked the 50th anniversary of former Prime Minister Whitlam's visit. But trade impediments are the reason that Senator Farrell was over there boosting our exports and trying to convince the Chinese government that, when it comes to trade in barley, coal, cotton, copper ore, concrete, wine and lobsters, we need to have a stabilised relationship so that Australian producers can continue to export some of the world's best and prime products. There was another matter raised in question time, and that related to the cost of living. The government has already announced 10 major reforms: electricity bill relief, cheaper child care, increased rent assistance, more Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines, boosting income support payments, fee-free TAFE training, building more affordable homes, expanding parental leave, and creating jobs and getting wages moving again. We know that it's in the DNA of those opposite to ensure that wages keep going down and productivity keeps going down. They are not on the side of working people. 15:38 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'll start where Senator Ciccone finished in relation to the cost of living. He speaks about the 10 major reforms introduced by the current Labor government to address the cost of living. Judge those reforms. I say to the people sitting in the gallery or listening at home: judge the performance of this government based on the results of those reforms. What have been the results of those reforms? I'll tell you. The ABS employee living cost index released just last month says: Employee households recorded the largest annual rise in living costs of all household types, rising 9.0% over the year. Senator Ciccone talks about 10 major reforms introduced by the Labor government to address cost of living. What has actually happened? The result is a nine per cent increase in cost of living for employee households—those households who are least able to structure their living arrangements to take into account cost-of-living increases. Judge them not by words but by the consequences of their policies. The results of their policies are damning. What else does it tell us? Mortgage interest rate charges have risen 68.6 per cent on the year. For those employee households trying to pay off a mortgage, the costs of those mortgage payments have gone up by 68.6 per cent a year. Judge them by the results, not by their words. Annual CPI in this country is now 5.4 per cent. You will hear those opposite blame inflation in this country on the war in Ukraine. It's all about the war in Ukraine. That's what they say: 'It has nothing to do with us. We can't do anything about it. It's the war in Ukraine.' The best way to test that proposition is to see what is happening in other jurisdictions—in other countries. Let me give you three examples. For the core inflation rate—that's the inflation rate you have when you exclude the most volatile attributes, namely oil and food, from the inflation rate—in the United States, the latest figures are 4.15 per cent. In Australia, it's 5.5 per cent—4.15 compared to 5.5 per cent. We're a world leader. The core inflation rate in Germany is 4.3 per cent; in Australia it is 5.5 per cent. The core inflation rate in Japan is 2.8 per cent; in Australia it is 5.5 per cent. So it doesn't matter whether you go to Europe, Asia or the Americas. The only thing this Albanese Labor government is leading in is cost-of-living increases and core inflation. That's the only thing. They say they've introduced 10 reforms to address cost of living. It's a good thing they haven't implemented 20, or we'd be even further behind. Every time they implement a reform, we go backwards. Judge them not by their words but by the results and by how by our international competitors are travelling. The results are quite damning. There are implications to these cost-of-living increases. The first is for employees and those on social security benefits, who are least able to change their living arrangements to accommodate the cost of living, because they've got to spend every dollar they get. They're not savers; they're just living week to week, and they've got to spend every dollar. It's so hard for them to keep up and pay the bills. But the second point is that the cost of doing anything in this country is going up, and we're seeing that—as addressed by the question asked by my good friend and colleague Senator Canavan—in relation to infrastructure projects. The federal government is in the process of considering slashing and burning major infrastructure projects across this country, including my home state of Queensland. There are currently infrastructure projects which were committed to in part by the coalition government during the last term, under which the federal government was going to contribute its share, $10.95 billion of infrastructure spending. They're all on the chopping block. So be very careful to see what happens on Melbourne Cup Day, because it's not only a great race that stops the nation; it's also when governments take out the rubbish. 15:43 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia While my colleagues yell at each other across the chamber down there, I might also talk about the cost of living. I have spent some time on the Select Committee on the Cost of Living, and one of the key things that I think are challenging is the construct of the Liberal-National family across the benches here, who insist in many of those hearings that all of our problems started on 22 May 2022, which obviously they cannot believe, because if they did then they would not be fit to be sitting on those benches, and I know many of them are much smarter than that. The issues we are facing did not start on 22 May 2022 when the Labor government was elected. We know that. Through the hearings that we have had for the Cost of Living Select Committee, we have heard people say, over and over again, that this is the result of 'years of X' or 'decades of Y'. They're not saying that this is happening because the government changed at one point in time. Let's take housing, for example. How on earth do you totally upend the housing system overnight? You don't. The housing crisis and the lack of anywhere for people to live comes after years and years of inaction and not building any houses. It's not difficult. It's not a difficult concept to understand. One of the fundamental problems here is this absolutism of, 'Oh, it can only be your fault because you're now sitting in government.' We are totally responsible. This is why we have worked towards a suite of policies that addresses a whole range of issues that we have come to government to find in a riotous mess. We have laid out 10 critical areas that we are working on. Firstly, there's electricity bill relief. We know that there's more to do, but we have managed to moderate the increases in that arena, and we have made some significant steps forward in impacting the price that people are paying for their electricity. There's cheaper child care. That's already implemented, and we know it's having a significant effect. The third thing is increased rent assistance. Yes, we did that, too. I note that Senator Scarr was talking about people on unemployment benefits and support payments, and, yes, we've increased those as well. Boosting income support payments is obviously something that needed to be done, but the situation that we are seeing in that whole social support network has been festering for years and years. Fee-free TAFE is the next one down our list. We've put an awful lot of effort into it, and it's having a significant impact. More people, more training and more jobs—that's what we've been seeing on the ground since we came to government. In terms of building more affordable homes, there's the accusation that the housing circumstances have occurred overnight, which we know is a completely ridiculous claim, after 10 years of that area just being ignored. We have brought in policies that are seeing houses being put on the ground right now to help ease that crisis. Expanding paid parental leave is an economic policy that is about getting women back into the workforce and shoring up their economic independence. And then we have the situation with our healthcare system. We know that we've seen—was it for six or seven years that the Liberals froze the Medicare rebate, crippling our doctors on the way? We are now seeing more people being able to access bulk billing. We have tripled some of those rates. We are seeing 11 million people now finding it much easier to find a doctor who will bulk bill them. That is a lot of people who are seriously impacted by the policies that we are putting on the ground to ease the cost-of-living pressures that we're seeing. I would say to those opposite: stop playing games. Let's just get down and get this done. We need to do some serious work on fixing the cost of living. 15:49 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania In this slightly truncated time I have this afternoon, I want to draw on the points that some of my colleagues have made about the No. 1 issue that is raised with me by my constituents back in the great state of Tasmania. That is the crippling cost-of-living crisis that is being felt across the country, particularly in my own state, and the frustration of my constituents and the broader public at the fact that the government does not yet seem to be taking this issue seriously. Australians still remember that the Prime Minister, Mr Anthony Albanese, promised on multiple occasions over the last 18 or so months that he would fix the cost-of-living crisis. But, if you look at how all of the indicators are tracking over that time, it is plain to see that the cost of household items and services is only continuing to go up and up and up. The cost of food is up 8.2 per cent. The cost of housing is up 10.4 per cent. The cost of insurance is up 17.3 per cent. All of these increases are being felt in the hip pockets of Tasmanians and, indeed, Australians. How does this government expect us to keep up with these inflationary pressures? We know that inflation in this country is now higher than in most advanced economies. In fact, core inflation is higher in Australia than it is in Germany, in France, in Italy, in the United States, in Japan and in Canada. This situation is untenable for many Australians and their families, and they are the one who have to bear the brunt of this cost-of-living crisis. I was glad to hear the Senate's cost-of-living committee mentioned in the context of this debate. That is a very good committee, chaired by my friend and colleague Senator Jane Hume, and it is doing some incredibly good work. We had that committee down in Hobart earlier on in the year, and it was my pleasure to speak with witnesses at that committee, particularly Foodbank Tasmania and the St Vincent de Paul Society, about the pressures that they are seeing on the services that they provide the community, with unprecedented levels of individuals trying to access their services—food relief and that sort of thing. It is very clear to me from those committee hearings that this is an acute issue in Tasmania. Tasmanians are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. Australians are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. All we really want is for this government over here on the government benches to get on with their plan that they seemingly have to deal with this, but right now, 18 months later, I don't have any faith that they will. Question agreed to. Housing Supply 52 15:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt, to a question without notice asked by Senator Roberts today relating to housing supply. We know that the conversion of houses to Airbnbs take away beds in which Australians could be living. The Albanese government oversaw over 5.86 million tourists arrive last financial year that. That's creating a huge incentive for property owners to turn their houses into lucrative short-stay accommodation, making the housing and rental crisis worse. We have only 100,000 student accommodation beds, yet the Albanese government issued a record 687,000 student visas in one year. Analyst Tarric Brucker has used Department of Home Affairs data to show that there are 2.3 million visa holders likely to require housing in the country right now. This figure excludes tourists and short-stay visas. In the past three years, almost every Australian in a rental has had their rent increased, often savagely—if they can find a rental. Almost three-quarters of young Australians believe they will never be able to afford a home. If this rate of people coming into the country is maintained, sadly, they will be correct. Australia's housing crisis is a direct result of the Albanese government's flood of permanent immigration, visa holders and tourists. There are two sides of the housing equation: supply and demand. With record overseas arrivals driving record levels of demand, we will never be able to build enough supply to keep up with demand. On the supply side, barriers to building even more housing are growing. Rising interest rates are putting pressure on borrowing capacity to pay for new houses. Construction supply chains are still broken from gross federal and state COVID mismanagement. Rising material costs, combined with existing fixed price contracts, are squeezing builders, and the construction industry is facing a wave of insolvencies. The unsustainable level of overseas arrivals in our country is fuelling Australia's housing crisis. The rate of arrivals must be cut quickly. Question agreed to. Israel 52 15:54 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Trade and Tourism (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to Israel. All across the world, all across our national community, people are gathering together. Across the length and breadth of this ancient continent, people are gathering together, protesting and engaging in acts of nonviolent direct action. They gather united by a single call: 'Ceasefire now.' And, in so doing, they join millions across the world. In London, they cry, 'Ceasefire now.' In Washington, they cry, 'Ceasefire now.' Across South America, they cry, 'Ceasefire now.' They call upon their governments and the world to shake off the inhumanity which has so gripped so many in positions of power over this last month. They call on them to shake it off and to reconnect with the shared human reality that children should never be slain in the course of war and that water, food and medicine must always be provided, particularly to those over whom a state has power. They call, they protest, they put their bodies on the line, and we here in the Australian Greens heed that call. We have proudly joined those actions, addressed those rallies and used our places in these spaces, gifted by the movement that we so proudly serve and that is so grounded in peace and in nonviolence, to make sure that these words are heard in this legislature and that this government, including its Prime Minister and its foreign minister, cannot hide from the demands of the Australian community. Today my colleague Senator Faruqi asked the current highest-ranking member of the government in this place whether they would finally join the community in calling for a ceasefire of all of the parties currently engaged in the gristmill of violence which is Gaza. And what was the response? Well, there was none. There was mumbling in the face of war crimes, obfuscation in the face of crimes against humanity, and a barefaced refusal to acknowledge that thousands of children now lie dead in shallow graves because of the actions of the State of Israel and the policies that they have enacted in response to the horrendous terror attacks of 7 October. I ask this government: when is enough enough? How many children must die, how many must be wounded, how many refugee camps bombed, how many ambulance convoys bombed and how many apartment blocks reduced to rubble before you people act, before you take the very first step on the road to something like peace and lasting justice in Palestine for Palestinians and Israelis, which is to stop the killing, the mechanised murder which has become the response of the Netanyahu government? Every moment that we delay costs lives, as does every press statement calling for pauses, as though the human reaction to a war and invasion should be to call to just take a moment and take a breath in the killing. How can you say these things and not hear how wrong they are at a deeply human level and how much you are failing the people of Australia in this moment of profound crisis? We will continue to call in this place for a ceasefire now and for a lasting and just peace. Question agreed to. NOTICES 53 NOTICES Presentation 53 15:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions 5 to 8 of standing order 111 not apply to the Federal Court Legislation Amendment (Judicial Immunity) Bill 2023, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bill The Bill would amend the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (FCFCOA Act) to provide that a judge of Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) has the same immunity as a judge of Division 1 of the FCFCOA. The Bill would also make consequential amendments to four provisions across the FCFCOA Act and the Family Law Act 1975 to give effect to this measure by substituting all references to a 'Division 2 judge' with a 'Division 1 judge'. These four provisions currently provide arbitrators, mediators, registrars and the FCFCOA Chief Executive Officer with the same immunity as a judge of the FCFCOA (Division 2) when performing quasi-judicial functions. Judicial immunity is a common law doctrine that protects judges from personal liability for actions done as part of their judicial functions. Its purpose is to preserve the independence of the judiciary, support the effective administration of justice and ensure the finality of legal proceedings. Case law on the scope of judicial immunity for judges of the FCFCOA (Division 2)—the only federal inferior court of record—suggests that judicial immunity applies to them more narrowly than it does to their superior court counterparts. For judges of federal superior courts, namely the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia and the FCFCOA (Division 1), judicial immunity protects judges even if they act without or in excess of jurisdiction, unless they did so knowingly. The Federal Court of Australia recently found in Stradford (a pseudonym) v Judge Vasta [2023] FCA 1020 that immunity for judges of the FCFCOA (Division 2) may be lost where it is found that the judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, even if they did so unknowingly or in good faith. The findings of the Federal Court in this matter has created uncertainty for judges of the FCFCOA (Division 2). The Bill would provide clarity about the scope of judicial immunity for FCFOCA (Division 2) judges. The prospective application of the Bill would not disturb any matters currently before the Courts or causes of action that may have already accrued. Judicial officers of state and territory inferior courts have the same level of immunity as judges of superior courts, and this amendment would ensure the same arrangements for the federal courts. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill in the 2023 Spring sittings is required to ensure that the ongoing risk of litigation against FCFCOA (Division 2) judges is minimised, including vexatious litigation aimed inappropriately at judges from those who are dissatisfied with the outcomes of their decisions. The FCFCOA (Division 2) is the largest federal court in Australia. It has jurisdiction to hear a broad range of matters including family law, migration and general federal law matters. It is the single point of entry for all federal family law disputes. The Bill would give certainty to judges of the FCFCOA (Division 2) about the protections available to them when discharging their judicial functions, and provide certainty for our justice system. To mitigate any risks to the administration of justice arising from this, it is essential that this clarity is provided as soon as possible. (Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General) Presentation 54 Withdrawal 55 BUSINESS 55 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 55 16:00 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day No 55 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 be considered on Wednesday 8 November 2023 at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 55 16:00 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Gallagher from 6 to 8 November 2023, for personal reasons; (b) Senator Wong from 6 to 8 November 2023, on account of ministerial business; and (c) Senators Dodson, Payman and White from 6 to 10 November 2023, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 55 16:01 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Antic from 6 to 10 November 2023, for personal reasons; (b) Senator Nampijinpa Price from 6 to 10 November 2023, for personal reasons; Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 56 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 56 16:02 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Clerk. I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on. NOTICES 56 NOTICES Withdrawal 56 Withdrawal 56 BUSINESS 56 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 56 16:02 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That further consideration of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting after the Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council notifies the President in writing that the Council has, by unanimous resolution, approved the legislation. 16:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The successful implementation of the Basin Plan is dependent on the cooperation of basin state jurisdictions. The water minister announced this amendment with great fanfare saying that the minister had all states on board except Victoria. We have also been advised that the ministerial council has not met since February 2023, long before this legislation was drafted. We believe the ministerial council should be fully consulted on such a significant reform that has implications for every jurisdiction. 16:03 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to make short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Leave is granted. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U While the Greens have some sympathies for Senator Roberts' motion today, we're not going to support it because we know that the job of getting the Murray-Darling Basin Plan back on track won't be done if we leave it to the states. It is the states that have held this up, dragged the chain and gamed the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is time that the Commonwealth government did this job and got the water that the environment deserves and was promised. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 25 AYES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 57 BILLS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 57

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023

First Reading 57 16:10 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I, and on behalf of Senator David Pocock, move: That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to workers' compensation and rehabilitation, and for related purposes. A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to workplace relations, and work health and safety, and for related purposes. A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, and for related purposes. A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to work health and safety, workers' compensation and rehabilitation, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I present the bills and move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 57 16:12 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to table explanatory memoranda related to the bills. Leave granted. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I table the explanatory memoranda, and I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— FAIR WORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SMALL BUSINESS REDUNDANCY EXEMPTION) BILL 2023 The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023 (the Bill) closes a loophole currently in law that mean small business doesn't have to pay redundancy to workers, when that business is having to downsize due to insolvency. The small business redundancy exemption has been a part of the workplace relation laws under the Fair Work Act since 2009. The thinking was that small businesses could hire workers without worrying about possible future redundancy payments. To qualify for the exemption, small businesses had to have fewer than 15 staff. The problem—or the loophole—comes when a larger business becomes a smaller one—usually because they are going out of business—and they end up with less than 15 employees. So according to this particular loophole these large businesses are now small businesses, and they don't have to pay the remaining staff a redundancy. That means that these workers who are helping to wind up the business don't get the redundancy they would normally be entitled to These workers are often the people that have had to stay on, helping to wind up the business—long after their mates have gone. This a loophole that needs to be closed. Imagine you're a worker in a large business and you've been there for years—then imagine that you're told you're to be one of the last workers but that you won't be getting a redundancy payment because the large business is now technically a small business. Workers shouldn't lose their rights to a redundancy payment just because they stay on to help these large business close down This Bill fixes that because it provides for an exception to the exemption. Basically—It makes sure that big businesses can't get away with not paying redundancy to the last of their workers—just because they are going out of business. It is a loophole that needs to be closed now! According to the Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC) we are s dealing with a spike in corporate insolvencies. In other words large businesses going out of business. Official date shows that in August this year—918 companies went into external administration for the first time or had a controller appointed. This was up 32% on last year and up 12% on the previous month. We know the construction industry is falling on hard times, we have labour shortages issues—supply chain problems— All working together to create a perfect storm—and creating a wave of insolvencies across the sector. Everyday Australians are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis, high interest rates and wages that aren't keeping up with inflation. They're tightening their belts and that's hitting retail, and larger businesses across the board. This amendment is just common sense and it's an amendment that shouldn't have to wait until next July. It's not controversial and it's not complicated. It simply protects the redundancy entitlements of those workers who are the last ones out the door. I commend the Bill to the Senate. FAIR WORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING PROTECTIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION) BILL 2023 According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1 in 6 women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner since age 15. In just the past two weeks alone, six women have been killed across Australia as a result of domestic violence. As a nation, we must do better. Last year, the Parliament took the decision to introduce 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. This recognised that while family and domestic violence is an issue in our society, we all have a duty to support those who experience it. It also recognised that no person should be made to choose between their job and their safety. At commencement, this new entitlement became a National Employment Standard, and brought with it all the associated protections, including a protection from discrimination on the basis that a person requires use of that leave entitlement. However, one thing we should have also done at that time was to ensure that employers cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis that they are being subjected to family and domestic violence, regardless of whether they access the entitlement or not. Very simply, this Bill would prevent employers from discriminating against people that are being subjected to family and domestic violence by making it a protected attribute under the Fair Work Act 2009. As frontline services have told us, this measure will complement the new FDV leave entitlement, by ensuring it is placed within a broader culture of non-discrimination against people seeking safety from family and domestic violence. It will ensure that workers are not discriminated against before they have the opportunity to access leave, and it will alert employers to the need to have robust training for managers on how to navigate discussions on family and domestic violence. It is a commonsense measure that is long overdue and will undoubtedly help to save lives. We commend the Bill to the Senate. FAIR WORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ASBESTOS SAFETY AND ERADICATION AGENCY) BILL 2023 The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos and Safety Eradication Agency) Bill 2023 amends the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Act 2013 (ASEA Act) to include Silica. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (ASEA) was set up in 2013 to administer the National Strategic Plan. The ASEA oversees national actions to improve asbestos awareness and the effective and safe management, removal and disposal of asbestos. The first recorded Australian case of asbestosis was made in 1933 and the incidence of the disease is still rising even though most of those diagnosed today were exposed to heavy doses of asbestos 50 years ago. It took nearly 100 years for Australia to create a national agency to deal with Asbestos, we can't wait a minute longer to deal with silica. Silica is found in things like stone bench tops, concrete, bricks and mortar. When these materials are cut, crushed, drilled, polished, sawn or ground, they release tiny dust particles. Silica dust is 100 times smaller than a grain of sand, so tiny that you can't even see it - But if you're exposed to it—you can get lung cancer, kidney disease and silicosis. It's estimated that nearly half a million young tradies are exposed to silica dust—with thousands already diagnosed with silicosis. Like asbestosis, there is no cure for silicosis. Safe Work Australia, has cut the silica dust exposure limit from 0.1 milligrams per cubic metre over an eight-hour shift to 0.05 milligrams. But this limit won't come in for three years and it has to be signed off by state and territory governments. Silica reform is complicated and sits across multiple portfolios and jurisdictions, including silica in the government agency that ASEA's responsibilities helps to fix this problem. This Bill gives workers the right to safe and healthy workplaces by including silica in the government agency that deals with Asbestos. This includes eliminating or minimising exposure to dangerous silica dust. It raises awareness. It improves research. It means that for the first time we can gather national data. The Bill also expands the Agency's functions to include a focus on silica safety and coordination, awareness raising, reporting and providing advice to the government on silica safety and silica-related diseases. It also promotes and helps current efforts to manage the risk of silica and silica related disease in the workplace. It's estimated that up to half a million tradies have been exposed to silica dust and at least 100,000 of those could die of silicosis. We don't know the exact number of deaths from this deadly silica dust—because we haven't been tracking the national data. But a study from 2012 estimated that it has already contributed to over 10,000 deaths a year. And many of the workers who get silicosis are young people in their 20s and 30s. Unlike exposure to asbestos which may take many years to present, "acute" silicosis can occur within three years of exposure. Like asbestosis there is no cure for silicosis, other than a lung transplant. Despite significant government reports in the 1990's of the growing number of Australians dying of asbestos—it wasn't until the end of 2003 that a complete ban on all forms of asbestos was brought in—it was another ten years after that until Australia got a national agency. With hundreds of thousands of Australians being exposed to silica dust every year we need to act now. I commend this bill to the Senate. FAIR WORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FIRST RESPONDERS) BILL 2023 It's a sad and under-recognised fact that our nation's first responders are more likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than the general population. Our first responders put themselves in harm's way for the benefit of their communities—our communities. Whether that is police, paramedics, emergency services, emergency services phone operators or firefighters, our first responders risk life and limb to protect us or save us in our hours of greatest need. They are the first in and the last out, and that comes with specific risks. It brings them in monthly, weekly or sometimes daily contact with violence, death, physical injury and moral injury. These experiences take a toll. While a person's response to any traumatic event is individual, we do know these experiences can compound, and for some people it can cause the development of PTSD. We should not wait for things to go wrong in someone's life before we jump in with support. We should always be taking a preventive approach, recognising that everyone deserves to be safe at work and to go home to their loved ones after a shift. Our services have been improving their on-the-job mental health supports and it is hoped that one day we won't see the occupational risks of PTSD that we see today, and that we have been seeing for decades. However, that time has not yet come, and for the moment we have first responders, both current and retired, struggling with PTSD, feeling isolated without the support they need to conquer this insidious illness. This is where the workers compensation system needs to respond. Our workers compensation system should be there to support people who have been injured on the job to receive the support, treatment and the assistance they need to get well and transition back to the workforce, where possible. This needs to happen as quickly as possible, however what we know is that some first responders truly struggle to have their claim accepted by Comcare or by the ACT's self-insurance system. Many first responders can find themselves on a seemingly never-ending circuit of doctor's appointments and independent medical examinations to achieve the right diagnosis and to ensure that diagnosis is linked to their service. PTSD cannot always be linked to a single traumatic event; it can compound over time and sometimes it can manifest years after exposure to trauma. Proving that a person's PTSD is related to their job is not always easy and it's not straightforward. In addition, requiring first responders to relive their traumas by forcing them to attend multiple appointments can add fuel to the fire and cause yet more trauma. This Bill aims to solve these problems by requiring the insurers of first responders in the Commonwealth and ACT jurisdictions to presume that PTSD was caused by a first responder's job unless the insurer can establish otherwise. Very simply, it will reverse the onus of proof, taking some of the stress off the shoulders of first responders and allowing them to receive more quickly funding for services that put them on the best possible path to recovery. It is important to note that this will only apply to first responders employed by the Commonwealth and by the ACT Government. However, it is hoped that this legislation will set a best practice model that will be adopted more widely across the federation. This has been the case for changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 made in 2022, which established a presumption for a number of cancers known to impact firefighters. Following passage of those changes through the Parliament, the changes have now also been mirrored in Tasmania. The changes being made in this Bill should not be seen as the end of the journey in trying to improve the physical and psychosocial safety of first responders. It is just one step. The good news is that we already have the blueprint for what needs to be done, expressed very clearly through the Senate's 2019 report: The people behind 000: mental health of our first responders. This includes a review of the use of independent medical examiners by insurers, establishing compulsory management training focussed on mental health in first responder organisations and ensuring adequate mental health supports are extended to all retired first responders. We also hope that we can answer the call of the first responders that recently travelled approximately 2,800 kilometres around Australia to raise awareness of these issues, by establishing a National First Responder Mental Health Commissioner to better coordinate data collection, policies and research across the country. There has never been a more important time to focus on the health and the mental health of our first responders. As the climate changes, as our planet warms and as our risks to natural disasters increase, we will rely on our first responders more than ever to come to our aid in desperate situations. We know they will be there to answer the call. We must be there to answer their calls and to do all that is within our power to ensure we look after their physical and mental health while they are serving and after they have retired. We are pleased to introduce the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023 and we commend it to the Senate. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MOTIONS 61 MOTIONS Aviation Industry 61 16:13 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We now come to a deferred vote. I remind senators that, after 4.30 pm on Thursday 19 October 2023, a division was called on the motion moved by Senator McKenzie relating to the Albanese government. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is: That the Senate expresses its concern at the Albanese Labor Government's rank hypocrisy when it comes to its promises of being a more accountable and transparent government, as demonstrated by its failure to be honest with Australians about why it rejected the application by Qatar Airways to have more international flights, and its failure to be transparent about the use of Special Purpose Aircraft flights.  

The Senate divided. [16:17]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Farrell, D. E. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Defence Personnel 62 16:20 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 A letter has been received from Senator Lambie: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The recruitment and retention crisis for the Australian Defence Force is a national security issue. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will now set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whip. 16:21 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In the last round of estimates, Australia found out just how bad recruitment and retention rates in the Australian Defence Force are. Defence's personal target overall was 62,000—what it calls its 'growth path'—but it went backwards to 59,000. They are losing more than they are recruiting. Lieutenant General Fox told estimates that, in the last two years, nearly 8,000 veterans have left the Australian Defence Force. The general also admitted that the Australian Defence Force had 'reduced in strength'. Senator Shoebridge put it best when he described Defence's 'growth path' as a 'shrink path'. Dr Marcus Hellyer, a former senior public servant in the department, said that Defence's performance in trying to expand the size of the Australian Defence Force had been 'a clown show'. The ADF has averaged a separation rate—that means veterans who are leaving—at eight to 10 per cent. That is 5,000 to 6,000 a year. Many of these veterans are highly trained and highly skilled. This is at a time when we have a war in Ukraine, a war in Israel and tensions at an all-time high in the South China Sea. Our Defence Force has never been more important, and it has also never been so depleted. This is not just an issue for veterans; it's a national security issue. It's an issue for every Australian. For many older veterans, the news of the 'shrink path' is no surprise. It started back in the nineties. Remember the recession that we apparently had to have—high unemployment, families losing businesses and 17 per cent interest rates? In response, Defence started offering experienced veterans redundancies—how ridiculous!—and the Howard government introduced the Defence Reform Program in 1997. This program was supposed to save millions of dollars, increase efficiencies and focus Defence on its core business. In other words, they wanted more civilians in the system, and they wanted to outsource. When I did my training at Kapooka, all of my mates—from the cooks to the cleaners to the admin people—were all in cam uniform. That meant they did basic training. That meant they could progress through the ranks. That meant we had units where all members were war ready. But the Defence Reform Program was brought in, and that put an end to that—thank you, Mr Howard! The outsourcing didn't stop there. It was the biggest mistake they ever made. They outsourced recruiting, and they're still doing it. They gave it to Manpower. In 2001, 22 years ago, a Senate inquiry was commissioned to look at the recruitment and retention of ADF personnel. It found that these efficiencies and rationalisation measures had reduced the ADF's strength by 27 per cent. It's a good report. I would encourage the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to pick it up and read it and to have a look at why we're in the situation that we're in. Put it in your equation; you might actually learn something! That's the problem: Defence and the ministers in charge don't listen and they do not learn. Submissions should also be read which were written 20 years ago; they could have been sent yesterday. They mirror each other, I'm telling you. They're all very instructive, and many say the same things, and that is that they left the ADF because there were, 'No promotion prospects and no career alternatives'. Or there was, 'The lack of recognition of skills obtained by cadets can be attributed to the lack of recruits'. One of the key recommendations of the 2001 inquiry was to fix the recognition of skills. It still isn't fixed—of course not! Another wrote: 'I feel that morale starts with the troops really being content. There is no morale with a private contractor.' These are key messages for you Minister. Here is how much this government and the Minister for Defence Personnel haven't learned: just two weeks ago, the government took the recruitment contract from Manpower Australia and awarded it to some sort of French-Swiss based multinational in a deal thought to be worth over $1 billion. That's $1 billion of your taxpayers' money when those in uniform are doing the job—themselves recruiting many years ago and doing a damn good job of it. You took it out of their hands. There is a lesson to be learned today by the ministers: wake up to yourselves! 16:26 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I would like to thank Senator Lambie for highlighting this important issue for our defence community and for all Australians. Of course there is a sizeable defence community here in Canberra, and we know that the demands on our defence community are increasing. We face uncertain times when it comes to geopolitics, and we face uncertain times when it comes to the impacts of climate change. This has meant that we've seen the ADF called up more and more frequently to assist with natural disasters. As a recent Defence Subcommittee report found, since 2019 the ADF has committed over 35,000 personnel from a workforce of approximately 62,000 in support of domestic disaster relief tasks. This is a huge effort, and we thank them for the work that they do in communities across the country. But in return, we need to look after Defence. We know that Defence has an ambitious plan to grow its military and civilian permanent workforce to over 101,000 by 2040. How they will achieve this in the face of the current trend, where recruitment isn't keeping pace with separations, is a massive challenge, with no obvious answers. Army reported a separation rate of 13.2 per cent in 2021-22, with the rates for Navy and Air Force hovering under 10 per cent—as Senator Lambie has noted. So how do we keep them? The bill that Senator Lambie and I introduced today seeks to reverse the onus of proof for first responders when it comes to PTSD. It is just one example; a similar presumption doesn't exist for veterans either. Wait times for veterans seeking support from DVA are, at times, frankly, ridiculous, given what we're asking veterans to do and then asking them to sit and wait. As at 30 September 2023, DVA was working on 53,601 claims, and had 21,915 active claims not yet allocated to an officer for processing. These have been lodged by some 14,369 veterans. This is unacceptable; we have to do better than this. You can't tell me that this is not a deterrent to people looking to enlist or to continue their service. Things like retention bonuses, as most recently announced in the last federal budget, aren't enough to solve the retention and recruitment crisis that we're facing. We have to do better to both value and recognise and then truly look after Defence personnel. They put their lives on the line at times, but most of the time they're putting their bodies on the line, training and staying ready. When they have injuries, both physical and mental, our part of the bargain should be that we'll look after them and we won't make them argue, even though they've been at war, that their PTSD comes from that. We need to do better as a country. If Defence want to be an employer of choice, there is significant cultural change that will have to occur, and our response as a nation to things like climate change will have to be so much better to lessen the burden and challenge on the ADF. We're relying on them more and more. In a time when we're seeing instability and the breaking down of the rules based order in some instances, we cannot allow them to be spending too much time away from core Defence business. 16:31 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to make a contribution on this matter of public importance raised by Senator Lambie, and I thank her for submitting it to the Senate. This is not a new problem. Having served in the Australian Army as a regular Army officer for over 22 years and another three years in the active reserve and then having been in this place for around 15 years, involved in national security issues, I have seen a number of cycles around recruitment and retention issues. There are a couple of things, though, that make this substantially different, and I just want to comment on those. First the strategic update of 2020 and then, more recently, the Defence strategicreview have highlighted that, now more than ever, Australia needs a strong Defence Force. No longer do we have the 10-year warning time for creating capability, which is not just equipment but also personnel in terms of recruitment and training—individual training on equipment but also collective training as units to operate that equipment and joint training in conjunction with other forces. So the retention of ADF members is critical because it takes time to train a competent force. There is another thing that is different. The Parliamentary Library issued a summary of some of these issues earlier this year, and what it highlighted is that whilst, as others have pointed out, Army is leading in terms of loss rates, at around 13.2 per cent, it's also across ranks, and the middle ranks in particular experience it. In Army's case, sergeants and senior NCOs—who are the repositories of most of the corporate knowledge that we need to train new recruits and, importantly, to provide leadership to people who are in the Defence Force—are some of the people we're struggling to retain. In the past we have seen things like retention bonuses help for particular skills, whether that be engineers of particular types or aircrew or others where there's a high net worth and salaries outside are attractive. It may have worked, but, now that we're looking across a broad section, we need to understand what it is that's driving, as Mr Greg Sheridan wrote in the Australian recently, soldiers from the Army to leave in droves. I think there are a couple of things, having been through these cycles. Morale in the Defence Force is actually linked to how they perceive they're being treated by government, and a lot of that comes down to funding decisions. For Army in particular, we look at the Defence strategic review, which has dislocated soldiers and their families. Over the next couple of years, people are going to leave my home state of South Australia, where Defence deliberately made an investment some years ago, partly because we didn't suffer some of the same training area burdens during the wet season but also, importantly, because of retention and recruitment. Families are more likely to want to allow their spouses to remain in defence if they're living in Adelaide rather than Darwin. That's not biased. It's a fact that actually drove a significant investment by Defence around a decade ago to move units from Darwin down to Adelaide. What's the DSR doing? It's reversing that, and—it's a funny old thing—we're seeing an uptick in people leaving. We're also seeing budget cuts within Army. The decision to cut two-thirds of the infantry fighting vehicle program has led to the decimation of the 1st Armoured Regiment and taken us from three armoured brigades down to one. This goes against all military history in terms of the ability to deploy capability, and that affects morale. So, whilst retention and recruitment have been a problem for a long time in fits and starts, the decisions of this government around the DSR, in terms of cost shifting, dislocation and disrupting well-established—and for good reason—structures of three units to be able to deploy only one, are having an impact on the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. The current recruiting, according to estimates, is achieving only 41.7 per cent of targets for people in the ADF. Significantly, that has a flow-on effect to the defence industry, who we look to as the people who actually provide the materiel side of our capabilities. As Mr Brent Clark, who is the CEO of the Australian Industry & Defence Network, which represents small and medium sized businesses, said, 'I have never seen so many angry people because delays and deferral of projects have seen our industry start to lose people and lose incentive to be involved in supporting defence.' So this government is making a difficult problem worse. 16:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the many fine people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on, and strongly support, Senator Lambie's motion that the ADF recruitment and retention crisis is a national security issue. Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and I spent a lot of time questioning Defence last week at Senate estimates. It was revealed at those h4earings that, despite all of Defence's glossy recruitment brochures—as Senator Shoebridge accurately described them—there's almost no mention of the fact that the headcount of defence personnel has gone backwards. There are more people leaving defence than joining, despite large recruitment and retention targets and huge expenditure. The responsibility for this utter failure sits squarely with Defence's upper brass and with the politicians, for failing to keep them in line. The branch chiefs are all led—and I use that term loosely, when it comes to this man—by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell. He is paid more than $1 million a year at a time when defence personnel receive a real wage cut. It's difficult to find a KPI or a metric that General Campbell hasn't failed on in his time as head of the Defence Force: recruitment and retention goals—failed; Taipan helicopters—failed; the Hunter class future frigates—failed. There are questions over whether a medal that General Campbell wears on his chest today—the Distinguished Service Cross—was given to him legally. Over 100 active special forces soldiers have discharged from the force after General Campbell threw them under the bus at a press conference in 2020, tarring them with accusations of war crimes before a single charge had been laid. One of the most elite fighting forces in the world—the Special Air Service Regiment, or SASR—is reportedly facing a complete capability crisis as operators leave Defence because their supposed leaders don't care about their welfare. The chair of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Nick Kaldas, has been scathing of Defence and its leadership. He specifically called out the successive failure of governments, the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to adequately protect the mental health and wellbeing of those who serve our country. Our defence force is in crisis on many fronts. The ability to defend this country is at risk, and it's a national security issue, as Senator Lambie rightly points out. We cannot just close our eyes and cross our fingers and hope that the United States will turn up and help us out. We need a ready, able and capable defence force as much as ever. Given his track record so far, it's clear we won't get one until the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, is removed from his post and until we start treating the diggers as the people they really are: the people who care about our country and who are putting their heart and soul into defending his country. 16:39 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Astoundingly, in just the first three months of this year the Australian Defence Force shrunk by 1,100 members. Indeed, if you sat through the budget estimates of last week and heard the evidence of General Fox and the CDF, you'd think everything was going well. We got a whole lot of evidence about how they're on target for their production of brochures, they're on target for their new policy rollout, they've got new policy initiatives of a $50,000 retention bonus and the current recruitment targeting rate is on track—all sorts of nonsense. And then at the end of it we said, 'How many people are in the ADF now and how many were there when you started?' And the answer is that year on year, under the current CDF and the current Secretary Moriarty, the ADF has gone backwards. Every year Secretary Moriarty is given a recruitment target and an expansion target, and, since he started in 2016, he's failed in every single year. And what did the Albanese government do? They gave him a five-year contract extension when they started. The CDF has failed every year, under his tenure, on recruitment targets. What does he get? He gets a significantly bigger pay rise than the poor old diggers doing the actual grunt work down beneath him. When Senator Lambie had the temerity to ask him about his pay rise, he didn't rise up and get angry about war crimes, he didn't rise up and get angry about the failure to deliver any of their key projects and he didn't rise up and get angry about the abusive culture. The thing that got him angry was his pay and his entitlements. He behaved appallingly to Senator Lambie. I'll tell you what I saw then and what a number of other people saw then. We saw the culture in that place, where the generals think they can talk down to anybody beneath them. In that moment he wasn't seeing Senator Lambie as Senator Lambie. He was seeing a private, somebody he could talk down to and demean with an appallingly toxic workplace culture. We saw it there in the budget estimates. And shame on him for not apologising for his behaviour. But we also saw it with the Air Chief Marshal, when we caught him out for having appallingly misrepresented the behaviour of a senior Air Force chaplain who had been bullied, humiliated and intimidated in her workplace. In the last budget estimates session before that, the Air Chief Marshal, when I asked him about it, had made a false accusation and slur against her. She'd had enough, right? She had been treated appallingly by defence. And when I asked the Air Chief Marshal about it he had made an unfounded, incorrect slur about her. And then in the next budget estimates, when I called him out on it after the Air Force had said to her that they would apologise, he refused to apologise, refused to retract his slur on that Air Force chaplain and compounded the error. Twice in just one budget estimates session we saw the attitude of the leadership towards the people actually on the ground doing the work, and twice they failed the test of leadership. We've seen it time and time again, and they wonder why there's a recruitment crisis. It's because of the toxic leadership in the ADF—twice on display. And no wonder they went backwards by more than 1,100 in just the first three months of this year—backwards, not forwards, despite the brochures. It turns out that people in the ADF are willing to pay $50,000 not to be in the ADF, because there's a recruitment bonus going on that nobody wants. 'Look unto yourself,' we say about the leadership—Secretary Moriarty, the CDF, the senior leadership. The Albanese government is spending billions and billions of dollars getting their new toys, their new nuclear submarines and their Hunter class frigates, and, if they ever turn up, they're going to need thousands and thousands of people to staff them. Instead they're going backwards, spending billions on toys that nobody will be able to operate. That's the Albanese government and, before that, the coalition government in defence. And why? It's because of what we saw in that estimates: toxic leadership, refusing to take responsibility, talking down to the people in their command and not showing them respect. That's what's wrong. If you don't fix that, you'll never fix the recruitment targets. It starts with the toxic leadership. 16:44 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I thank everyone who has served in our Defence Force and is currently serving. A report published in May unfortunately showed that our military will reach only 73 per cent of its recruitment target. The security situation in our region is unfortunately tense right when our success in recruiting soldiers is at its lowest. Obviously, this is a recipe for disaster. On top of that, a parliamentary committee was told earlier this year that about 6½ thousand personnel are leaving the ADF every single year. Can I make a small suggestion? It will always be difficult to recruit young men and women to defend their country when they are continually told that their country is built on stolen land. It will always be difficult to convince young men and women to sacrifice for their country when they are continually told that their country is racist. It will always be difficult to raise a generation of patriots when children are told that our culture is not worthy of saving. Some of the responsibility for this unwillingness of people to serve must be borne by us in this chamber—not me; I'm a patriot. But all your woke lefty activists in this place and your closet—if we want people to defend our country, senators must speak of what is worth defending. The words that we use have power. The images that we can paint have consequences. We must stop using this place as a pulpit to divide Australia and instead use it as a place to inspire pride in what is the greatest country in the world: this nation right here, this country, this green and gold. We must defend it. We must protect it. It's the best country in the world, and I'm sick of all of you. 16:46 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. From the outset I want to thank Senator Lambie for raising this matter of public importance and acknowledge her genuine interest, her prior service and her ongoing commitment to these issues, no matter who is in government, and also for being a member of the Senate defence committee. It has been something that I have seen ongoing throughout the time that Senator Lambie has been a senator here; she will raise these issues no matter who is in government. I am standing here today to talk about the government's commitment to deal with this issue. It is genuine and it does come from a place of recognising that, for many years, we did not have the commitment that was necessary or the strategies that were required to develop recruitment and retention in the ADF. The Albanese government is taking urgent action to address this issue because we want to ensure that Defence has the workforce to protect Australians in an increasingly challenging strategic environment. While in government, the coalition oversaw a personnel crisis in the ADF. They knew about declining recruitment and retention and did nothing to solve the problem. The Deputy Prime Minister has been very clear that we inherited a recruitment and retention crisis, but we have begun to turn the situation around in a short 18 months. Under our government, separation rates are coming down from their peaks and recruitment is beginning to improve. Of course, we recognise that there is an awful lot of work to do, and I speak to this motion today not as someone who has served but as someone who is in admiration of any of those who do serve our country in our Defence Force. I speak to this motion as someone who lives in a part of Queensland, a part of our country, that is home to many people in the Defence Force, particularly a large army barracks in Townsville and our most northern Naval base, in Cairns: HMAS Cairns. We recognise that the Defence Force is part of our community there, and what happens in those bases and what happens in the Defence community matters to our communities. That's why this is such an important issue. The recruitment and retention crisis that we face in the ADF is a direct result of the chaos and dysfunction that Defence was under during the former government. After almost a decade of that government, the ADF grew by just 2,000 personnel. That's it. The ADF permanent workforce grew from 56,159 as at 30 June 2013 to 58,206 as at 30 June 2022. This is a net increase of just 200 per annum in the ADF permanent workforce under the previous government. By the end of the time, only 75 per cent of recruitment targets had been achieved. So the Albanese government is taking action to address this crisis. There's no silver bullet for this issue, but we are already starting to see an improvement. The government has announced a new retention bonus for ADF personnel. ADF personnel will receive a $50,000 retention bonus towards the end of their initial period of service if they commit to remain in the ADF for a further three years. This will be an initial two-year pilot before being extended based on its results. On 25 May 2023, the government announced the appointment of the first chief of personnel, Major General Natasha Fox. This delivers on one of the recommendations of the Defence strategic review. We have also announced a review into Defence housing to consider how we can improve housing opportunities for ADF personnel, including ownership, because we know that, particularly in regional areas like Townsville and Cairns, Defence housing, Defence personnel and Defence retention go hand in hand. It was really pleasing to see the Assistant Minister for Defence, Matt Thistlethwaite, in Townsville and Cairns as recently as this week to talk about these very issues. We are working to build Defence as an attractive and competitive employer, including by implementing a new recruiting services contract to improve and speed up the ADF recruitment process, and getting wages moving to ensure ADF and APS personnel in Defence secure competitive pay conditions. There is more work to be done. We are committed to ensuring Defence has the people it needs to keep Australians safe. Finally, can I just say this: this week I was on the base at HMAS Cairns. I was invited there as part of the beginning of major infrastructure works in HMAS Cairns. I want to thank Commander Santos for his kind invitation to meet some of the naval recruits who are starting their work there. I'm really pleased to see this base and this Defence Force moving forward. (Time expired) Infrastructure 66 16:51 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McKenzie, which is also shown at item 15 on today's Order of Business. Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Albanese Government is proposing to increase migration to Australia by 1.5 million people over the next five years while at the same time they have put at risk more than 400 congestion busting, productivity enhancing and life saving infrastructure projects through a 90 day infrastructure review which has today hit 190 days and counting. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:52 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It gives me a great deal of pleasure, but some distaste, to rise to talk to this matter of public importance. We've heard the Treasurer come out over the weekend and attempt to argue that our infrastructure investment pipeline, which is building road and rail projects right across our congested state capitals and suburbs, is somehow to blame for the inflation mess that the federal government has failed to get on top of. Rather than take responsibility now that they're in government—you've got to stop pointing the finger, man up or girl up, and make the tough decisions—the Treasurer is now saying, 'Well, it's all the infrastructure pipeline's problem.' Over the past 24 hours, we've seen a very cynical attempt by the Albanese government to distance itself from the economic ramifications of its own decisions. The RBA is scheduled to meet tomorrow in the wake of higher-than-expected quarterly inflation and house prices that are set to surpass the record set before the RBA began increasing interest rates. Australian families have been doing it tough now for months. Things haven't been easy under Albanese. Energy prices are up 18 per cent. Your mortgage has gone through the roof. If you are a renter, because your landlord's mortgage has gone through the roof, your rent has gone up as well. Food inflation is also up, at eight per cent, and fuel is not going down either. Instead of actually taking action on getting the budget under control, the Labor government is seeking to say, 'Well, that's just all the infrastructure projects' problem.' Isn't that interesting? When they set up the short, sharp infrastructure review, it was supposed to be 90 days. We all remember that. It was just before the May budget, on the back of cancelling $10 billion of projects and programs in the October budget. It was all going to be quite quick and easy: 'We're going to work with the states and announce it shortly.' That was 190 days ago. It's 100 days overdue. It's just more cuts and delays. People are being laid off from construction work projects as a result of this government's refusal to admit that investing in infrastructure is a critical part of dealing with the other side of their policy agenda, which is to fuel our economic growth through increasing population. As we heard in question time, we've had hundreds of thousands of new arrivals into our congested cities and suburbs at the same time that Anthony Albanese is wanting to cut those infrastructure projects. Is it any wonder that now it's not just the opposition saying, 'Steady on, guys; you don't know what you're doing,' but also Labor deputy premiers in Queensland saying this is actually going to cause economic and political problems? You may solve a short- or medium-term inflation issue, but you're going to have a long-term productivity issue. Decisions in government are about what we're going to invest taxpayers' money in and what we're not. This government continually refuses to back the aspirations of the Australian people. We saw it in the referendum. We saw it in their decision to reject the Qatar Airways flight application, which sees higher flight prices for Australian travellers. We saw the debacle of our once proud national carrier Qantas at its AGM a couple of days ago. In this Senate chamber, not even half an hour ago, the Labor Party refused to admit that they'd got it wrong. They'd prefer to back their mates. They'd prefer to back the top end of town over mums and dads who are actually sitting down at kitchen tables trying to work out whether to pay the kids' swimming fees this year and how they are going to get Christmas done while the rest of the bills are going through the roof. Cutting and delaying productivity-enhancing infrastructure across our cities is not the way to improve the lifestyle of everyday Australians, who want to be able to get to and from work safely and quickly so they can get home to what they actually like doing, which is being with their family, and to get our product to port. Even Labor state governments agree that Albanese, who had the opportunity to be shadow minister for six years, has got it wrong, and it's time they face up and stop trying to cost-shift and cast blame. 16:57 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm very happy to stand up and respond to those five minutes of misleading mistruths. I just want everyone in the chamber to know—and I'm so rapt that it's a broadcasting day so all those out there driving their cars can hear this too: this is very ripe coming from a minister who was sacked for rorting! This is the same minister who had the colour-coded spreadsheets— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 122087 Senator Sterle. Senator STERLE e68 It always touches a nerve. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 122087 Senator McKenzie. Senator McKenzie 207825 I'm all for facts on conflicts of interest, Senator Sterle, rather than making up your own in the chamber just because it suits you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 122087 I think that was a debating point, but, anyway, Senator Sterle, could we stick to the topic please. Senator STERLE e68 I'm very happy to continue. When I went to school in Langford in the sixties in the west, we were brought up with some very decent principles as a working class family. One is that you don't spend money you haven't got. We were taught very, very clearly—you can walk out, Senator McKenzie, because I know you can't handle the truth—you don't spend what you haven't—okay, it's the peanut gallery time! God, the truth hurts. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 122087 Senator O'Sullivan has the call. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Senator Sterle, my good friend, knows better than anyone— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 122087 I assume this is a point of order. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 There is a point of order. Senators should not reflect on the presence of a senator in the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 122087 Senator Sterle, if you could, do not reflect on senators please. Just stick to the debate that's before the chamber at the moment. Senator STERLE e68 For you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I'd love to. But we've got to tell the truth. So I want to get back to this: if you haven't got the money, you can't spend it. It's a basic, simple principle that we all grew up with in the 60s—I know that goes for all of those before and a lot after me. They are the same principles I instilled in my kids. We all want the four-bedroom house. We all want the holiday in Bali. We all want the latest Toyota LandCruiser. We want, we want, we want. But we actually have to go to work, put money aside and start gradually working our way through our lives. All of us want the big mansion we can't afford. But what this previous government did—I don't know if I'm going to get in trouble for saying this, but it's just the truth. The previous Prime Minister was all about announcements. It's very, very easy to sit back in the car or in the lounge and say, 'Yeah, the government should be doing this, the government should be doing that.' Yes, there are a lot of things the government should be doing. But for crying out loud we had to call for an urgent review. The previous government, under Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg, promised 800-odd projects. They had announcements, they had photos, but they did not consult with state governments and they did not consult with local councils. When we do these infrastructure projects—roads, rail, ports and all sorts of things—God help us, we actually should talk to the states because the states are the ones that have to implement it, and they cofund it. You don't have to be Einstein to work out that $33 billion, as Minister King said, is overspending on promises and announcements with no homework, no agreement with the states, no agreement with the councils, but a lot of photo opportunities for an election. I think there are a lot of Aussies who would probably sit back and say, 'That's fair, I think it's fair that we have to control not only what we spend.' But what about our labour? I don't know about the good folk in the chamber, but I can tell you I'm from the great state of Western Australia. We have seriously got a crisis in construction. We know over 2,200 building companies have gone broke. We know that there is a strain in trying to get tradespeople and builders, so what is absolutely wrong with saying, 'Hang on, when we plan or when we make these announcements, let's talk to the local governments, talk to the state governments, make sure we have everything in place for when the money starts coming so that we can afford to build infrastructure'? There are many times when we should spend more than what we can afford on infrastructure. We get that. But for crying out loud, if this is the way that some people want to bring up the next generation by just making announcements, spending, saying 'Don't worry about it, she'll be right,' God help us. Thank God Australia woke up, thank God the grown-ups are finally back in power. It hurts me to see a lot of infrastructure projects that aren't going ahead because we can't get the labour. What hurts me more is when shallow, hollow promises are made in the heat of an election just to save a few miserable souls in their seats with no intention of building these projects. What about the election promises to commuters, the car parks, the train stations? Every single one of them came in at the same cost of around $600 million for each one. It didn't matter if it was in the heart of Melbourne or the top end of Queensland—isn't that amazing? Then we have the audacity now from the senator who is not in the room—am I allowed to say that because she's not in the room now anyway? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator— Senator STERLE e68 I'm just saying, Mr Deputy President—I know I will get in trouble for saying this—she moved the motion and then didn't sit in the chamber to even listen to the rest of the contributions. You can raise your eyebrows, but you defend the 800 projects that you knew— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Sterle— Senator Sterle e68 Oh God, give me strength! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes 273828 Point of order: the constant commentary and denigration of women on this side of the chamber by Senator Sterle is really getting beyond a joke. He was told not to impugn senators who aren't here, yet he taints the chair and carries on still. Senator Sterle has been here long enough to know how it works, and he should stick to the standing orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Sterle, you are aware of the rules. Senator Sterle has the call. Senator STERLE e68 I really appreciate that because it actually does make you wonder, doesn't it? I've got no problem with having a full-spirited debate on expenses, but mistruths have to be called out because if you were sitting— (Time expired) 17:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I have got to make a comment about this. Senator Sterle said, 'The false promises that are given at election time to win your seat or possibly to win government,' and I'll go back to Labor's promise that people would save $275 on electricity. I'll leave it at that. I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. However, I won't confine myself to talking about congestion-busting infrastructure. Labor's record on immigration policy does much more than place pressure on our infrastructure. It puts pressure on our public health system, with hospital emergency rooms overflowing every day. It puts downward pressure on wage growth, which is great for big business but not for the Australian people. It is completely incompatible with other government policies, particularly Labor's climate change scam. It helps drive the cost-of-living crisis, forcing Australians into poverty, and it is the primary driver of the national housing and rental crisis, which is driving more Australian families into homelessness. Research shows that for every two new migrants another dwelling needs to be built to accommodate them. However, we are starting from way behind. There is an estimated shortfall of at least 650,000 homes in Australia already. I am sick and tired of hearing Labor blame the previous government for high immigration, lack of housing and our overwhelmed public health system. It's Labor's policy of record immigration since they took government 18 months ago that is driving these crises, and it's a policy not supported by the majority of the Australian people. Poll after poll shows strong support for reduced immigration. Economic experts, even in the Australian Financial Review, are also advocating for a reduction in the numbers. Labor is aiming to bring another 1.5 million people—more than the entire population of Adelaide—to Australia in the next five years. We cannot accommodate these numbers because we can't even accommodate the people who already live here. There is no issue in Australia more urgent than reducing immigration, but Labor have turned a deaf ear. There is no issue on which Labor are more completely out of touch with community sentiment and economic reality than this. Do you know what? A good DJ knows how to read the room and which music to play to keep the crowd dancing. If they get it wrong, the crowd leaves the dance floor. As this week's Newspoll has shown, the crowd is leaving DJ Albanese's dance floor as the multiple crises driven by record immigration bite harder at Australian families. A good leader would read the electorate and remember these are the people he serves. The problem with the Labor Party is that, every time anything comes up in this chamber, all they do is point the finger and blame the previous government. You've been in for a year and a half, but what have you actually done? Your policies aren't working. You had a Voice referendum that failed. Your housing policy will fail. With high immigration, you're destroying the Australian people. 17:06 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales The Albanese government's 90-day infrastructure review turns 190 days old today and turns into a sad and sorry tale rather than the short and sharp review promised by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government when she announced it on 1 May. Now, with inflation remaining well above the RBA's target band and another hit looking to present itself to Australian householders tomorrow, the government is wildly looking for a distraction from that event. I note that all but two government cabinet ministers aren't even here at Parliament House this week because the Prime Minister decided that the House didn't need to sit at all because there isn't a cost-of-living crisis, there isn't a housing crisis and people aren't stuck on roads. Nobody needs to be here to do their job apart from those in the Senate. The government's argument that Labor must cut millions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects to curb inflation is misinformation. In response to Senator Sterle lecturing, 'If you haven't got the money you can't spend,' to Australian families, a lot of Aussies would sit back and say, 'That's not fair.' I would say lots of Aussies are saying, 'It's not fair that we're facing a cost-of-living crisis and increasing interest rates while you aren't even prepared to sit in the House and do your job.' The Albanese government cut and delayed $9.6 billion worth of infrastructure projects in the October budget, and what have we seen for that? Our interest rates are going up and Australian families are feeling the pinch time and time again. In the final budget outcome for 2022-23, it was revealed that the government had cut a further $2.9 billion in road and rail expenditure between the October budget and 30 June. These cuts helped prop up their budget surplus but have been of no assistance to families stuck on congested streets while travelling to and from work every morning and every night. More than 400 congestion-busting, productivity-enhancing and lifesaving projects have been put on hold by Labor's infrastructure review and are now at risk of cancellation. If projects are cancelled by Labor it will mean more time stuck in traffic, less-safe roads and a reduced commitment by government to achieving economy-growing, productivity-enhancing infrastructure, meaning more traffic time and less family time. These delays are causing uncertainty for business, suppliers and contractors, who have geared up in the materials and planned for the workforce needed to deliver these projects, which are now on hold. 17:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Is it any wonder that those opposite would attack an independent review into spending on infrastructure? This is a review that is only necessary because of decisions made by those opposite, including, memorably, Senator McKenzie. Let's take a little look back, shall we? A former government that was all announcement and no delivery—a decade of waste and rorts. Sporting infrastructure was decided on a colour-coded spreadsheet, there were car parks where not a single one was recommended by the department of infrastructure and there were airport land rorts. Is it any wonder that those opposite never delivered on their own election promise for an integrity commission, with a record like that? The integrity commission which they promised would have been so weak that it wouldn't even have been able to commence its own inquiries—and they didn't even want to do that. Is it a surprise to anyone that the 'no-alition' is here today attacking an independent infrastructure review? These are the people who managed to leave an infrastructure pipeline that is an absolute mess, and these are the people who managed to leave Australia with $1 trillion in debt and nothing to show for it. We on this side of the chamber are committed to delivering an infrastructure program that is fit for purpose—one that is fiscally responsible and, critically, one that is deliverable. This is the exact opposite of what appears in the coalition's so-called plan. We know that under those opposite there were announcements made without any clear benefit to the public which could be defended, and without adequate funding allocated. These were projects without merit and projects without a clear rationale for investment. The number of infrastructure projects under those opposite blew out from 150 to 800, without any real commitment or any real plan to deliver. Apparently—and no-one will be surprised by this—a large number of those announcements which were loading up this imaginary infrastructure pipeline were made just before the elections of 2016 and 2019. No surprises there! There are no surprises that the promises were made—promises that couldn't be kept. These were promises for political advantage and not to advantage the nation. The independent review has already found more than $33 billion in cost overruns—$33 billion in cost overruns! In fact, the reviewers found that if we continued down the path set by those opposite then the government wouldn't even be able to fund any new projects until 2033. Does that sound like sound economic management to you? Does it sound like a good plan for infrastructure development? This is why this government commissioned this independent review: to ensure that the infrastructure program is delivering for this country. And while we do this work, we are getting on with the job of delivering critical infrastructure projects across the country—as Senator McKenzie has put so well: congestion-busting, productivity-enhancing and lifesaving projects. We are getting on with delivering them. There are over 300 Commonwealth funded major transport projects currently underway or under construction, including, proudly, many of them in my home state of Victoria. Australia deserves a pipeline of transport infrastructure projects that are genuinely good for the nation, as well as being economically sustainable. And that is exactly what we are delivering. And, of course, it's important that we do all of this without contributing to inflationary pressures. As the Treasurer has said, we are working to get maximum value for money. We are working to get the right infrastructure for our economy and our people, and we are doing all of that without putting additional upward pressure on inflation. Our approach to infrastructure is like all of our economic plans when it comes to managing inflation: we are taking a strong and measured approach. We are getting the budget back on track, returning revenues to the bottom line and banking the first surplus in 15 years. We are delivering much-needed cost-of-living relief and targeting it to those who need it most, and we're investing sustainably in the future. And the experts tell us that it's working; whether it's the RBA governor, the Treasury secretary, the ABS or the International Monetary Fund, all are in agreement that our economic policy is helping to drive down inflation. Our approach to infrastructure will continue to make that happen. We will deliver, we will invest responsibly and we will clean up their mess. (Time expired) 17:14 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The coalition is correct to point out the lunacy of Treasurer Jim Chalmers's comments that he may cut infrastructure funding to fight inflation. The best way to fix inflation is to increase productivity, including through productive infrastructure and productive capacity. In fact, the best way to fix inflation is to make sure it doesn't happen in the first place. That means stopping the Reserve Bank from creating $500 billion out of thin air and dropping it from helicopters as they did for Scott Morrison in the response to COVID. Never again. That means stopping the record level of net immigration, estimated at 500,000 this year—half a million! That means pulling back on the 2.3 million visa holders in the country right now who are adding pressure to the housing crisis, driving up demand, driving rentals up and driving inflation. To the Treasurer, if you're looking for spending cuts to fight inflation, look at subsidies. Australian federal and state governments are still handing out $10 billion in subsidies per quarter—$4 billion more than before COVID. Treasurer, if you really want to cut some infrastructure to fight inflation, cut any money you are putting toward wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro, like Snowy 2.0. That's the dog in New South Wales, by the way. That will have a double positive effect, taking the heat out of house construction prices and dropping power prices, which contribute to almost every other product in the country. Let's get serious about fighting inflation. Here's how you do it: cut immigration; ditch the United Nations net zero pipedream; build productive capacity and productive infrastructure, like ports, dams, railways and power stations; and don't create inflation in the first place, printing money out of thin air in electronic journal entries as the Reserve Bank has admitted. Get back to sound basics that enable the productive capacity of Australians to prosper. 17:16 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The worst thing you could possibly do at the moment, given that we have a cost-of-living crisis and a housing crisis in this country, is to lift the rate of immigration to 500,000 people a year. I should add that, in the last quarter, it was actually 180,000 people who came to Australia. If that's extrapolated over the next 12 months, we'll be looking at closer to 700,000 people who are coming into this country. Tomorrow, it looks like the Reserve Bank of Australia is going to raise interest rates yet again, driving more and more people into austerity in order to reduce demand. The former RBA governor Philip Lowe has said to me that he only deals with the demand side of the economy. He will not touch the supply side of the economy. That is why the other point of this MPI today is about cutting infrastructure, which is what the Labor government is proposing to do. It's pouring fuel onto the fire of the immigration crisis that we have in this country. It goes to show that the Labor government has no idea how to run a country. Rather than raising interest rates tomorrow, what should really happen is that the Labor government reduce immigration. That way, hardworking Australians aren't going to get hurt. What's happening at the moment is that, as immigration rises, it drives up demand, and then the RBA comes along and lifts interest rates to push down demand. That is killing the very people that we are meant to be serving. It's that type of mentality that has to stop. The other thing is that, when you have a really high immigration rate, you have to build a lot of houses. We have a limited number of tradies in this country, not the least because back in the eighties, under the Button plan, the Hawke-Keating Labor government came up with the wonderful idea to send everyone to university and not to TAFE. So we already have a limited number of tradies in this country, but, if they are going to build, we want them to build not only houses but also factories. If we have too high an immigration rate, that allocates all the tradie labour—the skilled labour where you use your hands—from the actual building of factories, which can increase our manufacturing output and start to value-add to our raw materials that we're so good at producing, to the building sector. That means we've got most of our skilled labour sector in this country working on building houses and doing the plumbing and things like that for houses instead of actually looking at improving and getting higher value manufacturing in this country. I will conclude yet again that the Labor government needs to get a grip. It needs to lower immigration, increase infrastructure spending and start to get people back on the tools and out of universities and out of superannuation funds. 17:19 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I commend Senator McKenzie for her matter of public importance today, which is that the Albanese government are proposing to increase migration to Australia by 1.5 million people over the next five years, while at the same time they have put at risk more than 400 congestion-busting projects through a 90-day infrastructure review, which has today hit 190 days and counting. I wanted to restate those words, because Labor speakers have been off in the weeds talking about all sorts of things, and most of them, of course, based in Victoria. Labor is failing at the most basic job of government. It is failing to deliver basic planning. In northern Australia we have real projects that the coalition committed funding to and that were on track to being delivered. Some of them even Labor had agreed were important; for example, the Cairns water supply project, a project that Labor committed to commencing at the beginning of this year. Cairns, with its itinerant population and enormous number of tourists, will be out of water by 2026-27. This deadline looms large. Labor have gone missing on something they committed to in order to try to win Leichhardt and other seats in Queensland. Thank goodness they didn't win Leichhardt and there is still a strong and passionate coalition member there ensuring that someone holds the government to account. When Cairns is under pressure because of a shortage of water, who is going to solve it? It won't be the Labor government, because they are failing. They are failing to deliver basic projects like sealing dirt roads and upgrading gravel roads. These projects are in places that Labor members wouldn't have heard of, but they are places that deliver food and fibre to this country and to our neighbours. They deliver mining, tourism, jobs. The jobs and GDP of this nation come from these infrastructure projects. Labor have been so distracted that they are failing on the basic job of planning. With this unplanned migration they're doing their very best to make it harder to live in this country, particularly for northern Australians. We have such a housing shortage, yet they are bringing hundreds of thousands more people into the country with no places for them to sleep, to lay their heads down at night. They are happy to spend half a billion dollars on a referendum. They're happy to back-in the unions' industrial relations legislation on same job, same pay, which is driving up costs on the very projects that they are delaying. With every day that passes, the only people who are benefiting from this are Labor's union mates, who are driving the agenda of this government. They are certainly not driving affordability and liveability for people who live in regional Australia; in particular, northern Australia. These are the people who are growing the food and fibre, doing the mining and hosting the tourism projects, and they're in the remote parts of the country where allegedly those opposite seek to close the gap. In not providing a proper bitumen road that means communities are not cut off for four months of the year, Labor is failing to do anything for those communities. When I look at the Mobile Black Spot Program for additional telecommunication towers, I notice that not one of them is outside a Labor seat. It's extraordinary, isn't it, Mr Acting Deputy President, from a government that previously went on and on about transparency and making sure projects go to the right places? Apparently, the right places are inner-city Melbourne, inner-city Sydney and other places that already have sealed roads and mobile phone towers. This is a government that's failing at the basics. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Consideration 72 Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 17:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a document relating to the order of production of documents concerning draft recycling and waste reduction rules. BILLS 72 BILLS Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 72

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

First Reading 72 17:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 72 17:31 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill supports Australia's robust and mature counter-terrorism framework by implementing key recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's (the Intelligence and Security Committee) 2021 Review of police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order, preventative detention order regime and the continuing detention order regime (AFP Powers Review). The Bill would extend the sunset dates in respect of key counter-terrorism powers, including the stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act 1914; and the control order and preventative detention order regimes in the Criminal Code Act 1995. This Bill would also bolster safeguards and oversight mechanisms for these powers, providing checks and balances which promote the rule of law and procedural fairness. In October 2022, this Parliament passed the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Measures) Act, which extended the sunset dates for these powers by 12 months. This provided the Government with sufficient time to consider the Intelligence and Security Committee's recommendations, to develop this Bill and to consult and secure approvals from states and territories to further amend Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code. Stop, search and seizure powers—Crimes Act 1914 The emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to respond effectively to a terrorist incident or threat. The powers allow police to stop, question and search persons, and seize items in a Commonwealth place, in prescribed circumstances. Consistent with Recommendation 3 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review, the Bill would extend the operation of these powers for three years to 7 December 2026. This would ensure that these powers remain available to police to prevent and respond to terrorist acts, while also ensuring that the provisions are reviewed again within an appropriate period so that the Parliament and the Australian people can determine whether they continue to be fit for purpose. While the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended this power be extended to 7 December 2025, that recommendation was made almost two years ago. The extension of the sunset date to 7 December 2026 is consistent with the intent of the Intelligence and Security Committee's recommendation, which was to extend to the sunset date by three years. In accordance with Recommendations 1and 2 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review, the Bill would enhance safeguards that apply to the declaration of a Commonwealth place as a prescribed security zone for the purposes of preventing or responding to a terrorist act. The Bill would introduce new requirements for the Minister, before declaring a prescribed security zone, to consider specific matters including the reasonableness of this course of action, and whether other less invasive powers are available to prevent or respond to the terrorist act. Given the impacts of such a declaration on the rights and freedoms of individuals, this requirement will ensure the power is only exercised as absolutely necessary. The Bill would impose a requirement on the Australian Federal Police Commissioner to notify specified oversight bodies within 72 hours of the declaration of a prescribed security zone, and a requirement on the Minister to provide reasons for making that declaration. It would also require a police officer who has exercised stop and search powers for a terrorism-related item to inform the person who has been stopped and searched of their right to make a complaint to an oversight body. These measures will assist oversight bodies in performing their important functions in investigating and reviewing the exercise of counter-terrorism powers, and empower affected individuals to seek an independent review if they believe their rights have been infringed. Control order regime The control order regime in Division 104 of the Criminal Code allows federal courts to impose an order that places certain conditions on an individual reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorism activity. Law enforcement agencies continue to rely on control orders as a critical measure to protect the community. As at 6 August 2023, there have been 28 control orders made against 21 individuals since these powers were first introduced. The Bill would extend the operation of the control order regime to 7 December 2026. As with the three year extension to the sunset date for the stop, search and seizure powers, this is consistent with the intent of Recommendation 7 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review to allow a three-year extension. In accordance with Recommendation 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review, the Bill would limit the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia. This is appropriate given the extraordinary nature of the power and the Federal Court's experience of considering matters involving significant volumes of evidence. The Bill would also allow the court to impose any condition it considers appropriate as part of a control order—in the same way that the court can currently do as part of an extended supervision order. This would implement Recommendation 10 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review, and would provide the court with the discretion to tailor control order conditions appropriately. The Bill would allow control orders to include conditions from which the controlee may apply for a temporary exemption. This would alleviate the burden on police to enforce contraventions of a control order that are reasonable and foreseeable, and can therefore be excused in advance. In accordance with Recommendation 12 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review, the Bill would enable the AFP or controlee to apply to a court to vary a control order by consent. This will allow greater flexibility in ensuring that control order conditions remain appropriate if the controlee's circumstances change. Importantly, where the controlee is a minor, the Bill would require the court to consider the best interests of the controlee in determining whether the variation is appropriate. Preventative detention order regime Preventative detention orders under Division 105 of the Criminal Code allow a person to be detained without charge. These extraordinary powers can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days, or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack to preserve vital evidence. No preventative detention orders have been issued to date. The Bill would extend the sunset date in relation to preventative detention orders to 7 December 2026. This aligns with the intent of Recommendation 14 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review to allow a three-year extension. The Bill would also limit the classes of persons who may be appointed as an issuing authority for preventative detention orders to superior court judges only. This reflects the serious and extraordinary nature of the orders, consistent with Recommendation 15 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review. Reporting requirements for post-sentence orders The Bill would expand the public reporting requirements in relation to the operation of the post-sentence order scheme in Division 105A of the Criminal Code. In line with Recommendation 19 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review, the Bill would require the Minister's annual report to include information about the detention arrangements that applied to offenders subject to a continuing detention order, rehabilitation or treatment programs made available to offenders under the scheme, and funding for the administration of the scheme during the year. This will improve transparency in relation to the management of terrorist offenders subject to post-sentence orders. Recognising that states and territories hold much of the information that would be relevant to the new reporting requirements, the Bill would require the express consent of the relevant state or territory before the Commonwealth could include any information in the report provided by the relevant jurisdiction. This will safeguard against the release of information that could compromise state and territory security arrangements, or the safety of individuals. The Government acknowledges the report by the Independent National Legislation Security Monitor, Mr Grant Donaldson SC, on Division 105A of the Criminal Code which was tabled in this Parliament on 30 March 2023. The Intelligence and Security Committee has since commenced its own review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 105A. The Government is carefully considering Mr Donaldson's recommendations, and will do the same with the Intelligence and Security Committee's report before developing Government responses to both reviews. While the Government accepts, and is committed to implementing, Recommendation 6 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's AFP Powers Review, this Bill would not implement that recommendation at this time. A mechanism by which an ex post facto assessment is undertaken to consider whether a police officer who entered premises in accordance with section 3UEA did so properly, and in accordance with the law, would provide assurance that the emergency powers have been exercised only in response to extraordinary circumstances and would enhance independent oversight of these powers. The complexity and significance of this matter warrants further consideration and consultation to develop an appropriate policy response. This includes having regard to the consequences that should flow from an assessment that the powers were not exercised appropriately; including in relation to the admissibility of any evidence gathered in purported exercise of the powers in subsequent criminal proceedings. Extension of sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code The Bill would also extend the sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by 12 months to 29 December 2024. Section 122.4 imposes criminal liability on current and former Commonwealth officers for breaches of approximately 296 non-disclosure duties in Commonwealth laws. It was enacted in 2018 to preserve criminal liability for breaches of these non-disclosure duties until each duty could be reviewed to determine whether it should be converted into a standalone specific secrecy offence or that criminal liability is no longer required. On 22 December 2022, the Government commenced a comprehensive review of Commonwealth secrecy offences to address concerns raised by multiple reviews about the number, inconsistency, appropriateness and complexity of Commonwealth secrecy offences. This review is considering whether each non-disclosure duty should be converted into a standalone offence or criminal liability be removed. The review is undertaking broad consultations and will deliver a final report to Government by 31 August 2023. A 12-month extension to the sunsetting date of section 122.4 is required until the Review is finalised, and Government can consider the final report. Conclusion The Bill would provide for the continuation and enhancement of important counter-terrorism powers that contribute to the safety and security of all Australians. It strikes a balance between ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to manage the threat of terrorism, while protecting the rights of individuals through stronger oversight and safeguards. The Government thanks the Intelligence and Security Committee for its review and will table the Government response to the report shortly. I commend the Bill to Parliament. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Family Law Amendment Bill 2023, Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023, Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 74

Family Law Amendment Bill 2023

Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023

Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023

Returned from the House of Representatives 74 Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023, Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023 74

Migration (Visa Pre-application Process) Charge Bill 2023

Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Assent 74 COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 75 Reference 75 17:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 September 2024: Issues related to menopause and perimenopause, with particular reference to: (a) the economic consequences of menopause and perimenopause, including but not limited to, reduced workforce participation, productivity and retirement planning; (b) the physical health impacts, including menopausal and perimenopausal symptoms, associated medical conditions such as menorrhagia, and access to healthcare services; (c) the mental and emotional well-being of individuals experiencing menopause and perimenopause, considering issues like mental health, self-esteem, and social support; (d) the impact of menopause and perimenopause on caregiving responsibilities, family dynamics, and relationships; (e) the cultural and societal factors influencing perceptions and attitudes toward menopause and perimenopause, including specifically considering culturally and linguistically diverse communities and women's business in First Nations communities; (f) the level of awareness amongst medical professionals and patients of the symptoms of menopause and perimenopause and the treatments, including the affordability and availability of treatments; (g) the level of awareness amongst employers and workers of the symptoms of menopause and perimenopause, and the awareness, availability and usage of workplace supports; (h) existing Commonwealth, state and territory government policies, programs, and healthcare initiatives addressing menopause and perimenopause; (i) how other jurisdictions support individuals experiencing menopause and perimenopause from a health and workplace policy perspective; and (j) any other related matter. I'm really proud to stand and move this motion today for this inquiry, and I acknowledge the support of the co-sponsor of this motion, Senator Marielle Smith. I'm so proud to be establishing, with the support of this chamber, a Senate inquiry into menopause and perimenopause to understand their health impacts and economic impacts on women and people who menstruate, and the impacts on the broader economy. Menopause and perimenopause aren't really spoken about much publicly. In fact the first mention in Hansard of perimenopause was from me about a month ago. But we need to be speaking about these issues, and we need good policy to address the impacts that they're having on women individually, on workplaces and on women's' financial security in particular. Menopause happens between the ages of 45 and 60, and perimenopause, which precedes it, can last for up to 10 years and begin as early as your 30s. Both can be physically and mentally debilitating, with significant financial and mental health consequences. People experiencing physically and mentally debilitating menopause and perimenopause symptoms have been forced to suffer in silence for far too long. Women are sick of being invisible and having our health needs neglected. We need good policy to address the economic, social and health impacts of perimenopause and menopause. This inquiry would look at the economic, physical, mental and financial impacts of menopause and perimenopause, as well as the cultural perceptions and attitudes about a health issue that's affecting more than half of our population. Eighty per cent of Australian women experience menopausal and perimenopausal symptoms that can range from mild to extremely severe. The financial impact of that can be profound for women as well as for their employers and the economy, as many women at the peak of their career are leaving the workforce. Menopause can cost Australian businesses more than $10 billion annually, according to the Macquarie Business School. The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees estimates that even if just 10 per cent of women retired early because of menopausal symptoms, it would equate to a loss of earnings and super of more than $17 billion each year. We already know that women are retiring 7.4 years earlier than men, often at the height of their careers, and that contributes to the 22.8 per cent gender pay gap. Being forced to retire early exacerbates both that pay gap and the superannuation retirement gap. The gendered cost of treatment is yet another financial burden that only women face, on top, of course, of the costs of a lifetime of menstruation. We need evidence based policies to reduce the impact of menopause and perimenopause on women's participation in the workforce, and we need to be looking at the adequacy of existing leave entitlements. In that vein, I credit a number of unions who, for the last year or so, have been surveying their members already and have started campaigning on this issue, proposing a policy to give employees who have either painful periods or menopausal symptoms paid leave—similar to the family and domestic violence paid leave policy, which is now, thankfully, a legislated one. On the health impacts, we also desperately needed more awareness by GPs and patients of the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause so that people know what's happening to them and know what treatments are available to them. Importantly, we must make those treatments affordable. Once this inquiry is on foot, we'll be inviting submissions from women, health professionals, employers and experts about what federal funding and what federal policies need to be developed to support women in this phase of life—this very long phase of life. I'm particularly interested not just to hear from the experts, because we know they'll be very useful in guiding our policy development process, but to hear the lived experience of women who've had either a good experience or, conversely, a really terrible experience in a health lens or with their workplace dealing very poorly with what is a perfectly natural part of life. Many women have already shared their stories with me including Sonya Lovell, who was taken out of work for several years after experiencing induced menopause when she was treated for breast cancer at the age of 47. Sonya experienced many of the lesser-known symptoms associated with menopause: impaired cognitive function, irritability, mood changes—these will sound familiar to many of the women in this chamber—as well as night sweats. But she couldn't find the support that she needed. Instead, her GP put her on antidepressants. It was only after her own research and conversations with other women—because the sisterhood works—that Sonya identified that she was transitioning through menopause. It shouldn't be this hard to identify a health issue affecting half of our population. Many people who transition through menopause don't have the information they need. They don't have the support they need, and they're not prepared. As well as experiencing the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause, not being able to identify what's happening and why is frustrating and can take a huge toll on people's confidence. A study by Circle In and the Victorian Women's Trust in 2021 found that 73 per cent of women say that stress and anxiety levels are higher than usual for them during perimenopause and menopause, and yet 70 per cent of women who've experienced menopause say they don't feel comfortable talking to their manager about their challenges or their needs. Women have been fighting an uphill battle for equality in the workforce for so long that it's actually hard for us to name these struggles and talk about them. We fear yet another reason to discriminate against us and another barrier in the way to workforce equality for us, but if we don't talk about these issues nothing will ever change, and we are sick of suffering in silence. The study that I mentioned also found that 30 per cent of respondents that have experienced menopause said that they felt disconnected or distracted from their workplace, and 45 per cent of respondents said that they considered retiring or taking a break from work when their symptoms were severe, but the majority of those didn't go through with it because, frankly, they couldn't afford to. Menopause can impact more than just physical health and financial circumstances. There can be significant impacts on mental health, on personal relationships, in a workplace and on a person's quality of life. We desperately need more awareness by GPs and also by patients of the symptoms of perimenopause and menopause so that people know what treatment is available and what's going to be most appropriate, and ideally we need some policies to make sure that those treatments are actually affordable. Professor Susan Davis, who is the head of the Monash University Women's Health Research Program and is also past president of the Australasian Menopause Society, is currently recruiting for a study to provide the most up-to-date knowledge of Australian women's experiences of menopause, and I encourage anyone who is interested in participating in that to google Professor Davis and involve themselves in that really important large-data study, which will help guide our decision-making in future. Professor Davis also has the MenoPROMPT project underway, which is to develop a comprehensive practitioner tool to improve the care of women at and after menopause, including the needs of women with early menopause and screenings for conditions influenced by menopause, notably bone health. I might also add that Flinders uni is running a registry called VITAL, led by Associate Professor Erin Morton, which I have mentioned in this chamber before. Likewise, Professor Morton is calling for people to share their menopause and perimenopause experiences to help build that evidence base and to design better policy responses, so please get involved in both of those studies. Those sorts of resources will be invaluable to building our understanding of how menopause and perimenopause impact people who menstruate and increasing the awareness of the symptoms and the treatments that might be available. Last week the New South Wales government launched the Perimenopause and Menopause Toolkit, a resource to raise awareness in culturally and linguistically diverse communities. I thought they deserved a shout-out as more resources like this are needed very much to improve the awareness of symptoms and the access to treatments and support. Likewise, earlier this year the Western Australian parliament committed to becoming certified as a menopause friendly workplace, quite a new concept in Australia and one that I hope the inquiry will look at and examine further. And last week the Victorian parliament followed suit and also said they would seek certification. Hopefully, this encourages more workplaces, maybe even the federal parliament, to consider itself becoming certified as a menopause friendly workplace—you can always live in hope. Women are sick of being invisible and their health needs being neglected. We desperately need to develop good policies to address the economic, social and health impacts of perimenopause and menopause, so I'm pleased that in the conversations I have had there has been significant interest in this inquiry from around the chamber. I'm not surprised but am very pleased, and I'm really looking forward to strong participation from everyone out there who is affected by perimenopause and menopause. I expect that there will be lots of folk who engage with this inquiry, and I am particularly hopeful that we can build that evidence base and finally design the policies that we need to make sure that women are being respected and well looked after by our federal health policies. 17:43 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I'm proud to contribute to this debate and indeed to do so as cosignatory to the motion at hand, and I want to thank and acknowledge Senator Waters for her initiative here and her genuine commitment to improving women's health outcomes. I have been working on some of these issues since I was elected to the Senate, and the fact is that, when it comes to women's health, the deeper you dig, the more you find instances where women's voices have at best gone unheard and at worst been silenced. For too many women this has meant a substandard level of care. From maternal health to menopause women's experiences too often get ignored and too often women aren't believed, so their pain and their experience in their own health journey can be dismissed and their concerns get shooed away. The problem with all of that is it impacts their care, and the broader problem with that is that it impacts the health responses we have in a policy sense and the economic responses we have in a policy sense as well. Menopause is one of the areas in women's health where women's voices have been ignored and where stigma and discrimination have kept the issue in the dark. Of course, not every woman will experience menopause in the same way, but we know from recent statistics for menopause and perimenopause, as asked about in the Women's Health Survey, that most respondents aged between 45 and 64 have been bothered by symptoms in the last five years and 27 per cent needed to take an extended break from work or study or exercise. We know menopause can impact a woman's physical, mental and sexual health. It can impact their relationships, their workforce participation and many other aspects of their lives. As a consequence, this can lead to women having unwanted career breaks. It can lead to women having to revert to part-time work, forgoing those leadership opportunities which come at the peak of a woman's career in those years. It can lead to women having to step back from exercise and other things they enjoy and from caring responsibilities. It really can impact their finances and their superannuation. It impacts employers. It impacts our communities. It has impacts right across our economy. Senator Waters spoke about Sonya Lovell. I was going to share some of her story, but I think Senator Waters had it well covered. Advocates like Sonya have been trying to bring this issue into the light, talking about the economic experience of their symptoms and of their experience in our healthcare system. I want us to hear more of those voices. We have some really powerful advocates in this space, but I also know that there are a lot of women who are suffering in silence, and I think it's really important that we hear their voices and that we hear their experiences, both in our healthcare system and in terms of economic consequence. I want us to have a big, public conversation on menopause because, if we don't bring this issue out of the dark, we're never going to get the right community and policy responses to it. That's really important. That's why a Senate inquiry can make a real difference. It's an opportunity for us to bring out the lived experience of women and to talk about where some of the challenges and problems are so that we can respond to them and make recommendations which cut across not just federal government but different layers of government and also employers and our communities and other ways in which we can seek to respond to the challenges we know that many women experience. Of course, this isn't the only work that we're a part of in our government. We support this Senate inquiry. We're really looking forward to hearing the lived experience of women. It builds upon the other work we're doing in women's health. We as a government are absolutely determined to bring out women's voices and their experiences in our healthcare system because we know there's a gendered element to their experiences. We know you don't have to dig deep to find instances and examples where women haven't been heard, where they've been silenced and where their experiences or pain or other issues have been dismissed, ignored or not adequately prioritised. We have our National Women's Health Strategy. We've created the National Women's Health Advisory Council, which is doing a really important piece of work around lived experience and women's experience of the healthcare system too. But this Senate inquiry will be important as well. I think the real power and potential in it is that opportunity to bring in lived experience and bring in women who may not otherwise be well engaged in formal government processes. It can bring them in to a forum and a platform on which we can have these conversations in a way which is comfortable and honest and really gets to the heart of their experiences, where they've suffered and where things have and have not gone well. It really has the potential to be very powerful. We've seen in the Community Affairs References Committee in other reports, particularly our recent report into reproductive health care, that, if we work together to get out there and listen to women and work together constructively as a committee, we can come to recommendations which have the potential to really make a big difference. I have very high hopes for this inquiry, given the level of support across the chamber for it. I hope that we can really do something significant with it and do something significant for the women in our community who feel like their experiences haven't been heard and haven't been validated. I want to make sure that we get their voices into government but also elevate and raise their voices so that as a community we can think about how we deal with some of the issues which can surround menopause and some of the challenges that women experience and face. A big, open, honest, public conversation is a really good thing when it comes to menopause. I'm really looking forward to this inquiry. I thank Senator Waters for her initiative in moving it and for allowing me to co-sign it. Watch this space. 17:49 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak in support of this reference to the Community Affairs References Committee—a committee which I sit on. The coalition supports this referral and the importance of investigating the economic, social and health impacts of menopause in the Australian community. Around one in five women experience severe or prolonged menopause symptoms. I'm a 53-year-old woman. I've been in menopause for two years, and I suffered for many, many years prior with perimenopause. This goes to the comments by Senator Marielle Smith about open and honest conversations. We shouldn't be afraid to talk about our experiences. Recently, in an ADHD inquiry in Melbourne, we were discussing the theme around the way women are diagnosed and misdiagnosed when they go to a GP or any particular type of doctor. At that hearing, I said that, as a woman going through menopause, I know exactly what that feels like. A different lens is placed on you as a result. Given that half the planet will go through menopause, we should be talking about it rather than pretending that it doesn't exist. But that's perhaps another, different inquiry. Little did I know that it was already afoot. I would really like to thank Senators Waters and Marielle Smith for bringing forward this motion. I think it will be some very important work. I'm personally grateful for it, and I think there will be many, many women who will also be grateful for that. Most women in Australia over the age of 51 will experience menopause. That means over 4.5 million Australian women are currently experiencing or have experienced menopause. The coalition understands that working to achieve gender equality in all areas—from health to financial security, safety and wellbeing—is the best way to achieve real outcomes. The former coalition government provided significant funding to initiatives supporting the maternal, sexual and reproductive health of Australian women and girls to support the National Women's Health Strategy 2020-2030. That strategy recognises that menopause transition can affect women's physical and mental health. In addition to that, menopause increases risks for future cardiometabolic health and is one of the critical life points experienced by women. We need to have a think about that. Women going through menopausal transition are at higher risk of mood changes and symptoms of depression and anxiety, which is why they are commonly and incorrectly prescribed antidepressants. They also experience hot flushes, joint and muscular pain, insomnia, brain fog, fatigue—and the list goes on. This can last up to 10 years. I took a moment earlier today to have a look at what kind of information is out there. On the Australian government's Healthdirect website, there's a helpful guide that explains to those 4.5 million of us living with menopause how we can alleviate our symptoms. It recommends lifestyle changes to help ease symptoms of menopause, such as avoiding caffeine, alcohol and spicy foods, because they help reduce hot flushes—good to know! It recommends having a fan or air conditioning on where possible, because we can control that everywhere we go! It recommends dressing in layers that can you can easily remove if you're feeling hot and getting regular exercise, since this will help with your feelings and low mood. These are all things that we can control, every single day—as we are primary carers and as we go to work! In all our spare time, for 10 years, women are expected not only to manage their symptoms but to ensure that the spaces they enter are air conditioned, that the clothes they wear can be removed easily, that the foods they eat are appropriate and that they go for a run if they're feeling depressed. This is why it's important that we start discussing this issue. This information, while attempting to be helpful, is grossly inadequate. Because half the world's population is going to experience this problem, we must talk about it, and we must deal with it. Frankly, telling women to just suffer through it and take off their jacket is not enough. We need to understand that we require a conversation and further investment in women's health. The former coalition government launched the Jean Hailes National Women's Health Survey, which found, amongst other key challenges in the healthcare needs of women and girls, that women want more information on menopause. They want better information on menopause. They want constructive information on menopause. We also note that there are examples of current investments into this important area that the committee could consider, including the New South Wales government model for supporting menopause services, towards which the Liberal government there committed more than $40 million funding in their 2022-23 budget. As a member of the Community Affairs References Community, I anticipate this inquiry with great interest, and I look forward to speaking with a range of interested stakeholders, including women who are affected and who want better outcomes for their own health care and for that of their daughters as they grow in a country that should and can offer better outcomes for women. 17:55 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I will contribute briefly on this motion today. I congratulate Senator Waters for this initiative. This is what getting more women elected to parliament can deliver. We wouldn't be having this debate if we didn't have women in this place putting these issues on the agenda, working across party lines and delivering better outcomes for the whole community but, in particular, women. I've sat in this place for a long, long time and never heard a debate about menopause, and that's a shame. That is an absolute disgrace. So what a wonderful thing that we can now openly discuss this issue across the chamber and have such a commitment from all sides to deal with this issue, because it is, as my fellow senators in the room today have already mentioned, an issue that impacts half the population yet too often is put in the 'don't talk about it' cringeworthy bucket. But it starts for women not when they are in menopause or the lead-up to it. The cringeworthiness, the ickiness and the attitude of not wanting to talk about it start when you are a girl. They start when you're a child. They start when girls are taught not to talk about the fact that their period is coming and are taught to tie their jumpers around their waists at school because they might show the spots on the back of their school dress. It's the shame that comes from telling your schoolmates that you've got your period that day. It comes when you go to the supermarket and they ask whether you want the packet of tampons in a paper bag, because we can't possibly talk about the fact that we might have our period. This is shutting down of a discussion of something that impacts every single one of us as women—half the population. It's 2023, and we still have this inability to talk openly about period blood and cramps. In fact, when it does get discussed—whether it's about the period or whether it's about menopause or the issues that come from these moments and this period that we're going through as women—it gets put in terms of, 'Oh, how is it affecting her feelings or her mood?' It's not actually about what's going on with our bodies. I am a patron of the Ovarian Cancer Australia association, and the reason I am is that I am sick and tired of women's health being put in the too-icky, too-hard basket. The reason we have one of the deadliest cancer rates amongst women when it comes to ovarian cancer is that people don't want to talk about it. The symptoms that come from it are considered to be just normal things, so they're overlooked, yet it is one of the deadliest cancers on earth. There is no cure, and the death rate is horribly high. You're more likely to die than survive ovarian cancer if you've got it, and a big part of that is our inability as a society to talk about women's health in a meaningful, upfront way. It starts right from the beginning, when we tell young girls not to talk about their periods. It is about our reproductive health and how it impacts on the rest of our lives, on the rest of our days, on the rest of our body, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. I really hope this inquiry can start to break that cringe, lift and wipe away the taboo, and allow women to talk about what is happening with our bodies in a way that is normal, normalised and shows there is nothing to be ashamed of. 18:00 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I would like to respond to this motion about menopause. From listening to Senator Hanson-Young and her comments with regard to this, I think that would have been the case probably about 50 or 60 years ago. I don't think it's so much the case these days that it's taboo or it's icky to talk about it. I think it's far from that. When we see television commercials about women having periods and going through it or buying the requirements that they need to deal with it, it goes back—I understand what the senator was saying with regard to how it used to be, but I think that's not the case these days. If we have issues and problems out there, it's the people themselves who need to go to the doctors and discuss it with the doctors. There is help out there if they want it. You talked about women and their problems. Did you know that my doctor told me men also go through menopause? Men face this as well. Do we talk about men's health issues? No, we don't. Men face menopause as well—and that's from a professional doctor who deals with hormones. So it's not just women but also men and the impact that menopause does have on women when they go through that period of time in their life. I think that needs to be spoken about. Women need to be made aware of it and that, if they are having emotional issues or other problems, it is due to the changing hormones. It's what menopause is all about. But to say that it's icky and people don't want to talk about it—I think that's a load of rubbish. I think they do. Women are more aware of it. We have our doctors. We're more aware today of what's going on with our bodies and what's happening than we ever were before. Ovarian cancer, yes. It is horrific, and the problem is that it gets to that stage because women don't go and have check-ups. It's the same with men with prostate cancer. They don't go and have their check-ups. It's people themselves who are a lot to blame if they don't go and have their check-ups. But it's their choice. It's everyone's choice how they want to deal with their health issues. If you're going to have an inquiry into this, by all means do. Let's open it up. Let's talk about men's health as well, right across the board. Too many times I hear it's all about women. We forget about the other half of our population, the men in this country, and what they are going through, what they're dealing with. We have a minister for women. Is there a minister for men? No, there isn't. Everyone completely forget all about them, and I hear about it all the time. You have your own sons. The Greens can make their comments and denigrate men as if they're man-haters, the fact is that a lot of them are married to men. A lot of them have sons. They are all there, but they laugh at the fact that I'm talking about men. But I will stand up and I will support anyone that needs that help and that support. In relation to this motion, I think it's again fearmongering that's going on here, saying it's icky to talk about it, girls aren't allowed to talk about it and there is fear of periods. What a load of rubbish. It's a fact of life. They teach it at schools. We know what's going on. To think that it's taboo—it's not taboo at all. It's quite common out there for girls to talk about it. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 80 Report 80 18:04 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria by leave—I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into assessment and support services for people with ADHD together with accompanying documents and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I'm pleased to present this report of our Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into barriers to assessment and support services for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD. I'm proud to have chaired this inquiry and today I am privileged to table the committee's consensus report in parliament. It is estimated that over one million Australians have ADHD. ADHD is a chronic and complex neurodevelopment condition that can cause significant impairment and dysfunction in people's lives. It is also widely misunderstood. This inquiry provided an opportunity to investigate barriers to ADHD assessment and care, as well as establish possible policy interventions to improve accessibility and outcomes in this space, and it was an important opportunity for people with ADHD to speak directly to senators. The inquiry received 700 submissions from individuals, community groups, medical professionals and other organisations, and heard evidence from 79 witnesses across three hearings. I want to thank everyone who made contributions to this inquiry. I have been deeply moved by the personal experiences and openness of the hundreds of people who submitted and the witnesses who shared their ADHD experiences. However, I note that for many people with ADHD the process of contributing to a Senate inquiry was inaccessible. We tried to improve accessibility but I know that we weren't able to make all the changes required to overcome the barriers that people can face. On behalf of the committee, I apologise and promise I will continue to work alongside my colleagues and committee members to continue to improve access to all of our Senate committee inquiry processes. However, I do note the innovation for a Senate committee report of infographics summarising the findings and the recommendations of this report. I really do want to thank the community affairs secretariat for that innovation and, in fact, for all of their work supporting us in this important committee. I also want to thank my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John and his team for the immense amount of work they have done throughout this inquiry. Jordan proposed this inquiry to the Senate. As the Australian Greens spokesperson for disability and health, he and his team have closely engaged with the ADHD community, ensuring that their voices are heard. This inquiry made clear that our current systems are failing to adequately care for and support people with ADHD. Crucially, we heard that people with ADHD are experiencing significant barriers to accessing proper assessment, diagnosis and support services—two key interlinked barriers with a lack of adequate services and the high cost of accessing these services. We heard that, for many people, getting a diagnosis costs thousands of dollars. Imagine being in a family with multiple kids that have ADHD and having to choose which of them will get diagnosed and be able to access support, knowing that as a parent you probably have ADHD, too, but getting a diagnosis is just completely out of reach. Even if you could afford the cost, long wait times and limited availability of healthcare professionals mean many people are deterred from seeking a diagnosis or from getting medication. This is exacerbated by the lack of services in the public health system for ADHD, particularly for adults and people living in rural and areas. Additionally, we heard how ADHD services and medication are incredibly expensive due to insufficient coverage under Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the NDIS. Another significant challenge raised in the inquiry included the overall poor experiences of people seeking help. We heard repeatedly how this was caused by a lack of reliable information about ADHD, fragmented care and inconsistent prescribing regulations, overly bureaucratic processes, stigma and variable quality of health care associated with ADHD. We heard evidence about how the lack of support services in schools, out-of-home care and correctional facilities prevents people from accessing adequate support. We also heard about how First Nations people, women, gender diverse people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds also face unique challenges when it comes to ADHD support. For many people with ADHD and their families, these barriers have had lifelong impacts on their self esteem, overall health, relationships, educational pursuits, job prospects and financial stability. As a witness Emi said: I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 26. I'm now 31. My biggest wish is that it had happened 20 years earlier. What happened was I eventually worked out myself that I had ADHD. It took a few years after that for me to actually have the courage to seek diagnosis, because it was something I was terrified of going to a doctor and saying this and being perceived that I was just looking to get medication or something and they didn't take it seriously. So I finally did take myself and source my own diagnosis when I was 26, because at that point everything had fallen apart. I'm lucky that I didn't completely destroy my life, but I was personally a mess. I got through school. Looking back, I can see all the extra pressures I had to deal with because I was undiagnosed and unsupported and untreated. I'm very smart and I use it to compensate all the time. I could do assignments. I'd smash them out at midnight when I was 14, because only under that huge pressure of adrenaline could I actually get them done. That's how I coped. That's also why absolutely nobody flagged that there might be something happening, because I wasn't a problem to anyone. In response to the heartfelt and compelling testimony of the many people who contributed to the inquiry, the committee put forward 15 important recommendations to the government. These include clear actions for the government to improve the quality of care for people with ADHD, by example, by increasing training in our healthcare systems, schools, institutions and workplaces; to ensure that services are affordable and accessible by reviewing the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and to improve awareness and reduce stigma associated with ADHD through a public health campaign and developing a dedicated government ADHD information portal. Notably, the committee also recommended the government strongly consider funding and codesigning a national framework for ADHD by working with people with ADHD and advocacy and community organisations. The current situation of inadequate access and support for people with ADHD has been considered by healthcare professionals as a public health emergency, and throughout the inquiry it was made clear that a more consistent and coordinated approach is needed across government to ensure people have consistent access to care at all stages of their lives. This is a consensus report of the committee, and I thank my fellow committee members for all of their work on this inquiry getting us to this stage. The Greens of course, as for all consensus reports, agree with the recommendations in this report, but we do not think that they go far enough to address the severity of the issues and the challenges brought forward by the ADHD community. That is why we have laid out some further clear and strong recommendations in our additional comments. These include supporting the disability royal commission's recommendation to establish a disability portfolio and to administer for disability inclusion. We believe that ministerial responsibility in leadership should be established to ensure that disability issues, services and support systems in Australia are coordinated in a way that works for disabled people. We also believe strongly that this position should be held by disabled person. Another important recommendation we have put forward is for the National Disability Insurance Agency to improve the accessibility and quality of information around eligibility of ADHD as a primary condition under the NDIS. Many submitters to the inquiry identified the NDIS as the best avenue of support for people with ADHD, but many also identified significant challenges they've experienced in engaging with the agency. In addition to the minister for disability and NDIS reforms, the Greens have also put forward strong recommendations concerning training in ADHD awareness and education for educators, ensuring greater accessibility by establishing nationally consistent recognition of nurse practitioners as valid diagnosticians for the purpose of ADHD diagnoses, ensuring workplaces are suitable for a neurodiverse workforce and further exploring needs based funding models for neurodivergent students and their families. The Greens recognise that the current situation for people with ADHD is, as the healthcare professionals stated in the inquiry, a public healthcare emergency. We call on the Labor government to step up and act. The Greens's recommendations, along with those put forward by this inquiry, provide a clear framework for change to better support people with ADHD, to make sure they receive the care they need and deserve. I urge the government not to let the powerful testimonies of the ADHD community shared throughout this inquiry to go to waste, and I call upon the government to implement its recommendations as quickly as possible. 18:14 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia As the deputy chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, I also want to make a few brief remarks on this important report, Assessment and support services for people with ADHD. In doing so, I really want to acknowledge the work and contribution of everyone on the references committee, as well as participating members, for the work they put into being able to deliver a consensus report. Whilst I acknowledge the perspective of Senator Rice regarding what other things she would like to see, I think there are some really strong and important recommendations in this report. I'm really proud, as the deputy chair of this committee, to see those recommendations and to see the views and experiences of so many people with lived experience of ADHD reflected in some of those recommendations. I genuinely want to thank committee members for the extensive work which went into the inquiry and, indeed, the work which went into the preparation of what is a very lengthy report. It's a report full of lived experience, as it should be. I also want to acknowledge, as Senator Rice said in her remarks, that we really tried to make the inquiry an accessible process for people with lived experience of ADHD, but we didn't do well enough. It wasn't without good intent—a lot of effort and thought went into how we could try and rewrite some of the practices which govern this place and which govern our work in committees to try to make the inquiry more accessible. It has been a learning experience for our committee, and I know it will lead to things being done a bit differently in the future—where possible—to try and make sure it is more accessible because, as always in community affairs, it's the perspectives and the lived experiences of the people affected by the issues we inquire into which absolutely make our reports and which are critical to the recommendations we deliver. I know that, as a committee, we will try to do better to make sure a broader perspective of those lived experiences can be reflected. I want to thank those witnesses who were really honest with us about their experience of what we thought were better and more accessible processes, but which, obviously, weren't good enough. I want to acknowledge that and I thank those people with lived experience who pushed ahead and engaged with us, who came to our hearings to present their lived experience and who worked through our submission process and contributed to our work. Your contributions were so valued and so important in the final recommendations. We received over 700 submissions during this inquiry, and we had 79 witnesses attend three days of public hearings across the country. An entire chapter in the report reflects the lived experience of the overwhelming majority of witnesses. Throughout the course of our inquiry we heard about the impact of ADHD on education and unemployment, and the social impacts of ADHD—when it comes to family relationships and social isolation—on mental health and wellbeing. It takes a lot of courage to come and sit and talk about some of these things in a committee process in front of a panel of senators. We tried not to be intimidating, but it's not a normal thing for witnesses to do. I'm really grateful to the people who came and shared their perspectives. We heard that people with ADHD often have poor consumer experiences and face difficulties in accessing services. We heard concerns around service delivery for people with ADHD, about their difficulty with finding the right kind of support from the right practitioner, their struggles with executive functions and how their experience of ADHD was affecting their lives, family, employment, health and wellbeing. As is, I'm sure, the experience of many people in this place, I have personal experience with ADHD through a loved one who has ADHD. I was very familiar with their experience, but not everyone experiences something like ADHD in the same way. The breadth of experiences we heard was really important, and I certainly learnt a lot in this process. I urge everyone in this chamber to pick up our report and have a read and, in particular, to read the chapters on lived experience. I'm really pleased that we were able to come to the multipartisan recommendations that we did, which do go to improving the experience of people with ADHD in seeking diagnosis and those living with ADHD, including the recommendation around the development of uniform prescribing rules to ensure consistency between state and territory jurisdictions, through the ministerial council on health. We made a number of recommendations around a more coordinated approach to ADHD, affordability and accessibility of services, quality of care and, importantly, work to improve awareness and reduce stigma. All of these recommendations, I am sure, will inform the work the government is doing to make health care more affordable and more accessible. It's my hope that we can see some of these recommendations implemented quite promptly. Again, I want to thank everyone who participated in our inquiry, and I want to thank the other senators on the Community Affairs References Committee for their work and goodwill in delivering this report and the consensus recommendations within it. 18:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I rise to speak to the final report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the barriers to assessment and support services for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. I am proud to have championed the establishment of this inquiry which has been ongoing since March 2023, and I'm deeply honoured to have had the opportunity to do so alongside Senator Rice as chair of the Community Affairs References Committee. I thank you, Senator Rice—Janet, if I could be so informal!—and your team, for your incredible work in collaboration with my team during the course of this inquiry. Despite an incredibly inaccessible submission process, over 700 people made submissions, and that is a wonderful, wonderful thing. I also thank the secretariat team for the community affairs committee for the work that they did to modify some of those processes and to make those steps forward in terms of inclusion in the process, acknowledging that there is far more work to do until the process is genuinely accessible and inclusive for the ADHD community. So many people shared their stories, their knowledge and their hopes with the committee so that the systems that are desperately in need of radical transformation can be fixed. The report's release today is historic. We now have 15 tangible, implementable recommendations which can—and will, if actioned—improve the lives of ADHD-ers. What has been made abundantly clear throughout this inquiry is that ADHD is a deeply stigmatised and misunderstood condition. Through the stories people with ADHD have shared with this inquiry, we know that their rights to health care have been systematically denied. I am incredibly proud of the recommendations in this report. They speak to the need for a national framework for ADHD, national consistency in access to medication and an increase in funding for advocacy organisations, as well as the need to review Medicare item numbers, expand services, reduce wait times and provide support to people in this cost-of-living crisis. There are recommendations for a neurodiversity affirming public health campaign to reduce stigma and increase understanding and for significant training in education and workplace settings, including setting minimum standards for training about neurodiversity in those settings so that people can have the basics that they need as professionals to work with neurodivergent people. These are huge wins for the community, and they wouldn't have happened without the ADHD community. We must acknowledge, however, that there are some gaps that remain between what the ADHD community has shared with the committee and the recommendations that this report puts forward. For this reason, my fellow Greens senator and committee chair, Janet Rice, and I have issued a series of additional comments to accompany this report. Through these comments, the Greens have put forward additional recommendations to address the scale and urgency of the action that is required, particularly in terms of the role of the NDIS and the need for the role of the NDIS to be expanded. The community, medical professionals and advocacy organisations see that there is a need for the NDIS to provide greater support services to ADHDers. Our Greens recommendations put ADHD on the NDIS access list—category A and category B—to ensure that folks with ADHD have access to the scheme. There is a need for a minister for disability, to be responsible for implementing these changes. I say again: a departmental taskforce will not cut it. It will not make the scale of action required. Only the Greens have recommended that this ministry for disability and inclusion be established. We are also the only party that have recommended that priority research for funding be conducted and led by neurodivergent folks. The neurodivergent community have had more than enough research conducted on them by neurotypical folks. For contributions to the field to be meaningful and affirmative, research programs must be led by neurodivergent people. I cannot tell you the number of times throughout this inquiry that I was approached by people expressing that this was the first time they had felt seen. It means so much to so many people that the government now make meaningful and urgent changes to support neurodivergent people. To do that, we must ensure that, even though this inquiry has finished, the ADHD community stay at the centre of these conversations—that their lived experience informs where we go next. I have witnessed their determination and I know that they will not let their voices go unheard. Right now we are faced with an incredible opportunity. It is time for untreated ADHD finally to be recognised as the significant and debilitating disability that it is for so many people in this country. It is time for ADHD diagnoses to be covered by Medicare and for the NDIS to recognise ADHD as a primary disability in practice as well as in theory. It is time for folks to be able to access their medication when required, without judgement, and for mainstream services—mainstream mental health services, in particular—to be made accessible and inclusive to folks with ADHD. I repeat the call, made by witnesses, for the government to reverse its decision to cut the number of subsidised sessions available under the Better Access scheme. These sessions helped improve people's mental health and they must be returned. It is time for people with ADHD to have equitable access to diagnosis and treatment regardless of their gender or their ability to pay. It is time to put these recommendations into action and stop punishing an exceptional group of people for just being who they are. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. (Quorum formed) BILLS 84 BILLS Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 84

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023

Second Reading 84 18:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. This bill proposes to establish a regulatory system enabling carbon dioxide to be pumped into Australia's seabed through a technology known as carbon capture and storage. The bill also allows the government to create a regulatory system to place waste into the sea for scientific research purposes—for example, research into ocean fertilisation, which aims to remove carbon dioxide from the ocean. Reading the explanatory memorandum to this bill, you might think that carbon capture is a proven technology. But carbon capture has a long history of failure. Australia's only working carbon capture and storage project, off the coast of Western Australia, is a failure. Unable to capture carbon in the geological structures below Barrow Island, Chevron is forced to buy carbon credits to meet its environmental approvals. The fact is that most carbon capture projects which are not associated with enhancing oil recovery will fail. Even if the carbon dioxide can be injected underground, there is no guarantee that it will stay there and not leak into the atmosphere. The most common use of carbon capture projects is to justify new oil and gas projects, and to support carbon trading. The accounting rules in this space disadvantage countries which are rich in oil or gas, like Australia. At this point it is worth recalling the New Zealand government's part in the climate fraud by using carbon credits. The report Climate cheats details how New Zealand became the largest purchaser of fraudulent carbon credits from Ukraine and then used them to meet emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol. This bill is yet another step down the road to climate change lunacy. The drivel coming out of these senators is mind-blowing. Labor, the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals are hellbent on sacrificing Australia on the altar of net zero, when Senator Wong couldn't even explain what net zero means. They lie to us, telling us that reducing Australia's carbon dioxide emissions will save the planet. It won't. It's a load of claptrap to push UN agreements and to grab votes by peddling fear. Even if you could reduce Australia's emissions to absolute zero overnight, China will replace them inside 12 months, yet we continue to allow carbon-intensive Chinese imports. They lie to us, saying that renewables are cheaper, when in fact they are directly responsible for Australian households being forced to pay some of the highest electricity bills in the world. These electricity bills are the biggest component in the rising cost of living that is reducing Australia's living standards and forcing many families into poverty and homelessness. The cult of climate change focuses only on human CO2 emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, was formed to look only at human emissions. There is no focus and almost no reporting on the fact that 97 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, like volcanoes. There are a reported one million volcanoes under our oceans around the world. There is no focus on the natural forces which primarily drive climate change on earth, such as solar cycles, interglacial warming periods and fluctuations in the planet's axial tilt. People are being punished for emissions which are not theirs. Despite the clear evidence that climate policies are driving the cost-of-living crisis while doing literally nothing to save the planet, Labor is pushing them further with this legislation. Labor is desperate to enable its 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030 policy and achieve a 43 per cent cut to Australia's CO2 in the same time frame. The Treasurer has already warned that this will require more drastic interventions by government. I say that government intervention is what has mainly led to the 300 per cent increase in our energy costs since renewables began to pollute our energy landscape. More government invention is only going to make things worse and make energy cost even more than it already does. Here's the challenge for the Greens, Nationals, Liberals and Labor: if renewables are cheaper and better, as you claim, why subsidise them with billions of taxpayer dollars every year? Why are we subsidising them? It's like anyone who starts up a business. You go out there and do the best they can. You survive with the article that you've got to sell. Why are we subsidising them to the tune of billions of dollars? If it's so good, then the public will buy it. But we've got to prop it up, and that's the problem that we have, and that's the reason for the increasing tax dollars. You're going to put this country and future generations into so much debt. What for? If renewables are so good, why isn't there a level playing field? The fact is that they're terrible, which is why they need so much taxpayer money to be competitive. They're material-intensive technologies requiring massive land footprints that have led to native species and vegetation in Australia being bulldozed for wind and solar farms. Once they reach the end of their short lifespans, they all end up in landfill because none of it can be recycled. No-one has come up with a plan to get rid of the solar panels. No-one has come up with a plan to get rid of the wind turbines. You can't use the materials. No-one has come up with that plan. You're doing more damage to our environment by just putting them into the ground, but no-one has answered that question. It's alright to import them all from China, with all their carbon emissions that we're taking responsibility for. We're buying their products, yet you have no answers. I have not heard one member in this place say what needs to be done to get rid of the solar panels or the wind turbines. And you talk about the environment! My God, you're clearing thousands and thousands of hectares of land to put them up. You're destroying the environment for the flora and fauna, but no-one talks about that, either. You don't want to call out the elephant in the room, do you? So you blame it all on climate change. As I said, once they reach the end of their short lifespans, they all end up in landfill because none of it can be recycled. The Greens have talked about money in the coffers of the Labor Party. What about their own coffers, filled from their fearmongering about 'global boiling' now? It was 'global warming' and then 'climate change'; now we're going to 'global boiling'. We need to keep changing it all the time to keep it turning over for the younger generations. We've heard it for years, so we've got to move on from there. We've got to give it a new name so that we keep the interest of the youth that are being brainwashed. Some of the coldest temperatures around the world in over 100 years have been recorded this week, so where's your global boiling? We've had some of the coldest temperatures since the early 1900s, and you're talking about global boiling. Again, this is fearmongering. Greens Senator Pocock says that the science is clear. There is no science! Where's the science? It's all built on computer models and the lies of climate soothsayers told for their own financial gain and ego inflation. Remember when Tim Flannery told us that our dams would never be full again? Does anyone raise that one? For centuries, prophets of doom have been declaring the world would come to an end, and the climate change nuts have brought this nonsense into the 21st century. They say fires, floods and cyclones driven by climate change will limit food availability. What an absolute joke! You're limiting food availability by putting transmission lines over farms. You are actually limiting it because you haven't built any dams for water security. Fires? Fires have been happening on this planet and in this country for thousands upon thousands of years. So don't tell me climate change is all due to fires. You have the arsonists out there that set the fires. And you talk about floods. When you build cities on rivers and creeks that used to take the water away, when you've got concrete and bitumen that is in the expanse of thousands of square kilometres of land, where is the water supposed to go? When you don't put in the drainage that's required, it's poor planning. That's what it has been all about. It's also poor planning to build houses right beside rivers that we know in the past have actually flooded. Flooding has happened for centuries and always will, but it's due to poor planning by people, whether it's state, federal or local governments, and you blame it on climate change. And then there are cyclones. We've had fewer cyclones happen, but, no, let's go out and fearmonger and say that this is all happening. You talk about flora and fauna. Flora and fauna have been destroyed by the wild animals that we have. No-one talks about the destruction that the millions of wildcats, the donkeys, the camels and the brumbies are making; let's blame it on climate change. What a scam! You're an absolute joke in this place; you really are. Members of this parliament, you are easily led yes-people that follow the party line purely to keep your seats in this place. You're pathetic. You're not talking common sense here. You're all like sheep led to the slaughter, and you're taking the Australian people with you. There's no true science here. You're feeding a lot of rubbish to the Australian people. The Australian people are not stupid. They know. People of the older generation have seen the changes in the climate. If you read up on history, it's happened for millions and millions of years, and yet you are pinning it on climate change. That's a real shame. We are at the heart of this nation to make decisions for the wellbeing of people, and they're struggling out there. They're struggling because they can't pay their bills. The electricity costs are soaring. Because of the rising electricity costs, food is more expensive. We're destroying our farming sector. We're destroying everything in this nation, and yet you keep doing bloody deals with China. You keep doing deals with them. You buy all their goods and bring them into the country. Their emissions are over 30 per cent. Ours are at one per cent, if not less, and you're ridiculing and destroying the Australian people and their businesses—for what? To peddle it because you've brainwashed the kids through the educational system for however long to have them come through and believe that the world's plants have been destroyed. You know what you need to concentrate on? Getting the rubbish out of the oceans. That is true pollution. Go and talk to China about all the rubbish they're allowing into the oceans from the north and flowing down here. That's where you need to focus. That's the real damage that's being done to our environment and also to marine life. But, no, we don't hear about that. It's absolutely disgraceful. You're led by the UN and all these other organisations that are pushing their own agenda, and you've used it as a political ploy to get your votes from the Australian people. That's what it's about. The Australian people follow you because you told the kids in school, 'This is the way it is.' There's no critical thinking. There's no debate. You haven't got to science. Senator Roberts would welcome a debate with Senator Waters. Guess what: she hasn't done it, because she wouldn't be able to answer his questions. She's not up to it. It's alright to stand here and say, 'You're fearmongering,' and all the rest of it, but you're not prepared to stand there and have a debate with someone who knows what they're talking about. It's all fearmongering. It's the politicians around the world, as I said. What's destroying food production is politicians around the world destroying our farming sector in the insane quest to get rid of carbon dioxide. Wind turbines, transmission lines and solar panels are doing more damage to our planet than carbon dioxide ever will. We are allowing our children to be brainwashed into this lunatic cult in our schools and universities due to a lack of critical thinking and debate being discouraged. I hear from so many students that, if you don't go along with the ideology of the university, you get marked down and you won't get passed in your studies. Is that really what you want from the future generations of this nation—that they can't really debate or think for themselves but have to be guided and told how to answer the questions? I feel sorry for the future generations, and it is the people in this place and in parliaments around the nation who have allowed this to happen because of gutless wonders who won't be individuals and stand up not only for the people of this nation but for their own families and for future generations. You are so worried about your own jobs in this place that you haven't got the intestinal fortitude to actually speak the truth and speak out on behalf of the Australian people. Well, I will keep speaking out on behalf of these people who actually have proven this and the science that goes with it. I am not against renewables by any means, but don't do the fearmongering that says the planet is coming to an end, because that is a lie. 18:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Firstly, may I thank all of the senators who have contributed to the debate on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 and acknowledge the many perspectives presented by senators in this place. I note also that amendments have been circulated on the floor today. Secondly, while I note that the contributions this morning and this afternoon have been broad-ranging, as is so often the case in a Senate debate, this is in fact quite a narrow bill. I wish to emphasise that this is a bill that gives effect to Australia's international obligations that arise out of amendments that were made in 2009 and then in 2013 to the London protocol. So my initial contribution will address the bill at hand before turning to some of the broader questions around climate policy that have been raised during the course of our discussions. It's worth noting that the full title of the international instrument that this bill deals with is the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. So in line with our obligations under this international instrument, this convention, this bill sets up a regulatory framework to prevent marine pollution. Should this bill not proceed, there would be no serious regulatory framework to deal with the issues arising in the bill, so operators and researchers could look for loopholes and create their own initiatives without government oversight. This is particularly relevant for marine geoengineering activities, which are already occurring and for which greater oversight is needed as these activities increase in scale. I say this because it is in fact the status quo that poses the environmental risk. Without this legislation, there would be no processes in place for environmental assessment and approval or, after that, for monitoring and enforcement. I make this observation too: the London protocol is a respected piece of international law. It's a gold-standard, best-practice agreement with rigorous environmental impact assessments that have a much broader scope than our current environmental legislation in relation to these matters. So following the passage of this legislation to prevent unregulated sea dumping, there will be many years of preparing for and undertaking assessment processes before any project could be begin to be considered. This will be in parallel with the work that needs to occur in the bilateral agreement or arrangement that would need to be negotiated with relevant countries. These agreements will need to ensure that they have appropriately captured the requirements and our obligations as set out in the London protocol. During the debate, senators have made a variety of comments about individual projects. It is important to note that this bill is not about specific projects. As I have already noted, any carbon capture project of the type that this bill would regulate would not arrive for many years. Other senators have asserted that financial costs to the public flow from this bill. We have been clear that any project would need to stack up of its own accord if it were to proceed. I note that last October Minister Bowen redirected allocations previously provided by the previous government to subsidies for commercial development of carbon capture and storage. As I said, today the debate has been wide-ranging well beyond this bill, which deals with a narrow set of circumstances. Many senators in their contributions have emphasised the importance of climate action, and for good reason. After the years we have experienced characterised by extreme weather, fires, floods, droughts and Commonwealth inaction under the former coalition government, more needs to be done. Our government knows that we need to tackle climate change here at home and in concert with the global community. We have shown that we are absolutely committed to our obligations under the Paris agreement and, importantly, to our communities, who want us and need us to act. We know that our resource sector and heavy industry need to decarbonise. It is why we have legislated a path to net zero, committed to 43 per cent emission reduction by 2030, committed to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. It is why we have doubled the rate of renewable energy approvals. Through the Safeguard Mechanism, we have established a policy framework to deal with emissions from large projects which ensures that every large project is aligned on a trajectory to net zero. Meeting Australia's net zero targets will take a wide range of tools and technologies. We have legislated our target, we have implemented policies like the safeguard mechanism, and we have provided funding and financing for policies like Rewiring the Nation and the Capacity Investment Scheme to help deliver on these targets. In June last year the government formally submitted Australia's updated nationally determined contribution to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change including our new target to reduce emissions 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. We are developing six sectoral plans—electricity and energy, industry, the built environment, agriculture and land, transport and resources—that will map out in consultation with stakeholders and industry and community decarbonisation pathways by 2050 for each of these sectors and seek to maximise the benefits of climate action. To return to the issues in the bill that we have before us, these amendments in this bill are necessary to ensure we have a comprehensive regulatory framework that protects our oceans, including environmental impact assessments, risk assessments and management frameworks to ensure best practice is adopted. It is important to get this right. It is not anticipated that international projects will come about for many years, but it is good public policy to put in place a regulatory system before industries emerge so that we are not playing catch-up. It ensures that the right governance is in place to administer permits for a comprehensive and robust application, assessment and approval permitting process for two things: the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon capture processes for sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations, in accordance with the 2009 amendment to the London protocol; and, secondly, the placement of wastes or other matter for legitimate marine geoengineering scientific research activities, in accordance with the 2013 amendment to the London protocol. Amending the sea dumping act to regulate the export of carbon dioxide streams from carbon capture and storage processes, the sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations and to regulate marine geoengineering research delivers greater public confidence in our ability to protect the marine environment from these emerging international activities. It would be irresponsible not to have a comprehensive regulatory system in place to ensure these activities are legal and to protect the marine environment, and it is for these reasons that this bill has been brought forward. I thank senators again for their contributions today. I understand that we are to have a committee stage, and I look forward to the discussions that will take place at that time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 be now read a second time. It being after 6:30 pm, there will be no divisions taken tonight, which means we cannot move forward with the debate on this bill. Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 87

Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 87 18:59 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to make a contribution on the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. The threat of terrorism is enduring and complex. While ASIO lowered the national terrorism threat level to 'possible' about 12 months ago, the threat is by no means extinguished, and events in the Middle East have been a sad reminder of that. Earlier this year, the Director-General of Security, Mr Mike Burgess, noted: Terrorism remains a significant threat in some parts of the world and an emerging menace in others, and developments overseas could resonate here in Australia. This was a very timely warning, in light of the devastating attacks on Israel on 7 October by Hamas, a terrorist organisation which was listed in its entirety under the former coalition government in 2022. Here in Australia, in times when our social cohesion is being tested in our communities and neighbourhoods, the critical task of our law enforcement and security agencies is to protect Australians from the risk of violence, and that has never been more important. In our democracy we don't silence the views of others, even when we find them to be egregiously offensive, but we cannot accept the actions of groups that use or advocate violence to achieve their political, religious or ideological objectives and put the lives of Australians at risk. That is why we as parliamentarians must ensure that our law enforcement and security agencies are equipped with the powers and capabilities that they need to combat the threat of terrorism and that we continually review the use and effectiveness of those powers to ensure that they are fit for purpose against an enduring and evolving threat. The Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 implements several of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's review of police powers in relation to terrorism, the control order regime, the preventative detention order regime and the continuing detention order regime, which I handed down, as chair of the PJCIS, in October 2021. That PJCIS report unanimously supported the extension of powers reviewed and found that they will continue to provide law enforcement with the tools that they need to counter the threat of terrorism. As chair of the PJCIS, I noted that 18 potential or imminent terrorist attacks had been disrupted by law enforcement and security agencies since 2014, thanks to powers just like these. That PJCIS report made 19 recommendations, all of which were accepted by this government in its response in September 2023. The current bill introduces several reforms to ensure law enforcement agencies are equipped to protect the community from terrorism, while improving safeguard mechanisms. It does this by extending the operation of stop, search and seizure powers for three years and enhancing safeguards on the use of those powers; enhancing oversight over the minister's power to declare a prescribed security zone; extending the operation of the control order regime for three years and enhancing the safeguards and effectiveness of control orders; extending the operation of the preventative detention order regime for three years and bolstering the safeguards that apply to the issuing of PDOs; enhancing transparency requirements on continuing detention orders; and extending the operation of criminal liability offences for breaches of non-disclosure duties until 29 December 2024 while the government considers the report of the Commonwealth's review of secrecy provisions. I note that this last provision was unrelated to the PJCIS's review. When the bill was introduced in the other chamber, the Attorney-General noted that the government would not be implementing recommendation 6 of the PJCIS review at that time but had agreed to it in principle. This recommendation relates to amending section 3UEA of the Crimes Act to require any agency that enters premises in accordance with that section to obtain an ex post facto warrant as soon as possible, following the use of warrantless entry powers. The PJCIS report on this bill, which was handed down in October this year, recommended that the government should introduce amendments to establish a post-entry warrant framework, thereby acquitting recommendation 6 of the original PJCIS review. I welcome the government's decision to accept this recommendation, noting that the bill was amended in the House of Representatives on 19 October 2023 to establish the new post-entry warrant scheme. This bill will provide for the continuation and enhancement of important counterterrorism powers that law enforcement agencies require to protect Australians. It will ensure our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to manage the threat of terrorism, while protecting the rights of the individuals through stronger oversights and safeguards. The coalition will always support sensible changes which ensure our legislation is fit for purpose to enable our law enforcement agencies to protect Australians from terrorism. That is why we'll be supporting the passage of this bill. 19:04 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will not be supporting the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023. At the outset, I note that there are a number of modest improvements proposed to the regimes covered by this bill as a result of these amendments, but those modest improvements to a regime which is so contrary to our basic liberties and our basic traditional legal protections are so cosmetic that they do not amend the substantive law sufficiently for the Greens to support them. Of course, one of the key provisions in this bill is to extend the sunset clauses for these various counterterrorism laws by yet another three years. As I've noted before and as most civil liberties advocates have noted, when it comes to counterterrorism laws and laws that beef up the security state, sunset provisions are inserted in the bills but the sun never sets. Indeed, that's what this bill proposes. It proposes to push off the sunset not for 12 hours but for a further three years. The bill extends the operation of a series of police powers—largely Australian Federal Police powers but, in some instances, powers able to be exercised by other police bodies—under the 1914 Crimes Act and the 1995 Criminal Code Act for a further three years, extending them to December 2026. In terms of the three principal elements of the bill, the first is the power to stop, question and search persons and to seize items in identified Commonwealth places—for example, on the floor of the Senate chamber, while Senator Scarr wanders about like that. It gives the authority to stop, question and search people as well as seize items in defined Commonwealth places—including in what are called 'prescribed security zones'—and to do that without a warrant and without the need for reasonable suspicion. That power being given to police to stop, question and search without reasonable suspicion and without a warrant was, until these laws passed in 2005, unknown to our legal system. Those powers were offensive to our legal system. They were something far more at home in deeply authoritarian states than in a liberal democracy such as Australia pretends to be. The second aspect of the bill is the control order regime. The control order regime allows for obligations and restrictions to be imposed on people allegedly for the purpose of protecting the public from a potential terrorist act or to prevent the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, a terrorist act. Those are the Criminal Code division 104 provisions. Again, these control order regimes—the 'future crime' provisions—were utterly unknown to our law and utterly unknown to our system of checks and balances from a common law tradition, until they were brought into our law in the raft of different laws that came into force in the decade following September 11. The third aspect of the security apparatus that's proposed to be extended to December 2026 is the preventative detention order regime. That allows a person to be taken into custody and be detained for up to two full days—48 hours—if it is suspected on reasonable grounds that they may be preparing to engage in a terrorist act. This is, again, another future crime provision, which, although sitting there in the statute books, has been hardly used at all since it was brought in. Again, these future crime provisions were unknown to our law until the raft of security legislation and counterterrorism legislation that passed in the years following September 11. A number of stakeholders have made submissions to this bill and to the PJCIS inquiry into it. The bulk of those submissions raise very serious concerns about the three-year extension. At best, they support a limited 12-month extension with detailed justification being provided by the government for the continuation of these powers. Why should there be such detailed justification? I'll go back to the 2005 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that first looked at these powers when they were being passed. It's important to remember the context of those powers being passed. They were following the horrific bombings in London in July 2005, and there was fear in our community and deep concern with what we'd seen happen in London. In that environment of fear and anxiety, the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 was rushed through this parliament, and it didn't follow the usual scrutiny process. A rapid drafting of the bill with no external consultation was rammed through a Senate inquiry with a very limited time frame and then brought to the House to be pushed through, because there was that fear driving legislators at the time. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee said this in relation to the bill: Extraordinary laws may be justifiable but they must also be temporary in nature. Sunset provisions ensure that such laws expire on a certain date. This mechanism ensures that extraordinary executive powers legislated during times of emergency are not integrated as the norm and that the case for continued use of extraordinary executive powers is publicly made out by the Government of the day. That's what they said in 2005, but now it's 2023 and these laws are still on our statute books. The sun has repeatedly been about to set, but every time it's been reset by this parliament to extend these extraordinary provisions, that were intended to be temporary in nature, so that they're almost effectively permanent provisions of our law. They are deeply contrary to longstanding traditions of liberty and freedom of the individual from an excess of state power in our system. Yet here we are again, in 2023, proposing to extend them for another three years, while each of these elements in the system are under serious question and serious scrutiny. And there has not been a justification, apart from a basic, primal fear to support the ongoing provision of any of these laws—particularly the preventative detention order regime and the control order regime. Other aspects of these same future crime counter-terrorism provisions have been unravelling in real time around us as this happens. The continuing detention order regime, which is a close cousin of these regimes, has fallen into gross disrepute in the last 12 months with the Benbrika case. With the continuing detention order regime, at the expiry of a person's prison sentence, if they've been convicted and sentenced for a terrorism or related offence, there's the ability for state authorities or Commonwealth authorities—depending on who the prosecuting authority was for the original terrorism offence, whether it was a state or Commonwealth offence—to seek continuing detention orders to keep the person in jail after the expiration of their sentence. Again, it's a concept that is anathema to our concepts of rule of law and traditional liberties—keeping someone in jail past the expiration of their maximum sentence based upon concepts of future crime and future threat. This is a future assessment being made by courts or nominated judges—who, for all intents and purposes, appear to be courts—an assessment of future crime being made by our legal system. It's about the likelihood of future offending or of a future offence being committed. As I said, it's an extremely close cousin of the control order regime and, indeed, the preventative detention order regime. It turns out that the core assessment tool that's being used by Commonwealth authorities and, through the Commonwealth, by state authorities, to justify continuing detention orders is called the VERA-2r assessment tool. A critical review was done of the VERA-2r assessment tool by lead author Dr Emily Corner, and it was found that there was no critical basis for the assessments and conclusions in the VERA-2r assessment tool. Indeed, the report found that the assessment of the likelihood of committing a future offence using the VERA-2r assessment tool—its finding of the probability of future offending—was no better than a roll of the dice or basic chance. What did the Commonwealth government and home affairs do under the leadership of Secretary Pezzullo and the ministerial control of the now Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton? What did they do with the Corner report? They hid it from the court; they refused to give it to the court while the courts were undertaking or reviewing VERA-2r assessments from so-called experts of continuing detention orders, after a continuing detention orders after a continuing detention orders. Dozens of continuing detention orders were made using the VERA-2r assessment tool, purporting to assess the likelihood of future offending and all based on a grossly flawed tool. This was when the prosecuting authorities and the Commonwealth knew that there was a critical report in the hands of the Commonwealth which pointed out that the assessment was no better than chance and they hid it from the court. Again, this was destroying fundamental parts of our historical legal structure meant to defend our individual freedoms—destroying them, in this case, by a conscious decision of the bureaucracy and the complicity of the Department of Home Affairs. It prevented the courts from getting the evidence that showed the tool was not worth the paper it was written on. What better assessment do we have and what comfort do we have that control orders or preventative detention orders will be based on anything better than that? None. The reason is that our legal system is not designed to chase down future crime. It isn't designed to make predictions about people's future conduct and then hold them in jail or detention based upon predictions of future conduct. That's something that you find in deeply offensive authoritarian regimes. We judge people on what they do and we judge people on what they've done. We don't put people in jail because of the fear of future crime—or we didn't used to until these provisions came into law from 2001, particularly from 2005 onwards. The Greens note that there are some cosmetic improvements bring brought into these regimes: marginally better oversight and some slightly better reporting. But at the core of this bill is the continuation of a series of detention mechanisms; warrantless stop, search and detain powers for police; and a control order regime that should not form part of our law. The sun should set on these powers; it should set in a few short weeks and they should not be extended to December 2026. For those reasons, the Greens oppose this bill. 19:19 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I call out Labor's destructive and irresponsible immigration policy that allows violent race-hate bigots to spit their venom in support of filthy, cowardly terrorists. Brother Ismail, an Islamic extremist, recently gave an Islamic sermon in Sydney in which he called the Hamas terrorists freedom fighters and warriors and ignored the slaughter of innocent Israeli men, women and children and the kidnapping of hundreds of hostages to be taken back to Gaza. He called on Muslims to wage jihad in Australia and said that the al-Qaeda and Islamic State flags were the flags of Muslims. He said the national flag is not our flag. He's not Australian. What is he doing here? I would expect that the police are watching this extremist carefully as they consider which crimes he has just committed. How can the Labor government support an increase in immigration numbers without greater vetting of the quality of immigrants, particularly from Middle Eastern countries and specifically Islamic countries that have a clear historical culture of race based hate and violence under Islamic ideology? Those with extremist views and those coming from countries with a history of cultural violence must be excluded from bringing those views into Australia, either in the immediate, short or long terms. Stringent measures must be put in place to exclude such hate filled, antihuman and inhuman individuals. Across our vast single-nation continent, united as one nation, with people from many diverse backgrounds, religions, cultures and nations, Australians must be entitled to feel and be safe from the cultural violence that exists mostly overseas. Look, though, at what recently happened in Sydney, at the horrendous rally in support of Palestine on the steps of our Opera House, our iconically Australian and iconically Sydney building, after Hamas's cowardly, inhuman terrorists from Gaza massacred innocent men, women and children. This was Australia's day of shame, as Islamic extremists burnt the Israeli flag and chanted disgraceful slogans such as 'Gas the Jews!' and 'Kill the Jews!' just as occurred in Nazi Germany. 'Gas the Jews!' and 'Kill the Jews!' was chanted here in Australia. It is despicable and un-Australian. Those who were supporters do not deserve to be in Australia. Australian Jewish children are living in fear of their lives from the antisemitic cowards who have shown their hate and threatened innocent Jews. Is this the Australia we want? No, it's not. What we need is social cohesion, where we all get along and violence is not acceptable—where violence is rejected. Consider the High Court of Australia. It disconnected from the expectations of Australians when its recent decision about convicted terrorist Abdul Nacer Benbrika restored his previously cancelled Australian citizenship, allowing him now to stay in Australia. He was found guilty of plotting to kill thousands of Australians here in our country. The man in the street, the everyday Australian, would not want this man to remain in Australia. I don't want him to remain in Australia. I want him out. Failed immigration policy is responsible for letting these inhuman and antihuman scum into Australia. While there are many fine Muslim Australians—and we've had some as candidates in One Nation—assimilating into our culture and complying with our values and laws, Islam, I want to be very clear, is an ideology, a way of structuring society, just like communism, socialism and Nazism. It exercises control of thought, control of belief and control of behaviour using fear and violence. It is punitive and involves cruel physical punishment—for example, female genital mutilation, the suppression of women, the killing of nonbelievers and homosexuals, beheadings, canings, people being thrown off the roofs of buildings, wives being beaten—and so it goes on. Islam goes against Australian values and Western civilisation. Is there anyone in this chamber who would defend it as being in accordance with Australian values and Western civilisation? I would hope not. Strong steps must be taken to exclude Islamic terrorists from ever setting foot here. Strong steps must be taken to ensure that the judiciary is entitled to strip citizenship from immigrants as part of their sentencing for committing heinous crimes. More importantly, strong steps are needed and must be taken to ensure that vetting of the quality and the suitability of potential immigrants investigates eliminating extremist activists from spreading their poison in our Australian society and creating homegrown terrorists. I will be supporting this bill. 19:25 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak to the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which One Nation will support, and I would like to say I fully support my colleague Senator Roberts and his comments in his speech that he's just delivered. This legislation is timely, following the warning from ASIO director-general Mike Burgess last month that the risk of violence has increased following the atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists in Israel. Those cowardly acts of murder, rape and hostage abduction show that none of us are entirely secure against the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. That is certainly the case in Australia, because the atrocities have also drawn out people here who actually support and defend this terrorism. Some of them even sit in this chamber. We just watched them make a stupid show of walking out of the Senate in solidarity with these terrorists. For the record, I will say that public demonstrations in support of Islamic terrorists should not be allowed to take place in this country. It is un-Australian, and anyone who participates in them does not belong in our country. There must be absolutely no tolerance in Australia for these violent atrocities or the people who advocate or support them. They are a direct threat to the safety and security of Australian people. The threat might not be as great if Australia had a better immigration policy that prevented the importation of Islamic extremism. The major parties can't say they weren't warned about it. One Nation has been warning the country for more than 25 years about the threat represented by imported extremism, which unfortunately makes legislation like this necessary. These warnings were ignored. As a result, we had people on the steps of the Sydney Opera House calling for the gassing of Jews. Where we seen this before? A local Islamic scholar is now being investigated over preaching violent jihad in our country. If you don't know what 'jihad' means, it means war. How was this extremist preacher even allowed to come to Australia to spew his hatred? It's this sort of rhetoric which inspires the violence that our police security forces must be equipped and supported to prevent. At this point, I'm compelled to condemn the recent High Court decision allowing the convicted terrorist Abdul Nacer Benbrika to retain his Australian citizenship. I hope that the Labor government is going to put in an appeal with regard to the decision by the High Court, because I cannot understand their ruling. They're saying that he should not be deported. If he has dual citizenship, strip him of the Australian citizenship. He is not left stateless. Let him leave our shores and go back to his own country. We don't want people like him here. This decision has devalued Australian citizenship, giving it to a maniac who plotted to kill thousands of us. As I've said repeatedly in this place, we give citizenship out to people too readily. As I've said in the past, they should be here in this country for eight years to prove themselves worthy of Australian citizenship, so we know what they are and what they stand for. Yet you're reluctant to do this. Some other countries even have up to 30 years. In other countries, you can't even get citizenship. Yet you just bend over backwards to allow them. That's why we have so many students coming into this country, purely as a pathway to citizenship. They enrol in our universities but end up being taxi drivers purely for citizenship, and you allow this to happen. Labor's immigration policy is ridiculous. That's why we need these laws to ensure that they are well-meaning people who value our laws, the rights of this land and every other Australian, not peddlers of the bloody hate that they bring from their other countries. That's why I've said repeatedly that I don't want Islamic terrorists in this country; I want people to be vetted properly so that they will not be allowed into Australia. What is wrong with that? Every other Australian is calling for it. Other people want safety and security on our streets, but they don't feel that it is. The Albanese government must ensure that, the very minute his sentence is completed, this convicted terrorist is deported, never to return, or is otherwise locked up forever—but I'd rather not, because it costs the Australian taxpayer over $120,000 a year to keep him in our prisons. I'd rather get rid of him. This legislation is appropriate for the moment, but, as we saw in Israel, Islamic terrorists are innovative in how they murder, mutilate and kidnap innocents. This has been evidenced in a 43-minute video. Where was the disgust shown with regard to this by Senator Faruqi or the other Greens today? Nothing—absolutely nothing—was said about the clear vision of what happened to these men, women and children. You stand up for the Palestinians. You have no love in your hearts for what's happened to the Israelis. All you want is to support the Palestinians. Also with regard to that, we must be ready to respond with stronger laws and measures if necessary. Why shouldn't we? One Nation supports the extension of police powers in relation to terrorism, as proposed in the bill, and I've got to ask: where are the police on the streets to actually stop these protests? There shouldn't be protest rallies in our streets over what's happening in Gaza with Palestine. What's it got to do with us here? We shouldn't see this, and it's happening around the world. This is orchestrated. And the antisemitism—it is disgusting that we see that happening in Australia. But where are the people who are responding to that? Where are they really speaking out against it? We've had six former prime minister who actually agree about what is happening and about support for Israel. That's what we should be doing, because the people are defending themselves against the terrorism that was committed against them on 7 October, but the Greens and other people around this country don't see that, because they're peddling their own hatred. We support the responsible minister having the power to declare a prescribed security zone to ensure additional security measures can be implemented when and where it is necessary to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack. We note that the minister must give consideration to the impact such a declaration may have on the rights of Australians in the affected area. We're forced to remind the Senate that no such consideration was given to fundamental human rights during the COVID-19 pandemic—nothing. We also note that the bill clarifies the need for parliamentary oversight of these declarations. One Nation supports the extension of the control order and prevention detention order to December 2026. We consider these absolutely necessary for the safety and security of Australian citizens because there is no compromise that may be reached with these maniacs or their treacherous supporters in Australia. We support the use of post-entry warrants, ensuring that police and other authorities can act immediately to prevent a terrorist attack that may not wait for a judge to make up their mind. One Nation strongly supports the use of post-sentence orders against people convicted of terrorist offences. As I noted earlier, there is no compromise with Islamic terrorism. Have a look where is Islam has spread throughout the world. Look at countries such as Egypt and Iran. What's happened to the people there, especially the women? They used to dress Western, like us. They'd show their arms, legs, hair, face and all the rest of it. That was about 50 years ago, in the fifties, sixties, seventies. Now every woman has to be covered up. She can't show her arms or her legs. She's controlled by the men. She has no rights over the children. She is just a—what can I say?—someone who's there to bear his children. No control, and yet you don't care about that here. We allow that to happen in our own country, the women here to wear the full burqa. Where are the feminists? Where are the people defending their rights? They are made to cover up by their menfolk, by their husbands, and here in Australia we're heading down the same path of what it is like in Egypt and Iran. Women over there cannot even walk the streets without being accompanied by a male—can you believe that?—and in these countries like Afghanistan that is their ideology. Hamas is an ideology. It is about wanting to control the world through their hatred and to get rid of anyone who doesn't believe in their fundamentalist views. You don't vet the people enough who come into this country. You don't vet the refugees from some of these other countries enough. You allow them in. You are not hard enough on these women who follow their husbands over there, and you just want to allow them back into the country, the poor darlings, with their children. What has happened? You don't care, because when they come here, they're put in our suburbs where they live beside other Australians. These people will never work. They are going to be on the welfare system for the rest of their lives. They are unemployable. Their views are absolutely not in line with Australian values or laws, and yet you feel sorry for them. They don't feel sorry for us, I can tell you. Remember the word 'jihad', and when the time comes they will call for it. But it won't matter to you because you will be safe in your little nest in your little homes. You could not care less about the rest of the Australian people and what they have to suffer, as we have seen people suffering around the world. We've seen the way the Jews have been treated around the world by these protesters, and it is deplorable and disgusting. I give my full support to the Jewish people. We see them being badgered, threatened and harassed; they can't move freely in their own country, and what is happening to them is disgusting. I feel sorry for them. They are in a country where they thought they would be safe, but they don't feel safe at all. And when I saw the stunt pulled today by the Greens, it made me sick to my stomach that people are actually supporting this regime. We heard Mehreen Faruqi's disgust of Israel and what they have done to protect themselves. Through their retaliation they said: 'We've had enough. We've have had a gutful of this,' and now they are defending themselves. Good on them; I don't blame them. But the fact is that it's a pity that Mehreen Faruqi didn't look at what Pakistan did to two million Afghan people there. They just went in, bulldozed their homes, said, 'Go back to Afghanistan.' What about those people? Where is the fear for them? Oh no, that's right: Pakistan is the country that she came from, so we can't criticise the Pakistanis, can we? No, not at all. Senator Faruqi, I will tell you again: if you don't see yourself as loving this country and abiding by the laws of the country, I have no problem. I will actually take you to the airport and put you on a plane and wave you away because that's how people feel. They want to feel safe in this country. They want values. They want morals, and they want the people who come here to respect our country, abide by our laws and not spew their hatred on our streets and, especially to innocent people. I just want to say that these maniacs will always pose a threat to the Australian community, unless they are locked up for all time to die impotently in a bleak maximum security prison cell if we can't get rid of them from our country or if we can actually stop them from coming here. But the government is reluctant to do that. They're just handing out visas willy-nilly, and then they blame the previous government for all this. But we have got, 100,000-plus visa holders in the country, and we don't even know where they are. You have got another two million people on visas in Australia, and then you have got over 600,000 overseas students in Australia. You have actually overloaded this country and you don't even know who the people are. You have put more people on in Immigration to make sure their visas are processed more quickly to get them into the country, and that is what your government does. You have no regard for the Australian people. It is all about bringing as many of these people into the country as possible to harvest their votes. That is what it is all about. One Nation will always support the strongest measures being taken to prevent and eventually eliminate the scourge of terrorism. I commend this bill to the Senate. 19:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I also thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the recommendations in its 2021 AFP powers report, which informed the measures in the bill as well as the advisory report on the bill tabled 19 October 2023. Recommendation 1 of the 2023 report to introduce amendments to establish a post-entry warrant framework has now been implemented through government amendments moved in the other place. This bill would provide for the continuation of key counterterrorism powers. It would also enhance safeguards and oversight mechanisms for these powers, providing appropriate checks and balances which promote the rule of law and procedural fairness. The bill will extend the sunsetting of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act and the control order and preventative detention order regimes in the Criminal Code until December 2026. This will ensure that law enforcement remains equipped to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and that the provisions are reviewed again within an appropriate period to ensure they are fit for purpose in light of current threats. The bill would introduce critical safeguards to prevent the exercise of extraordinary police powers unless it is necessary and appropriate to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack, and assist oversight bodies in performing their important functions in investigating and reviewing the use of these powers. The bill would limit the power to issue control orders to the Federal Court of Australia and limit the classes of persons who may be appointed as an issuing authority for preventative detention orders to superior court judges. This acknowledges the serious and extraordinary nature of these orders and the significant volume of evidence that must be considered in making these decisions. The bill would require that an issuing court must consider the combined effect of all these conditions in a control order in addition to the appropriateness of the individual conditions. It would also provide that a court can impose any conditions it considers appropriate. These measures would ensure control orders can be better tailored to address the risk profile of the individuals concerned. To allow greater flexibility in ensuring that control order conditions remain appropriate if circumstances change during the life of the order, the bill would enable the variation of a control order, including the addition of new conditions by consent. The bill would also improve transparency in relation to the operation of the post-sentence order regime in division 105 of the Criminal Code by expanding public reporting requirements. Finally, the bill would extend the sunsetting date of section 122.4 of the Criminal Code by 12 months to 29 December 2020, maintaining criminal liability for current and former Commonwealth officers for breaches of approximately 296 nondisclosure duties in Commonwealth laws. This will allow for finalisation of a comprehensive review of the Commonwealth secrecy offences and its consideration by government. The government thanks senators who have contributed to this debate, and states and territories for their engagement, and we commend the bill for passage. Question agreed to. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023 94

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023

Second Reading 94 19:43 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The coalition does not support this bill. The primary objection of the coalition is on the process that is attached to the allocation of the Pacific engagement visa, or PEV as it is now known. As coalition speakers have stated in the debate thus far on the Migration Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which provides for a ballot mechanism or a lottery to be conducted in order to grant the pacific engagement visa, we don't believe permanent residency to Australia and, ultimately, citizenship that would follow should be decided by a lottery. Nevertheless, the Senate and the other place have now passed that bill, and the ballot mechanism will be attached to the Pacific engagement visa. However, as an extension of our opposition to that bill, we'll oppose this bill, reflecting our strongly held view that permanent residency to Australia, which provides a pathway to citizenship, should not be determined by ballot or a lottery. Whilst PALM is an important program and has the strong support of the coalition—which in fact established PALM—the PEV is untested. There have been concerns expressed by some Pacific leaders about the impact of the PEV, particularly given it's a permanent visa. There are genuine concerns that it may ultimately lead to the permanent loss of population or brain drain. Importantly, there are also concerns that, as a consequence of that permanency, it may reduce remittances back to Pacific island nations. Remittances from PALM workers, of whom there are about 40,000 currently in Australia, have been important to sustaining whole communities across the Pacific. Remittances now form a big part of GDP and economic activity in PALM source countries. We already know that this government has no inflation strategy. Indeed, under this government, Australia's inflation is now higher than in most advanced economies. Australians know this all too well. They know that, over the past more than 15 months under this government, the cost of food has gone up by 8.2 per cent, the cost of housing is up by 10.4 per cent, the cost of insurance is up by 17.4 per cent, the cost of electricity is up by 18.2 per cent and the cost of gas has gone up by 28 per cent. We know that the government has no budget strategy. The Albanese Labor government has delivered two budgets which could have included decisions to ease pressure on inflation, help take pressure off interest rates and help Australians. But Labor hasn't done that. Labor has in fact only added to inflationary pressure. We don't believe that Australian taxpayers should be facing the additional financial costs associated with this bill at a time when there are absolutely no signs of the government getting on top of the issue of most concern to Australians, which is the cost of living. 19:47 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Australia's Engagement in the Pacific) Bill 2023, and I do so in the knowledge that the Pacific Islands Forum is underway this week and that our Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, is expected shortly to fly in. I also do so in the knowledge that the call from Pacific island nations and their leaders is very clear and stark. That call is for Australia to actually take the climate crisis seriously, to stop publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels and to stop approving new fossil fuel projects. Of course, the reality in this place is that, right here, right now, today in the Senate, the major parties have colluded to stitch up a dirty legislative deal on behalf of Santos, one of the major members of the gas cartel in this country. The stark, harsh reality in Australia is that the fossil fuel lobby have got their hooks into the Labor, Liberal and National parties, and they've got them in deep. They've got them in through the mechanisms of political donations and the revolving door—which has existed for a long time, exists today and will, unless we do something, exist into the future—whereby politicians and their senior staff roll out of this joint, after years in here doing the bidding of the fossil fuel companies, and into cushy, plum jobs in the board rooms or in senior executive levels at those very same fossil fuel companies, or into public relations or other consultancy firms advising those fossil fuel companies. We all know it, colleagues. Let's call it out for what it is: corruption. That's what it is. That's why, when our prime Minister, Mr Albanese, arrives at the Pacific Islands Forum this week, he's going to ensure that the communique that comes out at the end of that forum is watered down. You can bet London to a brick on that outcome. Australia is most emphatically not going to allow a communique to come out of the Pacific Islands Forum with Australia's name on it that talks about not subsidising fossil fuel companies or not approving new coal and gas projects. We know that, where new coal and gas projects are concerned, this Labor government in Australia falls over itself to approve them. Australia is one of the biggest net carbon emitters in the world. When you factor in our exports, we are in the top handful of net carbon emitters in the world. It's all very well for this government to come into this parliament and legislate a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, consistent, I might add, with more than two degrees of global warming. The stark reality is that this government is continuing on the calamitous trajectory that the former government had us on, and that calamitous trajectory is to a future where we are at risk of having an unliveable planet, where we are at risk of billions of people being displaced from their homes, where we are at risk of the ecological systems that ultimately provide the relatively stable climate that we've all enjoyed here in our lifetimes and that people have enjoyed around the world coming to an end. If you don't think it's coming to an end, look at some of the temperature records that are being set month after month, year after year. Look at the reduction in the glaciers. Look at the reduction in the ice sheets. Look at the melting of the tundras. Look at the bushfires. Look at the floods. If you can't see it happening, folks, you're just not paying attention. I think you can see it happening, but you don't want to acknowledge it. That's what I think. That's what I think the cognitive dissonance is in this place. That's why the Australian Greens will be moving an amendment to the second reading on this legislation, which would, at the end of the motion, add the words: … but the Senate: (a) notes the advocacy of Pacific leaders that the greatest threat to the wellbeing of the region is the threat of runaway global heating caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator Scarr, on point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 On relevance, Madam Acting Deputy President—I've seen the amendment which has been circulated by Senator McKim, which he's speaking to. I'm not expecting you to make a decision now—I'm happy for you to take it on notice—but under standing order 118: An amendment may be made to any part of a bill, provided that it is relevant to the subject matter of the bill … Whilst I'm aware that these things can be interpreted liberally, in this case, Senator McKim's amendment does not relate to social security at all. It doesn't relate to an immigration matter at all. It is my submission that, if this amendment were accepted, then it would be possible for any amendment on any subject matter to be crafted and attached to any such second reading motion. On that basis, I request that you take this matter under advisement and come back to the chamber with respect to whether or not it's relevant under standing order 118. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Thank you, Senator Scarr. Senator McKim? Senator McKIM JKM As I was saying, the amendment that we intend to move adds the words at the end of the motion: … but the Senate: (a) notes the advocacy of Pacific leaders that the greatest threat to the wellbeing of the region is the threat of runaway global heating caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas; and (b) resolves that Australia must: (i) not open up any new coal mines or gas fields; and (ii) remove the billions of dollars spent each year subsidising the exploration, extraction and burning of fossil fuels". The reason this amendment is critical is that it beggars belief that our Prime Minister is going to fly into the Pacific Islands Forum this week and attempt to convince Pacific island leaders—some of whom are facing an existential threat to the survival of their nation-states due to sea level rise and the risk that their countries are going to disappear off the face of the earth and under the waves of the Pacific—that publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels at the same time that our climate is breaking down around us is actually a good idea and something that should be supported by them. As I said, what's going to happen is that Australia and Mr Albanese will, I have no doubt, ensure that the communique is watered down and that any mention of ending the approvals of new coal mines or gas fields is either removed or so watered down as to be meaningless. I know that the Pacific engagement visa, which is one of the visas that this bill relates to, has been promoted by the government here in Australia, including by Foreign Minister Wong, as part of our engagement with what they describe as our Pacific friends. They are our Pacific friends, but, if we wanted to really be friends to the Pacific nations, we would stop approving new coal and gas mines in Australia. If we really wanted to be friends to our Pacific neighbours, we would stop spending billions of dollars a year encouraging the burning of fossil fuels in this country. That's what a real, true friend to Pacific island nations would do. But we're not going to do that, because, when push comes to shove, Australia is a better friend to the greedy, ecocidal fossil fuel corporations than it is to our so-called friends in the South Pacific. We are better friends to the psychopaths running those fossil fuel corporations than we are to our neighbours in the South Pacific. That is the fundamental and sad truth that we have to accept. When you've been in this place for long enough and have listened to and watched what happens in this place closely enough, there can be no argument that that is the case. It is undoubtedly the case that big corporations effectively run this parliament, because the major parties—the Labor, Liberal and National parties—are too craven and too cowardly to stand up to them. That's the problem that we are facing, and that is a problem that won't be solved by this legislation. Acting Deputy President Hughes, I listened to Senator Scarr's point of order, and I'm sure you'll take that matter on advisement. Notwithstanding that, I move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes the advocacy of Pacific leaders that the greatest threat to the wellbeing of the region is the threat of runaway global heating caused by the burning of coal, oil and gas; and (b) resolves that Australia must: (i) not open up any new coal mines or gas fields; and (ii) remove the billions of dollars spent each year subsidising the exploration, extraction and burning of fossil fuels". I assure Senator Scarr that there'll be an opportunity for the matters he raised to be considered, because I won't be putting this to a vote tonight. I'll ensure that that doesn't happen, because I do respect the point that he made, even though my firm view is that it will be ruled in order. But time will tell, Senator Scarr. I want to say, as I draw this contribution towards a conclusion, that the matters I've raised here are obviously extremely serious. They are matters of existential survival for some of the nation-states in the Pacific. The Greens did support the Pacific engagement visa legislation, and I want to place on the record that we will be supporting this legislation before the Senate as well, because we do believe that we need to do more to assist our neighbours to come here and receive support here and to encourage them to build lives here. But we need to do much more than that if we're to be true friends to them in the Pacific island region. Senator Scarr 282997 On a point of order: I referred to standing order 118. I think perhaps that it was 114 that I intended to refer to. ADJOURNMENT 96 ADJOURNMENT Cost of Living 96 20:00 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Senator Scarr, I'm sure you're very good with your procedure, and I'm glad that you corrected the record. That's always helpful for a procedural debate of this kind in the Senate. But tonight I am here to talk about one of the most important investments that our government has made, and that is the one into Medicare. After a decade of denial, delay, rorts and scandal under the previous government, Australians finally have a government that is working for them. At the top of mind for our government are Australians, and we recognise the pressure they face under rising cost-of-living pressures. Our government understands that Australians are looking to us to take action, and we are committed to doing just that. Last week the Albanese Labor government implemented the largest investment in Medicare in its 40-year history, with the tripling of the bulk-billing incentive, which will make it so much easier for families to access a bulk-billing doctor. Our government wants to ensure that every Australian can easily find a bulk-billing doctor, and that's why we have taken action. By increasing payments to a bulk-billing GP—for example, in my hometown of Cairns it's increased by 46 per cent—it incentivises more GPs to offer bulk-billing services. Doctors' groups have called this a 'game-changer', and GPs have said that this will help them maintain and even shift back to bulk billing, meaning it will now be easier for around five million children and their families and seven million pensioners and other concession cardholders to access a doctor. Together, these patients account for three out of five visits to the GP. As a mum of a little girl myself, I understand the difficulties and anxiety that come with your kids getting sick, especially when it happens on a Saturday. In Far North Queensland, and regional Queensland more broadly, it can be especially challenging to find a doctor when you need one the most. Our investment is designed to address this problem, providing more bulk-billing options for families to access it when they need it, whether it's for urgent or routine checkups. Our $1.5 billion indexation boost to Medicare payments has also come into effect, meaning that we've delivered the largest increase to Medicare payments since Paul Keating was prime minister, delivering a larger increase in one year than the former government delivered in seven years. This is in sharp contrast to Peter Dutton's year-long stint as health minister. His legacy of cuts to, and neglect of, Medicare put it in its worst shape in 40 years. When Peter Dutton was health minister he made it harder for Australians to see doctors, and no-one will forget when those opposite tried to destroy bulk billing altogether by proposing a $7 GP tax for every patient on every visit. Bulk billing is the beating heart of Medicare, and only Labor governments will defend it and invest in Medicare. But it isn't only Medicare that our government is investing in to help ease the cost-of-living pressures without adding to inflation. In fact, that's point 4 in our $23 billion 10-point plan to address cost-of-living pressures for our economy. On top of investing in Medicare, we are providing relief for electricity bills—a move that those opposite voted against. We're making child care more affordable, ensuring children get the best start in life and parents can return to work sooner or work more if they choose to do so. We're providing rent assistance increases. Medicines are more affordable and accessible. Income support payments have been boosted, and we're delivering fee-free TAFE training across the country, making an enormous difference for students who want to study but have never had the chance before. Our government works tirelessly every day to alleviate the pressures that Australians are facing, even in the face of the Liberal and National parties, those opposite, and their staunch opposition to these changes. They voted against electricity bill relief. They have talked down fee-free TAFE, and they even opposed cheaper medicines. On this side of the chamber we are dedicated to making life better for all Australians, and we will continue to do so day in, day out. We are working hard for all Australians because we understand that cost-of-living pressures are top of mind for those households, and that's why they're top of mind for our government. Senate adjourned at 20 : 05