2024-07-04 2 1 0 Senate 0 0

Thursday, 4 July 2024

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 2595 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Warrington, Mr Michael (Wally) 2595 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, I have a very important message to inform you of this morning. As some of you may be aware, today marks the last day for Michael—but we really know him as Wally—Warrington, who has assisted us in the chamber over many, many years. Wally joined the Senate department as an attendant on 17 November 2009 during the 42nd Parliament. Wally has continued with the chamber team, providing support to senators for very nearly 15 years. Wally has quite an impressive record. He has served five presidents, two clerks and four ushers of the Black Rod. Wally has also been present for five openings of the parliament and the swearing-in of four governors-general. All of us have first-hand experience of Wally's professionalism, dedication to his work and provision of service to the highest standard. I am sure that all senators will join me in thanking Wally for his exceptional service to the Senate and wishing him a very long and happy retirement. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! DOCUMENTS 2595 DOCUMENTS Tabling 2595 BUSINESS 2595 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 2595 09:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business order of the day no. 70 (Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024) be considered today at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. BILLS 2595 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) 2595

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2)

Second Reading 2595 09:03 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I stand to speak in support of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2), which is co-sponsored by Senators Waters, Lambie and Thorpe. Beyond these co-sponsors, this bill has broad support from much of the crossbench. Along with an identical bill introduced in the other place, this bill has the support of no fewer than 29 MPs and senators. I want to give particular mention to Kate Chaney, the member for Curtin. Ms Chaney has worked tirelessly on drafting this bill and on pushing the government to undertake critical electoral reform. The 29 of us are just the most recent parliamentarians in a rich history of crossbenchers pushing for electoral reform, recognising that we have an incredible democracy in this country and that we can and must improve it. For decades now, the crossbench has recognised the deep and significant flaws in our electoral laws and the need for reform. Following years of advocacy, the government has indicated that a package of reforms is finally coming, and I am grateful to Minister Farrell for his engagement on this issue and for the Labor Party's agreement that the territories are underrepresented in the Senate. I look forward to working constructively with the government on electoral reform. This is a bill that seeks to restore trust in our democracy. At its core are four fundamental principles: transparency, truth, minimising financial influence and ensuring a level playing field. Building from these principles, the bill delivers on what Australians want to see in their democracy. Voters deserve to know who is funding their candidates before they vote. Voters should be protected from outright lies in political advertising. No individual should be able to influence the outcome of an election. Voters deserve a competitive choice in candidates, and new challengers should have a fighting chance to get their message to voters so our democracy can continue to evolve. I know and acknowledge that the government accepts many, if not all, of these propositions. Again, I would like to thank the Special Minister of State for his work on electoral reform. I think I can speak on behalf of the crossbench in saying that we stand ready to work constructively and in good faith to deliver electoral reforms that strengthen our democracy. One of the concerns of the crossbench is to ensure that electoral reform maintains a level playing field and does not entrench incumbency. We have a competition problem in this country; this has been well canvassed in the Senate. From supermarkets to banks to airlines and many other markets, we're dominated by large players that freeze out challengers, and the result is higher prices, less choice and ultimately a broken market. In many ways, our democracy is no different. Until recently, the dominance of the two major parties was near absolute. But Australians want change. They want challengers with bold ideas and the energy and dynamism to pursue them. For the major parties, a more diverse parliament presents an opportunity to prove to Australians why they should stick with the majors. They should welcome the additional competition and use it to strengthen our democracy and our democratic institutions. But I'm concerned that increased democratic competition is not being seen as an opportunity by all. I'm concerned that it is being seen as a threat. In embarking on electoral reform, I urge the major parties to put the health of our democracy ahead of self-interest. Electoral reform must not benefit incumbents and major parties at the expense of challengers, small parties and Independents. Overdue reforms to things like fundraising and spending at elections must not be shaped to the advantage of big party machines in order to disadvantage dynamic new players. Our communities want to see a reduction in the power of big money in our political system; that much is clear. No-one thinks it's good for our democracy when someone spends tens of millions of dollars to influence an election. That's why the bill introduces a major donor cap, preventing anyone from donating more than two per cent of the total public funding from the last election. What I hear from members of the community I represent is that they want big money out of politics in Australia, but they also want more transparency around who is spending money to fund political parties. Transparency in political donations at the federal level is currently a joke. Some $259 million have poured into political parties in the last financial year, yet we know very little about the sources of much of the funding. In fact, the source of 27 per cent of Labor's income is unknown. That's roughly $23 million worth of dark money fuelling their political machinery. The coalition, not to be outdone when it comes to raising cash, received some $27.5 million in dark money. Even if we just look at the roughly $160 million in declared funding to the major parties, it's impossible to distinguish between political fundraising and other sources of income. Business forum memberships and fundraising dinners mean that Australians don't know who is buying access to their politicians. I argue that they have a right to know. Over the last 20 years, 21 per cent of all private funding to the major parties came from undisclosed sources. When it is disclosed, the time lag before voters know who paid for election spending is as much as 18 months. This isn't good enough, and it is way out of line with community expectations. At a time when bank transfers are instantly visible for just about every Australian, an 18-month delay makes no sense. This bill fixes disclosure requirements so voters know who is funding political candidates in time for it to inform their decision at the ballot box. I'm hopeful that this sort of transparency will be adopted by the government in any upcoming reform. But voters deserve more than just transparency; they deserve truth. Elections in Western democracies are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the influence of bad actors telling outright lies. In the last election I was subject to a malicious campaign from the group Advance Australia, who manipulated a photo of me to make it look like I was part of a political party. The photo was then plastered all around Canberra in an attempt to discredit me. These kinds of lies are just the tip of the iceberg. AI is opening up a whole new range of possibilities for the creation of deepfakes and for other uses of generative AI models to mislead and deceive voters. To address this, the bill adopts a model of truth in political advertising used at the state level in South Australia. It's a model brought to federal parliament by the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, in her Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Stop the Lies) Bill 2022. The government must act quickly to address the increasingly brazen lies told by those with little respect for our democracy, and this bill proposes a model that we know works. While the bill does not specifically address the use of artificial intelligence to create deepfakes and voice clones, I urge the government and the Senate to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency and rule out the use of deepfakes and voice clones in elections. Our democracy is too precious to allow this level of deception, as has been seen in elections around the world. I want to end by speaking to a section of the bill particular to the ACT and the Northern Territory. At our national birth in 1901, part II of the Constitution set out that each state was to be provided an equal number of senators. A significant reason for this was the need to safeguard smaller jurisdictions against being dominated by a democratic majority. This is why there are as many senators for Tasmania in this place as there are senators for New South Wales, despite Tasmania having about seven per cent of the New South Wales population. This was a wise decision from the authors of our national birth certificate. It means that, despite representatives of smaller states being vastly outnumbered in the other place, the Senate offers protection to these smaller states from decisions that threaten their interests. But territories are not afforded the same protection. In 1975 a deal was struck to grant two senators to each territory. It was a political deal based on a calculation that each major party would get two more representatives, but the calculation did not address the core question of what baseline level of democratic representation is appropriate for the territories in the Senate. It overlooked a deeper consideration of the appropriate balance between federalism and representative democracy. As a result, territorians are denied protection and our legislatures suffer from interventions from the federal government. The historic violations of territory rights are a stain on our democracy. Here in the ACT, we suffered 25 years of discrimination that prevented territorians from accessing voluntary assisted dying. Someone who lives in Tuggeranong should have the same say about their community and life as someone who lives across the border in Queanbeyan, but, until just recently, this was not the case, and I thank senators on all sides of this chamber for their support in legislating the Restoring Territory Rights Bill in late 2022. But attempts from this chamber to reach into territory issues continue. Less than a year ago, we had the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 before the Senate. That bill was yet another attempt to prevent the ACT government from making laws that impact ACT residents only. This federal overreach has to stop, and part of the solution is providing territories fair representation right here in this chamber. This bill would provide territories with half the number of senators of the states. In doing so, it strikes the right balance between federalism and representative democracy and would finally provide territorians the safeguard we deserve. Any electoral reform package from the government must include improved territory representation. Our electoral laws underpin every decision made in this chamber. They determine who makes these decisions and who can influence the decision-makers. We know that trust in our democratic system has been declining not just here in Australia but globally. To rebuild this trust, we must ensure that voters believe their representatives are making decisions in the public interest, in their interest. This bill seeks to inform the conversation that I hope will take place between the government, the coalition and the crossbench on how to achieve this. With the support of dozens of crossbench members and senators, the bill represents a model that we hope can be built on. But, in doing so, I again urge the government to be mindful that Australians want to see more diversity and competition in our democracy. This is a very good thing that we should embrace. Electoral reform that seeks to entrench the incumbency advantage and lock out new entrants is not in line with community expectations. Australians want our democracy to flourish with additional competition and more diversity, greater transparency, and protection against lies. Again, I thank the crossbench for their work on this bill and acknowledge crossbenchers who have come before us and have pushed this for decades. I commend this bill to the Senate. 09:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm aware a number of senators want to make contributions about this, but I want to set out the government's approach to this issue and make a couple of comments. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) proposes amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which is the legislation that, for most of the period of Federation, has governed our elections and political system. I listened carefully to Senator Pocock's contribution, and there is much of it that I agree with. Much of it goes to the same issues that the minister has been engaged in discussions about with parties and members and senators across the parliament. I do say, though, that self-interest is not monopolised by the political parties; self-interest is also a feature of the way that Independents engage with this process. We ought to be honest about that. Everybody has their own interest in this process, including Senator Pocock and his crossbench colleagues. There is nothing wrong with having a set of interests that are prosecuted in this, but it is always better when that is articulated clearly and sits alongside a conception of what the public interest and the national interest are. There's nothing wrong, as I say, with self-interest. There is also nothing wrong with people making donations into the electoral system or spending money in the electoral system, subject to some of the transparency considerations that I'll deal with in a moment. Indeed, Senator Pocock's electoral campaign for the Senate in the ACT was a $1.8 million campaign. That is extraordinary expenditure in an ACT campaign. That is just the fact. Senator David Pocock 256136 $1.2 million. Senator AYRES 16913 One point two, he says? I don't know whether that means there's a bit squared away for next time, but the point is that everybody in the system will spend money in an election campaign. That is the nature of the system that we're in, and it's about governing that appropriately. In this case, if we're to protect freedom of political communication, that does involve a pragmatic acknowledgement of contributing to print flyers, paying for advertising, boosting your social media posts and engaging with your own social media posts. Who can forget, 'Great work, Angus; well done'? That is part of political communication. I don't say that there's anything wrong with Senator Pocock's $1.8 million election campaign. I just think we've got to be open and transparent about it. As he says, the Labor Party, too, spent money in the ACT election, and we spent money in every contest that we participated in. But it should be properly regulated. That is in the public interest. The Labor Party has had a long-term interest in electoral reform and in the proper administration of elections. We believe that is not only in our interest but also in the national interest. In the 1980s it was the Hawke government that introduced measures to require disclosures of political donations over $1,000. Consistent with that approach, making a contribution to a political party, to a third-party campaign or to an independent party campaign is a mode of political communication and, indeed, free speech. We want a stronger democracy where unions, community groups, individuals and private sector organisations are participating fully in the democracy in a transparent and accountable way. Of course, subsequent changes by the Howard government have caused this to blow out. Today donations up to $16,300 don't need to be disclosed, and this threshold will increase again at the start of this financial year. I think everybody in the community—except, potentially, Mr Palmer—would agree that a donation of $16,000 is a large donation. That is something that the government will move to address. Even after a donation of that size has been made, voters don't find out who has supported a party in an election until well after the event. That is not fair dinkum. With no guardrails on how much can be donated or spent in an election, we have indeed seen billionaires attempt to sway Australian elections, not through policy or participation but through money and misinformation. Mr Palmer, in the last few elections, has spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money in an effort to have an impact on decision-making in the Australian parliament. We have clear commitments to improve transparency and accountability across our electoral system. Despite these deficits, we do have an electoral system that we can be proud of and that we should be proud of. It is the envy of the modern world. But our system isn't perfect, and it can and should be strengthened. That is why the Special Minister of State, Minister Farrell, is determined to reform the system and improve transparency in our democracy, and he will continue to engage across the parliament on those questions. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Reform has provided a broad set of recommendations for improving the system and how it encourages and supports voters. JSCEM's interim and final reports make clear that we must act on money in politics. The key reforms are in three areas: lowering the disclosure threshold, real-time disclosure, and caps on election donations and expenditure. For my own part, it appears to me that real-time disclosure reform in the Australian system will have a very positive impact on our democracy. There is no reason parties and actors in the system can't be compelled to immediately disclose donations upon receipt. As I said, there is nothing wrong—in fact, we should encourage it—with individuals and organisations participating fully in our electoral system. When the O'Farrell government in New South Wales acted to ban political donations, I and a number of my colleagues came back down here to Canberra to the High Court. I never thought I'd find myself as an applicant in the High Court, but there I was. It was about that principle, once again, that freedom of political communication involves a capacity to donate, and to spend money in politics was protected by the court. I'll perhaps leave for another day comments about the relationship between this important set of reforms and a series of other issues that go to the relationship between the ACT and the Commonwealth parliament. We are determined, and the minister is determined, to get this work done and to work across the parliament to produce a good result that is in the national interest. 09:28 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The coalition holds that electoral changes ought to be assessed on four key principles: fair, open and transparent elections; equal treatment of all political participants; freedom of political communication and participation without fear of retribution; and recognition of freedom of thought, belief, association and speech as fundamental to free elections. Australia's success as a liberal democracy is reliant on the effective operation of the Australian Electoral Commission and the federal government more broadly to satisfy and uphold these four principles. Ensuring that Australians have continued faith in the electoral system is paramount to Australians' faith in its institutions of government. The coalition will not support attempts to legislate amendments to the Electoral Act that are targeted at supporting certain political participants or types of political participants. Rather, the coalition contends that all parties and candidates ought to be treated equally and that legislation ought to aim to encourage political participation, not thwart it with regulation. Indeed, legislation ought to improve our democracy for all Australians, not support partisan interest. As such, on behalf of the coalition, I say that this wide-ranging, ideological thought bubble of a bill proposed by the crossbench reads more like a suggestion at the end of a student union article than a piece of federal legislation. The 60 pages of partisanship from this crossbench are recognised by the coalition as a gerrymander. This bill is a 'teal-mander'. This bill wants laws that aim to prohibit what Australian citizens can and cannot say during the political process, it wants laws that prohibit who can and who cannot participate in the political process and it wants to increase the number of territory senators, because that's what the people of Australia are crying out for at the moment: 'We want more politicians, we want them now, we want them to get high salaries and we want them to stay in Canberra.' The coalition wants more diversity in our political process. Senator David Pocock said that one individual should not be able to influence the outcome of an election. This is where we fundamentally disagree. One individual does determine the outcome of an election. That's the voter. There are millions of them, and what we should be doing in this building is encouraging the voter to have as much choice as possible and not allowing the left-wing majority to set up a 'teal-mander' that determines what voters can and cannot hear. The coalition holds that freedom of speech is an inalienable right of the Australian people; the crossbench does not. The crossbench believes in freedom of speech only if that speech reinforces their own views. The coalition strongly opposes the introduction of measures that purport to adjudicate truth in political advertising or political discourse. Freedom of speech and the contestability of ideas among political parties, political candidates and voters are necessary. Indeed, they are a strong requirement for a healthy liberal democracy. Distinguishing among truth, opinion and falseness in the context of electoral matters is an inherently subjective process and one that is best left to those who know. And that is the Australian people. The federal government and its bureaucracy, no matter how independent or qualified they are or how many degrees they have, have neither the scope nor the ability to adjudicate truth in election campaigns. It is inappropriate for any government body to censor political parties and candidates in their communications, let alone censor the Australian people, as this bill aims to do. Part 3 of this bill states: A person must not print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed, electoral matter or referendum matter if the matter contains a statement in relation to a matter of fact (including an implied statement) that is: (a) misleading or deceptive to a material extent; or (b) likely to mislead or deceive to a material extent. Let the voters decide that. Don't let a bunch of bureaucrats decide that. Let the voters determine what is correct and what is not correct. The crossbench wants to prohibit not only what a political party can say but also what a person can say relating to electoral matters. This mob want to censor your Facebook, your Instagram and anything that you communicate out there, because they don't like what you say. They want you to put forward only arguments and suggestions that agree with their very swivel-eyed view of the world. Later in the bill the crossbench requires that the Australian Electoral Commission be the body that arbitrates what political parties can do or say, but it doesn't say what role the Australian people should have in that process. Just think about this in terms of how elections are run. The body tasked with ensuring that the Australian people uphold their belief in our electoral system is now going to be tasked with telling the Australian people what they can and cannot say. Then this body is going to be tasked with punishing Australians who breach such regulations. This is not truth in political advertising. This is a prohibition on the freedom of speech. So what's going to happen? Are the teals going to set up a teal police force to go around the country and snoop into people's Facebook pages, snoop into what candidates are saying and, with a giant paddy wagon, a teal coloured paddy wagon, arrest people because they've put forward views, ideas or suggestions that the teals have an issue with? Indeed, the electoral commissioner himself said: As for truth in advertising, I don't want to advise parliament. If parliament tells us to do something, we'll do it. But I use this opportunity to point out that truth in advertising was actually part of the Electoral Act when it was first passed in '84. It lasted for about eight months before it was removed for being unworkable. The joint standing committee considered this again in '97 and decided not to make that recommendation as part of its considerations. They said that they were worried about the impact on the neutrality of the AEC. So there it is. The electoral commissioner, a wise, independent, politically neutral person, does not want a bar of truth in political advertising or it to go anywhere near the AEC because Commissioner Rogers understands the damage that will fall upon the AEC should it suddenly become this teal police force that's responsible for charging Australians who breach freedom of speech. Australia's democracy and its elections should remain a marketplace of ideas. If candidates, political parties or Australian citizens make statements or release positions that are viewed as inaccurate, it is the role of the media, civil society and other political actors to contest such statements, not prohibit them. This country is built upon the principle of freedom of speech, and now we have proposals before this Senate that wish to limit freedom of speech. The schedule attached to this bill is ill thought out. No country strengthens its democracy by censoring its political parties, let alone censoring its own citizens. The coalition believes in the inalienable right of all Australians to be free and to speak their mind. This bill attacks that right. Another aspect of this bill that the coalition strongly opposes is its aim to prohibit donations from groups that the crossbench cabal classify as entities that inflict social harm for profit, and they list tobacco, fossil fuel, gambling and liquor business entities. What they're saying is that Kev who runs my local pub—the Darling Downs Hotel, the Sandy Creek Pub, which is the de facto community centre for my district of Queensland—can't give money to a political party. I don't know who Kev votes for; that's his business. But this bill wants to stop a publican, who employs locals, from giving money to a political party. How completely mad and un-Australian is this! Not only do the teals want to stop people from having freedom of speech; they want to stop people from giving money to a political cause of their choosing. That is just wrong. It also poses the question: How do we determine what groups are committing social harm? How do you define social harm? Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? Surely we're on a slippery slope here. Soon the teals, because they're a bunch of vegetarians and vegans, will want to ban butcher shops. They won't want butchers donating money, because of the social harm of the meat industry. Senator McGRATH 217241 Senator Cadell talked about farmers. We know that the Greens and the teals don't like farmers; they don't like the agricultural industry. They'll want to stop farmers from giving money because the evil farmers are clearing land and putting all the CO2 into the air, with their cattle. This is a slippery slope, and this is why this side of the chamber fundamentally believes in freedom, the freedom of speech and the freedom to give money. If candidates or political parties accept donations from certain groups, it is up to those candidates or political parties to be held accountable for those donations. And those donations are released on a regular basis. People can see who gives money to which candidate or which political party. Good. That should be the case. We believe in transparency, but we do not believe that any group should be restricted from giving money on the basis of a nebulous term called 'social harm'. I know how the Greens operate. The Greens political party is a horrible political party. They are an un-Australian political party. We see how they fail to condemn the vandalism of a sacred site in this country. This Greens political party wants to stop farmers and publicans from giving money to a political party, but they won't condemn the vandalism of the Australian War Memorial. This is where we are in this country. There is a fight on. There is a fight on for those who are pro Australia, for those who believe that the principles that uphold our Constitution and the principles that uphold our Liberal democracy are the principles that have made Australia the great country that it is today. Yes, we can always be a better country; yes, we can always do things better; and, yes, our history is not perfect, but, for this parliament to suddenly decide to restrict freedom of speech means that those men and women whose names are on the War Memorial a couple of kilometres from where I speak, who gave their lives for freedom of speech, what sacrifice have they made when it means that this building, this chamber, wishes to limit those freedoms? Of course, the Greens political party don't care because they're quite happy for war memorials to be defiled, because the Greens political party are hypocrites. They will abuse the freedoms that Australians have died for in order to take away those freedoms from current Australians. The coalition will always look at proposals to enhance Australia's democracy, but we will not support any proposals that will bring in a financial gerrymander or a political gerrymander or a 'tealmander' that limits the ability of one side of politics or a class of voters to participate in our Liberal democracy. 09:43 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland That was quite the wild ride. I might bring us back to the actual substance of the bill that we're dealing with. I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No.2). It is a bill that I'm co-sponsoring with many of my crossbench counterparts, Senators Lambie, Thorpe and Pocock. I note that it's a bill that's also been replicated in the other place under the sponsorship of Kate Chaney MP, who joined us in the chamber earlier, and a number of other MPs and senators. All up, we have 29 crossbenchers, Greens and Independent MPs who think that we need to clean up our political system so that it starts working in the interests of people and democracy rather than vested interests and political donors. The Greens have been calling for election reform for decades now. I also stand in tribute to the work of former Greens leader Senator Bob Brown and Senator Lee Rhiannon, who worked tirelessly on these issues. Unfortunately, progress has not been made, because the two large parties keep colluding to make sure that no change ever occurs. The last election in 2022 was dubbed the integrity election, but so far we haven't seen any real action from this government to improve transparency, to implement truth in political advertising or to curtail the influence of dirty industries and those with a vested interest that seek to buy outcomes for their own bottom lines. So I am pleased to work with a crossbench that's bigger than ever before and to have reached agreement with them on a pathway forward for electoral reform. This bill has rules about truth in political advertising, lowering the disclosure threshold for donations so you can see who is paying whom and changing the definition of 'gift' so that fancy dinners and business roundtable subscriptions are no longer secret and are no longer hidden dark money. It includes a donations cap. It includes a ban on donations from the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, the alcohol industry and, importantly, the fossil fuel sector, something that the Greens feel very strongly about. It bans donations from people seeking contracts from the government or who have already received a contract from the government. It includes limitations on the government using publicly funded advertising in the lead-up to an election. It moves to include more senators in the territories and has a handful of other pro-democratic reforms. This is a comprehensive bill. It demonstrates that the government has a pathway through this parliament, if it wishes, to actually legislate some reforms to clean up politics. This bill is an invitation to the government to work with the crossbench and the Greens to fix the system. We have been waiting quite some time for this bill that the government keeps saying is coming. We keep getting promised drafts of the bill. We are getting into election season now, folks, and we have seen absolutely nada. That scares me, because I am of the view that the two big political parties are in close talks to stitch up some 'reforms' that might look great on their face but have the impact of shoring up their flailing political support. That's why the crossbench and the Greens have worked together to propose this bill, which is a comprehensive bill of reforms that would actually clean up the system. This is an invitation to the government to do the right thing and make good on the promise that it made at the last election to fix our democracy, to try to get the influence of big money out of politics, to try to remove the vested interests, to try to curb the influence of lobbyists in this building and other reforms that would improve outcomes and would make sure that it is human beings, communities and the planet that are represented in this chamber rather than those with means that seek to use those means for their own private benefit. We are ready to progress reforms, but the government doesn't seem to have any appetite for real reform. We have seen reporting and we have heard rumour after rumour of a government bill, but we still don't have a draft bill. The popcorn keeps getting served and it keeps going cold. Where is your bill? Any reform which limits donations to anyone who challenges the Liberal and Labor parties whilst protecting the establishment parties' sources of income will be nothing more than a stitch-up undermining democracy and the public's expectation of fair play. I do note that both big parties continue to accept huge sums of money from dirty industries with a track record of seeking to buy favourable policy outcomes. My view is that that's why we see such paltry action on climate, no action at all on gambling and very limited action on housing. Of course, what's been proposed would benefit property developers. Neither of these large parties wants to upset their donors. That's why we at the Greens will continue to work to ban political donations from industries like fossil fuel, gambling and tobacco to buy outcomes from this place. Senator WATERS 192970 Would you like to have a go? You are not on the speakers list, but I'd welcome your contribution. The Greens will continue to push to stop political donations from those industries. I might make particular mention of the fossil fuel industry. They're not fussy about who they donate to. They make donations to these three political parties here—Labor, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. I might add that the coal seam gas companies are particularly generous to the Nationals, which might be why they've gone quiet on protecting farmland. These coal and gas companies make big donations to those political parties, and what do they get? They get $10 billion every year in public money in the form of fossil fuel subsidies. That was continued in this budget by this government. That was continued when the other mob were in charge. It is bipartisan support to use taxpayer dollars to make it easier for the coal and gas companies to make megaprofits while they cook the planet. They're using taxpayer dollars to do that. My view is that the fossil fuel companies use their donations to ensure that they continue to get that taxpayer support and, frankly, it's a pretty good return on investment for them. They also make promises of post-parliamentary jobs to MPs, and we often see that resources ministers, who've held the portfolio of allegedly regulating these industries, five seconds after they leave the chamber, are working for those industries that they were meant to be regulating—in fact, they were simply cosying up to them. That revolving door between lobbyists, industry and MPs' offices needs to be firmly closed, and any reform that we may eventually see from government—and I really hope we do see it; we've been waiting for two years now—must include a ban on fossil fuel companies donating to political parties, otherwise there will continue to be, in my view, the reality or, at the very least, the perception that this place is for sale to the highest bidder and that those bidders are the polluters. We can fix that, and we should. I note that the South Australian government has recently announced some state-level reforms to ban political donations. That's very interesting because, of course, that's where the Special Minister of State hails from, and we drew some hope that perhaps this might be a harbinger of what was to come. But, unfortunately, there's still crickets. I do note, in relation to the SA reforms, that we've got to make sure that third parties aren't ignored, and those reforms don't propose to regulate the donation activities of third parties, but we also need to make sure smaller parties and Independents are not stifled, because diversity is vital for democracy. There's never been a more important time for donations reform. Our democracy is at risk and public trust in parliament and politicians is at an all-time low. The community feels less and less confident that their representatives represent them rather than simply do the bidding of their corporate donors. And it's no wonder. The big four consulting firms have donated more than $4.3 million to both sides of politics over the last 10 years and they have got $8 billion in government contracts in the same time. There's a bit of a coincidence there, folks! It's a very good return on investment for the big four and it's a terrible deal for rest of us. But regardless of the source or the amount, the obvious expectation from corporations is that donations will return results for their bottom line. They're buying outcomes. They're not just donating because they like democracy; they're doing it because they can see that it helps them and that it's in their interest. This feeds the public perception that decisions in our parliament are made improperly, with self-interest and the interests of donors and mates consistently overriding the public interest. Frankly, our system is one of legalised bribery. The public should not have to rely on corporations opting to no longer donate to political parties because some scandal has exposed corruption or a dodgy deal. Money shouldn't be able to buy government contracts or development approvals or political access or political influence. That is exactly why, last year, after a series of bills to ban donations and to clean up the system, I eventually introduced the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023, which is a bill that says that if you're seeking a government contract or an approval from government—say, an environmental approval—you shouldn't be allowed to donate for a year before you seek that or for a year after you've sought or received that. People who are seeking favours from government should not be allowed to donate at the time when they are seeking the government's favour. I thought that that might have been the lowest common denominator that we might be able to get agreement on in the chamber. It's certainly not enough. It's the bare minimum reform, but I naively thought that maybe the big parties would come at that sensible reform. I was sadly disappointed. They did not agree on the basic principle that decisions about allocating government resources should be guided by the public interest rather than the influence and interests of donors. But we live to keep fighting on these matters, as we have for decades now. The public deserves to see where money comes from, and they deserve to see that before elections. As folk would know, there's currently only one day of the year, 1 February—it's the one time in the year—when we get to find out just how much social harm and other polluting, dirty and vested-interest industries are paying for their influence on the government. We've got to wait for the Electoral Commission to publish this data once a year and, still, more than a third of all donations fall below the disclosure threshold, which is currently $16,300. There are all sorts of things, like membership fees and cash-for-access events, that are not classed as donations, so they stay hidden from public view. Where are the reforms for more transparency and for real-time disclosure that the government promised? Again, surely these are the barest minimum, yet we still haven't seen legislation proposed for those things. We strongly support real-time disclosure requirements on political parties and on lobby groups seeking to buy outcomes for their own private profits. We also desperately need truth in political advertising laws. I can't quite fathom why you're not allowed to lie in an ad to sell a product but you are allowed to lie in a political ad to sell your idea or to sell your party's principles. That makes no sense to me, and people deserve better. We heard a quite heroic and, frankly, far-reaching contribution from the former speaker, who was conflating free speech with the ability to lie in political advertising. I didn't quite follow the logic there, but he was giving it a good go nonetheless. I don't think it's a limitation on freedom of speech that you shouldn't be able to lie in a political ad. People deserve to know what you stand for and they deserve to have clear and truthful information when they're making their decision about which party or Independent best aligns with their values and which of those people deserves their vote. Instead, we've had some confected outrage that somehow this is an attack on freedom of speech. Actually, it's a defence of truth. I do want to note that the way in which third parties—in particular, charities—are dealt with is crucial. Charities have been the subject of attacks by former governments. They work in the public interest and they should not be treated in the same way as cashed-up industry lobby groups. As we saw with previous electoral reforms by the former government, treating charities like lobby groups would silence community voices and would have a chilling effect on public interest advocacy. The Greens supported amendments to protect the charity sector then. We continue to do so now, and we will continue to do so in the future. It's important to have that on the record. All year, Labor has used the JSCEM process as an excuse for rejecting the Greens' and the crossbench's private members' bills for electoral reform on all sorts of things, like truth in advertising, donation reform and transparency, and increasing territory representation. They've used this as a cover, yet they still haven't stumped up their own bill. People are desperate for a parliament that actually represents them and that is more diverse. They don't just want the Coles and Woolworths politics and they're sick of not being able to tell the difference between the two major parties on so many of the big issues that matter to them. That's why support for the larger parties is falling, and it's exactly why the government now have a choice: they can stitch up a deal with the opposition or they can work with the crossbench for genuine electoral reform. The crossbench is saying to the government: 'You can get electoral reform through this parliament. We will work with you on that if your reforms are fair, and we'll actually improve outcomes for the community and strengthen our democracy.' The Greens have been campaigning for decades to clean up our democracy. It is time for the government to come to the table and work with us and the crossbench to ensure that politicians work in the public interest, not in the interest of their donor mates and not in the interest of shoring up the diminishing support for the two-party duopoly. 09:57 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I don't expect this bill to pass. It's not that I don't think the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) is a great bill and one that every Australian voter deserves, finally. It's because the Labor Party and the Liberal Party will join together to vote it down for their own interests. There's a simple reason for this: they don't want Australians to be able to see into the dark corners of their dirty, filthy political donations. They especially don't want any attention on the entities both parties use to launder their dirty election money. Australians know about those fundraising dinners where businesses turn up and pay thousands of dollars to sit there, usually for a dinner where you have an alternate drop—you have salmon on one side and chicken on the other, and by the time it gets to the table it's cold. That's right; you'll pay 10 or 20 grand for that. Seriously, what a sucker for punishment you are! The big prize is getting to sit next to a minister or even the Prime Minister. You might pay a bit extra for that but, don't worry, they'll take every cent of it. The money from those fundraisers goes into entities—let's call them shelf companies, because that's what they are. Then the cash is funnelled wherever they like, to whomever they like, and, Australian voters, you are none the wiser, although I suspect you are waking up to this. The bill broadens the definition of 'gift' to cover all monetary and in-kind payments, including the fundraising dinners and the so-called business forums. That's right; you pay for them too. Don't worry; you'll get a cheese board at them. It'll cost you 10 grand as well. Good on you! You're really getting your money's worth. Membership fees also funnel into these parties. No doubt someone from the red team is about to jump to their feet and start bleating on about the electoral reforms that Peter Malinauskas, the Premier of South Australia, has just brought in. Seriously, wake up, South Australians; here's one for you. You have been absolutely blindsided. The wool has been pulled over your eyes, South Australians. I know you're smarter than this. The South Australian Premier says he wants money out of politics. That would be great if it was true—if you actually made them go and earn their seats instead of buying them. Wouldn't that be fabulous? Imagine the democracy we'd have in this country. But these so-called world-beating laws lock in more money for the major parties and lots of perks for the sitting MPs. Australians, while you're all out there doing it tough, they want more perks—yay! According to Anne Twomey, the highly respected constitutional lawyer: The funding … not only favours incumbents, but also has the effect of favouring the government … What's new? You're looking after yourselves. These reforms give sitting MPs—that the Premier of South Australia—80 per cent of their per vote public funding in advance, amounting to $4.6 million for major parties even before the elections. They haven't even won their seats, they haven't even done that and they're already paying themselves. How about that? Ask Tasmanians what they think about that. Ask what happens in a state election when you run. You don't get any money back. My God, if you mention that in Tasmania there would be an absolute uproar. It's like mentioning toll fees on our roads. Your government's finished. They didn't have the guts to do that because they know very well they're finished. But to make them pay upfront—Jesus, what's the South Australian Premier on? What are you on, mate? His proposed reforms also change the definition of 'gifts' so that professional services are not counted as 'gifts'. It keeps getting better, doesn't it? In other words, big accounting or legal firms are allowed to contribute to a sitting MP or major party and it wouldn't be counted as a donation. How about that? Like we don't already have enough problems with outsourcing—and the filth that's going on there. Guess what? This doesn't apply to Independents or teals, and I assume it doesn't apply to the Greens. There are funding caps in these laws, but they don't apply to third parties who give to the majors. That's right. They forgot about the third parties. There are layers and layers of them, Australians. These are the entities that can funnel dark money back into the coffers of major political parties. All up, the Premier's reforms would get South Australia's major parties over 15 million bucks of your taxpayer cash each election, before they've even won their seats. If you think this is a great idea and that the Premier of South Australia is doing you a favour, open your eyes, South Australians, because he's not. He's setting power up for himself and the Labor Party and the other one there, the Liberals. That's what he is doing to you, South Australians—taking your money because he doesn't care. Even when things are really economically tough, he's over there trying to sell this rubbish. The states' major parties have a nasty habit of designing electoral laws to feather their own nests—what's new?—while, once again, locking out Independents and microparties. Apparently we shouldn't be in parliament with the swill that lives up here in the background. They're the ones. In the last election, the primary vote for both major parties fell. At least one-third of Australians didn't vote for you. That's what the South Australian laws are all about. They are designed to favour the major parties, making it harder for people like me to be elected. According to wide reporting, that's exactly what the federal Labor Party's electoral reforms will also do. Minister Don Farrell has been out there spruiking the Labor government's intention to bring electoral reforms to the federal parliament. All he is doing is selling a dud to Australian voters. It's beyond feral what he's trying to do to you voters out there; I'll be honest with you. Guess who the South Australian Premier's mentor is? Have a guess! It's Minister Farrell. That's right: Minister Farrell and Peter Malinauskas are from the same faction of the South Australian Labor Right. Peter Malinauskas, when it comes to voting reform, is nothing but the muse of Minister Farrell. That's what you South Australians are getting: an absolute dud. If Minister Farrell takes the same approach to public funding as his protege, Peter Malinauskas, this would mean $254 million of Australian taxpayers' money, while you're out there doing it tough. And these guys over here reckon they know how to win an election. The majority of that money would flow only to the major parties, Australians. If this government is really serious about levelling the playing field, they would jump on board this crossbench bill today because it is fair for all. It's getting to a point where the only way you're going to make it in politics is if you go with one of the major parties or you've got 10 million bucks in your bank account. That's the only way you're going to win a seat unless you're already established as an independent or a microparty. Nobody else is getting in here; you're not even getting a look in. There'll be no more of those preference deals where you can pick up 0.5 per cent and make your way up over the other little microparties. Malcolm Turnbull took that away from you. They took that opportunity away from you as well. There's no way for you to make your way up here. This bill also tackles truth in political advertising. But, of course, the red team won't see this—absolutely not—and neither will the blue team, because they don't really want more transparency. Transparency's not in their veins; it's just not there. They don't want to make things any fairer for normal Australians to have a shot at getting up here, and making a difference—those with real life experience who haven't come through prestige education making their way up here without earning it. They want to lock down their power with your taxpayer dollars; that's what they want to do with your dollars, Australians, at an economic time like this. What a disgrace! The majors tried this before in 2013. But, backbenchers, I remind you once again—and it's a worse economic situation now—the backlash from the public was absolutely outrageous. They were absolutely outraged, and you dropped it. If you think it was bad back then, try your luck today. Imagine all of us—the teals, the Independents and the Greens—putting in $10,000 or $20,000 each and running ad after ad in newspapers for weeks. Imagine how much damage that would do to you. I'll tell you what, there's talk of it; we'll do it. I'll chuck my 20 grand in; I'm happy to. I'll tell Australians the truth. I'll be open and honest with them, because that is what they expect. That's what I'll do. As Laura Tingle and Phil Coorey wrote back in 2013: Both major parties have suffered a fierce public backlash after it was revealed on Monday night they had been secretly negotiating for more than a year a package of donation reforms which also included the generous extra public funding. A few months ago I asked Minister Farrell if he had done a deal with the coalition to pass legislation that would effectively lock in electoral laws that would financially benefit majors. He said no. If Minister Farrell was telling the truth then he should show the Australian public he's fair dinkum and back in this bill. If he doesn't, the small amount of faith Australians still have in the major parties will keep falling and voters will turn in ever greater numbers to Independents and micros. Be my guest; try your luck. I'm keen. Bring on your bill; let's see what you've got. Let's see how the public feels about that. We will fight you out there and press at every turn. And, if you think that's going to win you more seats in the next election, once again, be my guest. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 2605 BUSINESS Rearrangement 2605 10:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That on Thursday, 4 July 2024: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm: (i) Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024, (ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, (iii) Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024, (iv) Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024, (v) Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024, (vi) Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, and (vii) Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded. 10:10 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move, as an amendment: Omit paragraph (a)(iii), relating to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. This amendment would seek to pull out the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 from the guillotine. There are two reasons we say that this is essential. The first is that this is an important piece of legislation. I think all of us recognise that, if Defence is given a budget of three-quarters of a trillion dollars over the next decade, there needs to be far greater oversight on that three-quarters of a trillion dollars worth of public money than there has been to date. We've seen scandal after scandal after scandal in defence procurement: the disastrous Hunter frigates project; the $5 billion that Defence managed to spend on not getting French submarines; the $5 billion they're giving to the United States for US workers and dockyards; the $5 billion they're, potentially, giving to Rolls-Royce because those poor people at Rolls-Royce need Australian taxpayers' money to build nuclear submarine parts; and the $5 billion that Defence is gambling on the life of time extension project for the Collins class submarines, which a retired US deputy secretary of their naval department has said is speculative, is highly contingent and may well fail. It's hard to know where you end the list of defence procurement disasters which have happened, because, whether it's Labor in government or the coalition in government, whether it's Labor in opposition or coalition in opposition, the usual practice is that the club doesn't hold Defence to account. The club just signs off on whatever new funding fantasy Defence comes up with and pretends that Defence can achieve it. We know that Defence is squandering billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars of public money. I've just underestimated how many billions worth of public money Defence is squandering. And the reason they're able to get away with it is that the 'defence club of the war parties', Labor and the coalition, just sign off on whatever nonsense Defence puts in front of them. Whenever they see a bit of gold braid in front of them, they go to water. They pretend they're tough on Defence until somebody strides into the room with a little bit of gold braid on their shoulder and then there's this obscene subservience from both the Labor party and the coalition: 'Oh, Sir! Oh, Madam! How much money can we give you? Does it go "whoosh"? Will it go "bang" at some point? Oh, that's great! You can have the money.' The idea that another secret committee populated just by Labor and the coalition will in any way hold Labor to account is just ridiculous. But there is a worse problem with this. There is a real chance that, with the creation of yet another secret committee—where Defence can have their secret chats and get their secret billions for their secret weapons that we all know secretly won't work or Defence won't be able to deliver or will arrive 10 years later and do half of what was promised—that secret committee will be used as a reason to squash even more any effort to hold Defence to account in any public forum. Defence will use that secret committee to refuse to answer even more questions in Defence estimates and to refuse to answer even more questions on notice. They'll say: 'Oh, no, no, no. We've already discussed this in a secret committee with the war party club, and they're fine with it.' That is a real danger, not just to taxpayers and expenditure but to national defence, because it turns out an incredibly secret club-based decision-making process has made us less safe. Two decades of this nonsense on submarines has given us a $20 billion hole. I'm trying to think how many submarines we got in the last 20 years—oh, zero. We've given $5 billion to the French for no subs, $5 billion to the US for no subs, $5 billion to the UK for no subs and $5 billion trying to keep the Collins class going for another 10 years under an experimental project. How many new subs have we got? Zero. It's not only bad for scrutiny but bad for any sense of national security. This is the same bizarre club, the war party club, that signed off on a $45 billion Hunter frigate project even though a whole bunch of people in Defence said, 'This contractor can't deliver, we've never seen the ship, it might topple over in a heavy sea and it won't be delivered on time.' That's what some people in Defence said, but they were ignored by the war parties, they were ignored by the previous Defence secretary, Richardson, and they were ignored by the current Defence secretary, Moriarty, who, for some reason, wanted to deliver a $45 billion project to one British contractor called BAE. Despite all the warnings, bang, the war parties signed off on it. The current secretary signed off on it. I think we were meant to get nine frigates for $45 billion. Now it looks like we're going to get six frigates, and guess what the price tag will be? It's $45 billion and counting. How do we know the price tag will be $45 billion? It's not what we've been told by Defence. Defence are desperately trying to hide that figure from Australian taxpayers. We know about it largely because the Audit Office has had to squeeze out little bits of information about it in the most scathing assessment you could ever see of a procurement project. Let's be clear: the $45 billion on the Hunter frigates is to date the single largest procurement contract ever signed by the Commonwealth, and it's a disaster zone. How many Hunter frigates do we have? You'll be pleased to know we have the same number of Hunter frigates in service as we have new submarines: zero. There's not one. This isn't just a procurement problem; this is a national security problem. The same war party club have signed off on offshore patrol vessels. Offshore patrol vessels are meant to be the simplest possible ship you can make. They're a little bit bigger than a patrol boat and a hell of a lot smaller than a frigate. They signed a contract with two multinational arms dealers to make them. Those are meant to be pumped out first of all in Adelaide and then moved across to Perth. That contract was meant to be having offshore patrol vessels in the water and in commission years and years and years ago. Guess how many offshore patrol vessels are currently in commission after having spent more than $1 billion on the project? The exact same number of offshore patrol vessels are in commission as new subs and new Hunter frigates: zero. There's not one. Yet this $4½ billion mess continues. I think Defence have spent the better part of $800 million trying to work out if they're going to put a gun on the ship. Initially there was going to be no gun. But some people in Defence said, 'You can't have a ship without a gun,' so they decided to put an old, renovated gun from a retired class of vessel on it. They spent a couple of hundred million dollars doing that and redesigning it. Then someone in Defence said: 'No, the old, renovated gun won't work. We need a new, shiny gun.' So they spent a couple of hundred million dollars more to put a new, shiny gun on it. Now it looks like that new, shiny gun is going to be too expensive and not much use on it, so they're going to take the new, shiny gun off it, and we're back to where we were three years ago, with no gun on a ship that the surface fleet review report says nobody knows what to do with. It turns out the offshore patrol vessel is too big to do patrol boat work and too small to put in any kind of conflict zone. They don't know what to do with it, but they're trying to come up with a plan for it. Defence have a plan to have a plan to maybe use this ship, maybe with a gun or maybe without a gun. They're not quite sure. Guess how much we're spending on that? The better part of $5 billion. Do we think that a private club run by the war parties, who have created this disaster zone to date, is going to help to hold Defence to account? No, absolutely we don't. But the more fundamental thing is to create this private club, which most of the crossbench are excluded from. We've heard the coalition say they absolutely don't want questions like this from the committee and they absolutely don't want the Greens on it, because what a danger to national security it would be if questions like this were asked in the sub-committee! The real danger is that Defence will use this to avoid answering any more questions in estimates, and we saw that already, in the last estimates round, from the Chief of Navy. When hard questions were being asked about the billions and billions and billions of dollars squandered on the AUKUS submarine project, the Chef of Navy said words to the effect: 'I feel awkward answering these questions about our disaster, in public. I'm hoping we get a new secret place where I can give those answers to avoid ever having to answer tough questions like this in public again.' Senator Lambie 250026 That sounds like them at the royal commission for veterans. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I note the interjection from Senator Lambie. Do we think this should be decided by a guillotine without debate? Absolutely not. That's why I moved the amendment. 10:21 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand to make a contribution on the amendment that has been moved by Senator Shoebridge. I think the bigger issue here is: what are we actually doing here again? We're here again because we are under a guillotine, or that's the proposal that's been put forward. I want to put on the record that, if you have a look in Odgers' and at Senate procedure, it's clear: … a majority of the Senate may agree with the declaration by a minister that a particular bill is urgent. We have had so many guillotines in this place over the last few months, and I would contend that you could hardly say every one of the bills that was subject to a guillotine was urgent. So I'm interested to understand what the government's determination of 'urgent' is. What are guillotines to be used for? They're to be used to: … provide finite debating times for a particular bill or to bring protracted debates to a close. Well, it's hardly a protracted debate if you haven't had any debate at all. A guillotine is: … most frequently imposed at the end of a period of sittings when the time available to deal with complex or copious legislation is running out. I would have hardly thought that bringing on a guillotine on the first day of the sitting fortnight means it's for complex, copious legislation or because we're running out of time. So it appears, from looking at the definition of why one would put legislation under a guillotine, that that is not the purpose for which this government is seeking to use this particular provision that is contained in the standing orders. They're seeking to use it as a standard management tool for the running of this particular chamber. In doing so, they're trashing the conventions of many, many years that have served this place well and enabled this place to run on an understanding that legislation is able to be debated and allowed to be scrutinised, that there is a level of transparency around it and that we have the opportunity to refer it to committee. There are a whole heap of reasons you would not put legislation under a guillotine, but it appears that that is no longer the view of the government. As I said, they're using this as a standard practice. There's nothing urgent about anything that we've got here today. In fact, the Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 is listed to, in a minute, go into non-contro legislation, which would hardly suggest that it is terrifically urgent. There has been agreement around the chamber that many of these bills will be passed today, but, no, we're going to cut the neck off them just because we don't want to debate. Today's guillotine is probably not the most egregious use of the guillotine that we have seen in the last few weeks because, as I said, many of the bills are largely not controversial, although I respect the fact that the Greens are seeking to remove one of the bills because they clearly have an issue with it. But we've seen a number of very high-profile bills shoved through this place in an attempt to avoid scrutiny and transparency. And don't forget this is a government that went to the people of Australia at the election in 2022 saying it was bringing in a new type of government: transparency was going to be at the centre of everything it did. But nothing could be further from transparent than what we have seen from this government. I'll just raise a couple of bills that we've seen go under the guillotine—but they haven't gone under the guillotine at the end of a period; they've gone under the guillotine simply for the purpose of not allowing debate, transparency or reference to a committee. Just this week, there's the live exports bill, which is going to impact 3,000 farmers, mostly in the state of Western Australia. They've got a compensation package that is going to provide little more than $15 million a year to those farmers. We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that this industry is worth, and they're going to get $15 million a year or thereabouts under this package of compensation that's being proposed by this government. I mean—really? More money was spent on the Mad Max movie than was spent on compensating the 3,000 farmers in Western Australia. And let's not forget that Australia rides on the sheep's back; it always has. That is like a euphemism for our agricultural sector, which is constantly being destroyed. All that was asked for by the sector, by the farmers, by their supporters in Western Australia, by rural and regional communities and by the coalition on this side was, 'Could we have an inquiry?' The premise on which the government put forward this piece of legislation was based on something from a very long time ago. We all saw the terrible footage, back in 2019, when we had a terrible catastrophe with a live export ship going into the Middle East. Since then, the sector has gone to extraordinary lengths to now be regarded as the gold standard for the rest of the world in animal standards. But here we've seen no ability for the sector to put to this parliament the reasons it believes that the live export trade should continue. There was the guillotine, and that was the end of that debate. The week before, exactly the same thing happened on vaping. The government sought to put a bill through here. They sought, at the last minute, to make a significant change to that bill, with no consultation whatsoever with anybody apart from the Greens. And because they didn't want scrutiny on that bill, instead of allowing it to go through a normal process—to come in here and let the people who have been elected by the Australian public to be in here have their say—we just got a short period of time in which people could put a contribution on the record about it, and then, boom! That one was also cut off before we could have any scrutiny. It really is quite amazing, the length this government is prepared to go to in order to avoid scrutiny. Who could forget Labor's guide on how not to answer questions in the Senate? I cannot believe the audacity of this government—that they would actually put in writing to their members and their bureaucracy how not to answer questions. I would have thought a government that had built its reputation on supposed transparency would actually want to answer those questions. Let's not forget; if you're proud of what you've done, you should be proud to put what you've done into the public arena. As I said, we have seen the guillotine used absolutely wantonly by this government. But, as a general rule and a general principle, at the end of a sitting period, when you're about to go on a protracted break, there is a sort of unwritten convention that we can put through legislation under a guillotine. So the opposition won't stand in the way of this guillotine today, for that very reason. But I want to make it very clear that any other time a guillotine is brought into this place—and it's being brought in time and time again, on bills that are not urgent, and it is being used now as a measure to avoid transparency and scrutiny—the opposition will not support the guillotine under that particular premise. But we will begrudgingly accept this one today. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Hypocrite. An honourable senator: Acting Deputy President, can she withdraw that? Senator Hanson-Young I0U I will withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Hanson-Young, you have the call. 10:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to the debate on this hours motion and concur with the comments made by my colleague Senator Shoebridge in relation to the defence committee bill. What a disgrace! I know what's going to happen here. The coalition is going to squawk about what they want, the government will fold, and, low and behold, we will have a committee that looks after the two big parties rather than looking after the actual defence of Australians and transparency. I want to raise, in particular, the egregious addition of the prominent anti-siphoning bill to this guillotine list. We know why this is in here. This is in here because both the government and the coalition are doing the dirty work and the bidding of the Murdoch press and News Corp. That is why this is listed in this hours motion today. It will ram through a bill that is going to make it harder for millions of households around the country to be able to access sport for free, to be able to watch their favourite sporting teams on their phone or their smart television without having to pull out their credit card and pay Mr Murdoch for the privilege of barracking for their own team and to participate in the joy that is part of a national religion in this country, which is celebrating the wins and commiserating the losses of our key sporting moments, our key sporting teams and our incredible athletes. I thought the coalition may have had a bit more spine than simply ramming this bill into a guillotine motion and think that no-one would notice. We are noticing, and we have noticed that you've done nothing to ensure that everyday Australians have access to sport for free and that people in regional areas, in particular, will have access to sport for free. What this bill does is say: if you've got a television with an old-school aerial, yes, you'll be able to watch key sporting moments on your television, but if you happen to be one of the millions of Australians who use a smart television or your phone or your tablet, bad luck. Why? Because the big corporations and the big streaming corporations—like the American companies Netflix, Amazon and News Corp—want you to be forced to hand over your credit card details and to sign up and spend hundreds of dollars a year just to be able to watch your favourite footy team or the cricket. We've got the Olympics coming up over the next month. Imagine if this bill goes through unamended, in a few years time Australians will be locked out of being able to access the Olympics because Amazon decides to buy up the rights or Kayo—by the way, it's owned by Murdoch—decides to buy up the rights. It is just unthinkable that a Labor government is doing this to everyday people. And young people in particular are going to cop the brunt of this, because we know that our younger population doesn't sit at home wondering about how the aerial works. If they want to watch something, they whack out their phone or they pull it up on their laptop. This is the way of the world. It is 2024. Everything is moving digital, and we need laws in this country that are fit for purpose. I saw the National Party went weak and went to water. They pretended they cared about this issue for five seconds, and then they went to water. They are gutless. They couldn't stand up to Dutton, couldn't stand up to Mr Murdoch and have now just rolled this in for the Labor Party. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Point of order— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I must have hit a nerve. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I'm anticipating a point of order with regard to the correct usage of names. I'll give the call now to you, Senator Scarr, to raise your point of order. Senator Scarr 282997 If Senator Hanson-Young could refer to members of the other place by their proper titles, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 That is what I thought your point of order was going to be. Senator Hanson-Young, could you be mindful in your comments? If you're going to refer to the Leader of the Opposition, use his name with the correct 'Mr' in front of it. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Mr Dutton is good mates with Mr Murdoch. What is happening here is that the National Party have gone to water. They have gone to water because Mr Dutton has said, 'We've got to make the big corporations happy and so we'll tick this one through with the Labor government and Mr Albanese.' This is an opposition party who can never bring themselves to actually debate topics properly. They have been blocking everything else that this government does, but as soon as Mr Murdoch picks up the phone and calls in they go to water. So National Party voters across the country should know that the National Party has sold them out. Their television stations are becoming fewer and fewer. They're getting less and less news in local areas, and now they're not even going to be able to watch the sport. What is the point of the National Party if, every time they are up against a challenge, they fold? It's called bitching and folding, whining and folding. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Hanson-Young, I ask you to consider the standards that are required. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I withdrew. It's called whining and folding, rolling over and being spineless and gutless. What is the point of the National Party? Bring back Barnaby Joyce as the leader. I reckon he would have at least stood up for something. He would have actually stood up against this. He probably would have. Mr Barnaby Joyce probably would have stood up to Mr Dutton on this issue and actually stared them down. But he has been gagged, hasn't he? He has been gagged because the Liberal Party and the Labor Party know that, if you want to be government in this country, you have to bow to Murdoch. You've got to kiss the ring. That's what's going on here. It's a disgrace. Everyday Australians are losing access to sport. It's locked behind paywalls. It's going to cost them hundreds of dollars a year. This is an absolute disgrace. It's weak, gutless and pathetic. 10:37 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I am rising only briefly to make one point about this routine of business variation. That is about a bill that's missing from this list, that somehow didn't make its way onto the government's suggested agenda for the guillotine. It's surprising because it's a bill that the government has told us, time and time again, is urgent. In fact, it was so urgent that, when it was introduced in March, we were told that it must be passed in 36 hours and that we couldn't have a Senate inquiry to consider this bill because it was so urgent. The government eventually relented and allowed us to have a two-hour hearing but only on the expectation that the parliament would consider it within 72 hours. So where are we? Several months on, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 has not made it onto the government's agenda for this week. They have not listed it on the program. Given the opportunity of a guillotine, to list bills that they consider to be urgent that must be passed before the parliament rises for the winter break, they haven't listed it. Why not? The Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neil, in March, when the opposition teamed up with the entire Senate crossbench to refer this to an inquiry, said that we were delaying this, that it was going to do great harm to our national security and our community safety, that it was a disgrace, that we were standing in the way and playing politics and that this was so urgent that they couldn't possibly allow the community to have their say on this bill in the orthodox and standard way through a parliamentary inquiry. And yet the parliament has now sat in March, May, June and July and, before we are to rise for a long winter break, this urgent bill that must be passed hasn't even made it onto the agenda. So that raises the question: was this bill ever really urgent in the first place? Was the real urgency of the government that they didn't want scrutiny of this bill, that they didn't want human rights groups, multicultural groups, legal experts and others to scrutinise this legislation, that they were worried about what would happen on their left flank if they tried to push through this bill, which may have even been introduced for political purposes, ahead of a High Court hearing that they couldn't be guaranteed would go their way and subsequently did and therefore the urgency has passed? For the record, the coalition has offered to work with the government on this bill. We, with Senator Scarr and others, provided a dissenting report on the Senate inquiry that made constructive suggestions about how this bill could be improved and about how due process could be restored to the powers that it proposes to grant to the minister for immigration. We've had further meetings with government. We've had amendments drafted and we've put those to the government. What have we heard in response? Radio silence, crickets, nothing. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs, when asked about this bill at a press conference the other day, said that it was up to the opposition to facilitate its passage. It's pretty hard to facilitate the passage of a bill that's not even listed on government's program. It is your bill. You need to introduce it. If you want it to be passed, put it on the Notice Paper. Maybe even take the opportunity of the guillotine that you're moving today to list this bill so the parliament can consider it. We've said time and time again—and I'll repeat it today—that we think there's a genuine public policy problem here that needs to be solved. We do have people who refuse to cooperate with their own removal after being found by every court and every tribunal not to be owed protection. We believe that the measures in this bill can help address that problem, and that's why we've offered to work with government in a sensible bipartisan way to get it passed, with some amendments, to make sure some basic elements of due diligence and parliamentary scrutiny are introduced into that process. But the government hasn't brought it forward, and it's really up to them to explain what has happened to this urgent bill. Why has it disappeared? Why haven't you put it forward? Have the courage of your convictions. Either put forward the bill that you said was urgent for the parliament to consider or admit that you never had any serious intention of legislating this bill, that it was just a political smokescreen to protect yourself against a potentially adverse High Court ruling and that you are in fact walking away from and abandoning a bill that you told us we must ram through this place in 36 hours. 10:41 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I note Senator Lambie will be moving an amendment to government business notice of motion No. 1, which I support, but I want to offer some comments on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024 that is subject to this guillotine today. This is clearly a bill that deserves further scrutiny in Committee of the Whole and some time for the Senate to ask questions and flesh out some of the remaining questions and issues. I'm confident that we all support the intention of the bill but, looking at the range of the amendments that have been circulated, clearly, there are some issues that the Senate wants to iron out. This is a bill that jams a digital reform into an analogue-era law and, in parts, it is clumsy. It expands the anti-siphoning list so that people can watch more iconic sporting events for free, but only if they have an aerial. We know that more and more people are watching TV through their smart TVs or over their NBN connection—if you're in the ACT, maybe not over your NBN connection. If you have an aerial, it is probably fine, but if you're going to be living in a new build without an aerial or if you're watching sport on a device, then this won't work for you. It's just going to see sporting rights put behind a paywall, and I really fear that means that a huge chunk of people who can't afford a subscription are going to miss out on events that unite us as a country—events that make us proud, events that offer a collective sense of participating in or watching something, such as cheering on our Olympians or your favourite team. One of the things that I think is particularly clumsy about this bill is that, on the one hand, the bill recognises that more and more of us are going to be watching TV via an app but, on the other hand, it does nothing to make sure that the same safeguards that we have when we watch television through an aerial are applied to the technology that's evolving as more and more people watch on an app—on their phone, on their laptop or through their smart TV—and I just want to give the Senate some tangible examples. Recently, my office did a sweep of complaints through the alcohol advertising regulator, ABAC. We found Grey Goose vodka ads during Sunrise at 8.30 in the morning. Senator Hanson-Young I0U At 8.30 in the morning? Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Yes, at 8.30 in the morning, Senator Hanson-Young. Smirnoff ads were shown to 10-year-olds watching the Amazing Race at 6.30 pm. Beer ads were playing between performances from the Wiggles and Cinderella. How's that for a target audience! Truly a mind-blowing number of ads were shown to children watching LEGO Masters with their families. This includes ads for Gordon's gin, Johnnie Walker, Baileys, Jack Daniel's and Vodka Cruiser. None of these ads would be allowed if you were watching through your aerial on your old-school television. But more and more Australians are watching through their smart TVs, with streaming and video on demand, and there are no rules. Hence, we're getting dozens and dozens of complaints from concerned parents who are tuning in to LEGO Masters and then having to sit through Gordon's gin, Johnnie Walker, Baileys, Jack Daniel's and Vodka Cruiser ads with their eight-year-olds. Why are we allowing this to happen? Why are we allowing this loophole to continue? This legislation does nothing to close that loophole, despite the government acknowledging that this is a problem. It's a problem, but we're not going to fix it in this legislation. There are simple amendments to actually force the industry, as they do with terrestrial television, to come up with a code and enforce it. What happens with all these complaints from dozens and dozens of parents is that they complain and they get a response saying, 'There are no grounds for your complaint because there are no rules because the parliament is currently failing your children.' We can fix this today during this guillotine. I'm keen to also have a quick look at gambling. We also had a look at complaints made to Ad Standards and found an absolute clanger. If this doesn't make you think that the rules as they currently stand—and as they'll probably be after this guillotine, because the major parties don't seem to want to address this—need to change, I don't know what will. This was an ad that played during LEGO Masters via the 9Now app before 8.30 pm. So rest assured that there would have been a lot of young people watching. It was an ad for a pokies app literally named Hit it Rich! before 8.30 pm. This ad depicted a woman in a panda onesie hitting it rich and winning big on a pokies app. It even showed an inducement in the form of a welcome bonus. Then—this is the kicker—it failed to display a gambling warning after the ad. So you're sitting there watching LEGO Masters with your kids. They love LEGO. They're always hassling you about the big LEGO sale here in the ACT or to get down to the toy shop and get the next set of LEGO that they can put together. You're being shown an ad for Hit it Rich! that says, 'Play some pokies on an app. You'll get an inducement,' and there's no warning that this is actually a gambling ad. What's that doing to our kids in a country where we're seeing more and more problem gambling, where we're already the biggest losers in the world? It's no surprise. Again, we could fix this today in this chamber, and I urge my Senate colleagues to do that. It's hard to argue that LEGOMasters is not a show for children. We've seen some advertisers try and argue that, but, at the very least, it's a show for families. Again, it's particularly egregious that it didn't even show the required warning, and this complaint—quite unbelievably, I think—was dismissed because there are no laws about gambling ads shown on free TV apps. My question to the Senate is: is this within community standards? I've had so many people reach out to me who say that they feel it isn't—that they would like to see us deal with this. We have a bill that touches on it. I have an amendment that deals with it in a sensible way that's in line with what we do with terrestrial TV. If you're watching through an aerial, there's been a process where they come up with a code and then they enforce it. Everyone knows the standard. If you break it, you're held to account. If you want to stream TV through an app, it's a free-for-all, with no rules. There's no standing for people to make complaints and for them to be heard. I fear that we will see this guillotine supported by the major parties, we'll see amendments that actually deal with this be voted down, and tomorrow night young people are going to be shown alcohol ads and gambling ads. It's hard to believe. This leads into the point that, over one year after the Murphy review, there has been no response on gambling. So I probably shouldn't be surprised that we don't want to close this loophole as a Senate—the majority of the Senate don't want to. I really express my serious concern about this guillotine and not dealing with this incredibly important part of this legislation. 10:51 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I have a proposed amendment in relation to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024. I can assure you that, like many other things in this place, this bill can be improved with a bit of thought about the best interests of Australians rather than the best interests of big business, just for once this morning. That'd be delightful to go on the winter break with. My amendment will seek to strengthen the prominence and antisiphoning framework to help Australians easily access free-to-air television programs and sporting events. Seriously, it's a no-brainer, because Australians deserve to see what is free and to be able to see the sport and the teams that they love without having to sign up to a streaming service. The government will not be supporting these changes and I can tell you that neither will the other side, the blue team. They've already done the deal together. They don't care. They don't care that you're going to pay more. They don't care about your kids and the sporting heroes that stand in front of them. The average Aussie household already spends around 50 bucks a month on streaming services. I imagine that will get less, because things are extremely tight out there. Your government over there has been promising to lower the cost everywhere it can, right across the board. You're not doing a very good job of that. There's a lot of talk and no action. You should be doing everything that you can to lower streaming prices and the cost of living for people around this country, rather than encouraging households to fork out money to watch sport and other programs for your own benefit because you're too scared to take on the Murdochs. That's the truth of it about both of you. Both of you don't want to take on Murdoch. God forbid they might put something terrible about you on the front page of the Australian! Most people don't give a stuff about the Australian. I'll be honest with you: they couldn't care less. Most people don't read the rubbish. Most people don't read newspapers across Australia anymore. They just don't care. They are more interested in the Kardashians than they are in Murdoch. Under the current bill, the prominence rules will make it easier to find new sport and Aussie shows on smart TVs. But get this, Australians—it's a great day for you today—it will only apply to people who have enough money to buy a brand-new TV. That's right: you may be doing it tough already, but hey! Race out and get a brand-new TV! I'm sure that would be great for the inflation rate, eh? These changes completely ignore the fact that—you might want to do your homework—just one in 10 households have changed their TV in the last six months. There's no money. Normal people out there don't have spare cash, and you don't want them spending anyway—remember?—because that's what drives up interest rates. You call yourselves great economists over here. Blow me over! My amendment will mean that prominence rules apply to existing television devices rather than just new devices. This means that, when Australians switch on a smart TV, the home screen will include free-to-air application icons alongside paid streaming services. My amendment will make sure that free-to-air television will be easily accessible on TVs, which will benefit many Australians who cannot afford to buy a new smart TV. You're struggling to put milk and bread on the table to feed your kids, and they want you to buy a new smart TV. How disconnected are they from what is really going on out on the ground in society around our great nation? My amendment also extends search functions on smart televisions so that Australians can easily find what they are looking for and easily find what is free to watch on TV. It's pretty simple. Although the bill doesn't stop streamers like Amazon, Apple and Disney from buying exclusive broadcast rights, it doesn't put the same protections on broadcasts through the internet. My amendment means that free broadcasting and digital streaming rights must be acquired by a free-to-air broadcaster before that event can be bought by subscription providers. Watching free sport on TV is part of the Australian way of life. How could we get to paying to watch Australian sport on TV? How could we get to this? If my amendment doesn't pass, I want to tell you what's going on in America. I want to make this very clear when it comes to paying for services. The Guardian recently reported that, if American NFL fans want to watch every game, they must pay $1,600 a year for that privilege. That is what they're paying for the privilege to watch the NFL in America now. That's how much they're paying. Australians, wake up! If you think you're not going to pay for your AFL, if you think it's great to spend family time sitting with your kids in the lounge room on a Saturday afternoon and spending time with them, watching the good old footy without paying for it, then those days are over. To all the young kids out there who love the Matildas: your mums and dads are going to be paying for them. They will have to pay to watch them. How is this supposed to inspire our kids to stay off drugs and alcohol and to become great citizens instead of going into youth crime when they have no idols they can watch on TV for free? You talk big on youth crime, which, by the way, you've done nothing about in the two years you've been here. You haven't done a damn thing! You should be ashamed of yourselves! Now you're going to take those sporting idols off our kids, and they may have encouraged them to stay on the right side of life. You're going to make them pay. How is that helpful and for what? It's so you don't end up being named and shamed on the front of the papers. I don't know if you guys have noticed, but it happens every day to you. It's already happening. If they had made such a big difference to voters in this country, Clive Palmer would have bought up newspapers years ago. Wake up to it! God forbid! No idea! I want to guarantee that every Australian has the right to watch free sport in this country—not just today and not just this year but next year and the year after. I want our kids to spend time with family. I want those in public housing who can't afford it—those mums and dads—spending time with their kids. I want to see them spending time with their kids. They will be less likely to run into trouble when they become teenagers. They will be less likely to run around with knives through our shopping malls or out there driving cars at 13 and killing people. This is a deterrent. You're taking something else away from them. People have no idea about youth crime and how to fix it in this country, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You're doing nothing. There will be no more freebies for those families out there who are feeling it tough. You are completely disconnected from them. Australians have always had free access to sports like AFL and NRL, cricket and the Olympics, but global streamers are now buying them up and putting them behind a paywall, like the cricket on Amazon. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Exactly! Senator LAMBIE 250026 That's right—your cricket! How are you Aussie kids going out there paying for your cricket? Your heroes are behind paywalls because your politicians have allowed that. You have to pay for access to your heroes and not to stand in front of them but to watch them on the big screen. It is so unfair. My amendment will make it harder for companies to do this. I agree with the government that this bill goes some way to expand the prominence of the anti-siphoning framework, but it can be improved. Think of the effect it's going to have on that next generation of kids. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You should be totally ashamed of yourselves. As for the Tasmanian representatives here—both sides, Liberal and Labor—they are doing it tough down there. They are doing it tough. If anyone is doing it tough in those rural and regional areas, it's in Tasmania. And you're going to make those families pay for these services so their kids can watch it. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves today. It's all because you're too cowardly and don't have the guts to take on the Murdochs. Absolutely shameful. 11:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I was going to facilitate the putting of the question, but it looks like people may have exhausted anyway. I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 There's a Senator Shoebridge amendment, and there's a Senator Lambie amendment. The question is that the question be put on Senator Shoebridge's amendment. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT 112096 For the sake of clarity, the minister stood and asked for the question to be put. There are two amendments. One is in the name of Senator Shoebridge, which I intend to put first, and the second is in the name of Senator Lambie. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:10 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: Omit paragraph (a)(i), relating to the Communication Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-Siphoning) Bill 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that Senator Lambie's amendment be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. (Teller) McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.

 NOTICES 2614 NOTICES Presentation 2614 Withdrawal 2614 11:14 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Pursuant to notice given on the last day of sitting on behalf of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for six sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Biosecurity (Electronic Decisions) Determination 2023 made under the Biosecurity Act 2015. COMMITTEES 2615 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 2615 Report 2615 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the seventh report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 7 OF 2024 4 July 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacquie Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 July 2024 at 7.15 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 September 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); (d) the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 (No. 2) be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2024; (e) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2024 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (f) the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 October 2024 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024 Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024 Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024 Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) but was unable to reach agreement. Anne Urquhart Chair 4 July 2024. Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To enquire into the Governments Bill to understand any implications. Th Possible submissions or evidence from: Individuals, interested stakeholders and other parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): July Possible reporting date: 8 August 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To ensure there is a committee enquiry into the Governments legislation so all possible impacts are canvassed. Possible submissions or evidence from: Individuals, stakeholders, and other interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): July and August Possible reporting date: 5 September 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 (and associated Bill) Reasons for referra l /principal issues for consideration: To examine in detail and hear from relevant stakeholders Possible submissions or evidence from: Relevant Government Departments ARENA EFA Other civil society organisations Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): 17 July 7 August Possible reporting date: 5 September (signed) Nick McKim Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Migration Amendment (Strengthening Sponsorship and Nomination Processes) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To ensure there is a committee enquiry into the Governments legislation so all possible impacts are canvassed. Possible submissions or evidence from: Individuals, stakeholders, and other interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): July and August Possible reporting date: 2 September 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 4 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Taxation (Multinational-Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 Taxation (Multinational-Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational-Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To further understand this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Individuals, stakeholders, and other interested parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): July Possible reporting date: 14 August 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Taxation (Multinational-Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra l /principal issues for consideration: to examine the bill in more detail and hear from relevant stakeholders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Tax Justice Network, The Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, Oxfam. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): on the papers Possible reporting date: 14 August 2024 (signed) Nick McKim Appendix 5 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To further investigate this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: A range of interested parties and veteran stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): August, September Possible reporting date: 3 October (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation} Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To enable detailed consideration of the Bill and any relevant recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's final report (due September 2024) To seek views of the veteran community on the legislation and ensure that it will meet the needs to veterans into the future Possible submissions or evidence from: Veterans and relevant stakeholder organisations such as Ex-Service Organisations (ESOs} Committee to which bill is to be referred: Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 1 October 2024 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add: ", and: (a) in respect of the provisions of Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 8 August 2024. (b) the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 October 2024." 11:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move, as an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher: Paragraph (a), omit "8 August 2024", substitute "5 September 2024". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston to part (a) of Senator Gallagher's amendment be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:21]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:23 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I wish to move an amendment to paragraph (b) of the government's amendment. I move: Paragraph (b), omit "Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee", substitute "Education and Employment Legislation Committee". 11:24 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens oppose this amendment, and the Greens also oppose the referral of the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) to an inquiry. The Liberal Party that has embraced racism as a political strategy is now suddenly interested in tackling racism. Well, excuse me for being cynical, but the Greens are not going to fall for this disingenuous inquiry or a disingenuous bill. All you want to do is weaponise antisemitism to attack those who are standing up against Israel's genocide in Gaza and want justice for Palestine. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Mr Dutton knows all about weaponising racism. He knows all about it. Senator FARUQI 250362 That is right. I agree with my colleague Senator Hanson-Young, who has said that Mr Dutton knows all about weaponising racism. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, withdraw that comment. Senator FARUQI 250362 I withdraw. The Greens will not be party to your vile agenda against people protesting a genocide and against pro-Palestine protesters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Henderson to part (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:32 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania President, I ask that the question be put separately in relation to parts (a) and (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKim. The question is that part (a) of the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher, as amended by Senator Ruston, to the motion moved by Senator Urquhart be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that part (b) of the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to the motion moved by Senator Urquhart be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 37 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 PETITIONS 2622 PETITIONS Lee Point 2622 11:37 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I table a non-conforming petition. I seek leave to make a two-minute statement. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 In April this year, I met with Larrakia people whose land the city of Darwin is built on. They spoke with me about the importance of Lee Point, an old-growth coastal bushland that is home to over 270 species of birds and to trees that are over 400 years old. For centuries Larrakia people have brought their children to Lee Point for ceremony, to collect and eat the native foods, to share Larrakia creation stories and to look after the land. Despite the efforts of Larrakia people and the community of Darwin to protect Lee Point, on 30 April this government allowed Defence Housing Australia to begin bulldozing this pristine cultural country. But, with our continued pressure, Defence Housing Australia have been forced to pause their destruction of Larrakia country to investigate claims of illegal land-clearing practices. I'm tabling a petition delivered to me by the Larrakia people today. This petition carries the names of 16,000 supporters not just from Darwin and the Northern Territory but from across Australia. It is time that the government listens to the Larrakia people. They're in the building today, and the minister should have respect and meet with them personally instead of making excuses. Larrakia people want their land returned—their sacred and ancestral lands—and the Australian government must permanently stop the destruction of Lee Point. The land that is being cleared must be replanted, and the Northern Territory government must recognise the significance of Lee Point for the continuation of Larrakia culture, a culture that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. I table this petition and support the call for Lee Point to be returned to the care, ownership and protection of Larrakia people. BUSINESS 2622 BUSINESS Rearrangement 2622 11:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That— (a) government business order of the day no. 7 (the Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024) be considered from 12.15 pm; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 556 standing in the name of Senator Roberts, relating to a COVID-19 Royal Commission, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 2622 NOTICES Postponement 2622 COMMITTEES 2622 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 2622 NOTICES 2622 NOTICES Withdrawal 2622 11:40 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria On the basis that my private senator's bill, Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), has been referred for a Senate inquiry, I withdraw Senate notice of motion No. 1. MOTIONS 2623 MOTIONS Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 2623 11:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Wong, I move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges: (i) 17 July 2024 marks ten years since the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukrainian territory, (ii) as a result of this act, 298 innocent people, including 38 people who called Australia home, died, (iii) the pain of the loss of the 298 lives is still felt intensely today, by their families and their friends all over the world, (iv) we mourn the lives lost and our thoughts remain with those who lost loved ones, for whom this date will be particularly difficult, and (v) a memorial service will be held at Parliament House as an opportunity to come together to honour the lives lost and to stand with their families and loved ones; (b) recognises the work and professionalism of all officials involved in the response to the downing of flight MH17 and the support they provided to families and loved ones over the past decade, including defence and diplomatic staff, as well as the Australian Federal Police who have been part of rigorous independent investigations to support bringing those responsible to justice; (c) notes Australia and international partners continue to seek accountability pursuant to the Australian-led United Nations Security Council Resolution 2166 (2014): (i) in November 2022, the District Court of The Hague made unequivocal and conclusive findings of the Russian Federation's involvement in the downing of flight MH17, and findings of guilt against Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Leonid Kharchenko, (ii) Australia has imposed sanctions against these three individuals, plus a fourth individual, Sergey Muchkaev, (iii) Australia continues to pursue all avenues available to us to seek justice, including with the Netherlands through the International Civil Aviation Organization Council, and (iv) together with countries of the Joint Investigations Team—Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine—Australia remains committed to achieving truth, justice and accountability for the victims and their next of kin; and (d) calls on the Russian Federation to accept its responsibility and cooperate fully with efforts to establish accountability. Question agreed to. BILLS 2623 BILLS Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 2623

Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 2623 11:41 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 be referred to the Select Committee on the Cost of Living for inquiry and report by 15 November 2024. 11:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move as an amendment: Omit "Select Committee on the Cost of Living", substitute "Economics Legislation Committee". Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. DOCUMENTS 2623 DOCUMENTS Department of Health and Aged Care 2623 Order for the Production of Documents 2623 11:42 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 10 July 2024: (a) all documents and communications between the Minister for Health and Aged Care (the minister) and the Prime Minister regarding the decision not to fund treatment for children with high risk neuroblastoma; (b) all documents held by the Department of Health and Aged Care relating to the funding of treatment for children with high-risk neuroblastoma; and (c) all documents held by the office for the minister relating to the funding of treatment for children with high-risk neuroblastoma. 11:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—The government does not support this motion. We are doing everything we can, as quickly as we can, to work with the supplier of DFMO and provide some relief to children and families battling neuroblastoma. The government is deeply concerned about the situation faced by children with neuroblastoma in Australia, and the health minister is continuing to work with all parties, including Neuroblastoma Australia and the Australian sponsor of DFMO, to bring a treatment forward for these children and future children. The priority is for children to be able to access safe treatment, preferably in Australian hospitals. In Australia, the sponsor of the drug DFMO has applied to the TGA for its registration for the treatment of neuroblastoma. The TGA has begun a priority review of the application. The minister is examining all options for interim funding for DFMO while the TGA evaluation process is ongoing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, may I remind you that all advisers in this place need to be seated at all times. 11:43 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 The Greens will not be supporting this motion today, but we do support the principles behind this motion and believe that greater funding should be given to both children with neuroblastoma and child care more generally. I note the contribution in last night's debate by Senator Peter Whish-Wilson on behalf of his constituents in Tasmania who are journeying with this terrible cancer. However, we do not believe that the timeframe given by this motion is reasonable. The Greens will consider revisiting this issue in the next week of sitting. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 557, standing in the name of Senator Ruston, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 2625 BILLS Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024 2625

Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 2625 11:50 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That the Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for inquiry and report by 11 February 2025. 11:51 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 This motion is not consistent with the vote of the Australian people at the referendum in October last year. It's incumbent upon this house to keep faith with the referendum result. We'll reject all attempts to entrench the separatism and division that was at the heart of the Voice proposal. This house should be focused on delivering real outcomes for our most marginalised people. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 558, standing in the name of Senator Cox, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 2626 DOCUMENTS Department of Health and Aged Care 2626 Order for the Production of Documents 2626 11:58 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a statement of no more than one minute. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted. Senator RUSTON 243273 I want to draw to the attention of the chamber that, in the division prior to the last division, the Labor Party and the Greens, along with some of the crossbench, voted to deny the families of children suffering from the deadly cancer, neuroblastoma, of knowing what this government is doing to get them access to a lifesaving treatment, DFMO. Despite what Minister Chisholm told this place in his contribution, the minister for health has not even met the CEO of Neuroblastoma Australia. COMMITTEES 2626 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 2626 Membership 2626 11:59 The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 11:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as follows: Community Affairs Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Reynolds to replace Senator Kovacic for the committee's inquiry into the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator Kovacic Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed [contingent on the Senate concurring with a resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the membership of the committee]— Senator Shoebridge Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Shoebridge for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator Shoebridge. Question agreed to. BILLS 2626 BILLS Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024 2626

Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024

Returned from the House of Representatives 2626 Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 2626

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2626 12:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I seek leave to withdraw the amendments circulated in the name of the senator, on sheet 2669, to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Leave granted. 12:01 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The coalition had a number of significant concerns about this bill in the form in which it was introduced in the other place. We made these concerns clear to the government, and I am very glad that the government has moved to address these concerns in its amendments that it already moved in the other place and in the amendments it has indicated that it will move today in this chamber. On the basis of these amendments, the coalition will be supporting this bill. This bill represents the first legislative response to the Quality of Advice Review, commissioned by the former coalition government and delivered to the government in December 2022. This review was a significant initiative, commissioned by the former coalition government, and it was aimed specifically at improving the provision of financial advice for Australians. We are incredibly proud of the Quality of Advice Review and of the work that Michelle Levy did in preparing it. Financial advice should be accessible, and it should be affordable for all Australians. Right now, it is often neither. It's crucial to remember that this initiative was driven by our commitment to ensuring that Australians can access quality advice to secure their own financial futures. However, we cannot ignore the significant delay in the introduction of this bill. This delay has caused deep uncertainty and concern within our struggling financial advice sector. Despite the comprehensiveness of the coalition's response to the Hayne royal commission, this Labor government has continued to wrap this sector with additional administrative burdens that lead to higher fees and higher taxes, and ultimately make advice less affordable and less accessible for ordinary, everyday Australians. The protracted delay by this government in responding to the Quality of Advice Review has been led by this deeply disengaged, distracted and, quite frankly, disingenuous Assistant Treasurer, and it's left the financial advice industry in a state of limbo, facing uncertainty and instability—something that, in opposition, the current Assistant Treasurer vowed he would fix. He was very quick to criticise the coalition for implementing professionalisation of this sector and for implementing the recommendations of the Hayne royal commission, but then, once in government, his tune changed significantly. In fact, it's now taken Mr Jones a staggering 17 months to begin to respond to this important, clear, well-received and industry supported review. This is what happens when an Assistant Treasurer's instructions from the industry super fund lobbies get lost in the mail or don't come at all: he sits on his hands and he dithers. In his time in this portfolio, Mr Jones has left a trail of destruction and administrative malpractice behind him. Just yesterday, we saw the government embarrassed into agreeing to list his Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022, which has been languishing on the program for more than a year, on the program for next August. This is a bill that has bipartisan support. It could have gone through in non-controversial legislation months ago, and the industry has been crying out for that change. Yet somehow the bill has been allowed to languish there because the Assistant Treasurer has not been doing his job. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when the conversation between the Assistant Treasurer and his boss, the Treasurer, took place, when he noticed that—just one more mess the Treasurer has had to sort out, caused by an Assistant Treasurer forced upon him because the Prime Minister doesn't necessarily trust him. We can see that from the report in the AFR on Monday, where Phil Coorey pointed out that the Prime Minister is now overriding the budget protocols set by the Treasurer and taking over policy approval unilaterally. This is because the Prime Minister doesn't trust the Treasurer and instead has an Assistant Treasurer and an assistant minister to the Treasurer to keep an eye on the Treasurer. Unfortunately, neither of those two gentlemen are doing their job. In the case of this bill, instead of using the time to draft considered legislation, the minister has failed to get the very basics right, creating more problems than solutions. And of course this is not Minister Jones's first rodeo in creating more problems than he has been solving. He has the significant distinction in his caucus for potentially being the only minister that could compete with Minister Giles for hopelessness. Perhaps we will see a changing of the guard in the next few weeks. But I digress. Our financial advice industry and our financial advisers deserve a regulatory framework that allows them to expand their client bases to better serve Australians. We must secure the future of our financial advice sector and prevent a scenario in which Australians are underadvised, underinsured and potentially even underbanked. It was essential that the government fix the errors in this bill to ensure that the bill fulfils its intended purpose of improving financial outcomes for all Australians, and we are very glad they have now finally done this. The financial advice sector plays a critical role in ensuring that Australians can make informed decisions about their own finances, and any legislation affecting this sector must be very carefully crafted and error free. The government has been shamed into moving amendments that again fix this mess. The Assistant Treasurer has proven himself to be out of touch, out of his depth, and unable to deliver meaningful reforms that benefit the financial advice sector and, by extension, benefit all Australians. In conclusion, while the coalition will now support this bill because of the amendments that are being moved, we condemn the government and this minister for making it so hard to simply get the right outcome for Australian financial advisers. 12:07 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and I want to start by saying that it is becoming a habit of this government to put to the parliament bills that cover a variety of dispersed topics, to cram them into one Treasury laws amendment bill and then expect the parliament to just whack it through. It is not the best way of engaging with others in this place on the detail of these bills. And it is certainly not the best way of ensuring that members of the community, stakeholders and impacted industry groups can have their concerns heard and responded to. We have here today a bill that does a whole lot of things in relation to giving advice on super, and we just heard Senator Hume talk a bit about that. Then there is a discrete section of the bill that talks about establishing a new location tax offset for the film industry—totally different industries, totally different topics, totally different stakeholders. And the government has tried to just whack it all in together because they are slow to get moving on a whole bunch of promises that they have made. In relation to the super elements of this bill and the government's newly rushed and circulated amendments for financial advice to be paid out of clients' superannuation balances, I just want to make it clear we haven't had time to consider these amendments. They have been rushed into the parliament this morning. There's been a deal done with the Dutton coalition. It's all being done under the cover of the chaos that this government is currently in. The coalition, for months and months now, have played block, block, block and said, 'No, no, no,' on all government activities. Then, all of a sudden, when the government's in crisis and there's a lot of political mess going on for the Albanese government, the Liberal Party decide to flick some things through, hoping that nobody notices. You can see what happened here. When the coalition teams up with the Labor Party, you get rushed legislation, rushed amendments and bad outcomes for people. Senators in this place, particularly in the Greens and on the crossbench, haven't had time to consider these amendments. But apparently it doesn't matter because the two-party system will deliver the numbers and they can whack it on through. They like the rush and the guillotine when it suits them. We've heard for weeks the crying out, squealing and whining from the coalition about the parliament being efficient and passing legislation. They've been squealing about the use of guillotines. But, when it suits them, they get on and do it. That's what we have seen here today. Senators other than those in the Liberal Party—I don't even think the National Party was consulted on these—have had no time to consult on and scrutinise these amendments adequately. But, at first blush, we have concerns. We think that these changes could re-ignite some of the problems that the banking royal commission tried to stamp out. The government's amendment—let's be clear—is removing any reference to the financial advice having to relate to members' interest in a super fund. They are also striking out the provisions that ensure financial advisers can't price-gouge their clients. What? Why would you scrap that unless you're doing the bidding of the big end of town, thanks to the Liberal Party? We haven't had time to be convinced that this won't lead to a situation where financial advisers can spruik to a potential client something like: 'I can give you a range of financial advice relating to negative gearing, a new investment property, superannuation or where you put your savings. But the best part is you don't have to pay for it. We can just charge the fee to your super account.' This the is type of insidious, dishonest, tricky behaviour that the banking royal commission called out and said needed to be cleaned up. But, of course, the government is in a state of desperation today to get a whole lot of bills through a guillotine, so they falter, they fold and they bow to the pressure of the Liberal Party. Let's make it clear: the Liberal Party are never going to be acting in the best interests of people when it comes to superannuation. They hate superannuation. They don't like it. It's in their blood not to like the super system. So any chance they get to wreck it or undermine it they will take. Here we have the government rolling out the red carpet this morning. For regular, everyday people, super balances are out of sight and out of mind. Financial advisers can then charge excessive fees with less scrutiny than if their client was paying for it out of their pocket. They've tried these tricks before. We've seen the manipulation of people that happens by financial advisers and financial institutions. They pick on vulnerable people. They can make more of a margin on their advice. At the end of the day, it is the individual customer, the holder of that superannuation account, who suffers. It's so un-Labor. You are a Labor government and you're just undermining your own superannuation system. Get a spine! We'll be voting against these amendments, but it won't matter in this place because you've done a deal with the Dutton coalition to undermine super and to undermine regular people and their retirement savings. In relation to the other part of the bill that the Greens have— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Pursuant to the earlier motion, we are now going to the consideration of bills as arranged by the chamber. Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 2629

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 2629 12:15 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak briefly on the Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. We understand the purpose is to strengthen security arrangements and the streamlining of processes around the handing of incoming mail. It's about helping Australia Post, Border Force, customs and various police and other agencies with the important work that they do. We understand that this is important. Our officials are working to protect Australians in the face of dangerous, suspect or illegal items coming in through the mailing system. Those people watching or listening to this broadcast or reading this in Hansard will fully know that the coalition stands for strong borders and effective action to secure our borders. These are measures which continue the work of our government, when we were in government, and will be supported. The bill would seek to provide greater operational flexibility and certainty around the rules for the opening and inspection of mail. It would expand the list of authorised people who may share information and documents to support officers carrying out official tasks or investigations, and it would strengthen rules enabling Australia Post officials to deal with dangerous items. The bill also sets out consumer protections around the seizure and destruction of suspect mail, including notifications to the sender and intended recipient. It provides for reasonable compensation, on just terms, as required. Disputes may be pursued in the Federal Court. The government says the measures in the bill have been designed with appropriate privacy safeguards, and the government will be held to account on that. The coalition, in government, took a number of important steps to boost airport security, including the upgrading of security screening equipment. The coalition supports the bill, as it seeks to strengthen security and streamline processes around mail deliveries. We will always stand up for border security, and this legislation gives our officials more tools to keep Australians safe. 12:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In summing up, I table a correction to the addendum to the replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. This bill will strengthen the legislative framework for the screening and inspection of domestic and international mail, to ensure they are fit for purpose for the modern age. It does this through a number of measures. First, the bill ensures that Australia Post and border agencies can more efficiently share relevant information with other Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and authorities, under strict parameters, to assist in the performance of their functions and duties during investigative and regulatory activities. Second, the bill makes technical amendments to clarify the officers and officials of agencies and authorities are permitted to open and examine postal articles where it is authorised under the act and any other laws and where this is necessary to perform their functions or duties to ensure the safety and security of Australians. Third, new ministerial powers will be inserted to futureproof the system against emerging risks, allowing Australia Post and border agencies to adapt their practices as required. These powers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Fourth, the bill makes amendments to better deal with the forfeiture, disposal and destruction of postal articles containing explosive, dangerous and injurious things and to protect the safety of postal workers and customs and biosecurity officers. Finally, the bill makes some minor amendments to simplify existing terminology and legislative process as well as update existing references to state and territory legislation, giving greater certainty to Australia Post employees and customs and biosecurity officers when exercising their legislative powers and functions for mail screening. Importantly, these measures have been designed with appropriate privacy safeguards and will be subject to the existing strict parameters and reporting obligations in the act. There has also been extensive consultation with Australia Post and relevant agencies throughout the development of the draft bill since 2018, and they have confirmed there is an operational need to modernise the legislation. I thank members and senators for their participation in the debate on this legislation. It will contribute to immediate enhancements to Australia's border protection, biosecurity and national security. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 2630 12:22 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) in my name on sheet 2703: (1)—Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 5), after item 1, insert: 1A Section 3 Insert: cash service obligations means obligations under section 28AA. (2)—Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 3, insert: 3A At the end of section 25 Add: ; (d) its cash service obligations under section 28AA. 3B After section 28 Insert: 28AA Cash service obligations (1) If Australia Post: (a) supplies goods or services in the course of: (i) supplying postal services under section 14; or (ii) carrying on any business or activity under section 15; or (iii) carrying on any incidental business or activity under section 16; and (b) offers to accept a payment for the supply in person at an office of Australia Post in Australia; then Australia Post must offer to accept, and accept, the payment in cash. (2) Australia Post must offer an in-person cash withdrawal service at each office of Australia Post in Australia to the extent that the service is: (a) a business or activity under section 15; or (b) an incidental business or activity under section 16. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a payment in cash to the extent that: (a) the payment exceeds the higher of the following: (i) $10,000; (ii) another amount prescribed by the regulations; or (b) offering to accept the payment would pose a security risk to an employee of Australia Post; or (c) offering to accept the payment would be contrary to another law of the Commonwealth or a law of a State or Territory; or (d) offering to accept the payment would be contrary to current health advice issued by an official or agency of the Commonwealth or of the State or Territory in which the offer is made; or (e) access to cash in the form of change is needed for the purposes of the payment, but that access is not readily available. (4) Subsection (2) does not apply to a cash withdrawal to the extent that: (a) the withdrawal exceeds the higher of the following: (i) $10,000; (ii) another amount prescribed by the regulations; or (b) offering to provide the withdrawal would pose a security risk to an employee of Australia Post; or (c) offering to provide the withdrawal would be contrary to another law of the Commonwealth or a law of a State or Territory; or (d) offering to provide the withdrawal would be contrary to current health advice issued by an official or agency of the Commonwealth or of the State or Territory in which the offer is made; or (e) access to cash is needed for the purposes of the withdrawal, but that access is not readily available. These amendments are about ensuring access, particularly for regional communities, to banking in post offices. When I lived in regional Victoria, my local post office provided access to the local Lake Tyers Aboriginal community, who still rely on those banking services. If those kinds of banking services are ripped out of regional communities, they won't be as accessible. People don't have vehicles or the resources to go into town; they're not as privileged as some. So they rely totally on Australia Post outlets and the facilities that they have, including banking facilities. That's basically it. 12:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. I think they are quite important amendments, as Senator Thorpe has outlined. Many communities, particularly those in regional areas and small towns, don't have banks. The big banks have given up on the communities. They've shut down and they've left town. Often, the post office is the only place left for people to be able to engage in their banking activities. This is what's going on across the board with Australia Post. I want to be clear about this. Australia Post is being hollowed out time after time after time. Post offices are hubs of our communities. Every time the government decides to cut a service it's being done as a cost-saving measure, which is ultimately reducing the level of service and support for people in our communities, whether it's cutting the number of days that letters are delivered, putting up the cost of postage, getting rid of banking or, indeed, shutting down branches and the post offices themselves. In Campbelltown in South Australia, in the electorate of Sturt, we have a move by Australia Post to shut down that branch. The local community is livid. They're upset about it. This particular post office services a large number of residential facilities for the elderly and homes for senior Australians. It's those people who use the post office on a regular basis, and it's currently in a location they can walk to. If that post office is shut down, it'll be near impossible for them to be able to access the next closest post office. I urge Australia Post to think better about the decisions they are making to shut down branches, leaving communities in the lurch. Whether it's with this amendment bill or the next round of cuts to Australia Post—it doesn't seem to matter whether it's the Labor Party or the coalition in government—they continue to undermine Australia Post being a proper service of the Australian people. The quasi-public/private outfit is clearly not working to deliver services to people and the community. I commend the amendment. 12:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank senators for bringing this amendment to the Senate. I note that issues around access to banking, particularly in rural and regional Australia, have been spoken about often in this chamber. They are issues that many senators care about deeply. The government does not support this amendment. The amendment would require post offices, including independently operated, licensed post offices, to hold large sums of cash to accommodate multiple potential cash withdrawal transactions of up to $10,000 each. This would impose a significant additional cost on Australia Post and its licensees to hold large sums of cash, which would have implications for cash-in-transit costs, security and investment in upgrades to retail outlets. This could be particularly onerous in smaller licensed outlets which often operate in conjunction with another small business, such as a newsagency or general store. While acknowledging the significance of banking services in regional Australia, it is important to note that Australia Post is not a bank. It provides limited banking services through Bank@Post, including accepting cheque deposits, bill payments and limited cash withdrawals. I note that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee examined access to banking services in rural and regional Australia in recent times and made a series of recommendations. These include the Australian government working closely with the banks and Australia Post, major banks having agreements with Australia Post and harmonising the products offered through Bank@Post, including for small businesses. This work is ongoing. 12:28 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The opposition won't be supporting this amendment. We have long held concerns about, and been strong advocates for, postal services in regional communities. We recognise the importance of local post offices, which are so often at the heart of local communities, particularly in the regions. I'm literally just reading this amendment now, so I do want to say that, while I believe that there are some appropriate and important issues raised by Senator Thorpe, there has not been the appropriate amount of time to consider what Senator Thorpe has put forward. What I will say is that the coalition has long raised serious concerns about the availability of postal services in the regions. We have long advocated for local post offices, because, as I say, they are at the heart of every single community, but we do not support this particular amendment in its current form. Certainly I think that if Senator Thorpe wants to raise these issues in a more considered way then she is absolutely at liberty to do so. At first blush—I'm literally reading it as I'm on my feet—in relation to issues about the availability of cash and the like, there is clearly no basis upon which we could possibly support this amendment as it currently stands, but, as an opposition, we remain open to doing anything and everything that we can to ensure that Australians have the best postal services in this country. As I say, not only have we been strong defenders of postal services; we have raised ongoing and serious concerns, including in the most recent estimates hearings, in relation to Australia Post's obligations to provide services, as embedded in legislation, by way of local post offices, particularly in rural and regional Australia. 12:31 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Spare us a lecture from the Liberal Party about Australia Post— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat. Senator Davey, on a point of order? Senator Davey 281697 I believe Senator Hanson-Young has already spoken on this. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We are in committee, and it's a free-flowing debate. Senator Hanson-Young, you have the call. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Spare us a lecture about Australia Post from the Liberal Party, whose Prime Minister, of course, so famously tried to sack Christine Holgate on the floor of the parliament because she was standing up for local postal branches and trying to protect postal services in rural and regional Australia. Spare us the lecture! I actually have a question for the minister. I imagine the minister will have to take this on notice. I would like the minister to come back to this chamber and explain whether the government has raised concerns of the Campbelltown post office being closed and explain whether Firle post office, which is next door, will follow next. What briefings has the minister had on this? Has the local member, James Stevens, who seems to be asleep at the wheel, done anything about it? 12:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Hanson-Young, I don't think government would object to providing this information to you. I will say that there's not really a provision for taking things on notice in exactly this form in this environment. I wonder if a better way to deal with it might be for a question to be lodged through the chamber or even for you to write directly to the minister. I'm happy to undertake to raise it with her, but, in the end, it may be that a direct communication between the two of you may yield the result you are after. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Very good. 12:33 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I will just point out to Senator Hanson-Young—through you, Chair—that very similar questions were raised directly with Australia Post during the Senate estimates process, which is the correct process for asking those sorts of questions. This bill was presented as a non-controversial bill, and the fact that, at the very last minute, we've had an amendment thrown before us, with no time for consideration of the amendment and no approach or conversation from the drafter of the amendment, just shows that this is not a genuine attempt to amend this bill. This is actually a stunt. We have actually followed process. We participated extensively in the regional banking inquiry that made some significant recommendations about Australia Post services, Bank@Post services and the like. We take very seriously the operation of Australia Post services in rural and regional Australia, in the more than 2,000 sites where Australia Post services are offered and the more than 350 regional locations where Australia Post is the only financial institution in the town. Senator Hanson-Young I0U The National Party is letting down regional Australia again. What is the point of the National Party? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 140651 Senator Davey, please resume your seat. Could the senators at the end of the chamber, who know that they have the opportunity to speak on this matter, stand and seek the call or cease interjecting? It's highly disorderly. Senator DAVEY 281697 I will continue, because we are very concerned about the services that Australia Post offers in the regions. But there are ways and means to go about it. Had the author of this amendment come to see us and sat down with us to raise the concerns that they're trying to address with this last minute amendment, we might have had a very extended conversation and we might have been able to find common ground. But to lump us with an amendment at the last minute, at the eleventh hour, and try to wedge us is just politics at its worst. 12:36 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Well, the National Party are clearly feeling a bit sore and sorry for themselves today. They've been pulled into line. They've given up on access to free sport. They've been whipped into line by their Liberal coalition partners to do the bidding of Murdoch. Now what we have is them going to water on this. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat, please. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 On a point of order, I would just ask you to direct Senator Hanson-Young to the substance of the purpose of the committee, which of course is the bill before the Senate. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Henderson, there is no point of order. This is a debate about the matter to which Senator Hanson-Young was referring. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Well, the National Party have clearly had their wings clipped this week, and they're a bit grumpy, aren't they? They're a bit sensitive and a bit touchy, because they've had to roll over on the amendments that would have provided free access to sport. We're rushing through. We're about to have it. At one o'clock, the bill's going to go through here, and the National Party are locking out half of Australian households from being able to access sport on their phones and on their smart televisions without having to pay exorbitant fees. So they've let down regional Australia on this. Now we have this bill. There's an amendment that they say they support the notion of, but they don't have the guts to vote for it. What is the point of the National Party? What is the point? 12:38 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Firstly, I want to raise concerns about this amendment. The Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 is a bill to enhance the security of mail and the security of our borders. I again reiterate my concerns that this amendment, which does not really relate to the substance of the bill, has been brought forward. The amendment essentially relates to forcing every Australia Post post office to accept payments in cash. I think this does give rise to some unintended consequences. I don't know whether Senator Thorpe has conducted any sort of consultation with Australia Post or with licensed post office holders, but it doesn't consider, of course, what would happen if a post office didn't have the capacity to do so and what would then be the penalties to that post office. So I think, in very general terms, this raises a lot of concerns, including the unintended consequences if a particular post office could not comply with this cash requirement. Again, I invite Senator Thorpe to take these issues up elsewhere with us. We would be, of course, very interested in discussing any way in which we can enhance the services of post offices across our country, including in regional and rural Australia, and I look forward to having those productive discussions with Senator Thorpe. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 2633 12:41 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 2633

Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2633 12:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The second objective of this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, is to establish a tax offset—it's called the location tax offset—to encourage foreign and overseas film companies to come to Australia and to make their films here. We need this as part of our film industry ecosystem. But what I am concerned about, and what the government are clearly avoiding by rushing this bill through today without considering other amendments, is that, while they're giving a handout to Hollywood, they have done nothing to help local Australian film producers and creators right here domestically. The government promised at the last election that they would introduce legislation to regulate the big streaming companies like Netflix and Amazon to ensure that they are required to make Australian films and Australian content and tell Australian stories on their platforms, as free-to-air broadcasters have been required to do for quite some time. This is a local content quota: regulation that helps to ensure that Australian stories are able to be seen, heard and easily found on these big streaming giants. The government promised that they would bring in this legislation and that it would be in place by 1 July 2024. That was three days ago. We've missed that deadline. The government have broken their promise—they've rolled over and kowtowed to the big streaming giants; they're letting Netflix write the rules—and instead we have a tax offset for Hollywood, bundled up in a bill with all these other things that are not related to the film industry. The government talk a big game on the arts, on the creative industries and on backing Australian stories, but they are failing dismally. Why? It's because they couldn't even work out in their own ministry who would have responsibility for this piece of legislation. We don't know whether it's Minister Burke or Minister Rowland. Every time we're in Senate estimates and we say, 'Where is this bill up to?' there's always confusion as to who's in charge. It's just not good enough. You promised to have regulation on these big streaming giants done and in place by 1 July 2024, and we still don't even have the legislation. We still don't even know what is going to be in the legislation or what model the government will use. But we do know that Netflix, Amazon and the big American streaming giants are all getting warmed up. They're ready to tear down any moves to regulate them. Australians have a proud history of telling our own stories and having them shown on screen, celebrating our own history and making good-quality Australian children's content. But it is all being consumed and cannibalised by the American screen industry and the big streaming giants. Rather than standing up to America, what we see is this government folding. We were meant to have this legislation done and started by 1 July, and we still don't even have a draft of legislation. It's just not good enough. When the government decide to finally get their act together after the Americans have pulled it all apart, we will have quite a debate in this chamber about whether it's good enough—because just skipping to the tune of the Americans is not going to cut it. We need to be backing our creative industries here in Australia and be proud of our Australian stories. The size of the contribution that the Australian screen industry and our creative industries make to the Australian economy is extraordinary, yet time and time again they get shunted off the priority list by the government. In other countries, like Canada, the EU and the UK, governments have decided, rather than allowing the creativity of their domestic industries to be cannibalised by America, to stand up for them and put in place regulation. Here we have the government breaking a promise, leaving the industry in limbo and, all the while, saying, 'It's all too hard to do because America doesn't like it.' We should not be dictated to by what the American companies or the American administration would like. This is our culture. They are our stories. They are our workers. They are our creative talent—and we should be backing them in. It seems that over and over again the Labor Party talk a big game on standing up to the big corporations, but, when they're forced to make a decision, they crumble. That's what we've seen happen again. This location tax offset will help some here in Australia, and that is good. But, most of all, it is helping Hollywood and the American companies. Meanwhile, our domestic industry is left waiting, with promise after promise being broken. The government is dragging the chain, and our industry is being told to wait. The only people who are really cheering now that 1 July has passed without legislation and regulation are Netflix, Amazon and the big US global giants. The ministers need to do better. 12:49 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This bill is just the start of the government's response to the Quality of Advice Review, with tranche 2 of our Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms on the way as well. Despite all the hyperbole from the Greens and all the negativity from the Liberals in this chamber today, these are reforms that are well supported. These are reforms that will allow more Australians to access financial advice and make it more affordable for them. It's as simple as that. This is critical reform as more and more Australians approach retirement. Our government is committed to making it easier for Australians to receive the financial advice they want. So, again, this bill delivers tranche 1 of our Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms. The measures in the bill will streamline ongoing fee renewal and consent requirements into a single form, provide flexibility in how financial service guide requirements can be met, simplify the rules banning conflicted remuneration, introduce new consumer consent requirements for certain insurance commissions and clarify how financial advice is paid from a super balance when it relates to retirement outcomes. We know these reforms will slash red tape for financial advisers and reduce the cost for Australians to access this advice. We know that because stakeholders have told us that, and we know that because the sector has told us that. And, again, this is a bill that is simple in intent and well supported by the sector. The Economics Legislation Committee recently conducted an inquiry into the bill, and the support from across industry was overwhelming. Representatives from the financial advice industry, super funds and insurers told us that these reforms are a crucial first step. The Financial Advice Association Australia told the hearing that these reforms 'will materially reduce costs involved in providing financial advice'. The National Insurance Brokers Association of Australia told the committee that they are 'supportive of the reforms because they will enable Australians to get access to quality advice'. The Council of Australian Life Insurers noted, 'This bill is a critical first step to expanding Australians' access to financial advice and reducing red tape for financial advisers.' The Super Members Council told the committee that this bill is a critical 'first step to achieving wider and better access to affordable financial advice for millions of Australians who urgently need it'. So, again, despite the rhetoric in this chamber, there is wide support from across the sector for these reforms, which will make financial advice more affordable. And industry recognises and welcomes that we are reducing red tape and costs for financial advice. We're pleased that the opposition will support the bill, because it is a good bill. We are providing the certainty that the advice industry and the super sector need around facilitating that advice as well. We know that it's important for Australians to have access to financial advice, particularly as they approach retirement. That's why we're getting on with the job of implementing these reforms. They are well supported. They cut red tape. They deliver better financial outcomes. And it is a good thing that, through a process of consultation with industry and with stakeholders, we have a bill before the parliament, supported by the opposition, that will do just what it says on the label: deliver better financial outcomes. 12:54 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It's a real pleasure to make some remarks in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024. It was only a few weeks ago that we had a hearing into this bill. At that hearing, the government appeared to defend drafting that was pointed out as being problematic by parts of industry and by the opposition. This is another bill that Minister Jones and the government have bungled. In fact, so many of these Treasury laws amendment bills have been bungled and have needed to be heavily amended. One of the roles that I perform here in this parliament is working with Senator Walsh on the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. We scrutinise the Treasury laws amendments regularly. I am staggered by the scale of the amendments that have been required to be delivered to not just this bill but all these bills. Sometimes it is a bill which has been proposed by Dr Leigh and sometimes they're bills from Minister Jones. I don't think it really matters; they all seem to be hugely messy processes. The point that was made on this bill is that the drafting was going to mean that every piece of advice needed to be checked by the trustee and that it may have introduced some uncertainty around whether or not financial advice can be paid for from the superannuation account. This position was defended by government, as I said before. Now the government has capitulated and agreed to make the amendments we had flagged that now give confidence that people who wish to pay for financial advice from their superannuation account can do just that. That is a positive. I give credit to the government for agreeing to amend the legislation in the way that we had suggested they do, but I put on record that this is a very small reform in the financial advice space. The government inherited a very good review by Michelle Levy which pointed out that financial advice is now almost unaffordable in Australia if you are an average worker. That is very bad. There is no question that this particular sector has had a great journey of improvement over these last 10 years or so, and there is no doubt that parliamentary inquiries, royal commissions and the like have pointed out that there have been a lot of bad apples in the financial advice sector. But my sense now is that, with all the reforms that have passed through this parliament over the past few years, the bar is at a point where not many people can meet the bar. There are very few financial advisers, and the result of that is that it is very expensive to get financial advice. That is a bad thing, because we want Australians to avail themselves of the best possible financial advice, given professionally and without conflicts. We recognise that Australians live in a country where taxation affairs are complex—financial affairs are always complex—and financial advice can actually help people get the outcomes that they want for themselves and for the people they love. That is why it is so disappointing that the government inherited a very clear and concise review into financial advice which showed how it could strip away the bureaucracy, strip away the red tape and ensure that there would be a greater supply of financial advice at a lower cost and all government has done is cherry-pick a few little ideas, which it has bungled up until now. Here we are at the last hour, in the last few minutes before the guillotine blade comes down, and the government has had to amend its own legislation after previously arguing that the legislation was all good. I welcome the government's flexibility. We're very pleased that the sector can benefit from having clearly drafted legislation which is going to allow people to get advice from their super fund. But we want to see the government move on the rest of the Levy review. We want to see the government deliver the rest of those reforms. We'd like to see the government do a lot of things in this space. But I have to say that now, having had more than two years in office, the government is very slow and, generally speaking, only gets out of bed for the unions and the big super funds if they ask for something. It is a consequence of being a government for vested interests that really the only focus of the government, and the thing by which all their economic policies are driven, is feathering the nests of their best friends and fellow travellers, in financial terms and in policy terms. So we very much welcome this capitulation from Minister Jones, who has battled in the job, you've got to say. He really has struggled in this job, but we're very pleased that he has seen the light in the last few minutes before the guillotine. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 It being 1 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the time for consideration of this bill and further bills has expired. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will first deal with the second reading amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, starting with the amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2678 be agreed to. Australian Greens circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that the Government promised to implement local content quotas on streaming giants by 1 July 2024, but it is yet to introduce any legislation, breaking this promise; and (b) calls on the Government to support Australia's screen sector and prioritise the introduction of its legislative reforms for local content quotas to protect and promote Australian stories and jobs".  

The Senate divided. [13:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 36 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:08 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. As the amendment was circulated after 11 am, it can only be considered by leave. Is the senator seeking leave? 13:08 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Yes. I seek leave to move the second reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 2706. Leave granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that recent changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax were co-authored by the Government and the gas industry and do not represent a fair return for the sale of Australian gas; and (b) calls on the Government to reform the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to capture the true value of Australian gas sold to multinational companies and shipped overseas". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment on sheet 2706 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 37 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 13:12 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table. 13:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that amendments on ZB323, circulated by the government, be agreed to. Government's circulated amendment— (1)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the cost of providing financial product advice," substitute "the cost of financial product advice provided to the member". (2)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 16 and 17), omit "and is wholly or partly about the member's interest in the fund". (3)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 18 to 20), omit paragraph 99FA(1)(b). (4)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 6 and 7), omit note 1, substitute: Note 1: The other obligations under this Act, including to act in the best financial interests of the beneficiaries (see paragraph 52(2)(c)) and to comply with the sole purpose test (see section 62), continue to apply to trustees. (5)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 17), omit "providing". (6)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 22), omit "providing". (7)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 25), omit "providing". (8)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 26), omit "providing".  

The Senate divided. [13:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 39 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 2638 13:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024 2638

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024

First Reading 2638 Second Reading 2638 13:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will first deal with amendments to the motion for the second reading, starting with the amendment by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2679 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes: (i) that problem gambling fuelled by advertising inflicts significant harm on the lives of Australians, their families and communities, and (ii) the recommendation from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts that the Government implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of online gambling advertising without delay; and (b) calls on the Government to back this recommendation and implement a ban on online gambling advertising as a matter of urgency".  

The Senate divided. [13:18]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 40 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:21 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2343 be agreed to. Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that fair and balanced reporting of news by journalists is crucial to supporting democracy and ensuring that Australians can participate properly in citizenship; and (b) calls on the Government to introduce a requirement: (i) that all free-to-air broadcasters provide impartial, fair and balanced reporting of all news and current affairs, and (ii) that the SBS and ABC (other than SBS and ABC radio) become subscription-based services, whereby Australian consumers pay an optional small annual licensing fee to access content, with the result of cessation of public funding".  

The Senate divided. [13:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 2 AYES Babet, R. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) 50 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:25 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2612 revised, 2638, 2682 and 2684 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendments— SHEET 2612 REVISED (1)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 25 (line 19) to page 26 (line 19), omit section 146S, substitute: 146S Simplified outline This Part sets up a scheme to promote the free availability to audiences throughout Australia of coverage of events of national importance and cultural significance. The Minister may, by legislative instrument (the anti-siphoning list), specify the events that are covered by this Part. If an event is specified in the list, there is a period in which media content service providers (other than national broadcasters and certain Australian commercial television broadcasting licensees) are prohibited from acquiring the rights to provide coverage of a whole or a part of the event. This ensures that national broadcasters and certain Australian commercial television broadcasting licensees have the opportunity to acquire the rights and make the event available for free to the general public. If the rights to an event are not acquired within the relevant period, the event is automatically removed from the anti-siphoning list, unless the Minister makes another legislative instrument declaring that the event is to remain in the list. The Minister also has a general power to remove events from the list if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so (for example, if the Minister thinks that doing so is likely to have the effect that the event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list). The ACMA has information gathering and enforcement functions and powers in relation to this Part. There is to be a review of the operation of this Part. (2)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 26 (after line 26), after the definition of Australia in section 146T, insert: broadcasting video on demand service has the same meaning as in Part 9E. comprehensive coverage of an event means coverage via both: (a) television; and (b) a broadcasting video on demand service. (3)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 28 (line 5), omit "televising", substitute "coverage". (4)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 28 (line 20), omit "televise", substitute "provide comprehensive coverage of". (5)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 29 (lines 5 to 20), omit the examples, substitute: Examples: The following are examples of situations in which the Minister might exercise the power to remove an event from the anti-siphoning list: (a) The national broadcasters and commercial television broadcasting licensees have had a real opportunity to acquire the right to provide comprehensive coverage of an event, but none of them has acquired the right within a reasonable time. The Minister is of the opinion that removing the event from the list is likely to have the effect that the event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list; (b) A commercial television broadcasting licensee has acquired the right to provide comprehensive coverage of an event, but has failed to provide coverage of the event or has covered only an unreasonably small proportion of the event. The Minister is of the opinion that removing that event, or another event, from the list is likely to have the effect that the removed event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list. (6)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 29 (line 21), omit the heading to section 146W, substitute "Coverage of events in anti-siphoning list should be provided for free". (7)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 29 (line 28) to page 30 (line 3), omit subsection 146W(2), substitute: (2) A media content service provider must not acquire the right to provide coverage of the whole or a part of an event that is included in the anti-siphoning list to end-users in Australia unless: (a) a national broadcaster has the right to provide comprehensive coverage of the whole or a part of the event; or (b) both of the following apply: (i) one or more commercial television broadcasting licensees (other than licensees who hold licences allocated under section 38C or subsection 40(1)) have the right to provide comprehensive coverage of the whole or a part of the event; (ii) the television broadcasting services of that licensee, or of those licensees, cover a total of more than 50% of the Australian population. _____ SHEET 2638 (1)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 13), insert: (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations must prescribe (the minimum prominence requirements) that: (a) an application, or applications, designed for the purpose of providing access to broadcasting video on demand services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be displayed on the primary user interface of a regulated television device; and (b) a button, or buttons, designed for the purpose of providing directaccess to broadcasting video on demand services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be included on the remote control (if any) for the device. Note: ABC iView is a broadcasting video on demand service provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. _____ SHEET 2682 (1)—Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2)—Page 36 (after line 3), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 3 — Codes of practice for broadcasting video on demand services Broadcasting Services Act 1992 1 After section 123 Insert: 123A Codes of practice to apply to broadcasting video on demand services (1) Despite anything else in this Act or instruments made under this Act, the following codes of practice are applicable to broadcasting video on demand services: (a) for a broadcasting video on demand service provided by a commercial television broadcasting licensee—the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice; (b) for a broadcasting video on demand service provided by a community television broadcasting licensee—the Community Television Broadcasting Codes of Practice; (c) for a broadcasting video on demand service provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation—a code of practice mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(e) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983; (d) for a broadcasting video on demand service provided by the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation—a code of practice mentioned in paragraph 10(1)(j) of the Special Broadcasting Services Act 1991. (2) For the purposes of this section: broadcasting video on demand service has the same meaning as in Part 9E. _____ SHEET 2684 (1)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 18), omit "18 months", substitute "6 months". (2)—Schedule 1, item 24, page 24 (line 7), omit "18 months", substitute "6 months".  

The Senate divided. [13:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 40 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:29 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—Madam President, I ask that my opposition to sheet 2638 be noted. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network. The question is that amendments (1) to (17) and (19) to (36) on sheet 2379 be agreed to. Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated am e ndments— (1)—Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 2), omit the cell, substitute: (2)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 6), after the definition of listed carriage service in section 130ZZH, insert: live television application means an application that is designed for the purpose of providing access to a particular linear broadcast service. (3)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 19), after subsection 130ZZN(2), insert: (2A) A person who: (a) has supplied a regulated television device to another person in Australia; and (b) is the manufacturer of the device or a related body corporate of the manufacturer of the device; and (c) provides or causes to be provided a software update for the device; must ensure that the software update causes the device to comply with the minimum prominence requirements for a regulated television service that is offered by a regulated television provider. Note: In relation to paragraph (a), supply does not include supply for use outside Australia (see definition of supply and subsection 95A(2) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010). (2B) A person who is subject to the requirement under subsection (2A) in relation to a regulated television device must ensure that the device continues to comply with the minimum prominence requirements for a regulated television service during the period: (a) beginning immediately after the time a software update provided for the regulated television device causes the device to comply with those requirements; and (b) ending at the earliest of the following times: (i) the time when an action by a user of the device results in the device not complying with those requirements; (ii) the time when the software used on the device is no longer provided, updated or supported by the manufacturer, or by another person on behalf of the manufacturer; (iii) the time when the regulated television service is no longer offered by the regulated television service provider. Note: In relation to subparagraph (b)(iii), see subsection (9) for when a service is or is not taken to be offered. (4)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), omit "or (2)", substitute ", (2), (2A) or (2B)". (5)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (lines 26 and 27), omit "or (2)", substitute ", (2), (2A) or (2B)". (6)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 33), after "(2),", insert "(2A), (2B),". (7)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 35), omit "or (2)", substitute ", (2), (2A) or (2B)". (8)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 8), after "(2),", insert "(2A), (2B),". (9)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (lines 25 and 26), omit the heading to section 130ZZO, substitute: 130ZZO Minimum prominence requirements (10)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (before line 27), insert: (1A) Within one month after the commencement of this Schedule, the regulations must prescribe (the minimum prominence requirements) that a regulated television device must provide access to applications covered by subsection 130ZZJ(5). (1AA) Within six months after the commencement of this Schedule, the regulations must prescribe (the minimum prominence requirements) that a regulated television device must provide access to: (a) each application referred to in subsection 130ZZO(1A) on the primary user interface of the device; and (b) a live television application for each broadcasting service referred to in paragraph 130ZZJ(1)(a) that is transmitted in the licence area in which the device is located; and (c) an electronic program guide that: (i) includes information about each of the regulated television services referred to in paragraph 130ZZJ(1)(a) that is transmitted in the licence area in which the device is located; and (ii) lists each regulated television service according to logical channel number order. (11)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (lines 27 and 28), omit "prescribe requirements (the minimum prominence requirements)", substitute "also prescribe minimum prominence requirements". (12)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 13), after "regulated television services", insert "or any other audiovisual content". (13)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 13), at the end of subsection 130ZZO(1), add: ; (g) the availability of search and discoverability functionality on the device. (14)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 5), after "(2),", insert "(2A), (2B),". (15)—Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 10), after "(2),", insert "(2A), (2B),". (16)—Schedule 1, item 17, page 21 (line 16), after "(2),", insert "(2A), (2B),". (17)—Schedule 1, item 17, page 21 (line 18), after "(2),", insert "(2A), (2B),". (19)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 25 (line 19) to page 26 (line 19), omit section 146S, substitute: 146S Simplified outline This Part sets up a scheme to promote the free availability to audiences throughout Australia of media coverage, whether by television or other means, of events of national importance and cultural significance. The Minister may, by legislative instrument (the anti-siphoning list), specify the events that are covered by this Part. If an event is specified in the list, there is a period in which content service providers (other than national broadcasters and certain Australian commercial television broadcasting licensees) are prohibited from acquiring the rights to provide coverage of a whole or a part of the event. This ensures that national broadcasters and certain Australian commercial television broadcasting licensees have the opportunity to acquire the rights and make the event available for free to the general public. If the rights to an event are not acquired within the relevant period, the event is automatically removed from the anti-siphoning list, unless the Minister makes another legislative instrument declaring that the event is to remain in the list. The Minister also has a general power to remove events from the list if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so (for example, if the Minister thinks that doing so is likely to have the effect that the event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list). The ACMA has information gathering and enforcement functions and powers in relation to this Part. There is to be a review of the operation of this Part. (20)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 26 (before line 22), before the definition of anti-siphoning list in section 146T, insert: access has the same meaning as in schedule 8. (21)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 26 (after line 26), after the definition of Australia in section 146T, insert: content service means: (a) a service that delivers audiovisual content to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that content, where the delivery of the service is by means of a listed carriage service; or (b) a service that allows end-users to access audiovisual content using a listed carriage service where: (i) the service is provided to the public (whether on payment of a fee or otherwise); and (ii) any of the content accessible using the service or delivered by the service, is accessible to, or delivered to, one or more end-users in Australia; or (c) a service that the Minister determines, by legislative instrument, is a content service. content service provider means a person who provides a content service to the public. (22)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 27 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definitions of media content service and media content service provider in section 146T. (23)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 27 (after line 5), after the definition of related body corporate in section 146T, insert: simulcast BVOD service means a content service that: (a) is made available free to the general public; and (b) predominantly simulcasts all of the program content (excluding advertising, sponsorship or promotional material) of: (i) a commercial television broadcasting service; or (ii) a national broadcasting service that provides television programs. specified content service means: (a) a broadcasting service that delivers television programs; or (b) a simulcast BVOD service. (24)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 27 (lines 6 to 29), omit section 146U. (25)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 28 (lines 5 to 7), omit "the televising of which should, in the opinion of the Minister, be available free to the general public", substitute "that should, in the opinion of the Minister, be available free to the general public by means of a specified content service". (26)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 28 (lines 20 and 21), omit "televise the event concerned", substitute "make the event concerned available free to the general public by means of a specified content service". (27)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 29 (lines 5 to 20), omit the examples, substitute: Examples: The following are examples of situations in which the Minister might exercise the power to remove an event from the anti-siphoning list: (a) The national broadcasters and commercial television broadcasting licensees have had a real opportunity to acquire the right to make an event available on their specified content services, but none of them has acquired the right within a reasonable time. The Minister is of the opinion that removing the event from the list is likely to have the effect that the event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list; (b) A commercial television broadcasting licensee has acquired the right to make an event available on their specified content services, but has failed to make the event available to the public or has made available only an unreasonably small proportion of the event. The Minister is of the opinion that removing that event, or another event, from the list is likely to have the effect that the removed event will receive a greater level of media coverage than if it remained in the list. (28)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 29 (line 22) to page 30 (line 3), omit subsections 146W(1) and (2), substitute: (1) This section applies to a content service provider, other than: (a) a commercial television broadcasting licensee (other than a licensee who holds a licence allocated under section 38C or subsection 40(1)), or a related body corporate of that licensee; or (b) a national broadcaster. (2) No content service provider may acquire the right to provide or make available to the public by means of any content service an event, or events of a kind, specified in the anti-siphoning list (in whole or part) unless: (a) a national broadcaster has the right to make the whole or a part of the event available on any of its specified content services; or (b) both of the following apply: (i) one or more commercial television broadcasting licensees (other than a licensee who holds a license allocated under section 38C or subsection 40(1)) has the right to make the whole or a part of the event available on any of their specified content services; (ii) the television broadcasting services of that licensee, or of those licensees, cover a total of more than 50% of the Australian population. (29)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 30 (line 7), omit "media". (30)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 30 (line 21), omit "media". (31)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 31 (line 2), omit "media". (32)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 31 (line 18), omit "media". (33)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 31 (line 19), omit "media". (34)—Schedule 2, item 4, page 33 (line 28), omit "media". (35)—Schedule 2, item 5, page 34 (line 5), omit "media". (36)—Schedule 2, item 5, page 34 (line 10), omit "media".    

The Senate divided. [13:31]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. (Teller) McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 37 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that item 24 of schedule 1 stand as printed. The Jacqui Lambie Network opposed schedule 1 in the following terms— (18)—Schedule 1, item 24, page 24 (lines 4 to 9), to be opposed.    

The Senate divided. [13:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:37 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2617 revised be agreed to. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments— (1)—Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2)—Page 36 (after line 2), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 3 — Codes of practice for broadcasting video on demand services Broadcasting Services Act 1992 1 Subsection 123(1) Omit "radio and television industry", substitute "radio, television, and other relevant broadcasting industry". 2 After paragraph 123(1)(e) Insert: and (f) providers of broadcasting video on demand services; 3 At the end of section 123 Add: (8) For the purposes of this section: broadcasting video on demand service has the same meaning as in Part 9E.    

The Senate divided. [13:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Third Reading 2647 13:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 2647

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2647 13:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will start with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2711 be agreed to. Op position ' s circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) expresses concern at the dramatic scaling back of Australia's contribution to the biennial Rim of the Pacific military exercises; (b) notes that the diminished contribution sends a dangerous message about the nation's capacity to deter regional threats; (c) notes that the former Coalition government grew defence spending from 1.56% of GDP under Labor—the lowest level since 1938—up to 2% of GDP; (d) notes that the Coalition founded and fostered the game-changing and nation-building AUKUS defence and security agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom; and (e) calls on the Albanese Labor Government to agree to take Australia's national security and defence seriously, show some leadership, and agree to the Opposition's sensible amendments to the bill".    

The Senate divided. [13:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 13:47 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2702 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— (1)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute: (2) The Committee is to consist of 13 Committee members and must include at least: (a) 2 Government Senators; and (b) 2 Opposition Senators; and (c) 2 Government members of the House of Representatives; and (d) 2 Opposition members of the House of Representatives. (3) The Committee is to consist of: (a) 7 members of the Government; and (b) 6 members of the Opposition. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. (2)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (lines 13 to 16), omit subsection 110AEA(2), substitute: (2) Before nominating the members, the Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition. (3)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (lines 21 to 29), omit subsections 110AEA(4) and (5), substitute: (4) Before nominating the members, the Leader of the Government in the Senate must consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.    

The Senate divided. [13:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 37 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:51 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2656 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendment— Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute: (2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members: (a) 7 Government members, including at least: (i) 2 Senators; and (ii) 2 members of the House of Representatives; and (b) 6 non-Government members: (i) 2 Opposition Senators; and (ii) 2 Opposition members of the House of Representatives; and (iii) 1 Senator who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition; and (iv) 1 member of the House of Representatives who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5.  

The Senate divided. [13:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:54 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Van. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2704 be agreed to. Senator Van's circulated amendments— (1)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute: (2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members: (a) 7 Government members, including at least: (i) 2 Senators; and (ii) 2 members of the House of Representatives; and (b) 6 non-Government members: (i) 3 Senators, including 1 independent Senator; and (ii) 3 members of the House of Representatives, including 1 independent member of the House of Representatives. (3) To avoid doubt: (a) if all Senators are members of a recognised political party—the requirement for 1 independent Senator to be a member of the committee in subparagraph (2)(b)(i) does not apply; and (b) if all members of the House of Representatives are members of a recognised political party—the requirement for 1 independent member of the House of Representatives to be a member of the committee in subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) does not apply. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. (2)—Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (line 29), after "political parties", insert "and independents".  

The Senate divided. [13:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 6 AYES Babet, R. Lambie, J. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. (Teller) 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 2651 13:57 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.  

The Senate divided. [13:59]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 24 AYES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. 38 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 2651

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2651 14:03 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that requests for amendments on sheet 2666 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendments— That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment: (1)—Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2)—Page 21 (after line 13), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A — Increase to income support payments and veterans' entitlements Part 1 — Amendments Division 1 — Age pension, carer payment and disability support pension Social Security Act 1991 1 Point 1064-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: 2 Point 1065-B1 (table B) Repeal the table, substitute: 3 Point 1066A-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: 4 Point 1066B-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Division 2 — Youth allowance Social Security Act 1991 5 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 6 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: 7 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC) Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute: Division 3 — Jobseeker payment Social Security Act 1991 8 Point 1068-B1 (table B) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Division 4 — Parenting payment (single) Social Security Act 1991 9 Point 1068A-B1 Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$32,032.00 per year ($1,232.00 per fortnight)". Division 5 — Parenting payment (partnered) Social Security Act 1991 10 Point 1068B-C2 (table C) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: Division 6 — Service pension, income support supplement and veteran payment Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 11 Point SCH6-B1 (table B-1) Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute: 12 Point SCH6-B2 (table B-2) Repeal the table (note including the notes), substitute: Part 2 — Application of amendments 13 Application of amendments Social Security Act 1991 (1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following: (a) the rate of a person's age pension, disability support pension, carer payment, youth allowance, jobseeker payment, pension PP (single) or benefit PP (partnered) for days occurring on or after 20 September 2024; (b) the rate of a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 for days occurring on or after 20 September 2024. (2) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in a table of the Social Security Act 1991 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (3) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment for days occurring on or after 20 September 2024. (4) For the purposes of indexing an amount: (a) specified in a table of Schedule 6 to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and (b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences; the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount. 2666-EM Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 _____ (Requests for amendments to be moved by Senator Allman-Payne, on behalf of the Australian Greens, in committee of the whole) Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (1) Amendment (1) is consequential to amendment (2). Amendment (2) Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the maximum basic rate amounts of various income support payments and veterans' entitlements. As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. _____ Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (2) If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Amendment (1) This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.  

The Senate divided. [14:05]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 35 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 2657 14:07 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024 2657

Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2657 14:08 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [14:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 2 NOES Babet, R. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 2658 14:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [14:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 2 NOES Babet, R. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 2658

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2658 14:14 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 2659 14:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 2659 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliament House: Protests 2659 14:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, as many of you are aware, this morning the Parliamentary Security Service and the Australian Federal Police responded to two separate protest incidents at Parliament House. The presiding officers take matters of security for Parliament House very seriously. I have been advised that all security infrastructure operated as designed, and the PSS and the AFP responded in accordance with policies and practices. I want to inform the chamber that the AFP arrested the four individuals involved and they were issued with 24-month banning notices in accordance with the banning framework. There have been significant upgrades to security infrastructure and measures in the last parliament, and further upgrades are in progress in consultation with the Senate, appropriation staffing and the security committee, alongside the Deputy President. I have requested a thorough investigation into today's events by the Australian Federal Police Commissioner with the Department of Parliamentary Services. In light of ongoing investigations, I do not intend on making any further statements. I acknowledge the response of the Australian Federal Police, the Parliamentary Security Service, ACT Police and the Department of Parliamentary Services. 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—Can I indicate, as the Prime Minister has in the House, that on behalf of the government we support the actions taken by the Speaker and by you, President. What occurred at Parliament House today was not appropriate, and those responsible should feel the full force of the law. Peaceful protest does have an important place in our society. I think there are many who would question whether this was a peaceful protest. Their actions have done nothing to advance the cause of peace. As all are aware, the security of Parliament House is the responsibility of the presiding officers and we support them and the actions they are taking. I understand, from advice from the Attorney-General, that four arrests have been made, and obviously that is a matter for law enforcement. I'd make a broader point about social cohesion. There is a tragic, horrific conflict occurring. We have seen loss of lives at scale, and people in Australia on all sides are deeply distressed by this. Those of us in this place do have an obligation to remember, first and foremost, that one of the precious aspects of our democracy and one of the prerequisites of our democracy is our capacity to peacefully disagree. 14:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—President, I acknowledge the statement you have made. The security breaches that occurred in this building today are deeply troubling and should be troubling to all occupants of this building in relation to the images that were projected around the nation and potentially the world as well as troubling in relation to what it indicates in terms of the security of this workplace and this environment. While acknowledging that it is the responsibility of the Australian Federal Police and law enforcement authorities to undertake their investigations independently and to make decisions about prosecutions independently, I am sure I speak for many senators who would wish to see the full force of the law applied to individuals involved. It is also I am sure the expectation of many senators that there be a full and thorough investigation into how this occurred—how these security breaches occurred, how it is that the banners and other materials were able to be accessed and used by the protestors in this way and, in those investigations, whether any persons or passholders provided any assistance to those individuals. The impact and the images of the hanging of an antisemitic message and messages from the front of our nation's parliament is a stain on this parliament. These were shameful acts. These were repugnant slogans. And they do those who offended no credit. They bring shame to them. But to those people around Australia and the world who may be offended, and deeply so, at what they saw hanging from our parliament today, we say that we stand with them and in support of them. MINISTRY 2660 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 2660 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—Senator Farrell is absent for personal reasons. I advise the chamber that ministers will represent portfolios in accordance with the letter circulated earlier today. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2660 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 2660 14:22 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On this final sitting day of parliament's budget session, interest rates remain at a 12-year high, now for the eighth straight month, with no relief in sight. Core inflation is on the rise again, at 4.4 per cent, with the cost of rent up by 7.4 per cent, food by 3.3 per cent, housing by 5.2 per cent, electricity by 6.5 per cent and insurance by 14 per cent. There are 1½ million mortgage holders now considered at risk of mortgage stress, having to dedicate more than 30 per cent of their pre-tax income to repayments. Eminent economist Warwick McKibbin noted that the budget's consumer price index suppression was nothing more than a political trick. And Brendan Rynne said that any inflation reduction is simply smoke and mirrors. Minister, how much worse is it going to get for Australians because of the Prime Minister's failed economic plan? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Hume for her question on the economy and cost of living. I would say to her that we are very seized as a government at the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing. We know how tough so many Australians are doing. That is why the budget we brought down had cost-of-living relief as its No. 1 priority. Senator Hume 266499 But it's not working. Senator WONG 00AOU The senator might like to remember some of that cost-of-living relief: a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, $300 of energy bill relief for every Australian household, a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian, a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers, more funding to build homes in every part of Australia, and an increase in paid parental leave, taking it to 22 weeks. And that's on top of what we have already delivered through past budgets, which is cheaper child care, HECS relief for everyone with student debt, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing. In contrast, what you were offering is Senator McKim's policy on the supermarket sector. That's what the coalition was offering. That is your only positive offering. It's Senator McKim's policy offering on the supermarket sector. In relation to cost-of-living relief, most of the things that I have outlined you have opposed. So everyone will know when you come in here talking about cost of living that what your record shows is a complete disinterest except for political gain. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a first supplementary? 14:25 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Six financial market economists—Citi, Deutsche, Judo Bank, Morgan Stanley, Rabobank and UBS, now expect the RBA to hike its cash rate target by 25 basis points to 4.6 per cent before parliament returns in August. Why is the Albanese government's plan fuelling inflation and driving up interest rates, making life harder for Australians that are already doing it tough in an all-out cost-of-living crisis? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will not be talking about the job of the independent Reserve Bank. What I would say is that the only people who are barracking for an interest rate increase are those opposite, because they always put self-interest above the national interest. In relation to the fiscal policy, I would remind those opposite that we are on track to return a second surplus. They simply had to return some 'back in black' mugs. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary? 14:26 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria After just two years under Labor, food is up 11.4 per cent, housing is up 14 per cent, rent is up 14.2 per cent, electricity is up 21.5 per cent, gas is up 22.2 per cent, health is up 11.1 per cent, education is up 10.9 per cent and insurance is up 16.2 per cent. They have spent an additional $30,000 per household with nothing to show for it except stubborn, homegrown inflation and rising rates. Minister, what do you say to Australians who say you are to blame— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hume. Your time has expired. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Hume! I called that time had expired twice, and you continued with your question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, you are not in a debate with me. 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think what is really interesting about the political attack that we just witnessed is that in relation to so many of the measures that we have put in place to seek to deliver cost-of-living— Senator Henderson ZN4 It's not working. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Henderson! I hope that I am not going to spend the entire question time calling particular senators to order. If I call for order, it includes every single senator in this place. Have some respect. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU In relation to the cost-of-living pressures that the senator went through, the senator is on the team that voted against almost every single one of the measures designed to deliver cost-of-living relief to Australians. They have opposed the measures we have put in place to bring in more bulk-billing and cheaper medicines. They have opposed measures we have delivered to try to increase the supply of housing. On electricity, they have opposed the relief for Australians and they are proposing the most expensive form of energy there is. That is their response to the cost of living. (Time expired) Cost of Living 2661 14:29 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The cost of living is the No. 1 issue I hear from constituents about and the No. 1 priority of the Albanese Labor government. I am worried to see those opposite spruiking policies that experts say will drive up prices, including nuclear reactors and supermarket divestiture, without any plan to actually provide effective relief now. Can the minister outline what the Albanese government's approach is to providing cost-of-living relief now, putting downward pressure on inflation and setting Australia up for the future? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Walsh, for the question. She, like every member of our caucus, understands that Australians are under pressure, which is why we have made helping all Australians with the cost of living our priority. From 1 July this year, we have a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some, as those opposite wanted; $300 of energy bill relief, which you opposed; a freeze on the cost of PBS medicine for every Australian, which, again, was not supported by you; a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers, opposed by the party who believe that low wages should be a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy; more funding to build homes in every part of this country, also opposed; and an increase to paid parental leave. That is on top, as I said before, of Labor delivering cheaper child care, HECS relief for everyone with student debt, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing. What do those opposite have to offer Australians? First, as I said, they want to adopt the Greens party's policy on supermarkets, which we know risks increasing the prices that people pay at the checkout. In addition, they want to adopt the most expensive form of electricity there is, nuclear reactors, which would not be operational until the 2040s, and they have no plan about what to do with supply between now and then. In relation to supermarkets, if I might return to that, I would remind those opposite that the former ACCC chair Graeme Samuel said, of Mr Dutton's policy, that it is a 'disgrace' and it's 'populist politics'. Mr Dutton, whether it's on nuclear or on supermarkets, has no answer on the cost of living. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, which is working to support women across the country. Can the minister please explain how women are better off under Labor's tax cuts than they would have been under the plan proposed by those opposite? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I note that Senator Walsh has spent a great deal of her working life advancing the causes, wages and conditions of working women, and she understands acutely the imperative of women's equality and financial security—an economic and social imperative. Around 6½ million working women will, from this week, pay less tax as a result of the government's policies. What those opposite might not like to remember is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie and Senator Hughes! Senator WONG 00AOU nine out of 10 of these women will get a bigger tax cut than what they were proposed to get under you. You want to talk about women's economic security, but nine out of 10 women would have been worse off under your tax policy. Let's remember which government, which party, is actually delivering for working women. Those who have never delivered for working women are those over there. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I thank the minister for that answer. Australia has a housing shortage, and experts are clear that we need to build more homes to help with this issue, which is adding to cost-of-living pressures on renters and those wanting to buy a home. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, are you going under a different name? When I call your name you don't respond. I'm going to ask Senator Walsh to start again. I ask for the clock to be reset and I ask for silence. Senator Walsh, please start the question again. Senator WALSH 252157 Australia has a housing shortage, and experts are clear that we need to build more homes to help with this issue, which is adding to cost-of-living pressures on renters and those wanting to buy a home. Can the minister please update the Senate on what work the government is doing to help build more homes more quickly in every part of the country? 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia After almost a decade of neglect under those opposite, we do have a housing shortage, and we need to build more homes, more quickly, in more parts of the country. That is why the government has $32 billion in new housing initiatives in our comprehensive Homes for Australia plan. It includes an ambitious national goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. What we know is that we have to deal with housing affordability, and the best way to deal with that is to increase supply and to ensure there are more affordable options for all Australians. Unfortunately, this is another area of policy where we have seen the extremes of the political spectrum: the Greens and the coalition line up together to prevent progress, standing in the way of more help for Australian home buyers through their continued opposition to so many aspects of our housing plan. (Time expired) Energy 2662 14:35 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Labor was elected on a promise to reduce household electricity bills by $275, but Australians are instead paying amongst the most expensive energy bills in the world. Labor has fallen short of its election commitment by up to $1,027 for everyday households, with many Australians living on a knife's edge under Labor's cost-of-living crisis. We now see around 116,000 people on financial hardship arrangements with their energy retailer, which is a 59 per cent increase since you came to government. With 90 per cent of baseload electricity exiting the system over the next 10 years, the Albanese government can't even tell us how much their renewable plan will cost. Will you acknowledge that Labor has broken its promise to reduce electricity prices by $275 a year and will you apologise for your broken promises and failed policies that are costing Australians so much more? (Time expired) 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Mate, you should apologise for the irresponsibility of the energy policies that were entered into—or that failed to be entered into by those opposite. Twenty-four out of 28— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Twenty-four out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure while you were in government. You had no plan replace that supply, let alone increase supply for the growing population—no plan—and under your watch, we saw dispatchable energy—energy generation—exit the system. You had no plan, and now what you are proposing is more delay— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order on my left. It is not okay—in fact, it is incredibly disrespectful—to be in some kind of competition with the minister to yell louder. This is question time. Questions are asked and you are asked to listen in respectful silence. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Now the opposition are proposing two things around electricity. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, order! Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Now what you are proposing, apart from opposing energy bill relief— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ruston! Senator WONG 00AOU is a political strategy to put in place— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I just called for order and then I called you by name and you simply ignored me. That's disrespectful to me as the President. It is my job to keep order during question time, and, when I ask for order, it should be granted and given and respected. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU And now what you are proposing is the most expensive form of electricity that is possible in nuclear power. All you will tell Australians is that it will be a big bill. Even if you went down this path, there would be a delay until the 2040s. We are very clear about the importance of this energy transition. We have to reduce emissions. We have to move to a much cleaner energy system. We have to increase renewables, and that is what we are doing. Those opposite, in their anti-renewables obsession, are simply going to seek, should they win government, to impose the most expensive form of energy and of electricity on Australians, and they are asking Australians to pick up the tab. And they have the temerity to talk about electricity prices— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Since Labor came to government just two years ago, electricity bills are up a staggering 21½ per cent. The Prime Minister promised to make life easier and reduce energy bills, but the truth is that, after these two years under his weak leadership, life has never been harder and electricity bills aren't coming down by $275 anytime soon. Your so-called relief is just a one-off, and the RBA themselves have said that prices will bounce right back. Won't Australians continue to pay more and be worse off under Labor? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Australians would be worse off if a government sought to impose the most expensive energy there is on them and made them pick up the tab. Let's be clear: that question is being asked by a member of Peter Dutton's front bench—a party that is going to serve up the most expensive form of energy there is and ask Australians to pay for it. That is who that question is coming from. It is true that energy prices—electricity prices—are really tough for so many Australians. That is why it is incomprehensible to Australians why those opposite would have opposed so much of the electricity price relief that this government sought to put in place. People, remember that that question is being asked by somebody who wants Australians to pay higher prices. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Mr Albanese has ridiculed any attempt to consider alternative energy sources such as zero emissions nuclear in Australia's future energy mix, instead insisting on an unproven renewables-only approach. Why should Australians have to pay the bill for the Prime Minister's reckless pig-headedness— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, withdraw that comment. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Withdrawn—which will only drive up energy bills higher, make our energy grid less secure and make it much harder to do business and create jobs in Australia? 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What is pig-headed is to pursue a policy that will cost more without telling Australians how much it will cost, which is precisely what those opposite wish to do— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hume 266499 On a point of order: you asked Senator Duniam to withdraw because he said a particular word which was immediately repeated— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, as I'm sure you are aware, personal reflections on senators or MPs are not in line with our standing orders. I viewed the comment made in Senator Duniam's question about the PM to be a personal reflection. However, Minister Wong has simply used that term. That term itself is not unparliamentary, but it is unparliamentary— Senator Hume 266499 She was directing it towards Senator Duniam— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, you are not in a debate with me. It is not unparliamentary if it's simply used without attaching it to a particular senator or MP. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm always happy to withdraw, if it assists, President— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU so I'm happy to withdraw. What I would say is this: those opposite are supporting a policy which will impose the most expensive energy there is on Australians without telling them how much it will cost. Those opposite are more obsessed with being anti renewables than with ensuring that Australians have access to reliable, reasonably priced energy. I know that those opposite don't like to be reminded of the facts, but it is the case that renewables are the cheapest form of new energy. Your ideological obsession against that cannot be supported. (Time expired) Israel 2664 14:44 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Albanese government has placed autonomous sanctions on a number of individuals and entities connected to a number of nations, including North Korea, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, the former federal republic of Yugoslavia, Russia, Syria and Zimbabwe. Despite the clear evidence provided in UN reports that war crimes have been perpetrated by the State of Israel, no sanctions have been placed on those responsible. Why hasn't the Australian government placed sanctions on individuals responsible for the State of Israel's war crimes? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Steele-John for the question. As the senator knows—and he has advocated for sanctions on many people and many countries over these last couple of years, and I've given him the same answer every time—as is longstanding practice, we do not speculate on sanctions. What I would say, however, is that I have also made clear, unlike the opposition, our continued support for international law and our support for the international tribunals of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. We think those are the appropriate tribunals for assuring the observance of relevant international law. This is, and we have seen it today in our parliament, a conflict which has seen 40,000-plus Palestinians—men, women and children—die. It is a conflict that commenced on 7 October, with the greatest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. It is a conflict which has touched people deeply across this country. It has touched all of us deeply. It is distressing. What I would say to you, Senator, and to all senators is what I said in the statement at the outset: we have an obligation in this place to try and ensure that we work for peace in the Middle East and that we do not seek to bring the conflict here. That is an obligation upon everybody in this place. We will continue to do all that we can to work for peace in the Middle East, for both Palestinians and Israelis. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, first supplementary? 14:47 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, multiple countries, including the US, the UK, France and Canada, have imposed sanctions on illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Why is the Australian government so out of step with our allies in our decision not to do the same? 14:47 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I make two points. First, in relation to sanctions, again we don't speculate on sanctions, but I've said publicly that any extremist settler will not be granted a visa to come to Australia. It does give me the opportunity, though, to remind you of the various ways in which we have been clear about our opposition to settlements. This government has made clear that settlements are contrary to international law. We have been very clear with Israel directly about our deep concern with settlements. I note reports in the international media today about Israel's decision in recent months to approve new settlement construction and to seize territory in the West Bank. We object to these decisions and we call for these decisions to be reversed. Not only are settlements illegal under international law; they are a significant obstacle to peace and a two-state solution. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, second supplementary? 14:48 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Previously, when asked about autonomous sanctions placed upon Israel and its government members, you have said that it is a matter for relevant international tribunals. But, in other conflicts, you haven't in fact waited for international rulings before imposing autonomous sanctions. How do you justify this clear double standard? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There is no double standard. I have been clear that I will not speculate on sanctions whenever you have asked me—and you have asked me a lot, not just in relation to this country but in relation to others. We don't speculate on sanctions. There's a separate issue about respect for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. I note that this is not something on which the opposition agree. I have said—and I appreciate that there are people who may not agree with this—you don't pick and choose on international law. You can't argue that the law of the sea in the South China Sea should be respected but at the same time oppose the application of international law through the tribunals, as difficult as it may be, as difficult and as confronting as it may be. That will remain the principled position that the Albanese Labor government takes. Renewable Energy 2665 14:50 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Cost of living is top of mind for Queenslanders, with energy affordability one of their key concerns. A recently released plan by the Australian Energy Market Operator confirmed that the Albanese Labor government's Reliable Renewables plan is the only plan supported by experts to deliver a cheap, clean and reliable energy system to Australian households and businesses. How will the Albanese Labor government's clean, cheap and reliable renewables plan provide more affordable energy and secure jobs in our regions? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you very much, Senator Green, for that question. The Albanese Labor government is delivering for every Australian because we are a government for all Australians. That's why, from this week, we're taking $300 off the power bill of every Australian household, including those who live in regional areas. Our Reliable Renewables plan is the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy systems that Australians deserve. Under Labor we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national grid and we've greenlit more than 50 renewable projects—enough to power three million homes. Reliable renewables are the cheapest form of energy, and getting more renewables in the power system is bringing prices down. That's why Labor opposes Mr Dutton's risky, expensive nuclear reactor plan that guarantees more expensive power in 20 years time and blackouts in the meantime. But it turns out it's not just Labor that opposes Mr Dutton's plan. It seems that many within the Queensland LNP rank and file also oppose it. The Australian newspaper had an article today titled 'Nuclear sidelined at LNP unity convention'. The article reads: The Liberal National Party has snubbed any reference to nuclear energy across 173 resolutions up for debate at its final convention before the next Queensland and federal elections. Not one rank-and-file member of the LNP is prepared to back Mr Dutton's nuclear fantasy. There is nothing from Senator McGrath, nothing from Senator McDonald, nothing from Senator Scarr—not even anything from our friend up the back, Senator Rennick, over there in Siberia. There were 173 resolutions and not a single one supporting a nuclear reactor next to the Great Artesian Basin. The fact that not one LNP branch could bring themselves to support Peter Dutton's risky nuclear idea shows what they think of this policy. They know it's divisive and they know it'll jack up power prices. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The AEMO plan shows that a renewables powered grid is the most efficient and affordable energy option for Australia and does not envisage a role for nuclear in Australia's energy future. I note that this view is shared by a majority of states and territories, including the leader of the Liberal National Party in Queensland, David Crisafulli, who today confirmed that nuclear is not on the LNP agenda. Why are renewables the best option to power regional Australia, and what would be the impact on regions of an alternative energy plan? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Green. The simple fact is that Mr Dutton can't convince his own members to support nuclear power, so why should he expect Queenslanders to support him as well? Mr Dutton's deeply divisive nuclear policy is not only being snubbed by LNP branch members; it's been panned by the state leader of the opposition, David Crisafulli, who says it's not on his agenda. I notice that Deb Frecklington, the shadow energy minister in Queensland, who also happens to be the member for the electorate covering the Tarong Power Station, says she firmly opposes the federal opposition's plan to convert Tarong Power Station into a nuclear plant. In fact, it gets worse. Mr James Lister, the member for Southern Downs, said about nuclear: … why would I prioritise it over the fight right now to fix the hospitals and the roads, to build more houses and dams, and to lock up the crooks? The nuclear war is set to explode at this weekend's LNP state conference. If Peter Dutton can't get his own members to support nuclear power, why should he expect Queenslanders to back him as well? The PRESIDENT 112096 A second supplementary, Senator Green? 14:55 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I do note the reporting in the Australian today stating that the Queensland LNP has excluded any reference to nuclear energy across 173 resolutions for debate at their state convention this weekend. Minister, like all Australians, Queenslanders want clean, cheap and reliable energy. Why are renewables the best option to futureproof energy supply and jobs in the regions? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, when you're quiet, I will call the minister. 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Green. You're exactly right, Queenslanders do want cleaner, cheaper and more reliable power, and that's what hardworking Queenslanders are getting from the Albanese and Miles governments. I do have to give some credit also to the work ethic of the branch members of the LNP over the last few weeks. As I say, there are 173 resolutions for their state conference this weekend, and, let me tell you, there are some absolute doozies in there. There's a motion to ban Indigenous flags at press conferences—that'll do a lot to help cost-of-living issues. There's the old classic: a motion to sell the ABC, because we know privatisation in the media market goes well. And we have a new classic: a motion to abolish the mandatory medical certificate for drivers over the age of 75. LNP members in Queensland thought it was more important to remove medical certificates for elderly drivers than to support Mr Dutton's risky nuclear policy for Queensland. That's because even LNP members know that more nuclear means higher power prices and more blackouts. (Time expired) Disability Services 2666 14:56 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator Gallagher. Autism Tasmania and Disability Voices Tasmania shut their doors this week as a result of federal funding cuts. Staff have been immediately let go, and the Tasmanians who relied on these services have been left devastated by the sudden closures. Why was funding cut for these important services, without any warning or transition period? 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and her interest in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I will come back to the senator with more information, if I can. I'm not specifically aware of the organisations you speak of but, as Minister for Finance, we have been increasing funding to the NDIS every year to meet some of the increasing costs around the scheme. We know, from the way the scheme operates, that individuals get a package and then they can track that package with providers. That has, at times, meant that the viability of providers has been more difficult than it has been in the past, but I am not aware of funding cuts to the NDIS. We have been providing extra money every year and we will continue to— Senator Reynolds 250216 You cut $60 million from the scheme. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hughes and Senator Reynolds. Senator GALLAGHER ING That is not true. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes 273828 It's in your budget papers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds and Senator Hughes, I called both of you twice, and then one of you went further and banged the table—once again, incredibly disrespectful. If I call you to order, come to order. Senator Hughes. Order! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING We have factored into the budget changes that come with NDIS legislation, which has not passed this parliament, and they are about slowing the growth of the NDIS—the extra investment that's required. We need to ensure that the NDIS grows at a sustainable rate, in the order of eight per cent. That will still be outside of the interest that we're paying off your debt. That will be the fastest-growing government program across the Commonwealth. It is growing faster than health, faster than defence and faster than aged care. If those opposite think that you can just continue to grow a program like that, without any consequences, they are wrong. In terms of the organisations in Tasmania, Senator Tyrrell, I am happy to look at that and come back to you if there is any further information. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes and Senator Reynolds, again, I ask you to listen in respectful silence. When I call for order, don't disrespect me. This is Senator Tyrrell's question. Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The getting the NDIS back on track bill says states and territory will be expected to fund foundational supports. Senator Hughes 273828 What are they? Senator TYRRELL 300639 Did you cut funding to these services as part of this new NDIS strategy, which isn't actually in play yet and where there is this huge lag? Senator Reynolds 250216 Yes, that's exactly what they did. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I haven't called you, Minister. I'm going to ask for— The PRESIDENT 112096 Silence, Senator Hughes! Minister, please continue. 15:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The foundational supports program, which we are talking to the states about, is about ensuring that there are programs that sit outside the NDIS— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Ayres. Senator Ayres 16913 President, I think it would assist the chamber if you were able to advise the people who have come to the parliament who are in the gallery that babies are welcome in this parliament. Whether your babies make a little bit of noise or not, you are very, very welcome. I think it would assist members in the gallery if you were able to do that. The PRESIDENT 112096 As I understand it, one of the security staff misunderstood the rules. I'm sure that the security officer has been told that babies are welcome on the floor of the chamber and in the gallery. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please continue your answer. Senator GALLAGHER ING On the issue of foundation supports, we are looking to work with the states and territories to set up some foundation supports. Do you know why? Because we want to make sure that people who don't get in through the NDIS have some services, like the ones that used to exist. There used to be services that sat outside the NDIS—more high-level support, like therapy centres and early intervention centres, which no longer exist because those services were withdrawn when the NDIS came into being. That has left a gap. So we are working with the states and territories on that. We will continue to do so, we've put some money in the budget to establish that and we'll continue to work with states and territories on it. But it's actually about providing more options for support for children, in particular, with a disability to make sure that they get the best chance they can at the earliest opportunity. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I hear that answer, but the problem is that the people that had those services have not been kept informed. So what do you have to say to the Tasmanians who relied on these services and are now left with no alternatives and no actual answers? 15:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, I'm not aware of the specifics of the organisations that you refer to. I am told that, under the linkages and capacity building funding, announced in early June, we'll see millions of dollars flow to Tasmanian community organisations that deliver projects for people with a disability and their carers and families—over $3½ million. It will build on other projects there are. But I would urge those organisations to get in contact with the minister's office if they haven't already. I'm sure he will provide some information for them, and I'm happy to follow that up as well. Payman, Senator Fatima 2667 15:03 Senator 207825 Victoria McKENZIE (—) (): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. This week Senator Payman claimed she had been exiled and intimidated by Labor parliamentarians. Minister, have you or the Labor leadership raised any concerns with the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service or taken any action to ensure Senator Payman is aware of her rights to have such allegations independently investigated? 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Yes, I and others did inquire as to whether or not Senator Payman had been engaging with PWSS. It's a matter for her private business as to whether that was taken up. Yes, I and others have inquired as to her welfare. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 15:04 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Prime Minister has been repeatedly defied and humiliated by Senator Payman. His belated and feeble efforts to impose some form of discipline have spectacularly failed. If the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to act decisively, effectively and with strength within his own government, how can the Australian people trust him to act with strength and decisiveness on issues of importance to our nation? 15:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Prime Minister has sought to act with restraint. The Prime Minister has sought to act with understanding. To my way of thinking, those are qualities associated with leadership and with strength. I regret that Senator McKenzie is taking such an approach in relation to this matter. The 10000 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 15:05 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Former Labor senator Graham Richardson described the Prime Minister's first attempt at punishment of Senator Payman like this: 'I thought it was very weak. I think Albo's made a mistake on this.' Hasn't this critique been proven right—that Mr Albanese's response was weak and has been proven to be a giant mistake? Given the Prime Minister hasn't been able to convince his own party to take his authority seriously and has been so comprehensively outplayed by Senator Payman, how can anyone else be expected to take him seriously? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, I've called order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong. 15:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): Thank you, Senator. What I would say to you is that the Prime Minister has always acted to advance the cause of Labor and to ensure that the government's agenda continues to be implemented. I want to respond with a point about collective decision-making. We believe, on this side of the chamber, that collective decision-making is about the group being more powerful and more wise than any one individual. I would say to this chamber that that truth is demonstrated by the history of this nation and the progress that Labor has delivered on Medicare, the minimum wage, social welfare, paid parental leave, superannuation, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act, the abolition of the white Australia policy, Mabo, land rights and the removal of discrimination against LGBT Australians. (Time expired) Middle East 2668 15:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks of 7 October, the Labor Party joined with the coalition in a bipartisan motion recognising Israel's inherent right to defend itself. Does the Albanese government still recognise Israel's inherent right to self-defence, whether attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other sponsor of terrorism? 15:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have, as have the Labor Party and the Labor government, been very clear about the imperative of the continued existence of the State of Israel and our support for a two-state solution. We've been very clear about that. Every state, including Israel, has a right to defend itself. However, as I have repeatedly made clear, that right is not without limits. Those limits, those rules, apply to Israel, to Australia and to all states under international law. I assume that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is making reference to Hezbollah in Lebanon. I would make this point: from the beginning we have been clear and consistent that we want all parties to exercise restraint. From the beginning, we have been clear and consistent that we do not want to see the conflict spreading to other parts of the region, including Lebanon. If the conflict spreads, it would be devastating for the whole region—for Israel, for Lebanon, for the thousands of Australians in Lebanon and for the region. We want ceasefire, protection of civilians, the return of hostages and a diplomatic solution, and we want all parties to exercise restraint. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 15:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I refer the minister to extraordinary media revelations today that reveal you summoned the Israeli ambassador to Australia to a meeting where, in what appears to be a calculated insult, you then delegated your junior minister to tell him that the Albanese government would not stand with Israel in a conflict with terrorist group Hezbollah. Why have you acted in such an insulting way, and why does the Albanese government continue to turn its back on Israel? 15:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Two weeks ago, as a result of a series of devastating strikes that caused major civilian casualties, including near refugee camps and aid facilities, and following an escalation in rhetoric and action between Israel and Hezbollah, I instructed the assistant foreign minister to call in the Israeli ambassador. I can confirm the meeting took place, but, unlike the Morrison government, we do not leak private conversations. If others wish to do that, that is a matter for them. Our message is the same wherever we go, with everyone we talk to—ceasefire, protection of civilians, return of hostages and a diplomatic solution. Since the conflict began, as I said, we have called for restraint from all parties. This is what we advocate on behalf of Australia, and, when I and my colleagues act and speak, we do so on behalf of the country, not for any other country. We act and speak on behalf of Australia. I think Australians want peace, not more conflict and not more civilian deaths. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? BUSINESS 2669 BUSINESS Rearrangement 2669 15:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to Israel's inherent right to self-defence, whether attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other sponsor of terrorism. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave has not been denied. I understand that the government hasn't seen the motion. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I have leave? The PRESIDENT 112096 Well, the leave isn't granted. I'm just looking at you, Senator Birmingham, to see if you're moving a motion to suspend or you're— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X If leave is not granted, noting that the motion has been circulated— Honourable senators: No; it hasn't! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the right of Israel to self-defence. This is a motion that gives the Senate the opportunity to reaffirm Israel's inherent right to self-defence, whether attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other sponsor of terrorism. I bring this motion because it is important for the Senate to make clear its position again. We can go back to the bipartisan motion passed by this parliament on 16 October, a bipartisan motion in which the parliament was clear, through the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and Independents—not the Australian Greens, I note—that Israel has an inherent right to self-defence. That inherent right to self-defence was not qualified that it only related to attacks from Hamas, but indeed, like any sovereign nation, particularly like any democratic friend and partner of ours, it should be respected as a right to self-defence whenever under attack from any terrorist organisation or any other nation. Whether it's Hamas, whether it's Hezbollah or whether it's Iran, the same principles should apply in the right to self-defence. We bring this forward because of the extraordinary reports that suggest that the Albanese government has changed its position and has walked away from a clear-cut support of Israel's right to self-defence and qualified that in relation to attacks from Hezbollah. Let us remember that this is the Labor Party who went to the last election promising Australia's Jewish communities, promising Australians and promising partners around the world that there was no division between the major parties in relation to Australia's support for Israel and that it was not conditional upon who won the election. That is what this government said, and yet, time and again since, they have been seen to change Australia's position. They have changed Australia's longstanding bipartisan position in relation to recognition of Palestinian statehood, a position that had previously been clear of support for a two-state solution that should only occur as a part of a final settlement of a two-state solution in which each state lives in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. They have changed Australia's position in voting at the United Nations, voting explicitly for a UN motion recognising a state of Palestine and calling for it to be admitted as a member of the UN in direct contradiction to the longstanding bipartisan position of Australia. They have unilaterally changed Australia's position in numerous ways and numerous UN votes over their two years in office. But then, remarkably, these acts have continued and indeed escalated in pace since October 7. Let us never forget that October 7 saw the single largest murdering and slaughtering of Jews in the world on a single day since the Holocaust. And it has been a tragedy. It was a tragedy then, and it's been a tragedy every day since then—the deaths that have occurred, innocent deaths, innocent lives, innocent Jewish citizens, innocent Israeli citizens and innocent Palestinians— Senator McKenzie 207825 That's right. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X who are used and abused as human shields by Hamas, who hide amongst them, hide hostages amongst them— Senator McKenzie 207825 That's right. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X hide weapons amongst them— Senator McKenzie 207825 That's right. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X and hide terrorist capabilities amongst them. And Hezbollah are no better. Hezbollah act in defiance and objection of international agreements in relation to keeping their distance from the Israeli border and northern Israel. Hezbollah continually fire rockets into Israel intended to kill Israelis, and they have driven tens of thousands from their homes through the use of those rockets. And that is why it matters to be clear and consistent about Israel's inherent right to self-defence. If this were Australia, there would be no tolerance of terrorist organisations like Hamas or Hezbollah attacking our territory, attacking our people, threatening the lives of Australians and driving them from their homes. Nor should there be any tolerance of it when it comes to Israel and their rights, and that is why we stand clear and invite the Labor Party to hold up its position as previously articulated. 15:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think we all understand why Senator Birmingham is doing this. This is not a domestic political fight. We stand for both Israel and Palestine. We believe in a two-state solution, and we do not believe that the sort of domestic politics that you are playing is any better than the sort of domestic politics we've seen from the Australian Greens. I will seek leave to move an amendment to the motion to add the words 'and the recognition of the state of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace'. Yes, we do affirm, as I have previously, that all states, including the State of Israel, have an inherent right to self-defence. The PRESIDENT 112096 I just remind you: you will be foreshadowing the motion. Senator WONG 00AOU Yes. We do believe that. I have also said from the start that that right is not absolute. Every state has limitations on that right, as is expressed in international law. Even in war there are rules. That is our principal position. Senator McKenzie 207825 But only one side is playing by the rules. Senator WONG 00AOU No! I will take that interjection. We are democracies— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU We are democracies—Israel is a democracy—and we hold ourselves to higher standards than do terrorist entities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I remind the chamber that just a few minutes ago I had to stand to get order in this place. I have never had to do that before, and, Senator McKenzie, it was partly because of your constant, rude and disrespectful interjections. When Senator Birmingham was on his feet, the chamber listened in respectful silence, and the minute Senator Wong got to her feet, suddenly there were lots of interjections, primarily from you. You will listen in silence, or you can choose to leave the chamber. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU We should be unashamedly working for peace, not working for domestic political advantage or tactical advantage in the chamber or to put pressure on one or other side. There are 40,000 people who have lost their lives in this conflict. We have seen the greatest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. And there are people in this chamber who want to play domestic politics with it. I think it is abominable—I really do—and I think Australians out there want us to work for peace. Now, we may have different views about where moral weight lies. There are different views in this chamber, but what I would say to you is that we should all be advocating for peace, and that requires a two-state solution. That is what it requires. There is no peace without progress on two states. That is, I think, demonstrably true given what we have seen over decades and what we see now. What I say here is the same message that I say to every party with whom I deal. I don't have one message for one group and another message for another group. So I would hope that this Senate could show some maturity. There are people who have different views. We have heard them in the chamber. We have seen them in the chamber. When I seek to speak, I speak on behalf of Australia, not on behalf of any country or group. That is what I seek to do, and that is what my colleagues seek to do. We should be arguing for ceasefire and for the return of hostages. We should be arguing always for international law to be observed. We should be arguing for de-escalation. We should not be seeking to escalate the conflict overseas or here by our rhetoric and by our action, and too many in this place have been seeking to do that. So I foreshadow that I will move an amendment, and I indicate that the government will support the suspension to enable this matter to be voted on, and I now move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to    

The Senate divided. [15:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

43 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Now that standing orders have been suspended, I move: That a motion relating to the right of Israel to self-defence may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business till determined. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 2671 MOTIONS Israel 2671 15:33 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate reaffirms Israel's inherent right to self-defence, whether attacked by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other sponsor of terrorism. I welcome the fact that the Senate has agreed to give precedence to this motion and the opportunity for this matter to be considered by the Senate, because, in doing so, it provides the Labor Party, crossbench senators and the entire Senate with an opportunity—an opportunity to be clear, concise and principled in standing with Israel and in restating Israel's inherent right to self-defence. As I said in the suspension debate, that right to self-defence should not be qualified by who the attacker is. We would not, and nor would any other country, tolerate being attacked by any terrorist organisation in the ways that Israel is attacked by terrorist organisations. We are all too sadly aware of what occurred on October 7, with the largest slaughter of Jews on a single day since the Holocaust, where women and babies were murdered and raped, where young people at a music festival were slaughtered in the early hours of the morning. Those horrific incidents sit in the history books and will forever more. We're all sadly aware of the tragic loss of life that has continued to ensue since then. They include hostages who Hamas held and who have died in captivity and, of course, the thousands of Palestinians living in Gaza who have died as a result of this war, as a result of Hamas initiating this war and as a result of Hamas hiding amongst them, behind them and underneath them in the most reprehensible of ways, where terrorist infrastructure and capabilities have been established at the expense of the Palestinian people. We are all too aware that Hamas has a tunnel network estimated to go some six storeys deep—bigger than the New York subway system—and that what Israel has been seeking to destroy is those terrorist capabilities and infrastructure that have left Palestinian peoples so exposed during the course of this war. What perhaps has not been so clear to all in the media coverage is that during the conduct of this war since October 7, time and again Israel has continued to be attacked, rockets have been launched at Israel—some from within Gaza by Hamas and many from southern Lebanon by Hezbollah and, of course, infamously, even from Iran. Israel has an inherent right, as a sovereign nation and as a democratic nation, to defend itself against these attacks. We bring forward this motion today because of deeply concerning and troubling reports of the position taken by the Albanese government. These reports suggest that the Albanese government has told the Israeli Ambassador to Australia that they would not stand with Israel were it to respond to Hezbollah's attacks. These are troubling, concerning reports of a further weakening by the Albanese government of its position in relation to Israel's right to self-defence. We bring this forward to be clear and to be consistent with statements made in this chamber before, consistent with motions passed in this chamber before, consistent with the position not just of ourselves as the Liberal and National parties but consistent with the position that was the position of the Australian Labor Party. Consistency is something that has, sadly, gone missing through this debate. During the months since October 7 we have seen the Labor Party change the position of the Australian government in relation to a two-state solution. We have long been clear and bipartisan in this nation about the need for a two-state solution. The desire to see a peaceful outcome in the Middle East, where Israelis and Palestinians do get to live in peace in future is a shared one. How that is achieved also matters. I note the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Wong. I would say several things in relation to this amendment. Firstly, it is not necessary and should not be necessary to qualify the motion that we have moved. The motion that we have moved is clear in relation to Israel's inherent right to self-defence. It does not seek to reflect upon the pathway to a two-state solution, but we continue to support a two-state solution and have been clear about that. We do not support a two-state-solution approach, as the Albanese government has unilaterally changed Australia's position to be—one that sees a potential premature recognition of a state of Palestine before the difficult issues have been addressed. I foreshadow that the opposition will move to amend Senator Wong's amendment, consistent with the approach we took last week and consistent with the approach we have held to, not just since 7 October and not just since the last election—the approach that has been held to for many years. We will move to amend that by being clear that there are preconditions for recognition of a state of Palestine as part of a two-state solution and that recognition must come with an acknowledgement by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist—the most fundamental necessity for a two-state solution to be lasting and peaceful. We will move to add the precondition that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state: again, something that the parliament stated clearly, that the minister has said clearly and that we must be clear about when speaking of a two-state solution; again, the precondition that the Palestinian Authority is reformed, including major security and governance reforms; and, once again, statements that the government has made. There should be no problem if they wish to move their amendment to support these preconditions of a two-state solution, these preconditions of the recognition of Palestine, because they are indeed things the government says it supports. Critically, though, it must also include resolution of final-status issues, including agreed state borders and rights of return, as well as appropriate security guarantees between the parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders. If a two-state solution is to be achieved, to be upheld and to provide for a peaceful coexistence of Israeli and Palestinian peoples in the future then the difficult questions that have blocked the path to peace until now must be addressed. And those difficult questions, in terms of agreement on borders, rights of return and security guarantees, are necessary preconditions for peace to occur. As we have been clear, there have been many points of concern about the Albanese government's response to policy in relation to Israel since the last election. We saw, immediately after the election, the government change Australia's votes in relation to human rights motions and investigations. We've seen the government change Australia's position in relation to recognition of Jerusalem. We've seen the government change Australia's position in relation to language around Palestinian territories and Israeli settlements. There has been change after change after change, and these all pre-dated what occurred in relation to the 7 October terrorist attacks. We saw the government double Australian taxpayer funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency, an agency that, in the doubling of the funding, subsequently was accused and had staff for being involved in the 7 October attacks and has been found by the UN to be in breach of neutrality principles. These breaches, again and again—before we even get to the shifts that have occurred since 7 October—are a clear contradiction of the commitments the Albanese government gave prior to the last election. They promised there would be no division, and there was no division, between the major parties in relation to Australia's support for Israel, that it was not conditional upon who won the election. They promised Australia's Jewish community that they should feel confident and proud that, irrespective of who formed government, it would be one that was committed to safeguarding the interests of that community, including those interests in relation to the State of Israel. Yet the government, having made those promises, then broke them time and again in the lead-up to October 7. But, most distressingly, the government has continued to break them since October 7. On 16 October, we stood solemnly in this chamber in a bipartisan way—as they did in the other place too—made clear a statement of principles condemning those attacks and made clear our support for the State of Israel and its right to self-defence. We on this side have been consistent in standing by that motion and our principles ever since, even as the Albanese government has changed Australia's position at the UN, voted for ceasefire motions that overlooked the need for hostages to be released, voted for recognition of Palestine in a way that changed the longstanding bipartisan consensus, and now, as it is reported, has told the Israeli ambassador that Australia's support cannot be relied upon in relation to the defence of the State of Israel from terrorist attacks by Hezbollah. And how was that message delivered? It appears to have been delivered in the most insulting way possible. The foreign minister and her junior minister or department sought to issue a summons to the Israeli Ambassador to Australia, but was the message then delivered by the minister herself? No, it was delivered by her junior minister, as she acknowledged during question time. Why, on such a grave and significant matter, would such a message—a message that we do not agree with but that is of such significance—be delegated to an assistant minister to give? Why would that happen unless it was intended to be an insulting gesture, as well as a grievously wrong message to send? We would urge the government to accept the purity of the motion before us and the simplicity and consistency that comes with reaffirming Israel's inherent right to self-defence. We would urge the government to take that opportunity, if there is misunderstanding from media reports, to clear it up by supporting this motion. But, if the government insists upon its amendment, we have been clear, in terms of the approach of the coalition, consistent with the approach taken in the House of Representatives, consistent with the approach taken in this place last week and consistent with our approach throughout the years, unlike the inconsistency of those opposite. 15:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, there are assertions made by the shadow minister which are incorrect. I again say that the discussion between the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Israeli ambassador on my instruction did occur after a series of devastating strikes that caused major civilian casualties, including near refugee camps and aid facilities, and after an escalation in rhetoric and action between Israel and Hezbollah. The assertions that the shadow foreign minister has made about what was said in that meeting are not correct. Whilst others may wish to make these discussions public—that's a matter for them—we have not. What I would say to you is that what we say in the room is the same as that which we say outside, and that is that we do not want to see the conflict spreading to other parts of the region, including Lebanon. If this conflict spreads through the region, it will be devastating for thousands and thousands and thousands of civilians in Israel and Lebanon, as well as in the West Bank and Gaza, and for the thousands of Australians who are in Lebanon and in the region. The senator and his party may think that it is a responsible thing to do to champion more conflict. We do not think so. We think the responsible thing to do is to champion peace. The other point I would make is that I and the others on this side act and speak on behalf of Australia and not for any other country. Australians, as I said, want peace, not more conflict and not more civilian deaths. What we see in this debate—and it has been going on for a while—is a desire from the Greens and from Senator Henderson and others on that side for absolutism. That's what they want: absolutism. And absolutism in politics and in conflict leads to more conflict. We want— Senator McKenzie 207825 You have to pick a side. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take that interjection: 'You have to pick a side.' That says everything you want to know about what the coalition is seeking to do—and, if I may say, the Greens. You want this to be about sides, not about peace. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU It's a game, isn't it? It is a game to you. Senator WONG 00AOU No-one here supports Hezbollah or Hamas. They are terrorist organisations. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKenzie, Senator Birmingham was heard in silence. It's a difficult issue. I ask that the minister be heard in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU I take the interjection: 'You have to pick a side.' That says something, doesn't it? I am on the side of peace and a two-state solution that delivers peace and stability to the region, to Palestinians and Israelis alike. The absolutism from those opposite places no limit on civilian deaths. The absolutism from the Greens justifies the defacing of Mr Burns's office. That's where absolutism takes us. We on this side are for peace, not politics. We are for unity, not division— Senator Henderson ZN4 We do not stand with the terrorists. Senator WONG 00AOU I will take that interjection. The assertion that we stand with terrorists is a lie. You should withdraw it. You should withdraw it, and it demonstrates the disgraceful domestic politics that you are seeking to play with this. You are a disgrace. You are a disgrace. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, on a point of order. Senator Henderson ZN4 Personal reflection—point of order. The minister should immediately withdraw the reflection that she made on me. I made a comment: 'We do not stand with terrorists.' That does not say anything other than our position, and she should withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Minister, I would just ask you to withdraw that the senator lied. Senator WONG 00AOU I heard, 'You stand with terrorists.' That's what I heard. If it was not the case— Senator WONG 00AOU Would you mind? I'm responding— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It's not a debate, Senator Henderson. Allow the minister to respond. Senator WONG 00AOU I withdraw. No-one stands with terrorists in this place. No-one does. No-one does. Absolutism— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, is this a point of order? Senator Henderson ZN4 It's to clarify. The comment I made was, 'We do not stand with terrorists.' Senator Wong misheard me, and, on that basis, I would just ask her to withdraw the comment that she made. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, the minister has withdrawn. Please continue, Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Henderson is so keen to have a political fight on this catastrophic conflict that she doesn't even listen. Can everyone on that side stop playing domestic politics with this war? I think Australians want that. They don't want the conflict brought here. They don't want the conflict brought here by you, by the Greens or by the sorts of violent protests we have seen. They do not want that. The amendment I will move adds—I'll read this, and people can tell me which bit of this they disagree with. After the motion moved by Senator Birmingham, the amendment will add the following: 'notes that it is not in the interests of Israelis, Palestinians or any others in the Middle East to see the conflict broaden; calls on all parties to exercise restraint; supports efforts to press all parties to the conflict in Gaza to agree to the ceasefire proposal; and endorses the government's position to support recognition of the state of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace'. I think that actually represents where the majority of Australians are. It represents what people are seeking. The problem is that this will probably be voted down because the Greens cannot bear to vote for something that says 'two-state' and those opposite cannot bear to vote for something that says 'recognition'. That is the absolutism on display here today and in this debate constantly. It is irresponsible and it is wrong. The only party that is demonstrating consistency and maturity on this is the Australian Labor Party. I appreciate that at times it is hard, because it is easy to be absolutist. It is easy to speak to people's fear. It is easy to promote division. But that is not Labor's way, and we will not do that. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", and the Senate: (a) notes that it is not in the interests of Israelis, Palestinians or any others in the Middle East to see the conflict broaden; (b) calls on all parties to exercise restraint; (c) supports efforts to press all parties to the conflict in Gaza to agree to the ceasefire proposal; and (d) endorses the Government's position to support the recognition of the State of Palestine as part of a peace process in support of a two-state solution and a just and enduring peace". I also move: That the question be now put. Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order, I had foreshadowed an amendment to the government amendment, and I seek clarity as to whether the minister's motion will prevent such an amendment being moved. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It will be up to the Senate to decide whether the question is put. If the Senate decides that the question will be put, then you will be denied the opportunity to put a further amendment. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:03]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 As we have not closed the debate, the debate continues. 16:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move the amendment to the government amendment as foreshadowed in my speech and circulated in the chamber: That the government amendment be amended as follows: At the end of the government's amendment add: ", once the following preconditions have been met: i. recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state; ii. that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state; iii. reform of the Palestinian Authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms; iv. agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and v. appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders." The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell is seeking the call, so I'm going to give him the call. 16:08 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales by leave—In that last vote, there was a miscount. Someone who was paired came in and voted. Can we recommit that last vote? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, certainly. I think, because there's been a bit of confusion, we'll let the bells ring until they're done, and then I will recommit that previous vote, which is Senator Wong's motion. Whilst the bells were ringing, Senator Cadell stood and said that in that first division, which was on the closure motion moved by Senator Wong, someone who was paired inadvertently came in and was accidentally counted. We are now recommitting the closure motion as moved by Senator Wong. The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 28 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

16:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move again the amendment to the government amendment, as circulated in the chamber and as foreshadowed in my remarks: That the government amendment be amended as follows: At the end of the government's amendment add: ", once the following preconditions have been met: i. recognition by Palestinian representatives and the Palestinian Authority of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state; ii. that there is no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state; iii. reform of the Palestinian Authority is achieved, including major security and governance reforms; iv. agreed processes to resolve final status issues including agreed state borders and rights of return; and v. appropriate security guarantees between parties to ensure peace and security within recognised borders." The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong? 16:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I have a point of order. The last vote was tied, and there was an incorrect count on the opposition side. We now have an additional senator, Senator Lambie, and Senator Pocock. It cannot be, therefore, that the vote is again tied, unless someone else has left. It's not arithmetically possible. The PRESIDENT 112096 I was in the hands of the tellers. They both checked their numbers. I'm in the hands of the chamber, but I would suggest that we give the tellers, Senator Urquhart and Senator Cadell, a moment to check their pairing sheets. Senator McKim? 16:19 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania In concurrence with that, President, I wish to make a short contribution on the question before the chair, which might assist in allowing the tellers to consult over the matter that Senator Wong has raised. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sure. Senator McKIM JKM Do I have the call? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. Senator McKIM JKM As we always do, the Australian Greens call for peace and we call for all parties to exercise restraint. There is the horrific potential— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I thought you were assisting us to resolve the matter. Senator McKIM JKM I was. The PRESIDENT 112096 Well, you're not, because you're going into debate. Senator Urquhart is now, I think, going to explain what happened. 16:19 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—Thank you, President. It was my error. I had Senator Wong in, but she was out, and she wasn't on my pair sheet. I would therefore ask that the vote be recommitted. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart has asked that the vote be recommitted. It is the convention of the Senate that votes are recommitted. Is leave granted to recommit? Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion, as moved by Senator Wong, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

16:25 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

18 AYES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 38 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As we always do, the Australian Greens call for peace and for all parties to exercise restraint— The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator McKim. Senator McKIM JKM There's no gag motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I have Senator Birmingham on a point of order. Senator Birmingham H6X Point of order, President. The question had been put by Senator Wong. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, Senator McKim is in order because the debate has not been closed. Senator McKim? Senator McKIM JKM As we always do, the Australian Greens call for peace, and for all parties to exercise restraint. There is the horrific potential that the State of Israel is about to launch an invasion of Lebanon. If this happens, it will be a humanitarian disaster for the people of Lebanon, just as the war in Gaza has been a humanitarian disaster for the people of Gaza. Just as happened last time this parliament voted to give the State of Israel political cover for its invasion of Gaza, the opposition is now seeking the same for the potential invasion of Lebanon. The Australian Greens will not be a party to this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The question before the chair is that Senator Birmingham's motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. Senator Wong 00AOU Unless Senator Birmingham strongly desires us to continue with question time, I would ask that further questions be placed on notice. BUSINESS 2679 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 2679 16:30 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Farrell for today, on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 2679 16:30 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to me for 27 June and 1 July, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 2679 DOCUMENTS Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 2679 Order for the Production of Documents 2679 16:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Last year, the Inspector-General of the ADF marked its 20th year in operation, and an independent 20-year review of the IGADF was initiated and approved by the Deputy Prime Minister. The review, conducted by former justice Duncan Kerr, was wideranging, in respect of the IGADF's structure, operations and functions, and makes recommendations about whether the inspector-general in its current form is fit for purpose. The report is currently under consideration by the government. As the Deputy Prime Minister advised in his letter of 2 June provided to the Senate, in considering the review the government is consulting widely across stakeholders, including Defence, other agencies and the families of Australian Defence Force personnel who have lost their lives while serving. The government believes that it is important that this consultation be finalised to enable the completion of the government's response to the report. Further time is needed to undertake that work. I'm advised that the government intends to respond to the order once that process is complete. I am further advised that Senator Lambie was offered and had accepted a confidential briefing on the review, including an opportunity to read the review, and I again reiterate the government's offer in relation to that. The offer remains open, and we are willing to extend that offer to any interested senator. It is the usual practice in receiving independent reviews for the government to take the necessary time to work through them and develop a response to the recommendations, and that is what is occurring here. 16:33 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. Let's go back over this. I want to first hit on what the offer from the defence minister was so that veterans understand this very clearly. I had 15 minutes. It was broken down. I had 15 minutes that I could look at that report. Unless that report is about half a dozen pages, which I doubt, I don't know how I'm ever going to get through that report. Then I had 45 minutes where I could ask questions, basically, on that report. Blow me over and then sign some rubbish—I couldn't walk out of there and not speak about that. We are now three months in. We are sitting at a royal commission. We have been doing this for nearly three years now at a royal commission. If you've been listening to the evidence of the royal commission, it has been made very clear that law enforcement within the military has been part of the reason for veteran suicides. I would have thought these families who have lost sons, daughters, mothers and fathers had been through enough. There is no reason not to release this report. That is rubbish! In three months, I'll be coming for who you've been consulting with. I notice you're consulting with Defence. God knows why, because you can't believe a word that comes out of their mouths. Let's go over this in order. For the defence personnel out there, let's make this quite clear. Once again, this report by Justice Duncan Kerr was delivered to Defence over three months ago, in March 2024. In 2023, I wrote to the Auditor-General three times requesting an urgent audit into the Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, and they knew very well there was a royal commission going on into veteran suicides. The Office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force has never ever, in its 20-year history, been subject to an audit by either major party. Even with all the veteran suicides going on, you didn't want to know about the legal system and why it was causing suicides. You should be ashamed of yourselves! In 2021-22, the office of the IGADF increased its staff by 85 per cent at taxpayers' expense. We've got no idea why, apart from what I think and predict, and that's to use those members to fight against us again and then to sit there and look at evidence and go, 'It has nothing to do with us; we know nothing about this, not our fault.' That is exactly what they've done. They have pushed themselves up, paid more, probably put more generals in there to take us diggers on, instead of saying, 'You know what, we're part of the problem here.' Once again, they've covering their own butts. The office of the IGADF has been criticised. I don't know how much. It actually made me sick to the gut, where I wanted to spew in a bucket in the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicides, particularly around its leadership, because it has none. 'Accountability' and 'transparency'—don't mention those two words to the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, because he doesn't know what they are. The Australian National Audit Office—oh, dear—and the IGADF met in September in 2023 to discuss the potential scope of the audit. Here it is! Secretary Moriarty, there he goes up to the National Audit Office and says, 'Shoosh, mate, you don't want to do this; you don't want to do this, mate.' And I've sat up here for nine years thinking the National Audit Office was completely independent. Well, if you want an audit done on something, it's about time the National Audit Office had one done on itself to see whether or not it is truly independent, because it is not. It was disgusting what Moriarty did—disgusting! This is a bloke who's been in there since 2017 as the secretary. Most things he has touched have failed, and you still employ him there. Do you know how harmful that is to veterans and their families? Do you know how harmful that is? The Australian National Audit Office, in an email dated 4 October and 15 November 2023—you know what, I'm going to run out of time. Question agreed to. Cashless Debit Card 2680 Order for the Production of Documents 2680 16:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In relation to the order for the production of documents No. 551, representing the Minister for Social Services: this is about order for the production of documents No. 542, which is in relation to the University of Adelaide's cashless debit card report. I note that Senator Lambie has sought an explanation for the failure to comply with the order for production of documents No. 542 and subsequent compliance order No. 551 regarding the University of Adelaide report into the cashless debit card transition. I am advised that the minister is unable to comply with the order. I understand that the minister's office has offered to brief Senator Lambie and her office on the report and has committed to providing the report as soon as practicable. 16:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. It was only three days ago that I was on my feet, asking for the Minister for Defence to release the report that was given to him in March. On the theme of 'same rubbish, different day', another minister is sitting on a report that was handed to her in March. This time it's Minister Rishworth. Seriously—this government was all about calling out the blue team for their lack of transparency in opposition, and they promised during the election that they would be transparent, but, as soon as they got into government, what's happened? The transparency has gone out the window. Just last Monday, the Senate voted on my order for the production of documents that required the Minister for Social Services to provide the latest evaluation report from the University of Adelaide, commissioned by the Department of Social Services, in relation to the cashless debit card. The next day, 2 July, my office got a letter from Minister Rishworth stating: 'It will not be possible to produce the document requested in the time provided for the order to be tabled, and I will seek to comply as soon as practical.' I tried again on the Wednesday and put forward a motion requiring the attendance of the minister to comply with the order for the production of documents by 5 pm. The minister has failed to comply, just like the Minister for Defence. Minister Rishworth, you've had that report since March. But you know what, Australia? I'm not going to take a wild guess as to why Minister Rishworth doesn't want to share this report with the people of Australia—who, by the way, paid for it like they paid for the other government reports. Here is my guess—and it's not a guess, because I've been around these communities. I've done more than anybody else in this chamber, by the way; I've been on it for nine years. You tell me somebody else that's been through this and spent three days at a time on the ground there over this period. I reckon, that said, that by removing the cashless debit card it caused massive harm in those communities. I've been contacted by communities in those trial areas and I continue to be on a weekly basis. They have told me that, without that cashless debit card, kids are going without food again, alcohol is rife again and domestic violence rates have gone through the bloody roof. The minister doesn't want to hand over that rort report, because it was one of the election promises that they withdrew with some dirty, filthy deal they did with the Greens at the expense of our Indigenous communities. When the card was withdrawn in September 2022, Minister Rishworth was proud that she'd delivered on a pre-election promise to abolish the failed—'failed', she called it—cashless debit card program. Except it's not a failed program, is it, Minister? That's why you're hanging onto it. That's why you're hanging onto that report. I bet you're scrambling around trying to work out what to do, how you're going to spin this one. You ain't spinning it. You ain't spinning it through me, nor will you be spinning it through Senator Ruston. She's been on this for a while too; she's start to finish. I would like to remind both ministers that the Australian taxpayer paid for those reports. Minister Linda Burney said at the time that withdrawal of the card was the result of listening to the community voices. Let me tell you what Minister Burney does. She really does her homework, because I can tell you they haven't told me that, since that cashless debit card was put in. The communities that I visited several times and stayed in touch with have said they begged the Labor Party not to remove the card. I remember being in Ceduna when the shadow minister for human services, Linda Burney, flew into Ceduna, apparently to talk to the community about the cashless debit card. I was flying out of Ceduna on my way to visit the other trial sites in Western Australia. I'd spent three days on that trip, like every other trip, in Ceduna, and I travelled to three communities outside Ceduna to hear what the people had to say about that card. So I was flying out and the shadow minister, Linda Burney, was flying in, but guess what? As I found out later, she was there for a few hours. You know what the Greens did with the cashless debit card? You only saw them when it was election time. Do you know why? They went in and met the people against the card, which was probably about half a dozen in the community. They came in the morning, had their nice little cups of tea and walked out that afternoon. There was no time on the ground. They didn't take their swags out there. They didn't hire a car and go around the communities for seven or 10 days straight. They didn't go back and visit them; they just went and heard what they wanted to hear. What you Greens have done in these Indigenous communities by having that card withdrawn is disgusting. You have done more harm than ever before. Get off your butts, get out there and go see those communities. Go and do your job properly. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves. What have you done to these communities? You've widened the gap, and you are shameful. 16:44 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for moving the motion requesting the minister to provide this particular report to the Senate. Like her, I have been horrified by what we have seen since the removal of the cashless debit card from these communities around Australia. Most particularly, I have intimate knowledge of what has gone on in my home state of South Australia, especially in Ceduna and surrounding communities. As Senator Lambie pointed out, I was there quite near to the beginning of this card's implementation. One of the things that seems to have been forgotten by those opposite and those at the other end of the chamber is that this card was brought in at the request of community leaders who were trying to tackle the social harm that had occurred because of issues of drug and alcohol addiction in their communities. In desperation, they came to the government looking for a solution to save their community members. That's how the cashless debit card came about. We did see some quite significant changes during the time the cashless debit card was in place. For example, the independent findings of the University of Adelaide report that was released in 2021 included that 25 per cent of people reported they were drinking less since the introduction of the card, 21 per cent of people reported gambling less—evidence found that cash previously used for gambling had been redirected to essential items such as food—and 45 per cent of cashless debit card participants reported the card had improved things for themselves and their families. It was clearly working, and the communities were appreciative of the impact that the card had had on their communities. But probably the most disgusting thing, in terms of the removal of this card from the communities, is that it was done as an election commitment that was made in inner-city Sydney and Melbourne. Nobody bothered to go out into the communities and consult with them about whether they wanted the card removed. It was a blatant election commitment with no regard whatsoever for communities. We said at the time this was going to be an abject failure. We said at the time the communities—some of the most vulnerable people in Australia—were going to be the victims of this government pursuing an election commitment just to appease their inner-city, ideological, left-wing mates, with no regard whatsoever for the real consequences out on the ground. To go and remove something that was a tool within a community without even bothering to speak to the communities! At the time, the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder stated that the decision to abolish the cashless debit card had been made without consultation with the regional community. Likewise, Mayor Perry Will from the District Council of Ceduna said: We've had no consultation about it at all. The first we heard of it was in the PM's election promises, that he was going to do it. Prior to that, we had had no representation from any Labor politicians. Former mayor of Ceduna, Allan Suter, stated a similar lack of on-the-ground consultations. He stated: … despite heavy prompting from our local member, no effort was made— by Minister Rishworth— to contact me. I made sure I was available if the phone rang, and it didn't. Labor went to the election with a whole heap of fearmongering and lies about income management and scared older Australians, often with false information. We saw that on many of the Facebook pages of members of the Labor Party in the lead-up to the last election. They didn't care that the information contained on their webpages and in their social media posts was factually incorrect. They were quite happy to perpetuate these lies and scare older Australians—particularly vulnerable older Australians—into believing that the government was intending to do something that they themselves knew was a lie. As a result, we then saw the government remove the cashless debit card from these communities. We also saw their sham behaviour in the Northern Territory on the BasicsCard. What they told the people of the Northern Territory was a complete and utter lie. They did nothing more than change the name of the card. Nothing changed. People even had the same card; they didn't even have to go into the bank and get a number changed or be issued with a new card. They simply changed the name of the card. So Australian taxpayers paid a huge amount of money for a rebranding exercise that changed nothing whatsoever in the Northern Territory. But the real travesty here is the damage that it has done in communities like Ceduna, the Kimberlys and Kalgoorlie-Boulder, where we are now seeing the social harms return to the communities. We told them this was going to happen. Please do something to fix it. 16:49 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The Greens strongly disagree with compulsory income management. It is the view of the Greens—based on our consultations with organisations like the Central Land Council and the Aboriginal peak organisations of the Northern Territory—that the cashless debit card should be voluntary, not compulsory, in the same way that we wouldn't expect any other members of our communities to be subjected to compulsory income management. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Senator Lambie, I will take your interjection, but I listened to you in respectful silence, and I request that you do the same. Senator Lambie 250026 Not when it comes to harm to kids; you are harming those kids. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Lambie, we wish to hear from Senator Allman-Payne. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Notwithstanding the Greens difference of opinion—that the cashless debit card should be abolished and that compulsory income management should be abolished—and noting that Labor did go to an election saying that they would scrap the cashless debit card and compulsory income management, we're two years in and that has not happened. In fact, in some instances they have expanded that scheme. I do agree with Senator Lambie and Senator Ruston that the Senate should have the benefit of the latest review into that card. The minister's explanation—that they are unable to give us that report—is unsatisfactory. That is not an explanation; it is simply the view of the minister that they don't want to give it to us. So I would respectfully urge the minister to, rather than offering us a briefing, show us the document that shows the evidence of how this is currently operating. 16:52 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Of course the Albanese government has failed to provide a response, because it knows what's in the document. It's disgraceful the way the voting by the Greens, the Labor Party and Senator David Pocock has enabled communities that asked for this as a trial program to disintegrate. You don't need this report, this evaluation, to know what's happened. You don't need to go for a cup of tea, to sit in a room and hear from people in that echo chamber who are just going to tell you exactly what you want to hear so that you can come out and pretend that you've been consulting people and that you've got the answers. When you actually talk to people on the ground and walk the streets at night, you'll find the answers. I've been to Ceduna, but I didn't make a big fanfare. I didn't take security, I didn't fly in with my plane so that everybody knew and I didn't organise the echo chamber response that I wanted to hear. It was wonderful, having been born and raised in Alice Springs, to see the Prime Minister go into Alice Springs with all his fanfare; he didn't see much. You know what? You won't see much when you've got security detail. The locals aren't that stupid. You don't fly in on a Monday and think you're getting the truth, because the bottle shops don't do takeaway on a Monday. They know that. Senator LIDDLE 300644 I can't hear you. I don't want to hear you, because you don't listen to those poor people that live with this every day. People in here go home tonight, comfortable in their beds. They get to eat, to sleep and to live without fear—but not those people. Do you know what the card actually did? Old people, women and old men could say: 'I haven't got any money. I've only got this card.' It took away significant pressure. It took away incredible humbugging. We're not talking about this cultural babble that we hear about. We're talking about debilitating, aggressive harassment of people who are not powerful in those communities. For people who have addictions to gambling, alcohol or drugs, you're trying to tell me, through your positioning on this matter, that they make sensible, responsible decisions. That's not their first priority. Their first priority is: Where does my fix come from? Where does my alcohol come from? Where do my drugs come from? It's not, 'Where does my food come from?' That's not front of mind for them. They're arguing on the main streets—I saw it for myself—in front yards. I saw a car driving down the street and somebody getting thrown out of that car as it was moving. People who are experiencing this are filling the emergency departments. They're filling these organisations funded by you, because you knew this would be a mess. In fact, when I was in Ceduna, the minister actually told everyone she was giving more money to these services that actually enable them. That's what the locals said. The businesses said that they wrote to the minister. They couldn't stand it anymore. I think it was a great big pile that was sent to just anybody who was prepared to listen to the businesses about what was happening to them. Some of them were saying, 'We're getting out of here.' When you took away this card, it was a trial. It was wanted in those communities. You broke their hearts. You broke the hearts of those people that had a card that they could use to defend themselves against debilitating, coercive control. You broke communities, you broke lives, but you and I will sleep well tonight and we—I'm sure—have eaten today. You took away their human rights to also do that. It is a disgrace. The report should be provided, but none of us really need to have that report to know what you did when you listened to the inner-city electorates who don't live with the consequences. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 2683 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 2683 16:57 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. I'd like to start off with the question from Senator Hume to Minister Wong about inflation, where Senator Hume highlighted that interest rates remain at a 12-year high, core inflation is now on the rise again at 4.4 per cent, rents have gone up and the price of food, housing, electricity and insurance has gone up. Some of those prices have gone up to the extent that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said that some 273,337 households were struggling to pay their electricity bills, which is a rise of 43,000 from the same period last year. That's an 18 per cent increase in the number of Australians who are falling over a financial cliff because of the policies of this government. What does the government do? We heard in the response today about bill relief that they were providing and about that, if it weren't for their measures, Australians would be paying more. That's like saying we've put a six-inch little step at the bottom of a cliff and you would have fallen further if it weren't for our intervention. What Australians really want is not a bandaid. They want a long-term plan that won't just give us better figures ahead of the next election. To go back to Abraham Lincoln, he believed a politician looks at just the next election and a statesman looks at the next generation. We should be looking at how we put in place a long-term plan that will benefit Australia by having sustainable, cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy into the future. Those opposite, in the middle of that discussion around the impact of inflation—including, at the core of it, rising electricity costs—claimed that the coalition's plan is going to be the most expensive form of electricity, but what they don't tell you is that their own plan, Mr Albanese's plan, to have a system which is completely reliant on renewable energy, is actually going to be the most expensive. That's not my claim; that's the conclusion of a study done by the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland and Princeton University called Net Zero Australia. They highlight that, in the short term, it'll be some $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion to have a renewables based system put in place and, by 2060, some $7 trillion to $9 trillion. What does that look like in the future? If you search 'renewable energy' in South Australia, my home state, you'll see claim after claim about the fact that South Australia is leading the transition in terms of energy, and yet South Australia has some of the highest power prices in the world—and certainly some of the highest here in Australia. Let me give you a comparison. In Ontario, a province in Canada, they're paying 14c per kilowatt hour. In Korea, they pay around 16c per kilowatt hour. In South Australia, we pay 45.54c per kilowatt—a massive increase. What are some of the things that Ontario and Korea have in common? In Korea, they have a nuclear industry, and that has brought power prices down. In Ontario, 60 per cent of their energy comes from nuclear generation, and they pay 14c versus South Australia's 45c per kilowatt hour. But the thing that those opposite won't acknowledge is not only how expensive their renewables-only plan is to achieve—the fact that it's on a trajectory to ever-increasing power prices, which is putting people over the cliff—but also the reality forecast by people like the International Energy Agency in the OECD that nuclear is better. Also, the experience of Finland, which in April this year opened up the OL3 nuclear plant, was that as soon as that came online there was a reduction of 75 per cent in their power prices. So the theory of expert bodies like the IEA and OECD says that the long-term plan that will give us cleaner, cheaper, more consistent power is nuclear, and the lived experience of places like Ontario, Korea and Finland highlight that that is the way to get cleaner, cheaper and more consistent power for Australians. 17:02 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria In our past two years in office, this government has been focused on putting downward pressure on inflation. We've been focused on delivering cost-of-living relief. Senator Dean Smith 241710 The feather effect—not working. Senator WALSH 252157 We've been focused, Senator Smith, on creating jobs—over 880,000 of them—and getting wages moving again after a decade in which those opposite embraced low wages as a deliberate design feature of your economy. Those are the things that we have been focused on: downward pressure on inflation, cost-of-living relief, creating jobs and getting wages moving. It's a good thing, at five minutes past five on the last sitting day of this last sitting week of the session, that we're focused now on those things that Australians care about. What Australians can see from our government is two years of budget management designed to put downward pressure on inflation: We are the government that has delivered two surpluses back to back, not those opposite. That is because we've made the hard decisions about how to return revenue to the budget bottom line, and we've done that exercising fiscal constraint in line with the RBA's monetary policy. What we have been focused on is putting downward pressure on inflation through our tight fiscal management of the budget. Of course, we have been focused on providing cost-of-living relief too. We know that Australians are doing it tough out there. We know the inflation challenge is real here in Australia, just as it is around the world, and the cost-of-living measures that come into effect this week in Australia are going to make a huge difference to people's lives. Our tax cuts for 13.6 million Australians will make a huge difference to people's lives. An average of $1,800 a year is being returned to people to help them deal with the challenges that they face. It's over $3,000 for many families, along with the $300 energy rebate, which is really going to help people with their power bills this winter. It's $325 for small businesses. That energy bill relief is working in concert with the measures we've put in place to put downward pressure on energy prices, including capping prices, which those opposite rejected and tried to vote against. The best thing that we can do to put downward pressure on energy bills is to get more of the cheapest energy into the grid, and that, far and away, is renewable energy, and all of those opposite know that. Instead, they've come to the parliament with a plan, developed, it seems, by the new Leader of the Opposition—and I know it's important to get people's names and titles right in this place. I think the appropriate title of the new Leader of the Opposition is the member for Maranoa, Mr Littleproud. I think that's the new Leader of the Opposition, who has apparently brought this nuclear plan to the coalition. This is a plan to raise your energy bills. That is what this is a plan to do. We know that nuclear is far and away the most expensive form of energy that there is and that this is a plan from those opposite to delay energy transition in this country by two decades and to then embrace the most expensive form of power that is out there. It is nuclear stupidity. That is what this policy is. In addition to putting downward pressure on inflation, putting downward pressure on energy bills, getting cheaper renewable energy in the grid and providing cost-of-living relief with our tax cuts, which will make a huge difference to people's lives, what we on this side care about is creating jobs and getting wages moving, and that's exactly what we are doing. 17:07 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Well, you belled the cat, didn't you, Senator Walsh? You really belled the cat when you talked about how it was 5.04 and you were finally talking about the cost of living, because what it is to this government is a political afterthought. It's the thing you get to once you've wasted two hours trying to amend a very reasonable motion from the opposition about Israel's right to defend itself—a motion that I'm very surprised anyone in this place would have questioned. Instead, the Labor Party, because of their own internal problems, have had to spend two hours trying to move an amendment to that motion. Then you come in here at five o'clock, when we finally get to take note of answers and, as an afterthought—like this government always treats the standard of living and the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on real Australians as an afterthought—you start to talk about that now. This government has completely failed to address the cost-of-living crisis. Its budgets have poured money into the economy, which every senior economist across Australia has said is inflationary. Labor close their eyes, block their ears, hold their nose and say, 'Oh, no. Our budget is putting downward pressure on inflation.' That is absolute nonsense, and no serious economist in the country has said that they think that your budgets are putting pressure on inflation, and it is inflation that is the standard-of-living killer in any economy. It is inflation that is making people poorer. In the West Australian a few days ago, an article revealed that just one rate rise this year, a 25-basis-point rate rise, will wipe out the tax cut. That's it. Senator Smith, remind me: how many increases in interest rates have we had under this government? Is it 11, or are we up to 12? Senator Dean Smith 241710 Twelve. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Twelve! So your tax cut has already been wiped out by this government in decimating your standard of living through the increased costs you are paying on your mortgage, at the grocery store, on your electricity bills and at the petrol station. This Labor inflation is a cancer on the standard of living in this country. It is Labor's inflation. They tried to pretend for months and months that this was caused by international pressures, but now it is very clear that this is Labor's homegrown inflation. Just one interest rate rise will wipe out the benefits of this tax cut because Labor cannot control their budget. They cannot control their own spending. They have pushed billions of dollars into the economy through their last two budgets and, as a result, have been working counter to the efforts of the Reserve Bank of Australia, whose sole responsibility is to try to get inflation under control. But they are not the only ones who have that responsibility. That is their sole job, but it's also the job of the Australian government to care about inflation. It destroys the standard of living of real Australians. Real Australian families are having to make the tough choices about whether they can still do school sport on the weekend, whether they can pay for the materials their children need at school or whether they can fill up the car this week. People are having to make very, very difficult choices. The impact on small business of high inflation and high interest rates is excruciating. If those opposite ever talked to small-business people, which I doubt they do, they would know that the combination of the increasing costs of their supplies and the impact of high interest rates on their overdrafts, mortgages and business loans is having an absolutely devastating effect on the standard of living of small-business owners right across this country. This is a government to whom the cost-of-living crisis and the decimation of people's standard of living are an afterthought. It's something they think about at five o'clock at night after they have been fighting their ideological wars the rest of the day. 17:12 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I have just ticked over seven hours sitting in this chamber today, for a variety of reasons. What I have heard— Senator Dean Smith 241710 What do you think you've achieved? Senator GROGAN 296331 Thank you for that interjection, Senator Smith. I am sure you think you're funny. What I have heard—and I'm hearing it again now—is an awful lot of disrespect for this chamber and how things operate. We have seen a pretty disgraceful act this afternoon. We have the Greens political party, who only support Palestine, and we have the coalition, who only support Israel. There's no congruence here. The arguments going on over the last number of hours should, I think, cause everyone to spend a little bit of time reflecting deeply on how that played out. The bottom line for us over here in the Labor government is that we believe in peace. We believe in a two-state solution. An awful lot of the politics and the pointscoring that's gone on here is something that we should all be deeply, deeply ashamed of. This chamber is where we get to debate, but to debate you have to listen as well as put forward your view. I'm not sure we've seen a lot of that today. But as we tick around to the last three-quarters of an hour of this sitting session, I will say that one of the things that is really important is how Australians are faring. We know that in the budget there were a whole bunch of really positive announcements. Those opposite have proven in the last 20 minutes that either they don't understand how finance and budgets work or they're actually just pointscoring and playing politics. I'm going with the second one, because I'm pretty sure some of them are actually quite intelligent. But that's just me feeling benevolent on a Thursday afternoon. This week—the first week of July, the new financial year—we have seen five different types of cost-of-living help coming from the May budget, one being a tax cut for every taxpayer, one being energy bill relief for every household and one being cheaper medicines, as well as a pay rise for millions of workers on award wages and two extra weeks of paid parental leave. In the Labor government, we are about structural reform that will last the distance, not a sugar hit—not a couple of hundred bucks in people's pockets on 1 July in the hope that they'll vote for you next time. Our task, and one we take very seriously, is structural change and building the budget to a stronger position into the future—and that's what we're doing, and that is how we are going to move forward. The other thing that builds into that, very strongly, is our Future Made in Australia, where we are looking at investing in those industries of the future so that we can see Australia getting stronger, our economy getting stronger, more and more opportunities for people to get good, well-paying jobs in industries that they really want to work in that they can be proud of, as we work together as a nation to build a sustainable future that will provide opportunities for our children and our grandchildren. I know for a fact that in Port Augusta, a region where I spend quite a lot of time, there are so many fantastic opportunities in green steel, in green cement. These aren't just pipedreams; these are things for which there are tangible plans in place, things where there are tangible opportunities that are being brought forward by the South Australian government and the amazing councils of the Spencer Gulf region. They've got excellent ideas to capture the ideas and the vision that the Albanese Labor government is putting forward to the country. That is being embraced, as they know the benefits of making structural change in our budgets, building our industry for the future, having more opportunities for our kids, and having more opportunities for people to build strong careers where they can earn better wages and live in a better, more robust, sustainable nation. (Time expired) 17:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The thought that is top of mind for every Australian today is not the welfare of Julian Assange, not the performance of President Joe Biden in his most recent presidential debate. After tomorrow, it won't even be Senator Fatima Payman from Western Australia. The matter that is top of mind for every Australian at the moment is the cost of living. And Australians who voted for Prime Minister Albanese and who voted for Dr Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, are asking themselves: Why is it that Labor is making them poorer? Why is it that Labor is hurting working families like theirs? And why is it that the government can only offer up excuses when asked to explain why interest rates are crippling household budgets, why inflation hasn't come under control and why the prices of households' weekly and monthly family shopping lists have got greater and greater? The answer to those questions is very simple. When the RBA meets, it sits down and asks itself one question: is the government managing the economy well? And if the RBA decides that the government is not managing the economy well, what does the RBA do? It puts up interest rates. Over the two-and-a-bit years since May 2022, when the RBA has met, sat down and judged the performance of the government in managing the economy, it has said the government is doing a bad job, and interest rates have gone up, not once but 12 times. That's the cumulative impact that is now weighing heavily on the minds of Australian households. There are only two dates in the next six weeks that Australians need to think about and prepare themselves for. The first date is 31 July. That is when the June-quarter inflation rate gets revealed. Jim Chalmers boldly said on the eve of the budget that he would bring down inflation. Well, we'll soon know whether or not Dr Chalmers has been able to do that, on 31 July. What is the second date that is most important? Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 It's 6 August—thank you very much, Senator Ayres. You should have that etched in your diary, because that is the next date when the RBA will judge the performance of the government. It's 6 August. There's a third date, and what is that? That date will probably be 30 November or 7 December, when Anthony Albanese will take this country to an election, asking them to vote on his performance as an economic manager. Anthony Albanese is not going to let Australians— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Polley. Senator Polley e5x I'd just remind my colleague on the other side to use the Prime Minister's title. He knows that's within the standing orders. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Smith, please use the appropriate title. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is often called the chief wrecker of the Australian economy, and I think that is unfair. He's the co-chief wrecker, because he joins with Dr Jim Chalmers in wrecking the Australian economy. Let's be clear about this. If Australians go to a poll later this year, as is speculated, it's because Anthony Albanese wants to pull the wool over the eyes of hardworking Australian families who have experienced probably one of the worst cost-of-living crises that many of them can remember. Mr Albanese says he wants to go for the full term, to May 2025. That's not true. Mr Anthony Albanese and Dr Chalmers know that, if he waits for an election in May next year, the financial burden that Australian families are forced to endure will go for another six months. The Prime Minister can't afford to have Australian families weighted down, burdened, by a cost-of-living crisis that goes to May 2025, because he knows that Australians will reject him, reject Dr Chalmers and vote down Labor's economic plan and economic performance. The most important dates in the next six months are 31 July, 6 August and possibly 7 December. Question agreed to. Israel 2687 17:23 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by Senator Wong to a question without notice I asked today relating to autonomous sanctions and Israel. Once again, this government has refused to take meaningful action on the genocide and the humanitarian crisis that is occurring in Gaza. We know that the Albanese government has imposed a huge number of autonomous sanctions on people and entities connected to a whole range of countries. This includes 703 sanctions related to Iran, 568 sanctions related to Syria, 136 sanctions related to North Korea and over 1,300 sanctions placed upon Russia—and there are many other countries in addition. In fact, three-quarters of all autonomous sanctions on the books were placed there by the Albanese Labor government. Yet this government has continually failed to place any autonomous sanctions on any person or entity complicit in the genocide and war crimes committed by the State of Israel. This is an outrageous double standard. The community see these numbers, and they are rightly furious. On behalf of the Australian Greens, I have lodged a motion today with the Senate that will be voted on when the parliament returns. This motion will urge the government to put sanctions on those complicit in genocide, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Gallant. I urge all members of this place to take the time over the break to reflect and to come back to this place and support this motion. This government has imposed autonomous sanctions, as I say, on Russia, North Korea and Iran—just to name a few. It is time for the government to place autonomous sanctions upon members of the Netanyahu government. We heard during question time from the foreign minister that, in their view and in the view of the government, it is inappropriate for Australia to impose sanctions without instruction or determination from an international tribunal. This is not factually correct. When it comes to autonomous sanctions, it is the case that the government may apply them when the government determines it to be appropriate to do so. The position articulated by the foreign minister is inconsistent with their response to other conflicts. Aid organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres and UN officials such as the UN special rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories have been calling for sanctions to be imposed on the State of Israel for quite some time now. They have been doing so because they understand that, in order to have any chance of Israel complying with international humanitarian law and the laws of war, there must be consequences for their noncompliance. The government must stop ignoring the calls of the community for action. Australia must immediately sanction those complicit in this genocide, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Gallant. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 2688 COMMITTEES Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) Select Committee, Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Migration Joint Committee, Parliamentary Library Joint Committee, Public Works Joint Committee, Senate Publications Committee 2688 Membership 2688 17:27 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:27 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as follows: Adopting Artificial Intelligence — Select Committee — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Darmanin Australia's Disaster Resilience — Select Committee — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Grogan Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Ghosh to replace Senator Marielle Smith from 8 to 22 July 2024. Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Walsh Environment and Communications Legislation Committee — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Darmanin Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Shoebridge to replace Senator Steele-John for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator Steele-John. Migration — Joint Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Pratt Parliamentary Library — Joint Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Grogan Public Works — Joint Statutory Committee — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Pratt Publications — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Payman Appointed—Senator Darmanin Question agreed to. Human Rights Joint Committee 2689 Appointment 2689 17:28 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by that House proposing a variation to the resolution of appointment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and requesting the concurrence of the Senate. The House of Representatives message read as follows— Message no. 422, dated 4 July 2024—Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and transmitting for the concurrence of the Senate the following resolution: That the resolution of appointment for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights be amended to replace paragraph 1(a) with the following: (a) the committee consist of 12 members, four Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator; 17:28 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I seek leave to have the message considered immediately. Leave granted. Senator AYRES 16913 I move: That the Senate concur with the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the resolution of appointment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 2689 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 2689 17:28 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In what is possibly, given the time, my best-timed and maybe most popular intervention in this place this year, I move: That— (a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 12 August 2024, at 10 am, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and (b) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 2689 ADJOURNMENT Cost of Living 2689 17:29 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The first of July was a very special day for the Australian people. To ensure that Australians have been heard by this government, we have delivered some real cost-of-living relief for them in the way of a tax cut. I think it's really important to put on the record that 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut in their next pay. But what is not really spoken about enough—and I think it is really important—is that 90 per cent of Australian female taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut than they would have got under the previous government. That is going to help with their cost of living. We also have seen great investment to ensure that child care is more affordable. We have put $1.5 billion into fee-free TAFE to bring manufacturing, making things, back to Australia. Some $22 billion has been invested in that. We have invested in health care. We have actually incentivised GPs by tripling the payment for GPs to bulk-bill. We have seen the significant effect that increase has had in my home state of Tasmania, with an over eight per cent increase in people being able to access a bulk-billing GP. The other great initiative that we have had to help Australian families is that we have now invested in 58 urgent care clinics around this country. I know firsthand how important and how well received those clinics have been because we have one in my home city of Launceston. It's just been amazing. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is the best urgent care clinic in this country, with the number of families and individuals that have been able to access urgent care when they need it while just having to present their Medicare card. It has taken real pressure off accident and emergency departments in our hospitals, and that is fantastic. The other area that we need to also highlight is that we have supported an increase of superannuation from 11 per cent to 11.5 per cent, which will have an ongoing benefit for Australian workers. We know those on the other side, when they were in government, were opposed to any wage increases. We know that's in their DNA. But, after two years, lower paid Australians are now experiencing, as of 1 July, their third increase in their wages. We have opposition senators come in here and bleat in their speeches that the Albanese government is not doing enough on the cost of living. Then why did they not support the increase that we made to the tax cuts for Australian workers? Why? Because they don't believe in supporting people to be aspirational unless they are from the top end of town. Why, then, didn't they support the $300 energy rebate to every household in the country? They voted against that as well. That rebate will also go to small businesses. It's some $325. Why was it that those opposite continued to oppose this energy rebate? Now they come in and talk about the crisis around housing, but they voted against the $10 billion housing future fund. They have not supported any of these measures. The Albanese government has invested more in social and affordable housing, bringing the total, after this year's budget of $6.2 billion, up to $32 billion. We are actually investing. Those on the other side, who voted against these initiatives, have never come up with any policies themselves. Ten years they were in government, and they did nothing. In fact, during their 10 years in government, they had 22 failed energy policies. But wait just a minute: Mr Dutton has come up with a 'plan' to have nuclear energy! He has not done any costing. He did not consult any experts. He has no evidence to contradict the experts who say it will never deliver cheaper energy to Australian households. It is a pipe dream, a fantasy. It's desperation from Mr Dutton. That' s clearly not— (Time expired) Cashmore, Hon. Jennifer, AM 2690 17:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia On 10 June this year, we lost a great South Australian. Jennifer Cashmore was a trailblazer, a Liberal and a genuine contributor to our state. In 1977, Jennifer had become the third woman only to be elected to the House of Assembly, serving as the member for Coles. Two years later, she became the second woman only to be appointed to the South Australian state cabinet, serving as minister for health and tourism. She spent almost 17 years in the state parliament, and, appallingly, for 12 of those 17 years, she was the only woman representing our party. Jennifer's was a truly remarkable life, in profession and in personal and family terms. Her service and influence clearly influenced her three amazing children: Her Excellency Frances Adamson, Governor of South Australia; the Judge of Appeal of the New South Wales Supreme Court; the Hon. Justice Christine Adamson; and the Reverend Stuart Adamson, Associate Dean of Chaplaincy and Spiritual Care at Sydney's Morling College. Her three children led what was the most beautiful of services for Jennifer Cashmore following her death. Frances spoke about the night before as governor visiting Roxby Downs and Olympic Dam in recent times. Her mum had called her urgently and pointed her to page 82 of Jennifer's book, As I Recall, where Jennifer had set out the history of the passage of the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982 and wanted to ensure that her daughter, the governor, was as prepared meticulously for her visit to Olympic Dam as Jennifer was throughout her life. It's a demonstration of somebody who had been so diligent in all facets. Jennifer's contribution to our state saw her campaign strongly against environmental degradation in the Wilpena Pound and for the types of tourism facilities that could be environmentally friendly rather than environmentally destructive. She was a leader in establishing the 1990 select committee on the law of practice relating to death and dying, which led to the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act. In 1998, she crossed the floor to support a ban on tobacco advertising. Perhaps most notably, in Jennifer's contributions, she led the way in exposing the impending State Bank collapse, something that, if people had listened at the time, could have saved South Australia billions of dollars. Jennifer's activism continued. Indeed, she was there campaigning for the South Australian Museum from her wheelchair with Parkinson's disease just on 13 April this year. She was careful not to tell her mum, the governor, in advance. Her daughter Christine, Justice Adamson, spoke about Jennifer Cashmore, the brilliant speaker and debater, the principled parliamentarian, the local member, the protestor, the author, the poet, the superb correspondent, but she also talked about how her mum had sent all three children out into the world to make a difference, and what a difference they made. Jennifer was the youngest member of the House of Assembly as well as being the only woman at the time, setting such an example, especially for her two daughters. Her only son, Stuart, also spoke about how his mum had said that people tend to die how they lived. Stuart spoke about how Jennifer demonstrated the truth of that statement to a tee, her mind being sharp until the last, always engaged, always interested in what all were doing, and that indeed she had called him up in the weeks close to her death to talk about an idea for lobbying on an issue close to his heart. 'You have to take them head-on, dear, and it has to be a grassroots campaign,' she advised her son, a demonstration that Jennifer Cashmore was somebody who, to the end, fought for all she believed in and was so active in doing so. Jennifer Cashmore left an indelible imprint on our state. Her name will stand proudly in the history books, and in Jennifer we celebrate the life of a pioneering woman, a member of parliament and a minister with a commitment to service and a remarkable mother leaving an amazing legacy through her children. Jennifer left her mark on South Australia and the Liberal Party, and we should all wish for many more like her. PricewaterhouseCoopers 2691 17:39 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make some more remarks about an institution that's so fundamentally important to the proper functioning of the markets, and that is PwC, who until fairly recently have had quite a reputation as being a critical part of the truth-telling essential to the proper functioning of the markets. I'm interested in this because so many Australians now have superannuation as a result of Labor Party policy and implementation of that policy, and what happens with these big companies, particularly ones like PwC, really matters for all of us. If I can put it this way, in the currency wars between, on one hand, truth-telling in the public space, professional integrity and reputation and, on the other, raking in the personal benefits and dollars, PwC's latest CEO, Mr Burrowes, has followed the leaders who preceded him—namely, Mr Luke Sayers and Mr Tom Seymour. We have seen Mr Burrowes jettison the truth for his personal financial benefit, and dissembling has won the day. This is a bad look, PwC. When will you learn the lesson? The half-truths uttered by Mr Burrowes in response to my question about how much he is paid since he's been imposed on the Australian branch of PwC were a very bad start. He originally said he was being paid $2.4 million per year. Within a couple of days, that had to be adjusted to $2.8 million. How could you miss $400,000? But, in a further question when I contacted Mr Burrowes to get clarification about any other potential payments that he has from PwC International, he was forced to correct the record in answer to my question on notice and declare another $1.2 million is being paid to him by PwC International. I don't know how he can say, 'Oops, I just forgot $1.2 million,' in his answer to my question. The reality is that trying to get the truth out of PwC is proving incredibly difficult. Every time they refuse to tell the truth fully and clearly, the reputation of PwC is further tarnished and further damaged. The scale of the whopper that he told, at $1.2 million, makes me question everything that comes from Mr Burrowes as the company man imposed by PwC International on PwC Australia. First, there is the matter of his salary and the ongoing connections to PwC International, which I've given you some information on. There is the Linklaters report and the involvement of international partners in the attempted rort of the Australian taxpayers. We know that Mr Burrowes receives part of his income from an international source. We know that he is related to the international entity. Yet he has told this Senate that he can't see that document. The Senate has requested that the Financial Reporting Council in the UK have a look at the document, the Linklaters report, which tells us about an international web of deception that was going on. They have denied the British regulatory body as well. The reason that they are able to avoid it is that they continue to abuse a very special process called legal professional privilege. We know that they're masters of the art of using legal professional privilege and putting a veil of containment over any documents by saying they are legal and confidential. To be clear for those who don't engage with this too often, legal professional privilege doesn't happen just because a lawyer engages with it. PwC International have a choice. They can release these documents, even confidentially, to the Financial Review Council or to the Senate. They don't have to hang onto legal professional privilege. They used that tactic abusively against the Australian Taxation Office for years and years, and they were found wanting in a court because of this abuse of that privilege. Those tactics continue. There's a formal agreement between PwC Australia and PwC International. That is still unclear. The truth about the implications of Luke Sayers and his meeting with the deputy ATO— (Time expired) Romaniw, Mr Stefan, OAM 2692 17:44 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Last week both Australia and Ukraine lost a giant of a man. Stefan Romaniw, who will be well known by many of the people in this place and the other place, passed away while on a trip representing the Australian Ukrainian community in Lithuania. He passed away in Poland on his way home. I knew Stefan for the last five years. Soon after coming into this place, I took up the chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Ukraine group. With Stefan and the previous ambassador, we worked closely on issues such as trade and visas. Then, in 2021, as the Russian troops built up on the border of Ukraine and it was looking more and more like there would be an invasion, Stefan and I would talk pretty much every day about what the Australian government could do to support Ukraine should there be an invasion. I think the first rally I ever went to protesting against Russia's invasion was at least a month or two before they actually invaded. These rallies—and I've been to dozens of them around the country—were all organised by Stefan, both in his role as the co-chair of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations—which he chaired with another friend of ours, Kateryna Argyrou—and in his global role as the first vice-president of the Ukrainian World Congress. There is no shortage of what Stefan did for both the Ukrainian diaspora here in Australia, which he did during his down time, as well as running his business. The work he did for Ukraine and building support for Ukraine around the world was tireless, it was endless and it never ceased to amaze me. I lost count of how many trips he would have taken to Ukraine. Dozens! At least dozens. Stefan was the one who encouraged me to go to Ukraine, and I can tell you that even just getting to Kyiv is a frightful battle of a trip. It's an awful long way to go. But Stefan never blinked an eye. He would call me up and say, 'I'm off again. I'll see you in a week or two.' He always went with an aim in mind and always with an objective, and that objective was always to help the defence of Ukraine—and what he could do both with the community raising money for weapons, medical needs, food aid and other humanitarian aid, or what he could ask the Australian government for. I think he knocked on more ministers' doors than even I did in search of aid for Ukraine. I have no doubt that, were Stefan still alive, he would have been up here this week, banging on several ministers' doors. Instead, the Victorian government is putting on a state funeral for Stefan next Friday. It's a sad but fitting end to a man who was well acknowledged for all the hard work he did for the community. He was given an OAM several years ago. To his wife, Anastasia, and his children, Pete and Theresa, I say, 'We will all remember your father and your husband.' As I said, Stefan was a giant of a man. Australia is a poorer place without him, and Ukraine will always hold him in their heart when they say the words, 'Slava Ukraini.' Senate adjourned at 17 : 49