DOCUMENTS

2024-08-12 2 1 0 Senate 0 0

Monday, 12 August 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 2693 DOCUMENTS Tabling 2693 COMMITTEES 2693 COMMITTEES Meeting 2693 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 2693 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliament House: Security 2693 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 On 4 July 2024, I made a statement to the chamber on a serious security breach by protesters on Australian Parliament House. I'd like to provide the Senate with an update. At the request of the Presiding Officers, the Australian Federal Police conducted an investigation into these events. This investigation is ongoing. Additionally, the Speaker and I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services to convene a meeting of the Security Management Board to discuss options to enhance security at Australian Parliament House. We requested that both short- and long-term solutions be identified, while taking into consideration the recent increase in the national threat level. I can inform senators that short-term measures have been implemented which strengthen the layers of security around Parliament House and assist in deterring a repeat of 4 July incidents. Measures include physical, procedural and intelligence based enhancements. Of course, for security reasons, I will not detail the specific measures that have been implemented; however, these enhancements have occurred and are ongoing. Long-term and more permanent options are currently being explored and will be considered by the Senate Appropriations, Staffing and Security Committee and the equivalent committee in the House. These longer term options will be informed through engagement with relevant authorities and experts, including by technical experts from national security agencies and law enforcement agencies. Australian Parliament House is a key symbol of our democracy. It is also a source of national pride. The Speaker and I take matters around the respect for and safety of the building and its occupants very seriously. The security and access to Australian Parliament House must always be balanced to keep democracy open to the people while also protecting those who visit and work in the building and surrounds. I thank the Australian Federal Police and the parliamentary departments for the work they do to keep our parliament safe and staff safe. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT 2694 QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT Parliament House: Security 2694 10:04 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia President, I'd like—if you could take this on notice—to know who in this chamber you have briefed about those enhanced security measures. The Australian Greens haven't been briefed. Our leader hasn't been briefed, and I would like to see that corrected. 10:04 The PRESIDENT 112096 I briefed the Deputy President. DOCUMENTS 2694 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 2694 Order for the Production of Documents 2694 10:04 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in reforming the NDIS, to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the recent commitment by the Leader of the Opposition to working together with the government to this end. On 7 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released in December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than 1,000 people with disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said its reforms can improve the scheme and meet national cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. Discussions have continued with senators across this chamber as well as members in the other place to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda, and it is pursuing that together with the disability community. We look forward to working with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested document as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in addition to the aforementioned review. 10:07 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. We are here today discussing this issue because of Labor's broken promises. Let's be really clear. The Australian Labor Party went to the election promising the disability community that they would prevent any cut to the NDIS. They went to the election promising transparency, promising accountability, promising genuine co-design with disabled people, yet, when in government, they got together with the states and territories—behind closed doors—and signed an agreement to cap the NDIS. Caps have consequences. The decision to artificially restrict the amount of money available to disabled people to meet our individualised support needs has real impacts on our lives. The government's complete and total ignorance and lack of care in relation to these impacts are causing people real harm, right now. I and my team hear from constituents across the country every single day, bringing to us the latest examples of plans that have been cut, slashed and almost burned to the ground. People's disability supports, their vital supports that keep them alive, are being absolutely trashed and taken away because this government is already trying—desperately—to cut the funding of the scheme, to cut the amount spent to meet the requirements of the cap signed up to behind closed doors. I want to read to the Senate just a couple of examples of what we are hearing from people who are participants of the NDIS and are being directly impacted by this Labor government's cuts to the scheme. One person in WA reached out to us having experienced a 50 per cent cut to their plan. There was no consultation on the decision. The agency simply informed them that they had been directed to slash and burn. The consequence of that approach is that this person is having to, right now, re-prove a condition they have had for 30 years to be able to continue to receive the therapies they require in the community. Another participant shared with our team that their plan has been cut by 71 per cent. It was, they said, 'a cookie-cutter rationale given with no warning'. They rightly described the devastation that this has brought into their life and have shared that now they clearly do not know how they are going to make it. The government has clearly indicated that it is willing to stop at nothing to implement its agenda of cutting the NDIS. The government has had opportunity after opportunity to come clean, to give to the Senate the information we demand: How many participants will be affected by these cuts? How many people will lose supports because of Labor's decision to do this deal? How many people will be harmed by what they have agreed to without us, deliberately blocking us out of the spaces where we could have contributed? The agency recently heard from a young person whose only remaining parent had just passed away. A change-of-circumstances request was submitted to reflect the loss of this immediate support, and the response of the agency, the response of this government, was to cut their plan by 77 per cent. What was the reason? The death of a parent, who was their primary support, does not mean they require, in the view of the agency, additional funding. So not only did they not get the additional funding; the funding was cut by 77 per cent. This is a broken promise, a betrayal of disabled people, and no amendment to this bill done behind closed doors, without disabled people, will meet the needs of the community. 10:12 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales We're here again. It's 'NDIS Monday', and it's just becoming a joke. It is a running joke that a government who came to office claiming they would be transparent have done everything they can to cloak themselves in secrecy when it comes to the NDIS. We're going to come to a bill, maybe, a little bit later on today that seeks to reform the NDIS. The NDIS is, I acknowledge, one of the biggest items in the budget. It is too big. I'm the parent of a participant and I'm happy to acknowledge that there are too many people on it. The Greens and us on this side of the chamber don't actually agree on terribly much, but what we do agree on is there should be transparency. We do have different views about who should be on the scheme. We do have different views on how some of the scheme should be operating, but we do agree that there should be transparency. Yet those in government are determined to not be transparent, not only with the Australian people, when they have already put these savings into the budget, but with the 660,000 participants in the scheme and their families. I think that number is too high—absolutely, that number's too high. There are too many people in this scheme who do not have a permanent and lifelong stability, which is what the scheme was set up for. What we're seeing now, in this desperate bid to curb the cost of the scheme, is plans being cut for those that most require them. The people that are most vulnerable and are most in need of supports in the community are having their plans cut so that, in some ways, those who shouldn't be on the scheme can remain on the scheme. They're not brave enough to step up and take the political hit by acknowledging the people that should come off the scheme, but what they want to do is just somehow—because it's a demand-driven scheme. You either cut the number of participants or cut the value of the plans. That's the only way you save money. But we're being told, including through inquiries, that the NDIA is seeking efficiency measures. In the hearings that were held over this, we heard Mr Shorten say that there was all this cost being borne by the taxpayer by not passing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 sooner and that having additional inquiry hearing dates were unnecessary. Well, just to be clear, this series of hearings was less than 25 hours in total. Less than 25 hours of hearings were allocated because, as we know, the government has the numbers on that committee, so the government senators were always too busy to have an inquiry or to have a hearing. We could never get any insights into what this bill was actually trying to achieve, so it's an absolute joke to claim that there's been enough inquiry into this bill. There hasn't been. It's disappointing, though, that we did invite the states and territories to come and meet with us. Hopefully they could have given us some insights into what this framework was going to look like and how they were going to make these savings because, at the end of the day, it's the states that are supposed to be responsible for delivering these foundational supports. But no-one knows what a foundational support is. What is a foundational support? There's no definition. For those in the gallery, this is actually something that's delegated legislation. They're rules that are going to be written by the minister when he feels like it. We don't know what they look like, but, most frighteningly, the states, who are going to have to deliver them, don't know what they look like. They don't know what they're going to have to do. They don't know how much money they will have to spend. I asked a premier, a treasurer, a health minister, an education minister, a justice minister and a disability minister—six ministers from each of those state governments—and not one of them had either the guts or the temerity to turn up and tell us what they knew, what they thought or what they'd been signed up to. We've just had a statement come out from the Premier of Tasmania, who was invited, and I'll acknowledge he's a Liberal premier. He didn't turn up, but now he's put out a statement asking for the legislation to be pushed back because the states don't agree to what was signed up to and don't agree on their ability to implement it. But, of course, no-one knows where this is going to land, because there's been no transparency, no discussion and everyone's been too scared—hiding. The fact is that Bill Shorten, the minister, has made claims about the cost of the delay. I've got two questions for him. The first one is: what's the cost of your inaction for 2½ years since you've been the minister? For 2½ years, he's been the minister. He was the shadow minister before that. He was actually one of the architects of the scheme with Jenny Macklin back in the day. It's been 2½ years, and this is the first piece of legislation he's brought forward. We'll have more to say about what the actuary told us last week about his ridiculous claim of what the additional inquiry days were costing because it's based on completely false numbers and facts. They're completely false facts and numbers, which is all we seem to get from this government. 10:17 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia This would be farcical if it weren't so serious for over 650,000 Australians with serious and permanent disability, who are now, in record numbers, contacting those of us in this place and the other to beg us not to pass this legislation. It is totemic of the shocking, appalling government that has been delivered by the ALP over the last 2½ years. Four years ago, the then coalition government—the then minister Stuart Robert and I—approached the Labor Party and Bill Shorten, and we said: 'This scheme is starting to head into trouble. We need serious legislative reforms. We need serious engagement with the states and territories to reform this scheme so that it can be financially sustainable and focus on delivering everything that it was designed to provide for our most seriously vulnerable'—that is, those Australians who were in group homes across this country in appalling conditions. Yet, four years ago, Bill Shorten started ridiculing then minister Stuart Robert. Shorten said that he was evil and that he was going to cut the plans. He said that we didn't need an assessment process in an insurance scheme. He whipped up the sector and whipped up the politics, and he said: 'There's nothing wrong with the scheme. I see no evidence of anything wrong with this scheme. We don't need to do anything. They're all just making this up.' He accused us of being 'pearl-clutching Kabuki theatre'. Despite everything in the budget, everything in the quarterly reports, saying the NDIS was a scheme in trouble, that it was starting to trend towards 20 per cent above budget each and every year and was completely unsustainable, what has Minister Shorten done over the last 2½ years? Instead of coming clean and saying, 'I got it wrong; now is the time to start working together to improve and save this scheme,'—we had 30-odd reviews that clearly identified what was wrong with this scheme and what was needed to be done by the federal, state and territory governments to fix the scheme and to extend support to other Australians with disabilities who were not covered by the NDIS—he had another review, which the minister representing him has just gone through: 'We did. We consulted all these people.' And guess what? They found what every other review has found. That review was delivered to the Labor government, to Minister Shorten, in November last year. The government still have not provided a response, and they're saying that this legislation—that's supposed to be before us in five minutes time—will fix it, will implement the review. It doesn't implement the review. It probably implements five per cent of the review. Even Labor's reviewers said that review had to be implemented as a package by the federal government and the states and territories. This legislation is a debacle. We're due to start in committee on this legislation, and guess what? We haven't seen the amendments. We're supposed to be debating something that this incompetent and hopeless government, after saying this legislation was so urgent and necessary—we're going into debate in less than five minutes. I don't know whether anybody else in this chamber has seen the amendments. What are we going to be discussing? It was so urgent that we had to rush through and not answer the questions. We still don't have answers to some of the questions that we asked in committees. In fact, with many of them, they ducked and weaved and didn't answer the questions, and we are at this shameful position today. Every Australian who relies on the NDIS, whether they be participants, families, friends or people who work within the scheme to provide those supports, should be worried. Where is the bill? Where are the amendments? What a shame. 10:22 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to join with my colleague Senator Steele-John in supporting this motion. It is extraordinary, isn't it? If you cast your mind back two and a bit years to Labor in opposition and what they said about how government would be under Labor, I seem to recall, from the Prime Minister down, they had a mantra of 'transparency, transparency, transparency' and—quite rightly—called out the appalling dying days of the coalition government with its multiple secret ministries, secret deals and secret agreements. They pointed to the coalition and said: 'We won't be like that. We won't do these secret deals. We won't do this secret behind-closed-doors non-disclosure agreement stuff.' This was going to be a bright sunshiny day under Labor. What do we have instead? We have layers of secrecy that, at different times, the coalition probably hadn't even dreamt up—new ways of doing secret national deals. At the heart of that is the NDIS financial sustainability framework secretly developed by the Albanese government, with Minister Shorten, no doubt, drafting in the dark, under candlelight somewhere on a Melbourne terrace in secret meetings. The only way you could come to a secret candlelit meeting with Minister Shorten was if you signed a non-disclosure agreement where you promised not to tell where you met, who you spoke to and what was discussed. Then they knock up a framework to cut billions and billions of dollars from people with a disability in this country—all done in secrecy. As far as we understand, they created the framework in July last year and they then started a further series of secret consultations with premiers and chief ministers around the country. Then in April this year—Senator Steele-John will correct me if I'm wrong—in another secret meeting with premiers and chief ministers, headed by the Albanese government, they sign off on a secret deal, a secret framework. Meanwhile, it turns out that Minister Shorten has been having these candlelit, secret negotiations, and he's come forward with legislation that wants to, over the next decade, cut $14.4 billion from people with a disability. The legislation that they've introduced has been roundly opposed by those 4.4 million Australians who live with a disability, who have seen it proposed that $14.4 billion is to be taken from them, their friends, their supporters, their carers—all based on a secret deal and a secret framework. We say: if there is any credibility to the financial modelling and if you want to stand by the financial modelling and the arguments that you say support taking $14.4 billion from people with disability, then show us the framework, show us the modelling, show us what it's all based on. Of course the Senate should see what it's based on before we vote on the legislation. I come back to what this government said about transparency, in its election commitment. They persuaded about one-third of the country to vote for them on the basis that they were going to be different. Almost one-third of the country voted for the Labor Party on the basis that they would be different and would learn the lessons of the coalition government, which so rapidly drove the coalition into disrepute and saw millions of Australians reject that as a model of government. On the promise of transparency, about one-third of the country voted for Labor. About one-third voted for the crossbench, too, not necessarily believing Labor's promises in the election campaign. Very smart people those— Senator Steele-John 250156 Good call. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Good call—as it turns out, very good call. But about one-third of the country voted for Labor on the promise of transparency and on being different. They, kind of, are a bit different: they're less transparent, even less transparent than the coalition. We could point to the attacks on whistleblowers. The coalition kicks off prosecutions, and Labor puts whistleblowers in jail. The coalition sees delays in FOI, and Labor blows them out to new untold delays—year-long delays, half-decade-long delays. Show us the framework. Live up to the promises you gave to the Australian people when you got elected. Be transparent. Question agreed to. BILLS 2697 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 2697

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024

First Reading 2697 10:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to make provision in relation to a scheme for the administration of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union and its branches and in relation to actions under the scheme. Question agreed to. Senator WATT 245759 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 2698 10:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 and move: That this bill be now read a second time. Since July 2024, serious allegations have come to light about the conduct of some members and associates of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. The Australian government takes these allegations seriously. There is no place for criminality or corruption in the construction industry, and bullying, thuggery and intimidation are unacceptable in any workplace. On 2 August 2024, the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission applied to the Federal Court of Australia to have an independent administrator appointed to the Construction and General Division and the Victoria-Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland-Northern Territory, and South Australian divisional branches. I intervened to support the application on behalf of the government. For some time now, the government has made clear that, if the matter was not resolved before parliament returned, we would introduce legislation to facilitate administration, if it was determined to be in the public interest. It is the government's firm view that enabling administration, not deregistration, is the strongest action to take in these circumstances. Deregistration of the Construction and General Division would not stop the union from participating in a range of industrial activities, like bargaining. Placing the Construction and General Division into administration would maintain the regulation and additional oversight that applies to registered organisations and ensure the division acts in the best interests of its members. This bill amends the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to allow the minister to determine a scheme of administration for the Construction and General Division, if satisfied it is in the public interest to do so. The bill contains a non-exhaustive list of the matters that may be included in a scheme—such as the suspension or removal of officers, taking disciplinary action, and making changes to the Construction and General Division's rules. A scheme of administration would be targeted towards the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, and would be time limited. It will not apply to other unions or to other divisions of the CFMEU. The bill includes strong powers for the administrator and would allow them to take action necessary to restore the effective management and operation of the Construction and General Division. Under a scheme of administration, the administrator would have control of the property and affairs of the Construction and General Division and its branches. They would have the power to: manage the property of the division and its branches, and undertake any functions, or exercise any power, that officers of the division or its branches would normally undertake. This would enable the administrator to take all necessary action to manage the affairs of the division, in the interests of members. Current and former officers and employees would be required to assist the administrator, such as by producing requested documents. Penalties would apply for noncompliance with this requirement. The administrator would also be required to cooperate with inquiries undertaken by a law enforcement or regulatory agency. The bill includes strong anti-avoidance provisions to prevent people from undermining an administration determined by the minister. Contravening these provisions would attract civil penalties and, where avoidance behaviour is deliberate, criminal penalties. The maximum civil penalty for contravening these provisions is 600 penalty units for an individual (which equates to $187,800) and 3,000 penalty units for a body corporate (which amounts to $939,000). Maximum criminal penalties are five times higher (for example, up to $4.695 million for a body corporate), and a maximum period of two years imprisonment could be imposed. Penalties would also apply to persons involved in breaching the anti-avoidance provisions, for example where a person aids or abets a contravention by another person. Anti-avoidance civil penalties would apply retrospectively from 17 July 2024. The criminal sanctions apply from the commencement of the bill. We want to ensure any administration that may be determined is undertaken fairly and with the appropriate level of scrutiny. Safeguards for the administration would include: a limitation on the duration of the scheme to no more than three years, with provision for the minister to terminate the administration earlier with the agreement of the administrator. They would also include: ensuring the administrator is subject to oversight by the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission, who may investigate whether the scheme is being effectively implemented. The administrator would be immune from civil proceedings if they are acting in good faith in the exercise of their functions and powers. The allegations about the behaviour of some Construction and General Division members and associates are serious, and unlawful behaviour in any workplace is unacceptable. This bill provides an effective mechanism to enable the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU to be placed into administration if it is determined to be in the public interest. The government will continue to support strong action to address these issues. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 18 November 2024. 10:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than five minutes. Leave granted. Senator CASH I0M I have to say, I don't know if I've ever heard such an ironic speech in my life. Let us be very, very clear what has just been introduced. We are here today because Prime Minister Albanese made the choice, a conscious choice, based on money flowing from the union movement, the CFMEU, to the Australian Labor Party to change workplace laws in Australia to directly benefit an organisation which has donated $6.2 million to the Australian Labor Party since Mr Albanese became leader—wow! You have got to be kidding me. When Prime Minister Albanese abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, mate John Setka and the CFMEU could not have been happier, and today it's all laid bare because I have seen the legislation and you can currently drive a truck through it. We all know that Labor is not only donated to by the CFMEU, not just influenced by the CFMEU, but this legislation shows they are owned by the CFMEU. Labor is not sincere when it now pretends to be concerned by the conduct, the corruption, the fraud, the misogyny and the bullying intimidation and thuggery within this union. Only now, after 20 years—that's right, two decades—of thuggery, law breaking and corruption, is the Labor Party pretending to care about the conduct of Australia's most corrupt union, which is also its biggest donor. Senator Watt went on TV yesterday and spoke of the CFMEU's years—I repeat, years—of thuggery and law breaking, yet for all those years Senator Watt was a key protagonist in the protection racket. In fact, not only was he a key protagonist but he also went as far as defending them, and, in fact, he was the minister who championed the legalisation, quite frankly, of this corrupt behaviour when Labor abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That's right—bullying, thuggery, fraud and misogyny in the building industry ran rife because of the actions of people like Senator Watt. Senator Watt might think people believed him when he said yesterday, 'It does not matter who has done the wrong thing. They should have the book thrown at them.' Well, guess what? Minister Watt and his government didn't throw the book at the CFMEU; they burnt the book. They abolished the building industry watchdog. They reduced penalties for the CFMEU law breaking. This is the interesting bit: they claim they've only just become aware. Well, the last time I checked, there was Federal Court decision after Federal Court decision after Federal Court decision after Federal Court decision, and who could forget what the High Court of Australia said: the 'most recidivist' union in this country and that they see fines as the mere 'cost of doing business'. I mean, you have got to be kidding me. The Australian people are not mugs. They know when they are being blatantly misled, and for the Australian Labor Party and for the Prime Minister to actually stand up and treat Australians like mugs by saying they've only just become aware of this conduct, when there have been no fewer than two royal commissions which exposed the criminality of this CFMEU, again just shows you: Labor were bought lock, stock and barrel by the CFMEU. Where was Senator Watt in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Luke Collier and John Setka were bashing women? That was not even enough. He still dared fight the coalition every step of the way when they were trying to put in place legislation to clean up the industry. Cast your mind back to Senate estimates. Go and have a look at the videos of Senator Watt attacking the commissioner of the ABCC when they were laying out all of the evidence, when Senator Watt was saying it wasn't happening. Well, guess what? It was. Minister Watt could not have been happier when the ABCC was abolished. In fact, I recall he was smiling like a Cheshire cat. Unfortunately, now all Australians are paying the price for the actions of the Labor government. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 2700

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 2700 10:41 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senators, the second reading amendments moved by Senators Hughes, McKim and Ghosh that seek to refer this bill to a committee have been overtaken by events and should be regarded as spent. We will now return to debate on the question that this bill be read a second time. 10:41 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Before I begin, I want to recognise the work done by my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John in representing members of the disability community. Along with Senator Steele-John, I met with over 200 people on the weekend with lived experience of disability. I want to recognise the work that they and their advocacy groups have been doing, and I also want to acknowledge the high levels of distress in the disability community as a consequence of this bill. I move the amendment on sheet 2759 that has been circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to ensure that any methods developed as a part of the implementation of the bill must: (a) include transparency to participants on the inputs, detail of the method, and outputs; (b) include transparency to participants and the general public on the procedures, calculations and any other workings of the methods; and (c) be subject to both internal and external appeal by participants". The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is a very significant piece of legislation that will make huge changes to the NDIS, resulting in harm for the people who rely on it. One in five Australians now live with a disability. The National Disability Insurance Scheme changes people's lives for the better; however, the getting the NDIS back on track bill before us threatens to derail the NDIS for good. This bill will cut services for disabled people just so that Labor can claim a surplus in a cost-of-living crisis. The NDIS stands alongside Medicare as some of the most significant health reforms for the community that we have. They are monuments of public good. In tandem, these programs have enabled so many Australians to live healthy and happy lives. Labor's decision to cut the NDIS, to restrict access and to remove people from it should be subjected to the highest degree of scrutiny because the consequences of this are profound. It will be profound for the people who rely on the NDIS. Choice and control are core concepts of the NDIS, putting disabled people in charge of decisions about their lives. However, Labor's bill flips this relationship, giving the government the power to decide when, where, how and what supports are delivered. The minister can categorise disabled people into groups and classes and then make and apply rules to them. The bill also sets up the framework for moving people off the NDIS to supports provided by states and territories—supports which don't exist. Not only would booting people off a national plan be inconsistent with what the NDIS is designed to protect against; it would inevitably guarantee that disabled people would be worse off in some areas than in others. The culture that has driven this reform has been paternalistic from the outset. Reforms that empower the minister to classify disabled people into classes are emblematic of this. At every step, we are seeing the fractures that created a royal commission in the first place. As my colleague Senator Shoebridge said earlier, this bill before us has been shrouded in secrecy, from some stakeholders pressured into signing confidentiality agreements to focus groups establishing the best way to launder the cuts. Advocates have raised concerns throughout the inquiry process about the ad hoc and rushed nature of such major reforms. Dr George Taleporos of Every Australian Counts told the inquiry: What's happened in this situation is that we've been given legislation that says, 'We're going to take away what you've got now and we're going to put in place something different.' But that other thing doesn't exist yet. So it's impossible for us to feel confident that that solution will work for us. The legislation raises many concerns that we have not seen the answers to, and we need to see the answers. This is about our lives. This is about our survival. This is so important to us and we need to be treated in a way that respects how serious this is for our lives, and I don't feel that that has happened, in this case. The Labor government is treating the community with contempt. By courting the Liberal Party, the party of service slashing, they are stating outright that their interest is not with the disability community. The expansion of the government's ability to pursue debts against disabled people, their families or guardians is also of significant concern. Throughout the inquiry, legal representatives stated that debts raised under the NDIS Act will not be subject to review, meaning there is no opportunity to dispute an incorrect decision or explain the situation that led to the debt. This arises even in cases where disabled people or their families make a mistake, receive bad advice or are coerced into spending funding incorrectly. A foundational change like this locks in issues of natural justice. The power imbalance between a participant and the government is significant, and all it takes is another minister desperate to drum up savings to recreate a culture of debt recovery at all costs, including human ones. It is unacceptable for this Labor government to push ahead with legislation that will cause disabled people harm. Instead of engaging properly with the disability community, Labor has attempted to manipulate public sentiment and to undermine the scheme by talking about fraud and noncompliance. Governments of all persuasions are fond of loudly proclaiming that they are constrained by economic reality and forced to make tough choices. Let's be clear about what Labor is choosing to do with this bill. Labor is choosing to cut $14.4 billion out of the NDIS by booting as many people off their NDIS supports as possible. Labor's bill will make disabled people's lives and the lives of their families immediately more difficult. That is why the Greens won't support it in its current form. It is a deep shame of this government to be pursuing such reckless and heartless slashing of the NDIS just weeks after their response to the disability royal commission. After making the community wait over 11 months for a response, the Labor government declared no intention to end the cycles of segregation that lead to abuse, violence, neglect and exploitation which thousands of disabled people had the courage to share with the commission. No wonder they are devastated. Labor accepted 13 out of 222 recommendations. I'll say that again: 13 out of 222. That's less than six per cent of the recommendations. What a slap in the face. What a gut punch for the disability community. What a sham—after disabled people and their families gave so much to the commission, week after week, month after month. The only work that Labor is pursuing in disability now is cutting $14.4 billion out of the NDIS. Labor has chosen to allow injustice to fester just so they can claim a balanced budget. The consequences of carve-outs and cuts to the NDIS negatively affect students and parents in our school systems too. The NDIS is meant to foster inclusion, empowerment and self-determination, and yet education has been excluded from the NDIS. This has real-world impacts on students with disabilities and their families—something that we saw clearly in the Senate's inquiry into school refusal. The Greens established an inquiry into school refusal, or 'school can't', which showed how students are left behind without adequate support. Given the exclusion of education from the NDIS, the government cannot vacate the field for neurodivergent students, who are disproportionately affected by school refusal. School refusal, and a lack of support for families, is causing serious financial stress for households. Responses to a School Can't Australia survey showed that one-third of respondents were coping, for now, but believed their long-term financial security would be impacted by school refusal. Another 15 per cent of respondents were struggling to afford essentials, such as food, housing, transport, health and basic needs. Labor has taken every opportunity to carve groups out and to restrict access to the NDIS, and it is having profound consequences for schoolkids and their families. As a state school teacher for decades, I saw how inadequate support for students with disabilities rippled out through families and the school community. The financial stress, social isolation and educational outcomes are all linked to inadequate government funding to support students with disabilities. But, every chance it gets, Labor looks to cut costs by excluding those who need support the most. We've seen it with refusing to raise the rate of JobSeeker and we're seeing it now with cuts to the NDIS. This government has chosen to abandon disabled people, to abandon NDIS workers and to pass the buck to the millions of Australians who undertake informal carer roles. The Labor government has made clear that there is not an essential service that it won't cut in order to fund nuclear submarines and fossil-fuel handouts. Those in this government have betrayed the disability community and should be ashamed of themselves. 10:53 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I don't have a strong record of supporting bills from the Albanese Labor government, but in this case I'm pleased to say that I will. The government has finally taken a big step towards securing the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is exactly what's at stake here. We must rein in the cost of the scheme if it's going to survive and help to provide for the needs of Australians living with a disability. The Australian people believe in making reasonable and necessary disability support availability for people who need it. If we don't make it sustainable, if we don't stop the rorting, if we don't stop it paying for things that aren't direct disability care, the goodwill towards the scheme will disappear. One Nation supports a more sustainable NDIS, and that's why we'll support this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. The NDIS is not remotely sustainable at the moment. It already costs taxpayers $45 billion a year, and, without substantial reform, this figure will double to $90 billion by the year 2030. NDIS spending has gotten out of control. That's what usually happens with every big government scheme flush with taxpayers' money: some people always find ways to take advantage of them and always disadvantage the people who really need them. There are many people on the NDIS who really need it, but it's also paying for many things that are completely unrelated to their disability care. I'm confident that most Australians do not support the NDIS paying for things like donations to political parties; rent; court fines; alcohol; cigarettes and vapes; jewellery; fuel; computer game consoles; takeaway food; home deposits and standard renovations; gambling; prostitutes; saunas; standard cars and motorbikes; sport, concert and movie tickets; luxury cruises and holiday packages; makeup and cosmetics; pet funerals; school and university fees; music lessons; sex toys; weddings and honeymoons; standard sports equipment; standard appliances; standard furniture; insurance; legal fees; child support; tarot card readings and clairvoyance; business costs; trampolines; IVF treatments; cuddle therapy; hypnotherapy; crystal therapy; aromatherapy; roleplay game therapy; nail salons; and hair appointments. These are exactly what the Greens want to keep and support. Can you believe it? They want you, the taxpayer, to be able to pay for this to give people with disability a better life. Forget about the people out there who are doing it tough and living on the streets. There's one rule for some and one rule for others. None of these are related to genuine disability care, but the NDIS is paying for all of these things and a lot more. This is not the reasonable and necessary assistance Australians were told the NDIS was created for. There's absolutely nothing wrong with disabled people going to concerts, getting takeaway food delivered or even having crystal therapy, but Australian taxpayers should not be funding it through the NDIS. It will not be enough to simply write to providers and participants about these changes. They will need to be enforced with substantial penalties. I hope the Labor Party, this government, will actually follow that one up. I'm pleased to say that this bill will make nearly all of these things ineligible for NDIS money. I say 'nearly all'. One Nation will be moving an amendment to add sex workers to the list of services no longer eligible for NDIS money. If a disabled adult wants to pay a sex worker where it's legal, that's their business, but Australian taxpayers should not be funding it through the NDIS. If we allow the NDIS to keep paying for these things, there soon won't be enough money to pay for the critical things disabled Australians really need. That's what we must prioritise. When dealing with the NDIS, I often think back to the group of mothers who visited parliament to help secure support for its establishment. These were mothers with kids living with severe disabilities requiring constant around-the-clock care. I will never forget their desperate concern for the future of their children when they could no longer provide that care. They weren't asking for handouts. They weren't asking for luxury holiday packages, cuddle therapy or tarot card readings; they asked only that their country provide for their children's needs when they no longer could. For that, we need a sustainable NDIS. Another important step we must take is to bring NDIS pay rates for various workers back into line with other health sectors. Aged care, for example, is desperate for workers. For relatively unqualified support workers, jobs in aged care are being advertised at around $30 an hour. Under the NDIS, the going rate is $67 an hour. It can go up to $218 an hour on weekends in rural and remote areas. This is for basic jobs like driving patients to appointments or even folding laundry or mowing a lawn. There are people who actually finance their new cars under this system. In June this year, the Australian newspaper said, 'An analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data showed one-third of all new jobs created in Australia over the past year were for the NDIS.' It's no wonder, with unsustainable pay rates like that. These rates not only contribute heavily to NDIS spending going up around 20 per cent every year but they also contribute to a shortage of workers in other sectors—not just critical health sectors but virtually every sector in the economy. A registered nurse can make about $50 an hour in public health but more than $190 an hour under the NDIS. Psychologists providing counselling to an NDIS patient receive a minimum rate of $214 an hour but only $153 an hour to counsel a veteran. We know that our veterans are having a lot of trouble accessing the mental health services and support that they need and richly deserve. One of the reasons is that those practitioners are prioritising NDIS patients due to the higher rate of pay. These unsustainable rates need to be brought into parity with other sectors or those sectors will run out of the workers they need. The government has acknowledged that this is a problem so I have to ask why it hasn't been addressed in this bill. It cannot come soon enough if we are to have a sustainable NDIS as well as sustainable workforces in other sectors. Another flaw in the NDIS that must be addressed is the lack of means testing. Like pensions and other taxpayer supports, participation in the scheme should be means tested. It makes no sense for multimillionaires to be able to access NDIS participation, but they can because the scheme isn't means tested. I understand that neither of the major parties support means testing in the NDIS. Peter Dutton told me they don't support it because public health isn't means tested either and is available to everyone. If the coalition thinks the NDIS should also be available to everyone, why is eligibility for the NDIS denied to people over the age of 67? One Nation will be moving an amendment to introduce means-tested supports to take more pressure off the NDIS. Some participants' plans are getting out of hand, loaded with things they don't need or services provided at astronomical rates. In 2020 it was revealed that about 450 participants had NDIS plans costing more than a million dollars. Another 5,100 participants were on plans costing between $500,000 and $1 million. Who knows how many are on these expensive plans now? The government won't tell us. Another major issue that we must deal with is NDIS fraud. We must recall the warning from Michael Fallon in 2022 when he was chief of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. He said that about 20 per cent of NDIS funding was being abused by organised crime groups. Mr Fallon is now acting head of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, and back in May he said he may have underestimated the involvement of organised crime. These criminals have made billions of dollars from the NDIS. I acknowledge the $160 million in this year's budget to improve the capabilities of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission so it can crack down on this abuse of taxpayers' money. There is no place for organised crime in the NDIS. Once again, this is another rushed policy that criminals have taken advantage of, and taxpayers are being ripped off. One other major change needs to be implemented, and I hope to see it in the next tranche of reforms. Eligibility for participation in the scheme needs to be tightened to supporting those whose disability has a significant impact on their life. When NDIS was created, it was supposed to provide support for people with a disability, not mild autism or attention deficit disorder. I acknowledge that, in severe cases of autism, NDIS support may be necessary. We even hear about an autism diagnosis being used to access NDIS funding packages and that this could even be behind rising rates of autism in Australia. However, it's the real impact of autism on an individual, not just a diagnosis of autism, that should determine the support they receive. In principle, One Nation supports the new scheme jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the states to support children with mild autism or development issues through schools and childcare centres. They shouldn't be on the NDIS. It remains our policy to establish specialist schools with qualified staff to provide parents with the opportunity to choose the care, support and education their children need. I look forward to these first reforms being implemented as soon as possible. I say, again, they represent a substantial step on the path to a sustainable NDIS. It makes my blood boil to see the Greens with their grandstanding here, ripping over $14 billion from taxpayers in their true form of supporting issues that are unsustainable in the long run. Their actions are only, as I said, grandstanding, purely for the vote. That's what they're about. If they ever get control of the purse strings of this country, we will be a Third World country in no time, because, 'Everyone should receive this, get this, give that,' and who's going to pay for it all? If you want this NDIS to be sustainable, it has to be paid for, and you have to do it on the basis that it's true and fair to all Australians, not just hand over taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. One Nation will be supporting this bill, and I urge all senators to get on board so that we can make sure this scheme survives and supports Australians with a disability well into the future. 11:06 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Firstly, I'd just like to echo the statements that have been made here today by my colleagues in the Australian Greens. They have spoken in great detail. Senator Steele-John, who is our spokesperson on behalf of disabled people across Australia, has done a fantastic job in his work—and Senator Allman-Payne has also, in her contribution. There has been significant community backlash in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, with many organisations and disabled people and their families sharing concerns with our spokesperson Senator Steele-John and with our individual officers here at the Australian Greens. They've been sharing their concerns with the government, and the government, again, have not made a good enough effort to engage with people in the disabled peoples community, who are most affected. This is affecting everybody. The government concentrated on exactly the issues that Senator Hanson just spoke about; they're focusing on fraud and noncompliance, which are important issues, but they're using them more like cover. There is no doubt that there have been issues with some suppliers. I'm not negating that. But the government have emphasised these points—again, I want to reiterate—as cover. They are taking that as cover to retreat from what the NDIS is supposed to be all about. It's supposed to be centred on the people who have the lived experiences of disability, the people that need the most support to navigate all of the complex systems that we, in this place, have set up. If this government really does cut $74.3 billion from the NDIS over the next 10 years, we will all feel the consequences of that at some time. Everyone in this country has a relative with a disability or, in fact, is disabled themselves. We cannot consciously sit in this place and do that to people—and we are doing this to them. This decision has been rushed in every single way. It has been rushed through its decision-making processes. It has been rushed past the Australian public before people could even realise what was happening. The government are rushing it through the parliament, downplaying it in their budget announcements, hoping that no-one will notice that this is what they are going to do to disabled people in this country. Just like I have done many times before in this chamber, I also want to talk about the double disadvantage experienced by First Nations people with a disability. The First Peoples Disability Network Australia have done an amazing lot of work in this space, fighting for the NDIS to better support First Nations people across Australia, and they continue to do this work on an absolute shoestring. The amazing advocates, the people working in policy, the people working alongside frontline programs and services—it's a real testament to their resilience. They have estimated that there are 60,000 First Nations people who are participating in the NDIS, but, in reality, there are actually fewer than that. Not only are they not participating in the NDIS, because they've been excluded, but also they don't recognise or have not been diagnosed for their disability, so we continue to see this disparity in the double disadvantage that exists for First Nations people. There are many, many reasons why this is happening, and they include the year-long waitlists to access the NDIS assessment and also the disparity in the geographical challenges that we have. Most First Nations people live in rural and remote areas in Australia. Sometimes these services are not accessible, not only in terms of being able to get there but also in terms of centres being open at the particular times when people are reaching out. So it's about having the means, capacity and access to travel hundreds of kilometres to actually get an NDIS assessment in the first place. Sometimes people don't have a car. They potentially have to drive themselves depending on what their disability is. They've got to pay for fuel. They have to have the time to drive the distances across regional and remote Australia and potentially pay for accommodation, particularly if they can't make that trip in one day. That, in fact, is the reality for lots of First Nations people. Some of them have to go town by town, stopping and relying on family and relying on trust that they may be able to have access to money to get to NDIS assessments in this country. These costs all add up very, very quickly. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and that this government are taking this approach to make this simply unfeasible for many people is just appalling. As I said, Australia is a huge place. It's very spread out for a lot of First Nations people who work and live on country. I also have lived in regional Western Australia. In fact, I lived in the Goldfields. The nearest service centre to Kalgoorlie would be approximately 600 kilometres away. To make that trip in one day is exhausting. To make that trip if you had a disability, if you had to stop at several places in order to access food or drinks or take a break—all of those things are really important. Then there is the fact that there are simply not enough First-Nations-specific services across this country to provide culturally appropriate care to the some 60,000 people who, in fact, should be accessing care but are not because this government has failed to see that. When they talk about intersectionality, how about they talk about the fact that there aren't many First-Nations-specific, culturally appropriate services that are accessible to those 60,000 people? A well-funded disability support system is crucial for us in order to close the gap in this country and to uphold the rights and the dignity of First Nations people. Not only is this bill a slap in the face for disabled people; this government refuses to answer reasonable questions from members of this chamber and members of the public who want to put to the government the reality of the situation of the lived experience of people with a disability and what it means to support someone who is living with a disability. They are the people most affected and will be most affected when you tear the money out of this type of bill and these types of services that are so important for the disabled community. Labor went to the election and promised that they would make no big changes without 'co-design'. It's not just some fluffy weasel word that you can throw around that looks great in your policy documents. Co-design is sitting down with people and saying: 'Tell us what the lived reality is. Tell us what that means and we will help co-design our approach, our needs based funding, to make sure that we are hitting the mark and we have a bill that caters to that.' But Labor broke that promise. It broke the promise to co-design alongside the NDIS community. Let's think again about the proposed cuts and what they mean to the NDIS. Labor has chosen, instead, to pump big money into things like submarines. Here they are, wonderfully clapping their hands together today, talking about AUKUS—$368 billion—and handing out money to fossil fuels. They continue to hand out outrageous amounts of money to everybody except the NDIS community. It's appalling. That money could and should be spent on helping the most vulnerable people in our communities. It continues to be a travesty. Even as late as last week, I was on a flight from Perth to Darwin and was sitting next to a middle-aged lady who talked to me about her experience with the NDIS. I asked her if I could share this story in the Senate, because everything she told me about her health care was so important,. She was travelling from Darwin to Perth to go to Fiona Stanley Hospital, because the services at Royal Darwin Hospital couldn't cater to her health needs. She needed to administer to herself sterile needles because of her medical condition. The machine she had to purchase cost $10,000, yet the NDIS, because it did haven't the same product number, would not cover it. This is what people are dealing with. She hit the jackpot sitting next to an MP on her flight to talk about her experience, because the government are not listening. This woman has made complaint after complaint about the NDIS. When I asked her, 'What do we do to help you?' She threw her hands in the air because she was so defeated about her story, about the fact that the Labor government are continuing without co-design, without engagement, without conversation and without empathy for people living with disability in our communities. This lady also talked about her experience in patient assisted travel. It's NDIS related, yes, but it's also a broader issue around how the health system is broken for people. Her NDIS experience has made her so much more determined, but her resilience and her strength in sharing her story is something I really treasure because she wanted to speak about her experience. She wanted to talk about how the NDIS fails. It lets people down. She wanted me to convey that message here today to the government and those in this chamber who I know also feel so strongly and passionately about how disability affects all of us. I foreshadow that I will bring a second reading amendment to this bill in my name on behalf of the Australian Greens. I want to urge this government to think seriously about what power it has to make a difference, what power it can ensure, as part of its legacy in this place, to look after the most vulnerable in our community. I heard many stories from those in the government and opposite around how disability affects all of us. As a First Nations woman—two children who also have a disability—it is critical that we stand up and continue to enable the voices of those in the NDIS community to be heard. We continue to advocate strongly, and, through Senator Steele-John's wonderful leadership, we continue to ask and demand that this government listen, that this government stop putting money into things that are to the detriment of the disabled community. People with lived experience of disability want to, should be, heard. They continue to ask the government to consider making changes to this bill. 11:21 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek to speak to the second reading amendment on sheet 2759 moved by my colleague Senator Allman-Payne. It is so important to disabled people, our families, our communities, those who work with us and those who advocate alongside us that the systems within the NDIS are built on transparency and trust. The processes that the agency uses to determine what kinds of supports disabled people receive, the amount of funding they are provided with, to those without a disability, perhaps to those in the Labor Party, it would seem, are just pieces of material on an excel spreadsheet somewhere in a computer; the job of a bureaucrat to implement, the job of a comms director to advise on and, ultimately, the job of a minister to deliver a report to cabinet with the No. 1 metric of success being: How much did we cut today? How much closer did we get to the $14.4 billion that we have pledged to rip out of the scheme? For disabled people and our families, for our community, these processes and how they work are the factors that determine whether we are able to get out of bed in the morning, to have a job, to eat, to be able to drink water. The result of these processes affects our lives. 'The minister shall determine the method' is one of the most frequently used passages within the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. The methods proposed in this bill—that's the term used, 'method'—shape our lives. Transparency is vital. From transparency there can be trust. Without transparency, there is rightly distrust, particularly given the way in which we as disabled people have been treated at the hands of federal governments, Liberal and Labor alike. Whether it be the disgraceful way in which the Liberal government sought to implement, and successfully implemented, changes to the disability support pension that chucked over 200,000 people on the DSP onto what was then called Newstart and into poverty, or whether it was the Gillard government beginning the changes to the impairment table process that then enabled those people to be chucked off, or whether it be this government's shameful response to the Disability Royal Commission report, we have good reason to distrust federal governments of any political persuasion when it comes to the processes and procedures used by the National Disability Insurance Scheme to shape our lives, our funding and our support. It is in that context that the Greens offer this amendment, which calls for any method that may come out of this bill to be subject to basic transparency and the right of appeal. The right of appeal is a basic expectation that any citizen should have in relation to a government program. If a decision has been made that affects your life and you believe that the decision has been made in error, you should be able to appeal—that is a basic expectation. Yet this bill, in its current form, denies that right of appeal—denies that foundation stone of procedural justice—to the over 660,000 participants who rely on the NDIS for basic supports and to their families. An example of one of these foreshadowed methods is the method which will be used to translate the so-called 'needs assessment report' into a participant's budget. All we know about this method, all the parliament has been told about this method—and we are about to be asked to vote for a bill that will be the foundation of these methods, that will give the minister of the day the power to create these methods and implement them—is that this method will be some kind of tool that will be developed and approved by the minister for the purpose of translating the result of a needs assessment into a total budget amount. That is all that we know, and yet we are being asked to vote for this piece of legislation. Now, the methods developed under this bill, if it is to pass, must not, cannot, be developed in secrecy. They cannot be implemented in secrecy. There must be transparency so that there can be trust. Details about any calculations, algorithms or other components of these methods must be made available to the public so that there is a common understanding of how important decisions in relation to funding and plans are being made. This government came to office on a promise of ending the black-box systems that the previous Liberal government implemented. Yet this bill, in its current form, empowers the minister of the day, empowers a politician, to make whatever kind of black box they may choose. When I read that section of this bill, my jaw nearly fell off! The hypocrisy, the double standards, the broken promises and the betrayal that the Labor government are perpetrating upon disabled people and their families—breathtaking! This amendment would call on the government to ensure that methods are developed transparently and implemented transparently so that there can be a basic level of trust. The workings and outcomes of these methods also should be subject to appeal by participants and their families, especially where the outcomes are primarily determined by algorithmic methods. We cannot allow a future government—we cannot allow this government—to have the ability to craft algorithms and input systems that seek to reduce the complex individualised nature of a disabled person's needs down into a series of data points and then spit out some number, without the way in which that information translated from the result to the amount being a process that can be examined, challenged and reviewed. It is no good to say, 'Oh, well, the outcome at the end of it will be reviewable,' if the thing you have at the end of the process is the result of the flawed determination method, because you will rerun the process and you will again come out with an insufficient amount of support. We cannot allow a bill to be passed by this parliament that creates an opportunity for the second coming of robodebt, where methods were kept secret and mysterious debts arose as the result of calculations that weren't visible or able to be understood by the key people affected. We know that these processes lead to harm. We know that these processes can lead to death. That is what robodebt did—it killed people. It was the product of a political and bureaucratic culture created by both sides of this parliament, who have given decision-makers one key indicator: reduce the cost, bring the funding down and meet your budgetary expectations—because, in the name of all that is holy, we have a nuclear submarine to fund. That is the culture that created robodebt, and that culture remains. That culture is at the heart of these methods. Unless this Senate takes the opportunity to send a clear message to the government that, should this bill pass, it expects them to develop these methods with transparency and implement them with transparency, this Senate will be culpable for the damage done by these methods and processes, for the funding that gets removed from people and, yes, for the lives of those who are pushed to the brink by these bureaucratic processes which they cannot challenge or ask for a review of. This amendment sits alongside a number of amendments that will be moved and debated by the Greens which seek to ensure that these basic elements of transparency, accountability and proportionality are addressed and introduced into this piece of legislation. Each will give the government the opportunity to side with the disability community to ensure that their appointed CEO of the agency has their powers effectively and appropriately constrained—and there are many others which I will go into detail on as the debate progresses. But I urge the Senate: this amendment gives you the opportunity to agree with the basic proposition of procedural fairness, procedural justice and basic transparency. Give the families, give the disabled folks and give the community the opportunity to understand exactly how their funding, their supports and the decisions that shape their lives were landed on. Give disabled people the basic opportunity. Respond to the demand of the disability community that this parliament ensure that nothing is done about us without us. 11:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I will respond to the second reading amendment and then offer a response in relation to the rest of the debate. The government's position will be to oppose the second reading amendment. It is not a serious amendment in terms of its relationship with the scheme and of the rest of the bill. It is indeed, in my view, just shallow partisanship. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is the first legislative step in relation to reform of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The approach of the government in relation to the bill but also to the second reading amendment is to make it sustainable, to do it fairly for participants and to do it for the long term. There has been deep consideration given to all of the issues not just that Senator Steele-John has raised but that have been raised in exhaustive consultation with the disability community and practitioners in this area to ensure that very thorough checks and balances are included in the act in a way that provides protection for participants, and the kind of hyperbole that has been engaged in over the course of this morning has been incoherent, irresponsible and incorrect—a deliberate catastrophising done in the knowledge that it does social harm itself. That's the truth of the matter, because that's what happens when you approach things through such a shallow partisan lens. The bill seeks to implement the key recommendations made by the NDIS review focusing on access to the NDIS, how NDIS budgets are set and better safeguards for participants. The changes implement key recommendations of the independent NDIS review and put participants back at the centre of the NDIS, restore the scheme to its original intent and ensure the scheme's sustainability for future generations of Australians. The bill was first introduced to the parliament on 27 March this year, and in the months intervening this government has sought feedback on the bill from people with disabilities and their families, the disability sector and other key stakeholders to ensure that the proposed changes deliver on our intent to improve this life-changing scheme. From this consultation came a number of amendments developed to strengthen the bill which were accepted in the House on 5 June. Because we've listened to the disability community and to our parliamentary colleagues, the government has moved almost 50 amendments to the bill. The bill has gone through two separate hearings of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. On 20 June, the committee presented its first report, made three recommendations and agreed that the bill be passed. The bill was introduced to the Senate on 24 June. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work of the chair of the committee, Senator Marielle Smith, who, over two inquiries, presided over five and a half days of hearings and the examination of more than 300 submissions. Senator Smith is a passionate supporter of the NDIS and said in her second reading speech on the bill: The NDIS is a proud Labor legacy. I'm proud of it. I'm proud of everything it has done to support over half a million adults and children with disability today. I'm proud that for a long time it has enjoyed bipartisan support. It is something we as Australians believe in, it's something we in this chamber have believed in and it has been a godsend for so many Australians living with disability and for their families, friends and carers … The government has proposed 18 amendments that address the recommendations of the committee in the first inquiry and further amendments to strengthen the bill including: firstly, on governance, that first ministers are also to be recognised as ministers for the purpose of category A rule making; secondly, on consultation, that a consultation statement be tabled, accompanying the legislative instrument that sets out consultations undertaken on the instrument; thirdly, on safeguards, that the government clarifies the circumstances under which the additional powers granted to the NDIA CEO through the bill will be used; and fourthly, on budget setting, clarifying that the needs assessments will be holistic and consider all of a person's disability support needs. It also ensures that participants are notified of what impairments or which impairment they need access to the NDIS for. Finally, on integrity, they also include a series of amendments that strengthen the integrity of the scheme. A further final amendment addresses concerns about the section 10 list for some participants who, in often unique circumstances, could get a better and more cost-effective outcome from using a support that is otherwise not able to be funded by the NDIS. This amendment will allow participants to seek an exception where this is the case. The bill has not yet passed, because it was referred back to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee in June. The committee publicly released its report last Friday, 9 August. That report has one recommendation, which is that the committee recommend that the bill be passed as soon as practical. This is consistent with the committee's original report but reflects the committee's sense of urgency about the need to get on with this piece of reform as an important and necessary step for making the NDIS sustainable, for making the NDIS fair and for modernising the approach of the agency to its work with agency participants. Now it is the time for this Senate to discharge its responsibility to NDIS participants and to Australians broadly and to move forward with the bill in a way that commits us to delivering better outcomes for people with disability who engage with the NDIS. I'm confident that the opposition will now work with the government to pass the bill, because, despite our inevitable disagreements about form and process here in Canberra, there is universal agreement amongst Australians that we have to get the NDIS back on track and make this scheme sustainable so it's here for future generations of Australians. Those here in the Senate acting in good faith will see that this bill is done with the best interests of people with a disability, their families and the disability workforce and providers in mind. I agree with the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Mr Shorten, when he said that our system is not so broken that common sense and compassion will not prevail in this instance. It is the right thing to do. We and the whole Australian community know that a significant and permanent disability can happen to any one of us at any time. If it does, whether it is us or someone we love, we have in this country a scheme that will be there for all of us and that gives peace of mind to everyone, knowing that we or our loved one will be supported by Australia's world-leading disability scheme. But, even more, our entire community benefits from building a more inclusive and accessible society. I should say as well that the benefits of building a more inclusive and accessible society go beyond the social benefits; they got to workforce participation and productivity broadly in the economy. In this bill we propose a framework for broader reform that not only restores the NDIS to its original intent but creates an ecosystem of disability supports and more inclusive foundational mainstream supports and services. The government recommits to the design and implementation of these changes, including extensive consultation and co-design with the disability community—a fact demonstrated by the many amendments to the bill. The government will also continue to work with state and territory partners, and across the political divide, to deliver a fairer and more sustainable NDIS. States and territories and the Commonwealth have a common interest and a shared responsibility to support these reforms, to secure a future of lasting and meaningful outcomes. The independent NDIS review, which was released on 7 December 2023, was commissioned by this government to work with the disability community to tell us what is working and what is not and, importantly, to tell us how the scheme could be changed to achieve the goal that the disability community envisaged when it was first established in 2013. The significant time the disability community spent responding to, and engaging with, the independent review panel is helping to shape the plan for how the government intends to put people with disability back at the centre of the NDIS, restore trust, confidence and pride in the NDIS, and ensure the sustainability of the scheme for future generations. The decision to bring forward legislative changes and associated rules was made by National Cabinet in December 2023. This bill provides the framework required for the NDIS to deliver on its full potential, including improved experiences and better outcomes for participants, and restoring trust and confidence in a scheme that has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians with a disability. This bill will secure the future of the NDIS as a fair and sustainable source of world-class, life-changing support, delivering for the next generation and the generations to follow of Australians who will need it. This bill is primarily enabling in nature, establishing the necessary scaffolding within the current legislative framework, to be supported by new and amended instruments and rule-making powers. The majority of changes in the bill will not take effect until activated by future changes to NDIS rules. These will be developed in deep consultation and engagement with the disability community, and the majority of legislative instruments will need to be agreed by all states and territories, consistent with existing shared governance arrangements. To progress this important work, we've worked closely with the Independent Advisory Council and disability representative and care organisations to establish co-design working groups across six key reform areas. The bill includes some measures that commence immediately, including a greater emphasis on spending within the allocation in a participant's plan, where there is no change of circumstances, which will assist in ensuring the scheme's sustainability. This reflects the reasonable expectation that participants should spend up to the limit specified in their plan, unless their needs specifically change, and requires appropriate safeguards to stop others who may seek to exploit or coerce the participant to use their package in a way that is not in their best interests. The government is working closely with states and territories and the disability community around broader disability reforms, including the foundational supports agreed to by National Cabinet, to commence in the middle of 2025. While it is important to ensure there is careful sequencing of other key recommendations from the NDIS review and the disability royal commission, the bill establishes the framework to allow the time it will take to carefully co-design and develop the detail in subordinate legislation. The government will continue to work with the disability community, state and territory partners and everybody across this parliament, to deliver a fairer and more sustainable NDIS. The bill is about supporting participants and their families to live a rich and fulfilling life and lays the foundations of a future connected ecosystem of support for all Australians with a disability and, ultimately, a more inclusive and accessible society. In closing, I thank senators for their contributions to this bill and I commend the bill to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I'm aware, Senator Cox, that you have foreshadowed a second reading amendment, but I will deal with Senator Allman-Payne's second reading amendment first. The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment on sheet 2759 as moved by Senator Allman-Payne to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:54]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

13 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:56 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2766: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to ensure that any decision that may be made by the CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency, or their delegate, under the bill must: (a) be approved by a second decision maker within the Agency; (b) be subject to both internal and external appeal; and (c) provide transparency around the considerations, reasons and outcomes of the decision". 11:56 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to make a very short statement. Leave not granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Cox be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:58]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

11 AYES 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Reynolds, L. K. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:05 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the bill now be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [12:05]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

28 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

In Committee 2710 12:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. 12:09 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I move opposition amendment on sheet 2649: (1) Schedule 1, page 55 (after line 2), after item 103, insert: 103A At the end of subsection 118(2) Add: ; and (c) ensure the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. 12:09 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia We've heard during the inquiry into the bill that the detail of the needs assessment proposed in the bill is being developed. Before voting on this, I would like to know some of the detail that sits behind this proposal. Firstly, who will be conducting the need assessments? 12:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Senator Steele-John, I didn't hear the middle bit of your question. You said, I think, something about the 'something' behind the bill. 12:10 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'll repeat it. During both inquiries, we heard repeatedly as committee members that the detail of the need assessments that are proposed in the bill is being developed, so it's currently under development. Before voting on this bill, I am seeking to understand some of the detail that sits behind the elements of this proposal. My first question to you is: who will be conducting the needs assessment that is specifically referenced in the legislation? 12:11 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The answer to that question is, in short, that the needs assessment tool or tools will be developed through an extensive consultation and co-design process, which will involve deep engagement with the disability community and relevant experts. There will be an iterative process of design and testing with people with disability as well as with health and allied health professionals and people with technical expertise in the development of needs assessments. One of the major changes, of course, proposed by the NDIS review was to create a new budget based planning framework, which will be based on an assessment of need at a whole-of-person level rather than for individual support items. The review also recommended what it called a trust based approach, where participants are provided with a flexible budget and there is a focus on providing guidance and support to participants to spend their budget appropriately. The new needs assessment set out in the bill is consistent with the recommendations of the NDIS review about how a participant's support needs should be assessed. It will result in a budget being allocated to each participant on the basis of their assessed needs, with participants having the flexibility to purchase a range of supports rather than a prescriptive line-by-line plan. The needs assessment will be conducted in accordance with an assessment tool or tools, as I indicated before, that will be carefully co-designed—not in a hurry—with people with a disability and a range of relevant experts. The tools will be the subject of extensive consultation and discussion to ensure that they can assess every participant's needs to take into account, of course, many participants' multifaceted and diverse experiences of disability. Once that process has occurred, the assessment will be made transparent, and the process will be made transparent through a legislative instrument. These steps ensure it is an entirely different process to the previously proposed independent assessments. I hope that assists. 12:14 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, what you've just given us there is the contextual information that we as committee members went into the inquiry with. The government departments gave evidence multiple times during the course of both inquiries and spoke to a development process—a process in development—around the needs assessment. I understand that contextual information. That's been in the public domain for a while now. What I'm seeking to get from you is the detail on where that development process is up to right now. My first question is: who will be conducting these needs assessments? Just to clarify, that's what I'm trying to get from you. 12:15 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In the previous answer, what I was describing was the process that will be engaged in to develop the needs assessment tool, and that, of course, will go to who is doing the assessment and the processes that they will undertake. As I indicated, the process of developing that needs assessment tool will be an iterative process where the co-design principles will be developed in deep consultation and be responsive to the discussions with members of the disability community, experts and all of the relevant stakeholders. What is required for that process to commence—and this is why I can't be more precise with you, Senator Steele-John—is for this bill to be passed. Upon passage of the legislation through the Australian parliament, that process of the development of the needs assessment tool will commence, and all of the considerations I've referred to—and more—will be undertaken at that point. The needs assessment is a procedural step that will provide information required for the decision to approve the statement of participant supports, which, of course, goes to the level of funding and the budget for individual participants. That is the purpose of this process. One of the reasons, I think, that senators across the chamber, including in the committee, came to the view that this particular piece of legislation needed to proceed with some urgency is that it starts that process—and starts that process properly. I look forward to, and don't want to pre-empt here, the outcomes of that process. 12:18 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, can you detail for us the co-design principles that you just mentioned? 12:19 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I want to make sure the response here is precise. If we're not in a position to give it to you straightaway, we'll come back to you later in Committee of the Whole. As a matter of general principle, co-design has its own meaning. I want to be precise, in terms of the way that it is intended to operate, in relation to the scheme and to the bill. One of the difficulties here is that express requirements for consultation or co-design on specific instruments beyond what already appears in the act and the legislation could cause significant uncertainty for the operation of the scheme. There is no broadly accepted definition or process for co-design in Commonwealth legislation. So, while we talk about the principle of co-design in its ordinary meaning—when I say 'ordinary meaning', I think it has an ordinary meaning here in the way that service delivery agencies talk about the way that they deliver services—I expect that it's not a phrase that most Australians have heard before. It doesn't have a precise legal meaning—that is, there is no definition across the various agencies, beyond the NDIS, where these principles are articulated by public servants, by community organisations and by representative organisations when they are talking about policymaking or policy implementation. So, while it has that commonly understood meaning at that level, inserting specific references to co-design would create significant legal uncertainty. You might know what we mean and we might know what we mean but a court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, or whoever it is who engages in decision-making about these questions would not have that proper legal meaning. Subsection 17(1) of the Legislation Act provides that, before a legislative instrument is made, the rule maker must be satisfied that appropriate and reasonably practicable consultation has been taken. The requirements under the act and the Legislation Act together impose a requirement on the minister to consult with the disability community when making any legislative instrument under the act. So, given that that requirement already exists, it's, in the view of the government, not necessary to impose any further consultation obligations on the minister beyond the argument that I have taken you to around the precise legal meaning of the term. In addition, the government has moved an amendment to table a consultation statement with each legislative instrument outlining consultations undertaken and views expressed. That is beyond a requirement for administrative co-design. When each legislative instrument comes here, there will be a requirement to table what is an exhaustive consultation statement that outlines who has been consulted with and also the views that have been expressed by each of those consultation participants. 12:23 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, in your contribution, you stated that the needs assessment tools and the needs assessment itself would be developed in line with detailed co-design principles. For the clarity of the Senate, I want to understand what you were referring to then, given that you have subsequently given us a legal view of co-design which seems to suggest that, in the government's view, there are impediments to the implementation of co-design. Mere moments ago, when you referenced co-design principles, to what were you referring? 12:24 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think it's always very important when I'm at this table articulating a view about these questions to note that I'm not a lawyer and not even a bush lawyer, Senator Steele-John. The argument in relation to the insertion of the term is that it doesn't have a precise legal meaning beyond what I've already indicated. What I should have, of course, indicated to you in relation to co-design is that the minister, department and agency have published a statement and a commitment to co-design on the agency's website which should give participants and Australians a clear idea of what it is that the government means when it talks about co-design. 12:25 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Here we are today, after two years and four months. Senator Reynolds 250216 Two and a half years. Senator HUGHES 273828 Two years and four months of inaction—I didn't want to give him the extra two months; I thought that might have been a bit cruel. I like to get my figures correct—something the minister isn't too big on. There has been two years and four months of inaction by the minister who was the shadow minister for the NDIS when the government was in opposition and who was an architect of the scheme. Yet it's taken him two years and four months to bring his first piece of legislation forward. What a joke! It's unbelievable, but here we are. This should be, you would have thought, a positive day because the NDIS does have bipartisan support. We, in government, acknowledged that there were problems around sustainability and were referred to by the minister as 'pearl-clutching kabuki theatre players', because it was an absolute fallacy that there were ever any sustainability issues in his mind when he was the opposition spokesperson. Now he's the minister and it's: 'Oops, oopsie there are lots of sustainability issues. Now we now need to do something about it.' We are trying to get to some reform of this incredibly important scheme. We need to make sure that the NDIS is sustainable. Maybe everyone in the disability community and in this place would have had some more confidence if they had actually been given the opportunity to properly scrutinise this bill. In the minister's contribution, we heard him say very proudly that there had been 5½ days of hearings on what is an enormous part of the budget. This is an enormous contributor to the budget in so much as cost, yet we had 5½ days because every government member of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee was way too busy to ever hold a hearing when we wanted to look into this legislation. It's funny, though, that the references committee, which has many of the same members, could find more days and more opportunity to travel for our current menopause inquiry. We have had more days of hearings into menopause, of which there is no legislation around, than we've had on the NDIS, because the government doesn't want scrutiny of its legislation and will do anything it can to block it. We've seen the constant politicking, time and again, trying to block transparency and make sure that no-one really understands what's going on. In response to Senator Steele-John's questions, they bandy the word 'co-design' around as if it's warm and fuzzy so that people in the disability community feel that we're here with you and we going to co-design. We're probably going to make you sign an NDA, and you going to be invited to the party only if someone on your board or organisation is a former NDIA board member or is someone that those members of the board of the NDIA happen to like. They're the only organisations that are consulted with. They're the only organisations that are spoken to, and then they're made to sign NDAs. Lots of people in the community were not consulted about this legislation. We hear that it's in response to the NDIS review that the government hasn't even released its response to. It hasn't let anyone know what their response is to the review, but this legislation is somehow based on it. It is an absolute joke. We're here waiting for amendments. Apparently, there are more amendments coming. Hold the phone—apparently there are more amendments, but no-one has seen them yet. We're not quite sure what is happening. No-one knows what's happening with those amendments. This is based on the fact that the states and the territories don't know what is going on. We are told back in December that the financial sustainability was all tickety-boo, that it was all signed off by the premiers and that everyone was happy. We were told that there's a financial sustainability framework attached to the NDIS now to cap future growth at eight per cent. We've been in here asking for the modelling behind that sustainability framework for months. We actually had NDIS Monday this morning, again—six or seven months. Senator HUGHES 273828 You're right, Senator Reynolds: it's becoming a joke, because they won't provide it. And now they want us to pass legislation that's basically adhering to it, saying that this model is how we're going to cap growth at eight per cent. No-one is saying we don't want growth capped. Everyone wants this scheme to be sustainable. But, when you've got a demand-driven scheme, there are two ways you cap growth—you reduce the number of participants, or you cap the amount on the plans; you reduce the amount on the plans. I'm the first to say that I think there are too many people on it. The Greens and I are going to disagree when it comes to who's allowed on this scheme. I do think there are too many people on it. I do think we need to define 'reasonable and necessary', and we need to define 'lifelong and permanent'. This is a scheme that was established for people with a lifelong and permanent disability. My heart breaks when I talk to families of people that have severe disabilities that completely impair their ability to live an individual life full of freedoms and choices. It is the NDIS, when done properly, that opens up the opportunities for these participants and their families. But then we see all of this expenditure for people who, quite frankly, shouldn't be on the scheme, who should never have been allowed on the scheme. I'm going to go out there right now and say that there are a whole lot of autistic adults who get diagnosed in their 40s and 50s or so, and they're university professors. They've got families. They've got a house. They've got a job. Then, all of a sudden, they get a later-in-life diagnosis or a self-diagnosis—that's my favourite type!—and expect NDIS supports. I'm sorry, no. That's not what this is for. The way that autism is bandied around is absolutely appalling, and I say that as the mother of a classically autistic son, someone who would be defined as having profound autism, who was diagnosed before the level 1, 2 and 3 rubbish came into the DSM-5, someone who was actually given a diagnosis of autism when autism existed outside of PDD-NOS and global developmental delay and even before Asperger's was taken away. These are the kids who need it. These are the kids who have significant cognitive impairment and are never going to be able to live by themselves. They're always going to need supports. Yet it is them at jeopardy because no-one is prepared to actually stand up and say who should and shouldn't be on this scheme. That's the first thing, but this doesn't really address what we're looking at. We're tinkering around the edges here. Some of these people that shouldn't be on the scheme, in my view—and I say it's my view that they should not be on the scheme. What they are being offered so that the NDIS is not the only lifeboat in the ocean—which it is at the moment because the states and territories vacated the fields. Part of this legislation is proposing that there is an introduction of foundational supports. I don't mind the principle of foundational supports. They used to exist. What they were was community health where there was an OT or a speechie. Kids who had a little bit of a delay or who needed a little bit of a help along, who couldn't say the 'er' sound or something like that, could go and get a little bit of help and then go on with their lives. Now, those community health services don't exist, so families who've got a child with a bit of a developmental delay are all looking to the NDIS because it's the only way they can access some of these now private speech therapists or OTs, as they don't exist in a public system anymore because the state governments removed the funding for those. As soon as Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister, along with the then Minister Shorten and Minister Macklin, introduced the NDIS and said to the states, 'Don't worry, we'll absorb any of the additional cost blowouts,' the states went, 'You beauty; we're off,' and vacated the field. So we're supposed to be bringing in these foundational supports. To Senator Steele-John's question about what is co-design, what is a foundational support? I know what I think they should be, and we heard, during the 5½ days of inquiries we were so kindly granted by those opposite to look into this bill, from lots of groups in the community and disability workers and representatives and advocates of those people what they think a foundational support should be, but we don't know. There are no guidelines. There is no draft. These are to be developed at a later stage. Some people might be comfortable with that. They might think: 'There's pretty much general understanding. We want some community health, some access to public speechies and OTs. We need better supports in schools. We need the education departments to step back up. So that's fine—what we kind of think they are.' But is that what the government is talking about? So, Minister, what is 'a foundational support'? When will a draft of foundational supports be available publicly? And what supports have the states agreed to deliver? 12:35 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Before I respond to that contribution, I table an amendment to the explanatory memorandum relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. There were a number of assertions in that contribution, Senator Hughes, that I want to respond to. The first is about the consultation that has been undertaken by the government in relation to this bill, beyond the two Senate committee inquiries which have been undertaken. Of course, the changes themselves made by the bill address some of the key recommendations from the 2023 Independent Review of the NDIS. There has been deep engagement—not selective engagement; deep engagement—across the disability community, across Australia. It heard not just of people's responses in relation to the recommendations but of the experience of people with a disability, to inform their recommendations. The panel itself heard from over 10,000 people and organisations. It received over 4,000 submissions. It spent over 2,000 hours listening to the stories, ideas and feedback of people with a disability. The panel had regular meetings with Commonwealth, state and territory disability ministers. The panel used findings from other reviews and inquiries, like the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. And the voices of people with disability will stay at the centre of designing and implementing the changes to the NDIS. What Australians can expect—what Australians with a disability and carers and families of Australians with a disability can expect—is that the government will take the same deep consultation approach, as it implements the provisions of this bill, as it has taken in terms of the whole process. Senator Hughes asks us to look at the number of days that were allocated by the Senate committee—a matter for the committee, I suppose—but also to look at the number of days spent. I'd just say: there have been thousands and thousands of days and thousands and thousands of submissions. There has been deep consideration of those issues, when developing the panel report, the government's response to the panel report and the bill that is in front of us today. In terms of foundational supports, the NDIS review recommended that governments invest in foundational supports to bring fairness, balance and sustainability to the ecosystem supporting people with disability. That is at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels. The review defined 'foundational disability supports' as disability specific supports that are available to all people with disability and, where appropriate, their families and carers. In 2023, National Cabinet agreed to the design of foundational supports that will be engaged by the Commonwealth and states and territories, to create more pathways outside of the NDIS for young children and people accessing the scheme. Foundational supports will work towards a model of care that incorporates mainstream services. Foundational supports will be evidence based supports and services that will better connect people with disability with supports and services that the NDIS itself is not necessarily best placed to provide. It's the intention of the government's approach to foundational supports to create an inclusive and accessible disability ecosystem. The decision to bring forward the legislative changes and associated rules was made by National Cabinet in December 2023. It was a decision of Australian governments to respond to key recommendations around restoring the scheme to its original intent. The experience of participants was clearly heard through the NDIS review and, while governments are considering their responses, a key initial step in responding to the NDIS review is developing the new budget based planning framework. While it's important to ensure that there is careful sequencing of other key recommendations from the NDIS review, such as foundational supports, the bill establishes the framework to allow the time that it will take to carefully co-design and develop the detail in subordinate legislation. Participants will be carefully transitioned to the new approach over time. The phased approach will provide the NDIA with appropriate time to design and test operational changes and provide governments with time to develop the system of foundational supports outside of the NDIS. I listened carefully to Senator Hughes's contribution. Indeed, when I was responding to Senator Steele-John about the question of co-design, I appreciate very much that the language around co-design is language that is used by government, by participants in the scheme and particularly by stakeholder organisations to describe the kind of iterative process that we've set out. It is not language that people in the street would normally use, and it is prone to being described in the way that Senator Hughes described it. It is important, though. It is important to hold on to the ordinary meaning of this idea in terms of the way that the government sets about this kind of important reform. That is why the minister, the department and the agency have set out on the website what those principles mean: it is important for participants and stakeholders to have confidence in the scheme. I make this point as well. It was the Labor Party and, in fact, this minister and this government, who established the scheme. It was the previous government, over the course of the nine years when it occupied the Treasury benches, who administered this scheme. Now we have responsibility as a parliament, and I just say this: we could spend the next few hours or days hearing people defending their legacies, blame-shifting and pointing at each other. But, actually, when a sensible set of reforms is put in front of it—reforms that will make the scheme more sustainable, that will moderate the growth of the scheme so that it is sustainable, that will make the processes in the scheme fairer, that will set up not in two minutes but over the course of time a proper process of reform, that will set out that process of reform and enable that process of reform—I do think it's the job of this place to support that legislation in the interests of the Australians we are here to represent. 12:43 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales It's interesting to hear about the government response to the review. I didn't know there was one. Perhaps Minister Ayres could table the response to the review, because no-one else has seen it. It's typical of the transparency of this government. They'll just make it up as they go along and won't share the information with anyone. Senator HUGHES 273828 Where is it—the secret response to the review? It's the very, very secret response to the review. Senator Cadell 300134 A muted response! Senator HUGHES 273828 Yes—no-one's allowed to see it. I want to tell you a story, because that was just absolutely appalling. I don't think Senator Ayres actually knows what a foundational support may or may not look like. They clearly didn't define it for him in the minister's information that they provided to him. Part of this is that the states and territories need to pick it up. If the current ineptitude of state and federal systems to be able to work together doesn't shock you and horrify you, this sort of instance is likely happening way more than the instance I have been dealing with and is probably going to get worse when some of these things are put into place. Over the past couple of months I have been dealing with a family of a 16-year-old profoundly autistic verbally limited boy with an intellectual disability as well as significant PTSD and trauma who comes from a broken home. The mother and the son, who I know, are amazing. The brother of this boy and the mother are amazing humans who love this child very, very much, but it has become unsafe for him to be in the house with them. He has psychiatric and psychological supports who referred him for admission to care, to be placed into psychiatric care. The mother first contacted me one Sunday morning when there had been an episode, when there had been an incident. She had taken him to the emergency ward asking for the admission to go ahead with the referral. She was told, 'I just had to go home and get more NDIS funding.' 'Go home and get more NDIS funding' is what state health systems in New South Wales said to the mother of a profoundly autistic son who is intellectually disabled, has limited verbal skills, PTSD and significant behavioural issues, which make it unsafe for him to be at home with his younger brother and his mother because he is now about half a foot-plus taller than his mother and considerably larger. I worked with the mother through that Sunday and we managed to achieve some sort of solution. We then found that, because he is under 18, it became a matter for Family and Community Services in the hospital and the NDIS. The mother was consistently told he was going to be basically booted out of the psych ward at the end of the week. She said, 'He can't. He's not ready. We're not ready. We don't have the tools yet to be able to handle this.' Family and Community Services and the NDIS could not get together and talk. This mother called me in such a state because it had got to the point that she was going to be forced to relinquish her son to the care of the state because it was not safe for her to take her son home. It was not safe for her, not safe for her other child. It was not safe for this boy, yet the NDIS and the New South Wales health department and Family and Community Services could not get together and talk to find a resolution. In desperation, I ended up emailing the CEO of the agency, Minister Shorten and the Attorney-General of New South Wales, begging them to please put something together to try to resolve this issue. We managed to get a temporary stay for a period of time. Every child and every family that is faced with the inadequacies of state and federal systems, because of the failure to link those services together, because of the silos that exist between governments and government services—it is not defined, who is responsible for what is an important lack of definition. There is a requirement for no wrong door for these families and these kids. People don't seem to understand, even in this place, when we talk about the importance of how these things operate. The importance of getting this right is too often thrown out with the politics of the situation—casting aspersions and smears—when the reality is there are people whose lives depend on it. A child whose family may be forced to relinquish him—this is not a child who is not well loved or is not wanted; this is a child who has an incredibly supportive and loving family and who has been accessing amazing therapy since he was two because the family has been so engaged. But such is the extent of his disability and impairment that going home was not possible. When we look at this through the political lens, we look at it by saying: 'This is my bailiwick. That's your patch. I'm not touching you over here.' What this does to families is bad enough, let alone what it would cost for this child to receive the support that he requires in the right psychological residential situations versus what it would cost for him to be relinquished to the state to be responsible for everything around that. We know most kids who go into family and community services, certainly in New South Wales, end up in a motel because there isn't enough foster care and there aren't enough support services for them in family and community services. So what was an already terrible situation was on the precipice of being made absolutely fundamentally worse, and possibly irrevocably worse. Maybe it's lucky this mum happened to know my mobile number and could come to me, but not everyone on the NDIS has that. Not everyone on the NDIS has the capability or even the mindset to be able to do that—to literally have a senator reach out to those responsible begging for some action. This is not something that we should just toss around as if it's not going to cause a fundamental difference. We hear about people using money on different things. Yes, there are things that are bought on the NDIS that are wildly inappropriate. Nothing makes me more angry, as the mother of a participant, than when I hear of people rorting this system. But more times than not it's the providers that are rorting the system, not the participants or their families. We know there is no safety net in this legislation when it comes to the plan managers who overspend plans without the participant's knowledge. There's nothing in it. We don't address what's actually happening when it comes to providers and plan managers, because it's all about: 'Let's just throw people with a disability into some big basket and say that they must all be rorting the system. They must all be using this for ill-advised purposes.' We know it is a very, very small number of people. What a surprise! This is government money with very little framework put in place around it. Who knew there would be bad actors coming into that space? What a joke! I come back to foundational supports and what they are, and the importance of getting them right. As is the case with this 16-year-old autistic boy, the foundational supports, the foundations of care that should have been available in the state system—what the state is actually responsible for providing—weren't there, and they were pushing it back to the NDIS. If there was so much consultation taking place, why are the state premiers still writing to the committee? Why are they putting out a statement today saying they want the bill delayed because they haven't agreed to what they're expected to deliver, they're not ready to deliver what they're supposed to be delivering and they are concerned people with a disability will fall through the gaps? If that one case I just shared with you doesn't demonstrate how the states, in so many ways, are not up to the task and have decided not to deliver the services they should for disabled people because of the NDIS, what are we doing to bridge that gap? 12:53 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Of course, Senator Hughes, I can't comment on the individual case of the young man to whom you've responded, but it is clear that his mother was fortunate to have your mobile telephone number. It's a reminder, in my view, that, as we seek to improve the rules and the processes and the scope and the relationship of the scheme to the work of the states and territories, including the foundational supports, at the end of all of this there is always a person. There are always their carers or their family. There is always the community around them. And there are inevitably tough stories. There are inevitably tears. There are inevitably difficult outcomes. That is the truth of it. As we continue to reform and refine, we should not expect that the kinds of things that you described will never happen. The case is that it is our job as a Commonwealth government to continue on a pathway of reform to improve all of these things. These principles of co-design, of dealing with the foundational supports offered by the states and territories, are going to be crucial over time to the sustainability of the scheme and improving the outcomes from the scheme. But it's also true that, at the end of this, as we reform it, there will still be, whether it's at the Commonwealth level or the state and territory level, silos and bureaucratic decision-making, and we have to improve that over time. The truth is that, if we are honest about it, these are problems that existed at the foundation of the scheme. They existed in 2013 too, and in 2014, and in 2015, 2016 and 2017, all the way through to 2022, and they exist today. It's the job of this parliament and this reform process to tackle those challenges. Senator Hughes asks: what would it cost? Of course, one of the founding principles of the NDIS was that it was about providing for social justice and also that it made economic sense. She is exactly right to point to better outcomes in terms of more efficient, effective and impactful spending if we get the architecture of the scheme right. In relation to reforms in terms of plan managers, there is more to come. As I said in the second reading speech, and as the minister has indicated in the parliament and publicly, this is the first step in terms of legislation. It begins its own enabling reform process itself, but there will be more to come over time because this is a big scheme, it is an important scheme, it is important to the welfare of Australians right across Australia, and it is going to require attention to detail and a lot of sustained work to keep the scheme sustainable and effective for ordinary Australians. 12:58 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Returning to the question of the needs assessment: how many needs assessors does the government believe will be required to ensure that the role as stated in the bill is able to be fulfilled? 12:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As I indicated before, this process of developing the needs assessment architecture is going to be the subject of that co-design principle or process or that consultative process. Over the course of this debate, there may well be many questions that you ask me about the detail of the needs assessment tool that I will not be in a position to answer or to pre-empt. This bill starts the process of designing that tool and that process, and we do not want to put the cart before this particular horse with questions like how many workers or how many people will need to be engaged in that process. The bill sets out a process. The process will be engaged in, and it will begin when the bill passes through the parliament. 13:00 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia To be clear, Minister: I have heard your response in relation to the needs assessment tool and the process by which that tool will be created. My question was and is in relation to the role of needs assessor, which is established as a requirement in the bill. I'm seeking to understand from the government how many workers the government has estimated will be required for that legislatively mandated role to be carried out. 13:01 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I can't offer you any more on this issue except to say that, if the bill passes through the parliament, that consultation process will begin. The outcomes of that will determine many of these questions of detail: who will be engaged; the relationship to their role; all of those process questions. The government does not intend to pre-empt that process by the legislation defining the outcome any further than it does. The process begins. It'll be a good, thorough process. It'd do it a disservice if we constrained it by responding in the way that you've suggested. 13:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Has there been any investigation of the workforce capacity required to undertake the scale of needs assessment that will be required by this legislation? 13:02 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The review itself had some commentary in relation to this question. Needs assessors will only be needed when the new framework planning commences, which is, of course, subject to the design and development of the rules and processes. That question is really going to be a relevant question for when the process set out in the act concludes. It wouldn't be very helpful, in the government's view, to try and answer that question before that process has concluded. 13:03 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You talk about needs assessment. In the bill, it states 'reasonable and necessary'. Having spoken to the minister myself, I understand they're now going to clamp on, to name only a few: donations to political parties; court fines; alcohol, cigarettes and vapes; jewellery; fuel; luxury cruises and holiday packages; makeup and cosmetics; pet funerals; and cuddle therapy. How did you arrive at this decision to get rid of only these items on your list? 13:04 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The minister's acted on the advice that he's received based on current operational practice. 13:04 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I noticed on the list, also, that sex workers are not included. Can you explain why? 13:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales They are excluded on the basis of the current operational practice, and it's quite clear on the agency's website. They're currently published on the 'out' list on the consultation material provided during the course of the consultation about these processes. 13:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Still, I need a 'please explain' to that one. You talk about sex toys. You talk about what is reasonable and necessary. Is the government going to get rid of sex workers as part of the NDIS plan? Most Australians will consider it not to be 'reasonable or necessary'. 13:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The use of the kinds of services that you describe is currently on the 'out' list—that is, not available. I understand there is an amendment that goes to that question that has been moved for the committee stage. It is absolutely clear in the government's mind that it is on the 'out' list. The phrasing is not ordinary language, but that is the phrasing used in the consultation process. 13:07 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I'm pleased to hear that. It's my amendment that I'm putting up to get rid of sex workers, so I will be looking forward to you voting to support my amendment. On another point, Minister: can you tell me how many people on the NDIS are on plans of over $1 million a year? 13:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Before I respond to that, I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I'm not in a position to be able to tell you how many participants on the scheme are provided with more than a million dollars per annum. If we're able to assist you with that, we will, over the course of this—or it's a proper question to be directed towards the agency during estimates. It is certainly the case that there are some participants in this scheme who have deep and complex needs, and the provision of those kinds of services is sometimes very expensive. 13:08 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, can you tell me how many people are on the scheme? Do you have those numbers? 13:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I can be no more precise than to say that around 660,000 Australians are participants in the scheme. If the agency is able to provide a precise number, then, of course, we'll do that, but around 660,000 Australians are participants in the scheme. 13:09 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland That's about correct. I can inform you that the best figures I have are, in 2020, there were 450 participants actually on million-dollar-plus plans, and there were 5,100 who were on plans between half a million dollars and $1 million. Maybe you can actually verify those figures. I've given you a start, but I haven't been able to find them out. My question, then, is: why have you kept this secret from the Australian people? This question has been asked of you. At the drop of a hat, you can tell me how many people are on the plan, but you can't tell me how many people are on a plan of over $1 million, when it is taxpayer funded. 13:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The figures that you've advanced, Senator Hanson, are almost five years old. I'm not in a position to verify those figures, but let's assume that they are correct. We know that participation in the scheme has increased over time, and the provision of necessary services that are provided to participants in the scheme does not get less expensive over time; it becomes more expensive over time. So, if those numbers—of over half a million dollars or over a million dollars—in relation to services that are provided are correct, I'd be very surprised if those numbers had got smaller over time. But I want to be really clear about the government's intention here. It is the government's approach here to moderate the growth of the scheme. I heard some pretty unhelpful language earlier in the second reading debate about cuts to the scheme. There will be no cuts to the scheme. What is apprehended here is moderating the growth of the scheme. That is a sensible objective that I think most Australians would support. But it's also the case that people who access very expensive services from the scheme need those services, and they should not feel any sense of opprobrium from us about their genuine requirement for those kinds of services. Some of the people who access the scheme have very complex needs, and some of the kinds of supports that they are offered cost more than others. So all of this is being balanced by the government in terms of its approach. I think most Australians would expect that the cost of this scheme is going to increase over time. Most Australians want to see the cost of the scheme and its growth be moderated over time to ensure that the scheme is sustainable for our kids, our grandkids and our great-grandkids. That is the task of the minister, of the government and, ultimately, of this parliament. Most people want to see the scheme and its processes be fair and for a balance of processes to be struck so that the agency can fulfil its function properly and in the way that most Australians would expect it to—to provide the kinds of services that most Australians would want their kids or grandkids to have today and into the future. 13:13 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, don't get me wrong: I fully support your changes to the bill and will be voting for it. But I don't feel that you've gone far enough. Hopefully, the next tranche of amendments or the next bill that you put up will go further. You say that the costs need to be reined in, because, the way it is going, it is unsustainable and the costs are exploding. A case in point, which I have raised constantly with the minister and his office, is that support services supplied to NDIS clients are completely out of proportion when compared to what all other Australians have to pay. For example, jobs for relatively unqualified support workers in aged care are being advertised at a rate of around $30 an hour, yet if you were going with the NDIS as a support worker it's $67 an hour, and it can go to $218 an hour on weekends in rural and remote areas and higher than that in very remote areas. For professional services—say, if you were a psychologist providing counselling to an NDIS patient—you'd be receiving a minimum rate of $214 an hour. Again, the rate in remote areas is a lot higher than that; it can be over $300 an hour. The rate in very remote areas can be over $500 an hour, plus your travel on top of it. But for anyone else who requires that service—say, a veteran—you're looking at $153 an hour. So this has been a bone of contention. Even registered nurses—those in the nursing profession—may get around $50 an hour, approximately, but an NDIS worker get might $100 or $125 an hour, approximately. So what I'm hearing from veterans and the general public is that they cannot get services provided to them because a lot of these people in the workforce are leaving their jobs and going to the NDIS to provide the services to these people. We're talking about 660,000 people, compared to the rest of the population—basically, 27 million people—in Australia. When do you intend to rein in the cost blowout in what can be charged for services provided to people on the NDIS compared to other Australians? 13:16 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Some of the services, of course, that people access in the health system are expensive. As to psychologists—for ordinary people, when they look at the numbers that you just described, they are very expensive; that is true. The NDIS review made recommendations about pricing, of course, which the government is examining and will examine in the context of future rounds of legislative reform. I want to take a careful and balanced approach to this, because, as you say, there is a relationship between the labour markets here for different services, and there is a relationship between these pricing issues and making sure that—as I think everyone would want—where a service is provided by a disability worker, that is reflected in the wages that the disability worker gets themselves as well. These pricing issues are absolutely on the radar of the minister. They were dealt with in the context of the review. Like many of the problems in terms of the scheme, not everything is solved by this piece of legislation. But they are definitely in scope for future rounds of legislative reform. 13:18 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Well, I'm pleased to hear that, because your industrial relations bill was 'same work, same pay'. So either you raise everyone else's wages up to those of the NDIS or you have to lower what NDIS workers are charging that's relevant to the rest of Australians, because it's not in line with the industrial relations bill that you've passed. My understanding—and correct me if I'm wrong—is that a letter was sent out to all participants in the NDIS about the cost blowout. If that is the case, and if workers are going to continue to overcharge clients, what penalties are going to be imposed on these people—or will you continue to pay their bills when they send in their invoices? 13:19 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As I understand it, the minister wrote to participants in this scheme advising them of their rights in relation to overcharging. I'm going to avoid the temptation that you put in front of me in relation to describing the industrial relations principles that sit behind the same job, same pay legislation. I know that you'll welcome that decision to leave that alone. Senator Hanson BK6 Because you can't answer it. Senator AYRES 16913 I wouldn't encourage me on these issues. Suffice to say that the principles are quite different. But I understand the motivation behind the question, and the government is attending to those and will deal with those in future tranches of legislation. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU Senator Hanson, I do have other senators seeking the call. This is your last question, thank you. 13:19 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I want to ask you about means testing. I notice there is no means testing under the scheme whatsoever. So you can have a multimillionaire—in fact, even a billionaire, but I don't think they'd bother going on the scheme; I think they'd pay for it themselves. There are multimillionaires—asset rich—and people on the schemes who can well afford it for themselves. We means test the age pension and we means test self-funded retirees for jobs, and what should be relevant to the fact is whether a person can pay for it or not. I am aware that you're concerned that health should be free to everyone, so it shouldn't be means tested. Surely it is, because we have public hospital systems. Free health is available to every Australian. Some Australians may have to wait a long time to get it, because our system is broken. Our system is pathetic in some states—in most states, to tell you the truth. Anyway, that is the case. If you believe it should be free of means testing, I ask the question: why aren't you allowing NDIS to people over 67 or of pension age? Why aren't you opening it up to everyone? If you feel that health care should be free to everyone, why not older Australians? It's not available to them. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I know of a judge who was on the NDIS and wanted to have the decking extended, at the back of his property, to take the decking down to the river. That was not necessary, but it was put in. Here was someone in a position where they could afford to have extensions done at the house and yet it was put in for the taxpayer to pay for it. You say, no, everyone has their health reasons. But if that person is able to pay for extensions or anything that needs to be done to their house that is not immediately connected to their health issues—like a new wheelchair or apparatus they need for their immediate health care—why are we not means testing people who need to have other assets provided to them when they can clearly afford it? 13:22 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Hanson, for that question. I understand the argument made in relation to means testing. I understand how that proposition would attract support in some quarters. I would say the government's view in relation to the NDIS and universality of the scheme is fundamental, and I want to explain why we take that approach. It's the same approach the government takes and previous governments have taken in relation to, as you say, Medicare and the provision of health services or in relation to education services. We don't means test a whole range of services that the government offers. It is true that access to some benefits and payments is means tested, because there's a relationship between the payment and the objective of the payment, which is about supporting a particular level of income. There's a policy basis for means testing in relation to the age pension and a range of other benefits or payments that the government makes under the social security system. The principle of universality for the provision of these services is founded in two things. One is efficiency. It is more efficient if we don't add another layer of compliance and do an assessment of individuals' incomes, which would be hard to do in relation to children, wouldn't it? I think, if we think about it for a second, we know it would be hard to do in relation to children. It would be hard to do in relation to adolescents as they are growing. That would itself contain some unfairness, both unfairness at the time of the assessment and unfairness as people become less eligible for access to services. I'll just ask you to consider children and adolescents in that context. The second basket of arguments goes to community support. The Australian community, in many respects, supports the Medicare system because all of us have an equal stake in that system. Whether you are on the age pension, a middle-income worker, a mining worker or a labour hire worker, whether you are very well to do or not, each of us has an interest in the system, supports the system and demands a level of quality in the system. That consensus and support across the community is undermined if we disengage from those universality principles. If we means tested access to the scheme, in the government's view—I appreciate it's not your view—that would undermine support for the scheme. We are determined to embark upon a process of reform that embeds the scheme for the long term for Australia. That means that people across the political spectrum, across the income divide, in regional Australia and in the cities, no matter what their circumstances, will know that the scheme is fair dinkum and that it provides the kinds of services that you would expect and I would expect. And I don't think there's too much difference between what you would expect and what I would expect in terms of the kinds of services and support that the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the agency should provide to individuals. In terms of access for people who are over the age of 67, the aged-care system is designed for that purpose. That is why there is not an overlapping set of rights and benefits and entitlements that Australians have here. Sixty-seven is the appropriate age for the aged-care system to jump in to provide those services. Of course, universality itself doesn't mean that there aren't inequities still in the system. It's a universal system for every Australian, every disabled Australian, for their carers and for their families and for their communities. It is, as you say, for regional Australians where some of these services aren't as readily available. If you're living in a small country town or on a property—or in some of our suburbs—those services aren't as readily available, so there are always going to be inequities in the way that Australians access the scheme. And one of the purposes of the reform process that the government is undertaking is to attend, in a structural and process and rules sense in terms of the scope of the scheme, to those inequities as far as it possibly can; to build fair processes that are fair dinkum for Australians to access the scheme; and to make sure there's public confidence in the sustainability of the scheme not just over the course of the coming years but over the course of the coming generations. Progress reported. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB We will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 2721 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Labor Government 2721 13:30 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Under the Labor Albanese government, interest rates are staying higher for longer, and this is having a devastating impact on people in the greater Ipswich region, where my Senate office is located, in the state of Queensland. I want to give you some examples of the increase in mortgage repayments across the Ipswich region in various suburbs, since the last federal election. For someone buying an average home in Augustine Heights, the increase has been 64.2 per cent or $18,180 a year. For someone living in Springfield in an average house, the increase is 58.4 per cent or $16,284 a year. For someone living in Deebing Heights, where the average house costs $700,000—and this is a place where first home buyers buy their first home—average repayments have increased by 77.6 per cent, which is $18,012 a year. In Ripley, another suburb in the greater Ipswich region where new home buyers and young families are buying their first home, the average home price is $677,000. The increase in average mortgage repayments is 76.4 per cent, or $17,280, for a family who have just bought a new home in Ripley, near my office. In Rosewood, where the average price of a home has increased to $650,000, there has been an astronomical increase of 108 per cent in mortgage repayments. In Booval, the price of an average home is $620,000, and there has been an increase in mortgage repayments of 97.1 per cent. And so it goes on. Australian families are paying more under Labor. Wages: Early Childhood Educators 2721 13:32 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Our early childhood educators do nation-building, life-changing work every single day, and they deserve to be paid better for what they do for Australian families and for our country. Now, because they have a Labor government, they will be. Our government is funding a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood educators across Australia—those educators who do the most important work in the education cycle of a child, whose work has the ability to change the trajectory of a life of a child and whose work means that early interventions happen for children. These workers do an extraordinary job for the little minds they look after, not to mention the support they provide for families like mine, ensuring that mum and dad can work and be productive and participating members of our economy. This wage rise is well overdue for these workers, who felt let down and shut out during the pandemic and who have marched in the streets across our country for years, calling for a wage rise and calling for recognition for the critical caring work they do. Immediately, in December, when the first part of this measure comes in, this will mean about $100 a week for these educators. Later, it will be closer to $150 a week. That means an awful lot to these educators who do such an incredible job, and, importantly, it will be linked to limits in fee increases for the centres who apply to it, meaning that families don't face higher fees because of this measure. These workers do life-changing work. Our economy and our productivity depend on participation and depend on the work that they do, not to mention the future of our youngest Australians. This is an incredible thing which could only ever be achieved by a Labor government. Live Music Industry 2721 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak about the state of live music in my home town of Adelaide. The Crown and Anchor, also affectionately known as the Cranker, is one of Adelaide's most vibrant and loved cultural institutions, home to live music since 1853. With Adelaide designated a UNESCO City of Music, the Cranker is the heartbeat of live music in our city, a living cultural icon. Yet the Cranker is the latest in a long line of music venues at risk of shutting down, with big developers trying to destroy the hotel, muscle in and make maximum profits. Shutting down the Cranker will be devastating for the future of South Australia's live music scene and our homegrown artists. That's why the South Australian community are coming together in a big fight to save the hotel, with a petition reaching over 24,000 signatures. This Sunday, I'll be joining with my fellow South Australians at 1 pm in Victoria Square to save this wonderful living icon. The threat to the Cranker is just the latest. We know that live music, not just in South Australia but across the rest of the country, is on a knife edge. From the pandemic right through to the devastation of extreme weather events, the cost of living, people are struggling to put on live performances and keep audiences coming back. We know we need to do much more to support our live music industry if we are to support the next generation of musicians in this country. We cannot wait while another live music venue is shut down, another festival is cancelled. Now more than ever we need support from state and federal governments. Music and art are what makes life worth living. Queensland Government 2722 13:36 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My beautiful home state of Queensland, home to so many brilliant and terrific Australians, is suffering under this Palaszczuk-Miles Labor government. Extraordinarily and not surprisingly, under Labor there has been a 104 per cent increase in stolen vehicles since 2015. In 2023, there were 20,190 cars stolen. Under Labor, that means 55 cars are being stolen every day because Labor are soft on crime. But it gets worse. Under Labor, Queensland has recorded the highest six months of ambulance ramping in our history, with the state facing a double sucker punch thanks to the Albanese government failing to tackle the primary care crisis, with it never being more expensive to see a doctor than now in Queensland. It gets worse. We have a record number of Queenslanders trying to get a roof over their head, while the housing minister continues to deflect any questions on the topic. With over 45,000 Queenslanders on the social housing waiting list, Labor's time is up. It's time that everyday Queenslanders stop paying for Labor's failures, whether it be their mismanagement of the Callide power station, which forced prices up by 20 per cent after it exploded due to Labor's maintenance failures, or the Premier spending $170,000 on a twin jet convoy in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. In 74 days, Queenslanders can vote for a real change. In 74 days, Queenslanders can vote for the LNP, who will make sure that Queensland gets back on track, and make sure we've a premier who gets on with fixing the crises affecting Queensland. Wages: Early Childhood Educators 2722 13:38 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Every day parents trust early childhood educators with the most important people in their world, and every day Australia asks early educators to do one of the most important jobs imaginable. Our government is making sure those educators are fairly paid. As a mum of a small child, I know the nerves of drop-offs and the joys of pickups. But I also know the security I feel as a parent that my child is getting not only the very best care possible but the very best early education possible as well. That's why a wage increase is so important, because it is thanks to our incredible educators that our youngest Australians are getting the very best start in life, and the wages of educators should reflect that. That's why our government is proudly delivering a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood educators and care workers, and it will be linked to a cap on fees because this is incredibly important cost-of-living relief as well. This is not just about raising wages; it's about making meaningful investment in our children and in our nation. It is a win for parents, a win for educators and a significant step towards gender equity. When we announce a policy like this, sometimes the silence from those opposite is deafening, and the support for early childhood educators is deafening as well. But they have not been as silent this time around. I want to raise with the chamber the comments from LNP senator, Senator Rennick, who said this week in response to this policy that childcare was destroying the family unit and brainwashing children. Shame on the LNP for having a position that doesn't support early childhood educators and that doesn't support a pay rise for those important workers but condemns them instead. Shame on the LNP and shame on Senator Rennick for saying this about childcare workers. Freedom of Speech 2722 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last week, opposition leader Dutton, in a media interview, made a comment we expected he would clarify but he hasn't. In the interview, the interviewer said: We saw the terror threat raised to Probable yesterday. But there are multiple fronts now. One of those fronts that I found most interesting has come out of Covid. There's the conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers … what does it say to you about government overreach, and government, essentially, controlling people's lives and the effects that that can have? Peter Dutton's answer: None of that, though, should give rise to the sort of conduct that you're referring to. I would say to anybody in our community, whether it's within your friendship group, your family group, the work group, whatever it might be, where you see somebody's behaviour changing, regardless of their motivation, or if they've changed radically their thoughts about society and government … you need to report that information to ASIO, or to the Australian Federal Police as a matter of urgency. In 1997, in the legal case Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the High Court found: Under a legal system based on the common law, everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law, so that one proceeds upon an assumption of freedom of speech and turns to the law to discover the established exceptions to it. To protect human life, free speech stops at incitement to violence against others and at incitement to break the law. Free speech does not stop, as Peter Dutton suggests, merely at criticisms of others. Advocating that Australians be dobbed into ASIO for venting about government COVID measures, destroying their lives, health and families is a tone-deaf disgrace. In Canada and the UK right now, police response to criticism of the government is underway. Mere attendance at a protest rally without any violent words or actions is now enough to be arrested and imprisoned. Is this a glimpse of the future everyday Australians will endure under the supposedly honourable men and women of the Liberal Party, under an opposition leader who has come to bury Menzies, not to praise Menzies. I call on the opposition leader to clarify his remarks immediately. Men's Sheds 2723 13:42 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Everyone is concerned that people can be suffering from very poor mental health outcomes if they are lonely. Loneliness has been a significant scourge in recent years. One particular measure which has been deployed by various governments working with civil society and community groups has been the men's shed. There are over 400 men's sheds in New South Wales. Recently I was able to visit one in Waverley with the Liberal candidate for Wentworth, Ro Knox. When visiting the Waverley Men's Shed, I was reminded of the disappointment my own father has in my inability to use tools. It was so good to see men coming together to build particular pieces that would benefit community groups and individuals that have no other way of solving sometimes complex problems. Ladders and particular pieces of equipment are lovingly made in that men's shed and men's sheds across New South Wales. It is really important that we find creative solutions not only for people who are looking to do good things for the community but also for those suffering from social isolation and from loneliness. Even just talking about it can be a useful thing for all of us. There are concerns that this particular men's shed may be unviable in its current form in terms of not having a location, as it is part of a broader development by Uniting. I'm very keen, as is Ro, to make sure this men's shed and all men's sheds across New South Wales are maintained for the benefit of the community. Early Childhood Education 2723 13:44 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia As a former union organiser, I welcome the long overdue pay rise for more than 200,000 early childhood educators across Australia. I visited centres and had conversations with educators about the fight for better pay and conditions and shining a spotlight on the injustices faced by those who nurture our youngest citizens and do more than just babysitting. I commend the tireless efforts of the United Workers Union for their advocacy and persistence to work with the government in securing this significant milestone achievement. However, more needs to be done. Recently, I visited 12 regional towns in 12 days around Western Australia, and I met with many local parents who expressed the dire need for more educators and more early childhood education centres to accommodate the growing needs of the regions. From the Midwest, Gascoyne, Pilbara and Kimberley regions to the Southwest and the Goldfields, I heard about the urgent need for re-investment back into the towns for better productivity and growth. With the median age sitting between 30 and 37 years in these regions, it is crucial to understand that early childhood education is an essential service for regional families. As I heard time and time again, one size does not fit all. Among many places, I visited the Child and Parent Centre in Kununurra and learned about their extensive waitlist, the lack of workforce and the need for cultural sensitivity training at centres when engaging with families from diverse backgrounds. I implore members of the government to visit the regions in WA to address the workforce shortage and give every family regardless of their postcode the opportunity to accessible, affordable and appropriate early childhood education. Watson, Mr Paul Franklin, Brown, Dr Robert James (Bob) 2723 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This is an important and troubling week for our environment. Senators, it's worth contemplating how, in the middle of an extinction and biodiversity crisis, two of the planet's most iconic conservationists and earth defenders, Captain Paul Watson and Dr Bob Brown, are both facing potential jail sentences this week for simply protesting and protecting nature. Sadly, and infuriatingly, this potential imprisonment is a sign of our times. Captain Paul Watson has been detained in Greenland and will on Thursday face a potential extradition to Japan. Remember, it was Captain Paul Watson's anti-whaling activities in the Southern Ocean that ended Japan's illegal whaling, declared illegal by the International Court of Justice. We watched summer after summer in horror as they continued the barbaric practice of whaling, slaughtering these beautiful creatures in our Southern Ocean. It was the activists that put an end to that. Captain Paul Watson was on his way to our northern oceans to stop the slaughter of endangered fin whales. I thank our federal environment minister for condemning Japan's continuation of this whaling. Dr Bob Brown, on Wednesday this week, is facing potential imprisonment for defending swift parrot habitat, one of the most critically endangered species in our nation. Protesting and protecting the environment shouldn't be illegal. If we have laws that are criminalising protesting our environment, then we need to change the laws, and we need to change them in this place because that's where it gets done. Housing 2724 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Recently, Prime Minister Albanese appointed the Minister for Home Affairs to the Housing portfolio. Our country needs a housing minister who can deliver. If there's one thing that can be said about the former home affairs minister, it is that she knows how to deliver. She is after all the one who delivered record migration with nearly one million new migrants to this country in around two years. Having created excessive demand for housing by bringing in migrants by the 'truckloads'—her words—she is now tasked with boosting housing supply. If only we had enough tradies to build our homes. If only the people could even afford to build a home. If only our immigration policy under Minister O'Neil had prioritised more skilled tradesmen rather than yoga teachers. The truth is the former home affairs minister failed miserably in that portfolio, and I think she's going to be even worse for housing. Dwelling approval rates are running 32 per cent below the government's target. The cash rate is at its highest point since 2011. Construction costs are up by 40 per cent since just 2020—if only all those yoga teachers were good with a hammer and a chisel! Minister, rather than spending the next few years talking about houses that we all know are not going to materialise, save yourself some heartache and make a 30-second phone call. Call the poor bugger who is now the immigration minister and just tell the poor guy to slash the intake. Minister, while you're at it, make another phone call, this time to our good friend Treasurer Chalmers, and tell the Treasurer to stop spending money. How's that one? 'Stop spending money.' Then and only then, Minister, can we fix the housing crisis. Tasmania: Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games 2724 13:50 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Today I rise to celebrate the 11 exceptional Tasmanian athletes representing Australia at the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. Despite its size, Tasmania has produced a stellar group of dedicated Olympians who earned two gold, two silver and two bronze medals and set a new national record at the Paris Games. Eddie Ockenden, our flag bearer and five-time Olympian, exemplified unity, leading the men's hockey team to a sixth-place finish with teammate Josh Beltz. Maddi Brooks shone in her Olympic debut with the Hockeyroos, scoring against the United States. Stewart McSweyn showcased his versatility in the men's 1,500-metre and 5,000-metre events. Georgia Baker displayed remarkable skills in the omnium, team pursuit and madison track cycling. Congratulations to Sarah Hawe for her historic fourth place in the women's rowing eight final, the best result ever for an Australian women's eight team. Hats off to Jacob Despard and his running mates in the men's four-by-100-metre relay for setting a new national record. Well done to Alanna Smith, who helped the Opals clinch bronze in the basketball just last night. In the pool, Max Giuliani impressed in the men's four-by-200-metre freestyle relay by finishing with a bronze on his Olympic debut. And who could forget Ariarne Titmus! Whether it was the 200-, 400- or 800-metre freestyle, she absolutely made a splash in Paris and dazzled, with two gold and two silver medals. What a phenomenal performance—bravo, Arnie! As the Olympic closing ceremony wrapped up this morning, let's also give a shout-out to Alexandra Viney, who is getting ready for the rowing mixed coxed four at the Paralympics. Regardless of medals or records, all of these athletes are an inspiration to us, so let's celebrate their commitment to representing Australia and our beautiful island state. I'm proud of you all, and Tasmania is proud of you all as well. Housing 2724 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania A home is so important. Housing is a human right. We all deserve a home where we feel safe and where we can go at the end of the day and close the door on the world outside. Young people especially need a safe home, but youth homelessness is on the rise in Tasmania, and that really scares me. We should be looking after our young people, not allowing them to struggle. So how do we do that? We need to build more homes to get more people off the streets and to get them out of the tents that are in our parks and out of the cars that are hiding in the dark. None of these places are a home. It's up to us to take the lead and do something about this situation. Not all homes are a three-bedder with a picket fence, a clothesline out the back and room for a dog. Some homes are bigger. Some are smaller. Others are stacked on top of each other in an apartment block. My point is that we have to look at all the different options for housing so we can house as many people as possible. We have to consider more medium- and high-density developments in cities and large towns. Those homes must be sustainable—fitted with solar hot-water services and good insulation—and be well designed to eliminate or at least minimise many of those bills that we're all struggling with at the moment. Councils, as the planning authorities, must work with us on this mission to beat homelessness and must approve developments for social and affordable housing. I worked hard to get the government to guarantee Tasmania would receive 1,200 affordable homes as part of the Housing Australia Future Fund. We all deserve a home and a community that is equipped to support and protect its residents, and that's something that we're all here to do. That's the aim of all of us: to help the lives and the conditions of all the people that elected us here to parliament. But you know what? Our young people will vote one day as well, and they have the same right to home and community that we who vote do. Forestry Industry 2725 13:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania In late 2022, one of Tasmania's most ardent and admirable forest defenders, Dr Lisa Searle, was tree-sitting in coupe SH045A at Snow Hill, in Tasmania's Eastern Tiers. Her tree-sit was part of the Bob Brown Foundation's peaceful defence of Tasmania's forests. While there, Dr Searle witnessed two swift parrots—a beautiful, critically endangered little parrot—land in the tree she was sitting in. On 8 November 2022, Dr Searle vacated her tree-sit at the request of police. Shortly after that, the tree Dr Searle had been sitting in—a magnificent ancient eucalypt—was deliberately cut down. This destruction was not only spiteful but illegal. It was illegal because there is indisputable evidence that Forestry Tasmania officers were informed of the presence of swift parrots prior to the destruction of this tree. This tree was owed protection under the Forest Practices Code, under the relevant forest practices plan and, therefore, under Tasmanian law. But it was the peaceful forest defenders, including Dr Bob Brown, who were arrested in that coupe and not the people who cut down that tree in direct contravention of Tasmanian law. This needs to be investigated by Tasmania Police. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party, here in Canberra and down in Tasmania, are colluding to destroy magnificent carbon-rich forests that are home to spectacular and unique species. Those are crimes against nature and climate. It is time to end native forest logging. Mike Powell Public Speaking Competition 2725 13:56 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Earlier this month, I was fortunate to be able to take part in the 2024 Mike Powell Public Speaking Competition as a judge, alongside my friends the member for Berowra and the Hon. Natalie Ward MLC. The Mike Powell speaking competition is the premier public speaking competition for the New South Wales Young Liberals and, importantly, raises funds for mental health services. The competition is named in honour of former member of the Northcott Young Liberals branch Mike Powell, who lost his life to suicide in 2011. It was particularly special to be joined for the evening by Mike's parents, Jenny and Keith Powell, who were so kind in sharing how much the evening meant to them in honouring their son's memory. Congratulations to the winners of this competition, Flinders Brogden and Chelsea Burgess Hannon, on their excellent speeches, as well as highly commended Aryan Ilkhani and the other competitors: Abby Smith, Nicholas Chiaverini, Reilly Palmer, Oliver Griffiths and Bella Mantakoul. The event raised over $4,000 for local mental health services. I want to congratulate the Hornsby-Berowra Young Liberals Branch, led by Francis Bolster, for putting on such an impressive event. It was an important showcase of the breadth of talent in our New South Wales Young Liberals team, and, as federal patron of the Young Liberals, I'm really proud of our young Australians. Energy 2725 13:58 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Australians are clearly facing significant challenges at the moment. The cost of living has risen, and there are global security concerns. The world is undergoing its most significant shift in energy production since the industrial revolution. This why I joined my esteemed colleague the honourable Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, at Mt Piper, the coal-fired power station in Lithgow just a couple of weeks ago. This site is, potentially, set to become the location, under the Liberal and National parties, of a nuclear site. Clearly we have a different vision, and it will be the location of a new renewable energy hub very, very soon. What the Liberal and National parties are promising is 30 to 40 years down the track. It's a speculative policy at best, and it lacks economic sense. The projected cost of this foolishness from those opposite is $600 billion, and it would generate, at best, about 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy mix. This is nearly double the cost of AUKUS. It's $20 billion more than the total tax revenue of $580 billion collected by the Australian government in the 2023 financial year. Not only is it financially crazy but it could lead to financial ruin for less than just four per cent of our energy grid. During the recent roundtable discussion with Minister Bowen in Lithgow, where we went when those opposite didn't bother, the community representatives gave very clear feedback. They are pressing in their demand for jobs and support now, not on some flight of fancy and a potential of a job 30 to 40 years down the track. Nuclear is no solution for the people of Lithgow. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for senators' statements has expired. MINISTRY 2726 MINISTRY Presentation 2726 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—For the information of senators, I table a revised ministry list. The revised list reflects the changes to the ministry announced by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2024. First, I acknowledge the appointment of Senator Malarndirri McCarthy to cabinet as Minister for Indigenous Australians, and I know she will make us proud. I also acknowledge the very talented Senator McAllister as Minister for Cities and Minister for Emergency Management. These appointments are well deserved and are a reflection of the Prime Minister's confidence in a talented and united cabinet government that is focused every day on working to deliver better outcomes and more opportunities for all Australians. I would also like to recognise Senator Carol Brown, who has stood aside as Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Senator Brown has always served Labor and Tasmania with principle and dedication, from her leadership in the Tasmanian branch of our party to delivering safer roads and a stronger transport industry as assistant minister. I thank her for her contribution and wish her well. As a consequence of the addition of two ministers in the Senate, changes have been made to arrangements concerning representation of ministers in the House of Representatives in this chamber. Senator WONG 00AOU We will make sure that you hear as much from him as you deserve! I seek leave to have the revised list incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Each box represents a portfolio. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—First, I extend congratulations to Senator McCarthy and Senator McAllister on their appointments to the ministry and to cabinet in your case, Senator McCarthy. It is a great honour for both of you, and we are pleased to recognise that the Senate is being better recognised in the Albanese ministry after the Scullin-government-equalling low of Senate representation in the ministry that had been achieved in the first ministry. We do wish you, Senator Brown, well in particular and acknowledge your service. I do note the tabling of the revised ministerial arrangements and representational arrangements. I note the document is dated 29 July, yet has only been circulated in the chamber prior to our entering here. Previous ministerial arrangements have been put on the PM&C website with some days notice before the Senate sits. Whether it's disorganisation or discourtesy is only a matter for the government to answer, but it certainly shows a lack of regard for all non-government senators in their preparation for question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2729 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 2729 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have falsely claimed that government spending is not fuelling inflation. They've even boasted that they are making the RBA's job easier. On Thursday, when asked why the RBA had attributed a worsening outlook for underlying inflation to government spending, the Prime Minister said, 'That's not what they've said.' However, the RBA's statement on monetary policy is crystal clear: Public demand is forecast to be stronger than previously expected, reflecting recent public spending announcements by federal and state and territory governments. Minister, why is the Albanese government deliberately misrepresenting and contradicting precisely what the RBA is saying? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I can say is that those on this side and all of the members of the Albanese government—from the Prime Minister through to the cabinet and ministry and the whole of the caucus—understand how hard things are for so many Australians. We understand how many families and pensioners are doing it tough, and so our first priority has been to work out how we can deliver cost-of-living relief in a responsible way. That is why you have seen the range of responsible measures that this government has put in place, including the tax cuts which are flowing through to workers from 1 July. I would take the point that the opposition is making and note this: the opposition is very good at talking about what needs to happen. They're very good at telling people that we actually need to spend less, but do you know what they're not prepared to do? They're not prepared to tell us what they'd cut. Senator Watt 245759 What are you going to cut? Pensions? Senator WONG 00AOU Exactly! Is it housing? Is it health? Is it hospitals? Is it pensions? Is it social security? What is it that you would be proposing to cut? We know that Senator Hume, I think, as recently as last week was again raising concerns about tax cuts. She and Mr Dutton should come forward to the Australian people and tell them the truth. Are you actually proposing to roll back the tax cuts? That is what you said when they were originally announced. The point here is that we have a situation where the government, like across comparable economies worldwide, is dealing with an inflation challenge. We have worked through that, and— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a first supplementary? 14:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I refer the Minister to George Washington University Assistant Professor Stephen Hamilton's statement: The RBA is notoriously reticent to even come close to criticising the government. The fact they decided to point to high public demand in explaining sticky inflation is the central bank equivalent of screaming from the rooftops what the causes of the problem are. Minister, is the RBA having to scream their concerns from the rooftops because the Prime Minister has his head buried in the sand? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We are very clear about the priority that we are giving to affording cost-of-living relief for Australians. That's because this caucus understands that Australians are doing it tough. If the proposition from those who purport to be the alternative government is that they want to somehow reduce the support that Australians are getting—if they want to roll back tax cuts, if they don't want to proceed with wage increases and if they don't want to proceed with energy bill relief—then they should say that. But they're not prepared to do that, are they? That's because they want to have a dishonest debate where they come in and quote academics at us but have no answer on the issue of cost of living. The only answer you have on cost of living is complaint. That's the only answer they have on cost of living: complaint. What they won't do is come in here and tell people: if they think government spending should be cut, what are they cutting? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Prior to the election, Mr Albanese said: 'I won't blame someone else. I'll accept responsibility. That's what leaders do.' Does the Prime Minister accept, as the Reserve Bank of Australia has said, that public demand is forecast to be stronger than previously expected? Is government spending higher than was expected and forecast? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Prime Minister absolutely takes responsibility for leading the government through a time of rising cost of living and takes responsibility for delivering responsible assistance and responsible relief to Australian families, Australian pensioners and more. That is what the Prime Minister is very clear about. He has made it clear that it is his and the government's No. 1 priority to deal with cost of living. We understand how hard it is for so many Australians but, unlike the opposition, we are getting on with the job of providing cost-of-living relief. We are getting on with the job of ensuring that tax cuts are rolled out as well as wage increases for childhood educators, the Medicare boost plus cheaper medicines and, of course, energy bill relief. How many of those policies do you oppose? How many of those policies would you roll back? Why don't you tell Australians that? You won't come in here and actually be honest about what you want to do. (Time expired) Cost of Living 2730 14:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In the five weeks since we last sat in this place, the Albanese Labor government has shown yet again that we are working every day to deliver for all Australians and that our No. 1 priority is delivering cost-of-living relief. Can the minister please tell the Senate what work the government has been doing? In particular, how is the government helping Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Walsh. Senator Walsh, like all of the Labor caucus, understands that Australians are struggling with the cost of living. That is why the government's No. 1 priority is to deliver cost-of-living relief in a responsible way. That is why the government put into place tax cuts, which came into effect on 1 July, delivering every Australian taxpayer a tax cut—not just some, but every Australian taxpayer. It's an additional $62 a week for the average family. We want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's why we've backed a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million paid workers. Real wages grew more in the past year than they did in the entire 10 years that those opposite were in power. That is why the Albanese government will fund a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers, and that pay rise will be tied to a commitment from childcare centres to limit fee increases. These are just some of the practical ways in which the government is working to address the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing. That is also why every Australian household is getting $300 in energy bill relief. The government is delivering cheaper medicines, more homes more quickly, fee-free TAFE, HECS relief and more. And how many of these policies were opposed and remain opposed by those opposite, who continue to come in here and talk about cost-of-living concerns but at the same time vote against or argue against cost-of-living relief measures that the government is putting in place? Unlike the Liberals and Nationals, we know cost-of-living relief matters to Australians and we're determined to continue to deliver responsible relief to Australian families— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:12 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I thank the minister for that response. Can the minister please explain to the Senate how the Albanese Labor government's recent announcement that it will fund a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers will help workers with the cost of living and also assist families? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I make the point that Senator Walsh, as a leader in her union for so many years, is one of a number of leaders for whom the early childhood education and care workers pay and conditions has been such a priority. She and others on this side of the chamber should feel very proud of the work they have done both outside and inside the parliament to work with workers seeking these pay increases and to deliver them through government. This is a 15 per cent increase which brings together a set of priorities that are important to the Albanese Labor government: real help with the cost of living; fair wages for workers; investing in the future; and economic equity for women. It will be phased in over two years, and from December this year there will be a 10 per cent increase. This means a typical educator will receive a pay rise of $103 per week. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:13 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Can the minister please inform the Senate why the Albanese Labor government's policies are in the best interests of all Australians and how we are focused on delivering plans that lead to lower power prices, lower grocery prices and lower housing prices? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I first finish what I was going to say about early childhood education workers? I said a typical educator paid at the award rate will receive a pay rise of at least $103 per week. The wage increase will be tied to a commitment from centres to limit fee increases—a very important condition that will keep downward pressure on fees for families. Unlike Mr Dutton's team, including Senator Rennick, those of us on this side of the chamber understand the value of early childhood education and care, and, I would venture to say, so does the Australian community. When it comes to cost-of-living relief, what we know is that the Liberals and Nationals oppose it at every chance they get. They voted 48 times against industrial relations laws to get wages moving and six times in the Senate to stop cheaper medicine. On cheaper child care, Senator Hume said, 'It's certainly not the policy that we would have introduced.' They voted against energy price relief, social housing and fee-free TAFE. I think we know what they're like. (Time expired) Interest Rates 2731 14:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last week, the RBA confirmed that struggling Australian households should not expect a rate cut in interest rates this year. The RBA's chief economist told the Senate Cost of Living Select Committee last week that the board needed to see softer growth in public spending before it could cut rates, but I understand that the Labor government's spending has increased by $315 billion, and in response the RBA has more than doubled its forecast for government spending. Why are you making decisions that are keeping interest rates higher for longer and costing Australian families who are already doing it tough? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question, and I am pleased that Senator Hume used the figure of $315 billion, because, as Senator Hume would know, a significant component of that is automatic indexation for pensions. Senator Hume 266499 Which is inflation. Senator GALLAGHER ING So you're going to cut pensions, are you? You're going to cut pensions. There we have it. Pensions are going to be cut. Senator Hume has just confirmed that pensions will be cut. I wasn't expecting that, but Senator Hume has now confirmed that that is their approach. In that $315 billion, there are investments in Medicare, so that's going to be cut too, I presume. The energy bill relief, the money that we're putting in to ensure that childcare costs are cheaper—childcare costs will come down 11 per cent with our investment. Are they going to be cut? This is where you can't talk out both sides of your mouth, like they do every single day. They complain about spending, but they won't explain what they are going to cut if they were given the chance. As the RBA governor said last week, when she confirmed that we were doing the job we needed to do and they were doing the job they needed to do—let me quote for you, if you hadn't heard, what the Reserve Bank governor said: … governments have job to do and I have a job to do. My job and the Reserve Bank's job is to get inflation down. The governments have a different job. Their job is … to get inflation down, and they acknowledge that, but it's also to provide services and infrastructure for the Australian people. Unless of course you have a Liberal government, in which case you cut those services and infrastructure. She goes on to say: So, they need to do that at the same time as they need to focus on keeping inflation down— here it is— My personal view is that they're doing what they can do in that area and I'm doing what I can do in that area. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:18 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria The Prime Minister last week said that his policies would put downward pressure on inflation. But the RBA's chief economist told the Senate Cost of Living Select Committee: In terms of being a sustained return to target, that's not something we can see coming from those particular policies. Does the government accept the advice of the RBA's chief economist? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think it's all covered in the Statement on monetary policy, where the bank does acknowledge that energy bill price relief will put downward pressure on headline inflation. But underlying inflation, which is what the shadow Treasurer has focused on and says is the more important measure, has moderated for six consecutive quarters. For six consecutive annual quarters we have seen moderation in underlying inflation. If those opposite are cross and losing their minds over inflation with a three in front of it, imagine how furious they must have been at themselves when it had a six in front of it? Imagine! At the point that government was handed over, inflation had a six in front of it, and you had a budget which spent $40 billion. They are the measures and they're decisions you took. When inflation was the highest, you went on a spending spree. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Last week the ABS confirmed that the cost of living had increased for working Australian households by 6.2 per cent in the last year alone. Since the election, real disposable income has fallen by 7.8 per cent per person. The cost of living is skyrocketing under this government. Why is Labor relying on spin and tricks during this cost-of-living crisis? Why don't you have a plan to sustainably reduce inflation? 14:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Inflation is moderating. It continues to moderate. That is what the bank says in its statement on monetary policy. It's what the Treasury forecasts say. The opposition are again talking out both sides of their mouths, not wanting to spend but then asking, 'What's your actual plan?' We have delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer. We've halved inflation since coming to government. We've got record jobs growth. We've doubled wages growth, and do you know what? We've—and this one must really hurt those opposite—turned significant Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses. That is what we are doing. The bank has acknowledged that running surplus budgets is helping in putting downward pressure on inflation. We inherited inflation with a six in front of it. Not every taxpayer was getting a tax cut. We've turned all that around, and we are delivering surpluses at the same time. Uluru Statement from the Heart 2732 14:21 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Come on down. Minister, your government promised to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full when elected in 2022 and had been pursuing this in opposition for many years before. For the past two years, this government, led by the Prime Minister, have attended the annual Garma festival in the Northern Territory, telling not just the Australian people but First Nations people that they will support a makarrata commission as part of this commitment. Why did the Prime Minister just a fortnight ago change this approach, whitewash and water down the important concept of makarrata, the Yolngu word that has been gifted to the nation, to say that it just means coming together after a struggle? 14:22 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Cox for the question—my very first question as the Minister for Indigenous Australians. I'm sure there'll be plenty more to come. Yes, Garma was an important weekend not only for the Prime Minister but also the previous minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, who I also would like to commend for her work and her energy in improving the lives for Indigenous people. It was good to attend Garma with both her and the Prime Minister, and our commitment to the Uluru Statement from the Heart is very much a strong commitment. We remain firm, Senator Cox, in terms of the principles. We remain committed to the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart—voice, treaty, truth. We were the ones, under our Prime Minister, who kept that commitment and went to the referendum. Going to Garma was the opportunity to be with the people—unlike members opposite, who were certainly invited to be a part of that—and to come together not only with the Yolngu people but also First Nations people who did travel there for the weekend. We saw that as an opportunity to reset, regroup and regather, and that's precisely what we were doing. We were listening to First Nations people, unlike those opposite. People were really hurt by the outcome of the referendum— Senator Henderson ZN4 Not 60 per cent of Australians. Senator McCARTHY 122087 and this was our opportunity to meet with them, First Nations people—who largely voted yes, Senator Henderson—from across our communities in northern Australia. It mattered. It still matters. As the CEO of the Yothu Yindi Foundation, Denise Bowden, said it was so— (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator McKenzie 207825 Why don't you listen to Australians? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! When I call order, that includes you. I have Senator Cox on her feet. Senator Cox, first supplementary? 14:24 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Minister, pre election, in 2022, your Labor conference adopted makarrata as a policy. It was pre-costed at $27.7 million, and you even put $5.8 million in the 2022 budget to commence work on establishing an independent makarrata commission to oversee processes for agreement-making and truth-telling. Why is this Labor government now, particularly the Prime Minister, breaking this election promise to the Australian people and gaslighting First Nations people about this election promise? 14:25 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Let me be very clear to the Senate: there is certainly no gaslighting going on in terms of this discussion, and there's certainly great sincerity by the Prime Minister and this government in terms of our relationships with First Nations people. Senator McCARTHY 122087 There is none of that going on, Senator Cox. If anything, we knew, from listening to the people at Garma, that we had to keep going in this space. What was disappointing, President, was that, while we were there, the opposition leader chose to use that time to say no to makarrata, instead of appearing at Garma, where he had been invited. He said no to the Voice. We learnt from that experience that, unless there is bipartisan support, that hurt— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, I am calling you to order. Senator McCARTHY 122087 We learnt that, unless there is bipartisan support, it's very difficult to pursue. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cox, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Minister, the Prime Minister, in the media interview at Garma this year, both reneged and walked back this commitment on the policy, the budget line item and the promise. Will your government commit to supporting the Uluru Statement from the Heart's makarrata commission, as scripted in 2017, accept the terms in which it needed to be implemented in full and stop denying First Nations people justice in this country by supporting the development of formal truth-telling and agreement-making in an independent makarrata commission? 14:27 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator Cox, we are supportive of your bill before the Senate in terms of an inquiry to consult across the country. That in itself will indicate to this parliament and this Senate and this government the impact that having such a commission could possibly have. But, as I said in the previous response, we learnt from the referendum. The pain and hardship that was created for First Nations people in this country was because there was no bipartisan support, and we will not endeavour down that pathway without the support of the opposition. The opposition leader made it very clear on that weekend that he is not going to do that. So that makes that pathway very difficult to tread. Cost of Living 2733 14:27 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. We know that many Australians are doing it tough right now, and that is why our budget focused on providing cost-of-living relief to all Australians, whilst putting downward pressure on inflation. Can the minister please outline the cost-of-living relief that was in the budget? What further cost-of-living measures has the government taken to support Australians since 1 July? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for that question and for the opportunity to update the Senate about the measures the government is taking to ensure that we're providing as much cost-of-living relief as we can, whilst also tackling the inflation challenge in the economy. In the budget we had tax cuts for every taxpayer, not just some. We had energy bill relief for households and small businesses, which will start rolling out now. We're backing a third consecutive pay rise for Australia's 2.6 million low-paid workers, those that rely on the minimum wage. We've invested more into Medicare and into cheaper medicines, making it cheaper for people to buy those medicines, particularly people on long-term medications. We're waiving $3 billion in university debt for more than three million Australians; increasing rent assistance for nearly one million households; legislating, importantly—and this is something that many on this side of the chamber have lobbied for—for super to be paid on paid parental leave so that workers, predominantly women, when they take the PPL, are not penalised further for time out of the paid workforce; extending the deeming rate freeze for 876,000 income support recipients; and getting a fairer deal for consumers at the supermarket checkout. The numbers also show that we are managing the economy better than the coalition ever did. We have delivered back-to-back surpluses. Gross debt will peak 9.7 percentage points lower than what the opposition forecast. Because we worked hard to reduce that debt, Australians will pay $80 billion less in interest costs. We've slashed the coalition's spending growth. Inflation remains a challenge, but it is less than half its peak and is much lower than the 6.1 per cent rate we inherited at the election. Wage growth is almost double, and Australians now have a government that supports wage growth through the Fair Work Commission processes. And we've created nearly 930,000 jobs since the election. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thank you very much, Minister. The Albanese government respects and values the work of our early childhood educators in caring for our children and making sure they get the best start in life. Under Labor's pay rise, childcare workers will, on average, have $107 more in their pay packet each week. Can the minister please outline how this initiative will also save money for parents who have kids in child care? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green, and there may be a little bit of self-interest there for someone with real-life experience of having a little one in early childhood education and care! But last week we were very pleased to announce our investment in early childhood educators and in ensuring that they are paid properly but also that, importantly, those increased wage costs that come with that aren't going be footed by parents around this country. They're already paying a significant amount for their children to be in these centres, so it was important that government provide further assistance. This ensures that that highly feminised workforce—over 90 per cent of the workers in that workforce are women, and it's no surprise that it's been underpaid and undervalued for too long. This addresses that but also puts a cap on the increases that centres can charge parents, because we don't want parents footing the bill for these additional investments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thanks, Minister. Like you and others on this side, I am so proud to be a part of a government that's so focused on early childhood education and care. Can the minister please outline why the government has been so focused on cost-of-living relief? And what would have been the impact on Australians if the government had taken a slash-and-burn approach to the budget? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for that question and for the opportunity to imagine what it could have been like if we didn't have a government that was serious about tackling inflation and, at the same time, ensuring that it was providing the services and investments that our community needs. That's why the tax cuts for every taxpayer were important. It's why our jobs growth has been such an important part—more people in work, earning good money. That's why we pushed so hard for improvements in wages growth, particularly in aged care and child care, those highly feminised industries which have been underpaid for too long. We are addressing that. Based on what those opposite have told us, we would have had lower pensions; pensioners would have had to pay. We would have definitely had higher power prices, and we know that because they didn't support energy bill relief. We would have had people paying higher taxes. In particular, those on middle and lower incomes would have been paying higher taxes, and there would have been lower wages. So it's those three things together: higher power prices, lower wages and higher taxes. (Time expired) Australian Federal Police 2734 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Officers of the Australian Federal Police are the lowest-paid officers in Australia. A constable in the Western Australia Police Force makes a minimum of $83,000 a year, while their equivalent in the AFP makes less than $70,000. A sergeant in Victoria's police force makes a minimum of $123,000, while their equivalent in the AFP makes under $103,000. Given the unique and critical role of AFP officers in national security—not to mention a national cost-of-living crisis—why has the government allowed pay for AFP officers to remain the lowest in Australia? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hanson. At the outset, I want to recognise on behalf of the government that we really deeply value the important work that AFP officers do every day to keep our community safe. Obviously they play a particular role around this parliament and, in some cases, with individual members of this parliament, but, more generally, they do extremely important work to keep our community safe. As everyone is aware, there are negotiations going on at the moment in relation to a new enterprise bargaining agreement with the Australian Federal Police services. I do recognise the right of all employees to take responsible and legally appropriate protected action, where that's allowed for under the law, to the extent that those actions are safe and do not cause disruption or affect community safety and national security. The reality is that, as in so many other parts of the workforce, some of the issues surrounding the wages and conditions that are experienced by AFP officers are a legacy of 10 years of coalition government. We have seen that to be the case across the public sector workforce. Unfortunately, the coalition's policy of keeping low wages in place applied to the AFP, as it did to various other employees of the federal government. I'm confident that the Attorney-General, Minister Dreyfus, is handling this role appropriately, and I'm certainly very hopeful that we can achieve an agreement with the AFP officers as soon as possible. That would obviously be in everyone's interest. I note that the AFP is committed to ensuring operational continuity and community safety at all times, and we certainly have confidence in the AFP to approach these negotiations in that spirit, and, as I say, we are confident that, before too long, we will be able to get an agreement reached. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, in 2022-23, the attrition rate for the AFP was 6.3 per cent. This is extremely high for a police force. A survey by the AFP Association found that 92 per cent of officers don't have the necessary resources to cope with their workloads or the stresses of a job that sees them deal with matters like international paedophile syndicates. Training these officers in some specialist roles, like child protection, can take years and a significant taxpayer investment which is lost to us when an officer leaves the AFP. Will the government consider offering officers a pay— (Time expired) 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland While I don't have the details in front of me, I'm sure that, already, a pay rise has been offered to AFP services as part of these negotiations. Of course, that hasn't been accepted—as is the case, often, during negotiations—and I recognise that the result of the vote for the proposed AFP enterprise agreement was announced on 3 June, with the majority of voting AFP members voting no to the AFP's enterprise agreement offer. It was obviously a matter for each AFP member to decide their own position on the offer, and I respect the decision of AFP officers in that vote. I'm sure that the AFP and the government will both continue productive negotiations with bargaining representatives and the involved unions. Certainly, from the government's point of view, we're very keen to conduct this bargaining in good faith, and I'm sure the AFP are as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Sixty-eight per cent of officers told the survey they would leave the force unless a better offer was made. Now officers of the AFP are planning industrial action in Canberra to demand recognition that they are not desk-bound public servants able to enjoy flexible work-from-home provisions in exchange for a lower 11.2 per cent pay rise. They deserve a better deal. Your IR relations bill is 'same work, same pay'. Will you do the same for the AFP? (Time expired) Senator Green 259819 You voted against the bill. 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Hanson. As Senator Green points out, I'm glad you recognise that the government passed laws that were referred to as 'same job, same pay'. My recollection is that you voted against those laws, Senator Hanson. So it's very interesting now that you're calling on us to follow a principle that you were not prepared to follow for any worker. Senator Hanson, you were not prepared to follow that principle for any worker, whether it be police officers in the AFP, coalminers in Central Queensland or any other worker who is experiencing that issue. Of course, Australian Federal Police officers have every right to negotiate and to take whatever action they wish to in line with those laws that we passed. But, as I say, we very much respect the work that AFP officers do each and every day. It is dangerous work. It is important work. That is why the government has put forward an offer, which has been rejected by AFP officers. But I'm confident that those negotiations will continue constructively. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 2735 14:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. During the election campaign, Prime Minister Albanese said: 'I'll tell you what I'll be doing is this. If I ever do make a mistake, I'll put my hand up. I'll own it. I'll take responsibility, and I'll set about fixing it.' Will the Prime Minister now be true to his word and apologise to the Australian people for his disastrous mistake in abolishing the ABCC and giving effective control of the construction sector in Australia to his union mates in the CFMEU, which has allowed bribery, corruption, bullying, intimidation, violence and criminal activity to flourish on our nation's construction sites? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There are a few things in life we can always count on: sunrise, sunset and Senator Cash having a go about trade unions. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Cash, you tell me not to be— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, you've asked your question. I'm going to ask you to listen in silence. And, Senator McKenzie, you will listen in silence as well. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I know that the senator always likes to come in here and talk about trade unions and make a whole range of allegations We've seen that— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, I have— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I specifically asked you to listen in silence. I would ask that you respect the orders that I give. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. But the truth is, this government is taking the strongest possible action to clean up the CFMEU. We believe that criminals and bikies have no place in the trade union movement. They, certainly, apart from being— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order on my right as well. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, how about you take responsibility for this? Every allegation was occurring while your ABCC was there. Why don't you take responsibility for that? It's an inconvenient truth, isn't it? But the truth is that these allegations are disturbing and require urgent action, and the legislation before the chamber is about ensuring that action is taken. That is what— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I know that Senator Cash, whether it's on WorkChoices, on industrial relations laws more generally or on the construction union, will always look to make a political point rather than actually ensuring that the outcome is achieved. The outcome that needs to be achieved is the cleaning up of the CFMEU. That is the outcome that needs to be achieved, and that is what this government and this minister will be doing while you are failing to recall what you did in government, and you failed to do the right thing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Given the fact that you and the Prime Minister are still clearly, based on that answer, in denial about the consequences of your actions in abolishing the ABCC, why should the Australian people trust your government to clean up the CFMEU, particularly given that your government has spent the last two years giving them everything they want? Senator McKenzie 207825 That's right—corrupt to the bone. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Wong. Senator McKenzie, I specifically asked you during the last question to listen in silence. You completely ignored that direction. I'm going to ask again. I expect the chamber to listen in silence. Minister Wong. 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Peddling inaccuracies does not make them correct, Senator— Senator Cash I0M Oh, you have to be kidding. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I asked for silence in the chamber. I'm not sure which part of that statement you think didn't apply to you. It does apply to you. I'm asking you to listen in silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I again say, peddling inaccuracies, such as that question was replete with, does not make them true. Since the abolition of the ABCC, the number of days lost to industrial disputes has fallen by 30 per cent. The reality is that the ABCC was ineffective. It was a waste of taxpayers' money and a disaster for productivity in the sector, and it did little to address the exploitation of workers. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU That's something you don't like to listen to, isn't it? Senator Cash, when was the last time you actually stood up and talked about the exploitation of workers? When was the last time you actually talked about the exploitation of workers? We want safe, fair workplaces for all Australians. That is what we want. We are determined to clean up the CFMEU. The allegations of behaviour which occurred on your watch are disturbing. They need to be resolved, and Senator Watt is focused on doing so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Former employment minister Tony Burke left behind a disaster in the Australian construction sector because of his CFMEU-friendly legislation. Yet, instead of sacking him, the Prime Minister promoted him over Minister Watt. Isn't it clear that the Prime Minister values supporting his financial donors at the CFMEU above genuine ability? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There was a lot in that. There were certainly a lot of assertions. I found it difficult to follow the sequence of them, and I do find it interesting that Senator Cash is so sensitive about any comment in response to her but is very happy to attack other people personally. She's very happy to focus on other people personally. I'm not quite sure what the question was, to be honest, about Minister Burke and Minister Watt. But what I'd say to you, Senator, is we are taking a very principled approach to this. We want safe workplaces for all Australians. We do not believe your political focus on the ABCC is warranted when you look at the facts. Senator Cash I0M Hand the money back. Senator WONG 00AOU What I would say to you, Senator Cash, is if you really care about fixing this up— Senator Cash I0M Hand the money back. Senator WONG 00AOU then pass the legislation. But I can almost guarantee, because it's Senator Cash and the opposition, that they will go for stunts— Senator Cash I0M Hand the money back. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, seriously! Senator WONG 00AOU and posturing instead of actually making sure that this is cleaned up. Environment: Lee Point 2737 14:47 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Defence Housing Australia, a government agency of which you are a shareholder, Minister, has been reported to have breached their federal environmental approval at Lee Point, in Darwin, clearing ancient woodlands that made up a wildlife corridor for 260 of Australia's bird species, including 400-year-old trees. Locals in Darwin are horrified that this has happened, and they want action. This space is precious to the locals in the area, and they want government action. What action has your government done in relation to these breaches? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson-Young for the question, and I note she has asked me a series of questions on this at estimates as well. I undertook, following that exchange, to make further inquiries and to go and visit Lee Point, in the Northern Territory, which I have done. I understand that the shareholders have written to the chairperson of Defence Housing Australia, reminding the board about our expectations in relation to activities at the Lee Point development. We understand and I am advised that it wasn't to do with conditions of the Commonwealth EPBC Act. They have complied with the EPBC Act at every stage of the development; however, there was an issue, I think, with the Northern Territory department's planning conditions for stage 3. That is the one where, whilst the contractor was asked not to start clearing that area, clearing commenced. Work was stopped, and DHA has appointed an external investigator to examine the shortfalls in its own processes and really how that happened on the approvals that were actually, I think, a matter for the Northern Territory government. I did go out and visit the site, and I walked around the site. Obviously, there is a lot of housing development up to the point where DHA's development is going ahead, so it is an area where there is already housing development. I would also say that I asked a number of stakeholders in the Northern Territory about that development. There is also a lot of support for this development because of the housing shortage in the NT and the need to expand the supply of housing. So I accept that there's controversy in some areas, but there's also some significant support. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary? 14:49 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I would put to the minister that you can build houses without knocking down 400-year-old trees and you can do this in areas where there is not that sensitivity of the environment. I would ask the minister— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm still waiting for order. Senator Hanson-Young, please continue. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I would ask the minister to investigate the allegations that stage 5 has bulldozed 400-year-old trees, outside of approval under EPBC. 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I am happy to follow that up. I understood that the issues related to a different stage of the development, but I will follow that up in relation to stage 5. I also directly asked the managing director of DHA, Mr Jackson, about whether or not any 400-year-old trees had been bulldozed, and the answer I was given was no—that none had. I am happy to go back on that as well. I would note that, under the Minister for the Environment and Water, there have been further conditions put on this development: another buffer for the Gouldian finch habitat; some further conditions around invasive grass; ensuring that, I think, there's an extra 37 hectares of additional reserve at Lee Point. The Northern Territory government has also subsequently created a 1,500-hectare national park around there. So there are additional safeguards, but there is housing— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary? 14:51 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The minister has referenced the environment minister's role in this. Australia's environment laws are clearly not up to scratch. They can't even protect the environment from the government's own bulldozers. The laws are broken; they need to be fixed. When will your government act? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The minister for the environment has been working on reforms to environment laws. We have also been resourcing the department so that it can actually deal with the approvals and requirements of different applications so that those aren't getting stalled and they can be considered. We have been dealing with the nature-positive bill in this place—I think for the first stage of it. And there are more to come, as Senator Hanson-Young knows. We will keep talking with stakeholders to refine that legislation and ensure that the laws are as robust as they can be. On the issues about the defence housing authority's role in Lee Point, I have not had stage 5 raised with me, so I will undertake to go back and have a look at what stage 5 has. We have balanced improved responses under the nature-positive laws to ensure that there are protections, but, at the same time, this development will provide 800 new homes in Darwin. (Time expired) First Nations Australians 2738 14:53 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Can the minister explain what this government is doing to improve the life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and Closing the Gap outcomes? Can the new minister outline the government's key priorities? 14:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Stewart, for your question. I certainly am, as I said previously, deeply honoured to be the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, taking the baton from the Hon. Linda Burney MP. It has been certainly wonderful to walk beside her, throughout our eight years together, with her as our shadow minister in opposition but then as the minister in the last couple of years, and also with former senator Pat Dodson—a terrific duo to have worked with. It was at Garma that Denise Bowden from the Yothu Yindi Foundation used the words 'soul crushing' for the people who'd worked so hard in the referendum campaign. We know the Gumatj leaders commended the Prime Minister for his courage in taking forward the referendum, and they gave him the sacred ganiny. It is a source of strength and power. That ceremony that took place at Gulkula was the first time it had been publicly shown, in terms of the Prime Minister, and it was about the strength and power that he had to take this forward. He had made a commitment, and they thanked him for that. As Djawa Yunupingu said at Garma, we do 'look forward and not back'. That's what I will be doing: working hard to move forward together. We will work in partnership with First Nations communities and organisations and state and territory governments to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have the same opportunities and life outcomes as our fellow Australians. While in Garma, the PM outlined economic development as a key priority because it's through being able to participate in the economy that we will create better futures. We signed a new partnership agreement with the Northern Territory government and the Yothu Yindi Foundation, investing $20 million from the Aboriginal Benefits Account to build the Garma Institute, a new tertiary and vocational education centre owned and run by the Yolngu. This builds on our new school-funding commitment to the NT signed by Minister Clare. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:55 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Work across the parliament on closing the gap, to address the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians across health, education, jobs, housing, justice and so many more areas, is so important. What steps has the minister taken in her first few weeks as minister to ensure that this happens? 14:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Stewart. I certainly reached out to First Nations organisations across the country. It did all happen very quickly, so there was a fair bit of work—and there is still ongoing work, obviously. But one of the most key important aspects for me is this parliament and reaching out across parties, in both the Senate and the House, to close the gap. Regarding those targets, certainly the data that came out last Friday showed again that we are not reducing the incarceration rates, we are not reducing the out-of-home care rates and we are not able to see the slowdown of suicide. In fact, we're seeing way too many suicides. I do thank the members and senators who met with me this morning to, as my first task in this parliament, speak about closing the gap. We had senators and members from across the aisle, and I do thank those who were unable to appear this morning, but I will be in touch with them over the coming days. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:57 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The government has said it's committed to the principles of makarrata and truth-telling. Can the minister provide an update on the government's approach? 14:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Stewart. I know that you're incredibly passionate about all of these issues, and we do remain firmly committed to the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. There are a variety of views on how to move forward, and it is important that the next steps bring people together. We saw what happens when people do not walk together in the issue and the area of First Nations people. Already, important treaty and truth-telling work is underway at the state and territory level. In Victoria we're seeing the progress being made by the First Peoples' Assembly and the important work of the Yoorrook Justice Commission. In South Australia, work of the historic South Australian voice to parliament is well underway. As I travel this country and talk to First Nations people, I am humbled that, despite everything we've been through, both historically and more recently, there is a great determination and resilience to keep going. We are a resilient people. We are strong and determined to keep going, but we want to do it together. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 2739 14:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government—I thought it was someone else; I think it's Minister McCarthy. Recent revelations show CFMEU controlled construction projects cost around 30 per cent more. Australian taxpayers are being forced to pay more to deliver congestion-busting, productivity-enhancing and life-saving infrastructure than they should as a result of state Labor government sweetheart deals with the CFMEU. Other critically important projects are being left unfunded as a result of costs and delays and overruns for existing projects. Minister, has Minister King asked her department for advice on the powers available to her to ensure taxpayer funds for the construction of public infrastructure projects have not been misappropriated or spent on unlawful activity, given the recent revelations about the CFMEU? 14:59 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. We certainly have been on the record to say that the behaviour we have seen from the construction division of the CFMEU is unacceptable. We've seen Senator Watt introduce a bill this morning. We have zero tolerance for this behaviour and have taken the strongest action possible to eliminate it through appointing independent administrators. Across government we have supported the Fair Work Commission in appointing independent administrators to the construction division of the CFMEU. We have asked the Fair Work Ombudsman to undertake a targeted review of all enterprise agreements made by the Victorian branch of the construction division of the CFMEU. Senator McKenzie 207825 I rise on a point of order on relevance—direct relevance . It was a simple question about the infrastructure funding from the Commonwealth government to state government and the procurement of CFMEU controlled projects. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I was going to go to the question, but I'll take your point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, the senator in her question also made a set of political assertions. The minister is entirely able to respond to the assertions in relation to the CFMEU. Senator McKenzie 207825 On Senator Wong's point on my point of order, I'm happy to submit the preface of my questions to actual fact-check. They are not political statements. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that is a debating point. Your question had a considerable amount of preamble, which the— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! There was considerable preamble to your question, and the minister is being directly relevant. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I was getting to it, Senator McKenzie. The minister has introduced new requirements on states and territories, as part of the funding agreement on infrastructure, and reinforced assurances on Commonwealth projects. Where the Commonwealth is jointly funding projects with states and territories, the minister has written to state and territory counterparts to convey the expectation that any information regarding improper or criminal conduct by entities related to projects delivered under the National Land Transport Act 2014 be reported immediately to the relevant regulator. The minister has also embedded new assurances and protections in the federation funding agreement that the Commonwealth has negotiated with the states, which was finalised on 11 August. The FFA outlines the states' and territories' responsibility to ensure value for money for public funds and engage delivery partners who prioritise ethical practices, and the shared responsibility to support initiatives to improve productivity in construction. The new FFA responds to findings from the independent strategic review and the independent review of the National Partnership Agreement, which the minister undertook in response to irresponsible and unsustainable spending occurring under the previous government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 15:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria In the May budget, the government allocated $10.1 billion to pay states more money for infrastructure cost blowouts. This included an extra $5 billion to Victoria alone, with not one additional kilometre of road upgraded as a result. How much of these infrastructure cost blowouts are attributable to CFMEU controlled project overruns? 15:02 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Well, if there is one group responsible for cost increases and project delays in this country, it is the Liberals and Nationals. They spent a decade making oversized and undercooked infrastructure commitments across the country. They started building the Inland Rail without knowing— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Building costs have been increasing for a range of reasons, including a shortage of skilled labour and the increasing price of building materials due to supply chain issues. Wages and enterprise bargaining agreements are not the key drivers for inflation in this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 15:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The protection racket continues. Minister, can you provide a guarantee to parliament that no Commonwealth infrastructure funds have been spent unlawfully by the CFMEU or CFMEU affiliated persons? 15:04 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The minister is looking at all these matters and seeking advice. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 2740 DOCUMENTS Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 2740 Order for the Production of Documents 2740 15:05 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I table documents from Minister Catherine King in response to Senator McKenzie's order for the production of documents dated 3 July 2024. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 2741 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 2741 15:05 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. What we saw today is just more cover-up. We got to the CFMEU at the end, but let's get to it here. This is not punishment of the perpetrator; this is silencing a witness. This is what these actions are. This is Minister Watt sitting there saying: 'You've been very, very naughty. Please don't dob on us. Please don't tell on all of us. Let's not have an investigation opened. Let's not have a royal commission. Let's not look at everything. Just please go away. Let's park these problems aside so that other names aren't brought out.' Every bribe that has been offered to the CFMEU is a bribe that has been given by a business, by a person. Who are those people? Are they the donors? Are they the industries? Who are the people that preselected these people over on the other side? How many CFMEU people are still part of committees within the Labor Party? This is what we're getting to today. This is not a punishment; this is a parting gift. This is what this is to the CFMEU because they are indelibly linked together. So all this talk about acting tough is misdirection. This is a whole line of little acts and dramas so that the Labor Party look like they're doing something. We know what really happened here. This is stuff that was allowed to go away. All the wishes of the CFMEU were granted. The Labor Party—and the Greens, in cahoots with them—do not want any further investigation. I note today the tattoo by John Setka, that 'God forgives, but the CFMEU doesn't'. Maybe you can go and get matching tattoos so you're all as one. This is where we're at. Government senators interjecting— Senator CADELL 300134 This is how symbiotic this relationship is. I note that those shouting from the other side had preselectors from the CMFEU— Senator Watt 245759 It is 'CFMEU'. Senator CADELL 300134 I can't even spell! Here we go. But this is what it's down to—and the effect for mums and dads out there? It means that everything costs more. We heard about the blowouts. We heard about the 30 per cent increase in costs—36 per cent, I think it was—from an individual source. Everything under these agreements costs more. So, when we look at the cost of living, when we're looking at the cost of housing, when we're looking at everything you pay, it is because of dodgy deals that we never see. It's not just the CFMEU we want looked at; we want to look at the people who pay these bribes, that benefit from these bribes, because it is one, big, parasitic problem. I'm not just leaving it there, because there are very good unions, very good people, who look after their members, and the CFMEU is just as bad an image for the unions that do look after their members as it is for all sorts. When we hear about bikie crime gangs involved in it—we hear all these things—we don't know what's true. We obviously assume a lot—there are some great things that have come out—but an inquiry is what's needed to look at these things: the cost to the Australian public, the cost of living, the crimes that are being committed. I, personally—I will say this here—have seen video of an assault of a building supervisor on a Newcastle building site by a union representative. Senator Bilyk HZB Did you report it to the police? Senator CADELL 300134 When I asked to get a copy so I could report it, I was asked 'please' not to, because, with the threats that came, what would happen to that site, what would happen to that building and what would happen to that developer if it were raised were far more problematic to the developer than the actual incident. This is what has happened. These are the standover tactics that have happened. I've seen this with my own eyes, but we pretend it doesn't happen, because of the fear. If this is happening, where there is a video of this happening and they continue to get away with it, it is because of the fear that's in the industry. There was a link today to the cost of living, which is real. When we go out there, we've got an economy that has survived two years of COVID but can't survive two years of Labor, because of these deals. We've got people barely holding on. They've used their COVID savings, and they've saved to a point. We're hearing it in all our inquiries—the credit helplines and all of the things that are happening because they can't go any longer. They're using Afterpay to buy gift cards to buy groceries, because there is no care about the money that is spent under this government. It is the money they spend on these things and the free range they give to people like the CFMEU to raise costs that are driving these people to the edge. It has to stop, and the first thing that needs to stop is clarity. We need an examination into the CFMEU to see what has happened—a real thing with teeth, a royal commission—and to see what they have done, who has benefited, who has abetted them and the ways to stop them. 15:10 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales What a particularly interesting speech, because I've just heard a political speech from the opposition, talking about bringing back the actual organisation that had criminal gangs working right underneath it and didn't see a thing. They want to come in here and say: 'We've got an answer. Let's put the same people and the same organisation in control.' More of the same thing is what they want. The difference is that we've made firm, direct action to make sure that we can turn around and make sure the criminal element is out of that industry, because they saw it flourish under their proposal, their strategy, and they want to readopt it. Not only was it unsuccessful; it saw productivity collapse in the construction industry. That's how successful they were. But they want to play politics. They want to reinstitute the same lame organisation that failed before. When you start looking at what they did do with the ABCC, I'll just give you one example—there are so many—of where they turned around and sued the union over flags for half a million dollars while there were issues about organised crime. They sued the union over flags. They sued the union because they wanted female toilets on a worksite. These are the big issues where they want to get the dogs out to turn around and make a change. What you should do is listen to what we're doing, understand why it's being done and understand that working people in that industry deserve the representation they should have, because what they're really about is not having working people getting representation in construction. That's what they're really about. When they had the ABCC there—I'll give you one of many examples. Back in 2018, the Royal Hobart Hospital was one of the biggest construction sites in Tasmania. The ABCC went out to that site on numerous occasions and never found anything wrong. But what was happening? There were 200 Chinese workers engaged on that site, many of them on student visas or other temporary work visas, who had not been paid for six weeks. They hadn't been paid. Their entitlements were taken off them; they'd been ripped off. There was sham contracting, and the ABCC, despite being at the site multiple times, never sniffed a single thing. Guess what? In 2019, their crap organisation dropped any charges. So we know what you're about. You're not about fixing this industry up. You're not about making a difference. To hear a criticism—I'll take it as a misstep because I know the good senator. You know, we might disagree on things, but I know his morality is questionable but ethically right. Senator Sharma 274506 A misunderstanding. Senator SHELDON 168275 A misunderstanding—thank you. But when it comes to this point, saying that we should have an issue about these companies and the ABCC, what the minister has rightly said is that we should be looking at the companies as well. Heaven forbid that the person who does the bribe is not guilty! That's what they're telling us. Have you heard anything more ridiculous in your entire life? The construction industry does need to be turned around and properly dealt with. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Cadell, on a point of order, I assume. Senator Cadell 300134 I think I've been misrepresented. I actually said that they were responsible. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Sheldon. Senator SHELDON 168275 Thankfully, we're on the same track. I misunderstood what you were saying because of the complicated way you said it. So thank you for agreeing with me. Those companies, just as we are rightly doing, are going to take action, because the ABCC never took action. That goes to my point about what the good senator raised just then, because we put a proposition about how to move forward. I will also just jump to a critical issue that was raised during the questions on the cost of living. I'm going to run through this pretty quickly. We know people are doing it tough, but on 1 July 2024 we saw tax cuts come into place, and Sussan Ley, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, says she wants to scrap them; 2.6 million low-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay rise, but the Liberals and Nationals oppose it. The Liberals and Nationals opposed the increase to the minimum wage in 2022 and in 2023. The member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, said that someone earning another $110 a week more is just 'window-dressing'. Labor's cheaper medicine policy saved families $63 million in 2023 in my state of New South Wales alone. Labor's 60-day prescriptions will save patients more than $1.6 billion over four years, up until 2027. The Liberals and Nationals opposed cheaper medicines because they said it would cause pharmacies to close. There's been electricity bill relief, and the average family would have been $230 worse off in 2023-24 without Labor's energy price relief, but the coalition voted against it. And the list goes on. 15:15 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister Wong made a comment during one of her responses in question time that the sun setting and the sun rising were those certainties in life. Well, I think we know the other certainty in life is that the principles of economics don't change, whoever is in government. However, with all certainty, we know that those now sitting on the government benches don't understand the fundamentals of economics. Supply and demand, the most basic principle underpinning economics, doesn't change. However, when those opposite were asked questions in response to the Reserve Bank's comments around the homegrown sticky inflation, meaning that interest rates are going to be higher for longer, base economic principles clearly vacated the building yet again. Australians have had over 12 interest rate rises since this government has come into being, and we are continuing to see the cost-of-living crisis have impacts far and wide across the Australian community. Possibly mums and dads are all doing it tough with their kids, trying to pay the school fees, trying to put the groceries in the pantry and food on the table, trying to put their kids in school uniforms. These are all becoming increasingly difficult. But what we have seen as well—and which is probably not getting enough attention; certainly, from this government it's not getting any attention—is that insolvencies of businesses are now at such high levels that we have not seen levels like this for well over two decades. And a quarter of those insolvencies are in the construction sector. We've been talking about the cost-of-living crisis today as well as the disgraceful behaviour of the CFMEU, and we need to potentially draw the link between housing costs in this country, construction costs in this country and construction companies going out of business, unable to keep up with union demands and the union heavyweights that are coming through and strongarming them into particular contracts. The entire economy is facing significant challenges, significant headwinds, and we know every mum and dad at home is trying to pay the gas bill, trying to put fuel in the car. All of those costs are increasing, and it gets more and more difficult to get in and see a GP. I noticed today that there was an article about how the wonderful new health clinics the Labor Party keeps spruiking are actually taking doctors out of general practice and putting them into those clinics against advice given to them from the AMA and the RACGP. We are seeing this government continue to ignore, at every opportunity, advice from experts in any area, and none more so than the Reserve Bank. It is time that this government starts to understand what its addiction to spending means for all of us in the economy. We know that the Reserve Bank is trying to put its foot on the brake of the economy; it's trying to slow things down. It's trying to get inflation down, back into the band, so that interest rates can be moderated. Instead, this government, who doesn't understand the basics of economic principles, has its foot firmly entrenched on the accelerator, speeding things up—$315 billion worth of spending that it is just addicted to. We know that the RBA has doubled its forecast of government spending. It was originally at two per cent or 2.1 per cent; it's now over four per cent. This is the ridiculous spendathon that this government is committed to. To listen to them in here answering questions, to hear them speak—your stomach turns. It's nauseating to listen to them talk about how they genuinely think that they've made things better. They genuinely think they've delivered cost-of-living relief. They genuinely think that somehow or other things are going well for Australian families, that people are feeling comfortable and secure in their jobs and feeling comfortable and secure in their housing, which is the complete opposite of how Australians are feeling. Australians are not feeling safe. They're not feeling secure. They are feeling economically vulnerable. But, to listen to those opposite, everything's just peachy keen. They think they're doing a great job and that they're going to keep sailing through. But all they're doing is putting more and more pain onto Australians every day, and this pain is not going away anytime soon. Every decision this government makes just makes the pain worse, makes the pain last longer and makes the pain go just that little bit deeper. 15:21 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania In they come crying crocodile tears over the cost of living. I just want to remind people that those opposite oversaw a decade of wasted opportunity. They doubled the debt before the pandemic and went on to rack up $1 trillion of debt with nothing to show for it. They failed to get wage growth moving and even admitted their policy settings were deliberately designed to keep wages low. They contributed to flatlining productivity growth and stagnating living standards, overseeing the loss of 85,000 Australian manufacturing jobs. And to top it off, even though there are a whole list of things I could read out, they also oversaw an increase in child care fees of 41 per cent. I find it quite laughable that the opposition come into this place without a hint of irony and complain about the cost of living. Have they not realised they're living in a glass house? Let's not forget when the current wave of inflation started. In recent years, quarterly inflation heights were reached in March 2022. And guess what? Those opposite were still in government. They created this crisis through almost a decade of wasted opportunities and inaction in government, and now they have the absolute gall to demand that we fix their mess yesterday. Unlike those opposite, we're actually doing something about it. After almost a decade of failure by those opposite to tackle the housing crisis, we are investing $32 billion in providing more social and affordable homes for Australians and in helping more Australians own their own home. We've made health care cheaper by tripling the bulk-billing incentive, delivering cheaper medicines and rolling out bulk-billed Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia—including five in my home state of Tasmania. Recently I used one of these urgent care clinics after hours, at nine o'clock at night. Can I say to the Bathurst Street urgent care clinic in Hobart: what a fantastic job you did. I was watching people coming in. It was orderly. People were seen in good time. I was in and out in an hour. No appointment was necessary. If not for the urgent care clinic I would have been at the Royal Hobart Hospital taking up space in the emergency department, but here I was seen within an hour and not taking up space in the emergency department. So please don't come in here and start bagging our urgent care clinics. Just because you didn't think of it and just because you didn't do anything for 10 years it doesn't mean all of our ideas are bad! One of the other great things we're doing is providing $300 in energy bill relief to every household, and we've provided $3 billion in HELP debt relief and delivered 480,000 fee-free TAFE places. Not only are we helping to reduce household expenses; we're also boosting household incomes. And, since we came to government, the rate of the JobSeeker payment has increased by more than 18 per cent and Commonwealth rent assistance has increased by more than 40 per cent. We've expanded eligibility for JobSeeker and we're giving parents of children aged between eight and 14 access to the single parenting payment. Labor is also, importantly, getting wages moving again. Thanks to our submission to the Fair Work Commission, the minimum wage has increased 14 per cent since we came to government, not to mention the announcement last week by Prime Minister Albanese. As a former early childhood educator, myself—for nearly 12 years—I was so happy to see that wage increase for early childhood educators. No matter what those on that side say when they say, 'They just play with the kids and wipe their noses,' that's wrong. Those on the other side need to go to an early childhood learning centre and see the work that is done—the preparation, the program planning and the care they take with the children. Earlier, in two-minute statements, Senator Marielle Smith was pointing out, quite rightly, that the first five years of a child's life are the most important. For these children to be socialised is really important. For them to meet a range of people is really important. My own grandchildren go to child care and, I've got to say, it is fantastic. The workers there do such a great job— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Bilyk. 15:26 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak about the cost-of-living crisis and in particular inflation. I sit here and listen to the debate in the chamber and it is actually quite pathetic, because, let me tell you, no-one in this chamber, on either side, has any idea of how to deal with monetary policy. For too long, we've relied on just the RBA to think that they can manipulate the price of money on the first Tuesday of every month and that somehow that is going to solve our nation's problems. We have a productivity crisis in this country because we have forgotten how to build. We have forgotten how to get out of bed in the morning, put our noses to the grindstone and do the jobs that add real value. This has been brought about by decades of reckless management and ideology. I want to, in particular, touch on the financial deregulation that occurred in the 1980s, where, basically, all the restrictions on the way financial transactions could occur were lifted. Over the weekend, I was talking to my father, who was listening to the Country Hour last week. He was talking about the cotton industry and how the physical market in the cotton industry is worth about $42 billion. The derivative market is worth about $300 billion. When capital controls and financial controls were lifted in the 1980s, it meant that derivatives were no longer required to be hedged. When derivatives aren't required to be hedged, it means you can basically issue unhedged derivatives. Normally a cotton grower might decide to sell 20 per cent of his crop to ensure that he can recoup his costs in advance. He can receive that money in advance to help pay for part of his costs. What you now get, in any market—it doesn't matter whether it's primary production, metals, gold or bonds or whatever—is an exorbitant number of derivatives. That takes the power of pricing away from the producers and moves it to the white-collar paper shufflers. Things like this—and we saw it complemented with the deregulation of the banking system—let them do whatever they like. I get blowback when I say that I want a public bank again in this country. They go, 'Oh, no. You can't do that, because the State Bank of Victoria went broke.' It went broke because it was allowed to buy Tricontinental—which was an investment bank—at the height of the 1987 stock market, that sent that bank broke. If the Hawke-Keating government had never introduced those stupid neoliberal policies of the 1980s and the Button plan, we'd still have people in jobs, doing trades and creating real value-add products. That's what we need to get back to. Question agreed to. Australian Federal Police 2744 15:29 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Australian Federal Police remuneration and conditions. I raised the question today about the AFP and their lack of pay. They're supposed to be in negotiations at the moment, but let me just inform the house how bad it is. I have a statement, and it says: 'Where I work we have had a 300 per cent increase in workload and are now at 25 per cent staffing. There is a cascading effect of increased demand on police services. There are more jobs than police on the ground, with members diverted to cover shortages at other stations, locations or teams to deal with other priorities and jobs, such as the Pacific Games and detainee issues. It results in a significant reduction in the members available to fill squads. Due to underresourcing and the ever-increasing workload, pressure and demand, burnout is a real barrier. The lack of flexibility is another major barrier. It has been very difficult to attract and keep new staff. In the space of 12 months I trained five new staff members, four of whom all left within four months of starting.' The fact is they could accept the 11.2 per cent pay rise that's been offered, but they say, 'Do you realise that accepting the federal government's offer of 11.2 per cent over three years means that no additional allowances, such as the use-of-force allowance, can be obtained?' It's systemic in there, and they're also saying: 'The AFP has a toxic workforce, and a royal commission needs to be appointed to investigate corrupt management. In all my working career, the AFP would have to be the most horrible place I have worked. Maybe some effort from the AFPA needs to be made in actually investigating the harassment and bullying that happens within the AFP—also the way victims are treated after an injury occurs. This needs to be looked at.' It's not just about a pay rise. It's about training people and keeping them. It starts with a pay rise that they're entitled to. They're underpaid compared to their counterparts in the states, so it needs to be looked at, and we need to investigate and have a royal commission, which is what they're asking for. Question agreed to. Uluru Statement from the Heart 2745 15:31 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and Makarrata. There's not a day that goes by in this place that I'm not surprised. I'm not surprised, because the minister gave us some answers about the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The principles say that First Nations sovereignty has never been ceded and is spiritual, that there needs to be a constitutional voice, that makarrata includes truth and treaty and that the rates of incarceration and child removals actually require action in this place. They may have taken the commitment of a constitutional voice to a referendum, but they are stalling and continuing to stall. This morning, I was at a meeting with the minister and said, 'Let's do some truth-telling in this place.' Right now, we have four Closing the Gap targets going backwards: child development, incarceration and deaths in custody, suicide and mental health, and child protection. These are disgusting. In 2024, we shouldn't be having this conversation. There's no structural reform happening. The Productivity Commission has told you that several times already, and you continue to ignore it. Well, let's wind forward. Everyone was patting themselves on the back during the last fortnight at Garma, in the ceremonial grounds of the Gumatj people—to reset, regroup and regather. Wow, that sounds like some sort of retreat! All the while, this government doesn't want to tell the truth. The truth is they went into the lands of the Gumatj people, sat in a ceremonial place, accepted the sacred object—the Prime Minister did that—and then gutted the Indigenous affairs portfolio for the poor minister that walked into that. It was her first week in the job. I tell you what, if my boss had done that to me, I would have turned around and said: 'I'm out of here. I'm not accepting that.' The following Wednesday I went to Larrakia country, to Garramilla, and stood with the Gumatj people outside the High Court because this government has taken them there to appeal a case in which the Gumatj people won $700 million of just-terms compensation—which they deserve—for mining operations on their country. How can cabinet ministers, especially the Prime Minister, from the other place, go into those ancestral lands, accept a sacred object and say, 'By the way, I'll see you at court next week'? How shameful! Shame on you for doing that to the Gumatj people. They had to reset and react. They were so confused when I was with Djawa Yunupingu at court on Wednesday. When I sat in that courtroom and listened to the argument that Commonwealth solicitors gave, they gave the case that the 'no' case had. They talked about sovereign power of the Constitution. It's shameful that the Labor Party have now become the opposition. They want to talk about bipartisanship. You're waiting on a bloke from the other place who walked out of the apology in 2008. Why would you wait on him? He's not going to give you anything. We could have makarrata tomorrow if this government were brave and courageous enough for the 6.5 million people who voted yes in this country. Stop denying us what we deserve—First Nations justice in this place. We want a makarrata commission. As for Lee Point—the answers that were given about their own bulldozers not even being able to protect 400-year-old trees—this is a farce. We've been dealing with this for 65,000 years, and now we have environmentalists at Lee Point standing with the Larrakia people against DHA and this government. The Minister for the Environment and Water should be ashamed. You are stalling on Aboriginal cultural heritage protections in this country, and your environment laws are so weak that you are ultimately just land clearing. Land clearing for what? Most of those houses are going to be sold off for profit. They are not going for homelessness and housing, which Minister Gallagher just told everyone. This is ridiculous. We are still in this stuck-in-time moment; we feel like we're in a damn time machine. This is not just happening to Larrakia people and Gumatj people; it's happening everywhere. You don't want truth telling in this nation, particularly at the federal level while you can kick the political football down to the states and territories because the truth is that you've got blackfellas in this country tied up in litigation for years on federal law, native title and cultural heritage. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 2746 CONDOLENCES Hall, Mr Raymond Steele 2746 15:37 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 10 June 2024, of Raymond Steele Hall, a senator for the state of South Australia from 1974 to 1977 and a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Boothby, South Australia, from 1981 to 1996. Before I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I welcome Mrs Joan Hall to the Senate. 15:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 10 June 2024, of Raymond Steele Hall, former senator for South Australia, former member for Boothby and former premier of South Australia, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Some politicians are remembered for their service, others for their accomplishments in high office, major reform or big moments in history. A rare few take on a certain legendary status that encompasses all of the aforementioned. Steele Hall occupies the latter category: a premier, a senator, a member of the House of Representatives, a reformer, a disrupter, a man of principle and purpose, the only Australian to have served as a state premier, in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. It is an honour to move this motion of condolence today for someone I held in high regard, both politically and personally, and I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for extending the thoughtful invitation for me to be able to do so. Like many people with a certain legendary status, Steele Hall had that aura of presence—never superiority, but presence. In fact, the disdain for pomp, circumstance or title ensured the absence of any sense of superiority. There's no doubt, as has been reflected at the state memorial service and on other occasions since Steele's death, that he probably would have hated much of this pomposity in reflecting upon his achievements. Steele's egalitarianism, though, only added to the sense of presence that he brought, because today we pay tribute not to the Hon. Raymond Steele Hall AC, as he could have been, but simply to Steele Hall, as he chose to be and as he insisted on being. Steele Hall was born in Balaklava in 1928, growing up as part of a farming family at Owen in South Australia's mid-north. He served his nation, state and community as a member of the South Australian House of Assembly from 1959 to 1973, as Premier of South Australia from 1968 to 1970, as a senator for South Australia from 1974 to 1977 and as the federal member for Boothby from 1981 to 1996. Steele's remarkable political career spanned 37 years. Yet it is not longevity—far from it—that he is remembered for but what he did with his many opportunities to serve. Those opportunities began with election as the Liberal and Country League member for Gouger in 1959 at age 31. In the first of his maiden speeches, the dryland farmer spoke of the importance of water management, arguing on principle, evidence and facts, as was to be the hallmark of Steele Hall. Seven years later, following the election of South Australia's first Labor government in some 27 years, Steele was selected by his colleagues to follow the legendary Sir Thomas Playford as LCL leader. His election as leader was to pitch Steele Hall against Don Dunstan. Telegenic, articulate, principled and passionate, they represented a generational change in political leadership and in politics itself. Together, they were to reform South Australia, leaving indelible changes that, although often attributed to one or the other of them, in many ways were the product of them both. The Dunstan legacy would not have been possible without the principles and actions of Steele Hall, and the same could perhaps be said in reverse. In the March 1968 election, Steele led the LCL to within one seat of victory. He clinched the support of an Independent and was destined for government. However, Steele had won with just 48 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, and growing public angst was evident at the imbalance of the state's electoral boundaries. So Steele took both to government and to addressing the causes of this public angst with what would become recognised as his quintessential, down-to-earth, get-the-job-done approach. South Australia's youngest-ever Premier was interviewed by the Bulletin in 1968 in his then rented Adelaide home. The Bulletin observed: … its almost defiant lack of ostentation seemed entirely appropriate for the man, for his manner is neither ostentatious, calculated, nor guarded, but rather frank, blunt and good-humoured. His was to be a government of liberal social reform in areas of welfare, abortion, Indigenous affairs and lowering the legal drinking age to 18. His was also a government of long-term vision and planning. He developed the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study, which preserved land corridors to meet the state's future growth needs. Labor's subsequent abolition of MATS and the sale of this land has long been bemoaned as a missed opportunity for our state. Some of the most recognisable images of Adelaide owe thanks to the Hall government's role in the building of the Adelaide Festival Centre in its iconic location on the banks of the River Torrens. It was a very, and typically, hands-on premier who had been in London, walking along the River Thames embankment, who admired the Royal Festival Theatre overlooking the river. In Steele's words: When I came back, cabinet and the Adelaide City Council had approved a site in North Adelaide … I walked from the weir to the zoo and decided the theatre should be on the site of the old City Baths … We overturned the decision of the cabinet and the council. And, of course, today, that Adelaide Festival Centre stands proud as an icon of our city. Hall did, too, tackle the reform of electoral boundaries, undertaking significant movement and change towards electorates based on one vote, one value principles. In the ultimate act of political courage or self-sacrifice—and perhaps the act he is most lauded for by many—Hall pursued electoral reform, knowing full well that it would make the task of his holding on to government even harder. Steele also attempted, unsuccessfully, to introduce universal adult suffrage into the Legislative Council. He was stymied, though, by the self-interest and conservative views of the legislative councillors of the day—a battle that was to repeat itself in different ways in the years to come. Steele never saw those electoral reforms, though, as an end in themselves, but, instead, as important democratic principles that underpinned the means to much greater ends. He said: 'I think in South Australia we've been held up too long with worries about how we put people into parliament. I would like to see the right action taken and the issue closed as soon as possible. Then we can get on with the job of worrying about what they do when they are there.' It wasn't electoral reform that precipitated the downfall of the Hall government, although it made its re-election next to impossible, but it was Murray-Darling water policy—an issue never too far from politics in South Australia, as Senator Wong's amusement indicates and reminds us all. It was Murray-Darling water policy that brought Steele Hall's government undone. Steele stood in support of an agreement with the Commonwealth and other River Murray states in support of the construction of the Dartmouth Dam in Victoria. The then Labor opposition, under Don Dunstan, proposed an amendment on the floor of the house that a dam also be built at Chowilla, in the South Australian seat of the Independent MP and Speaker upon whom the Hall government relied. The Speaker voted with Labor. Hall treated the loss as a loss of confidence on the floor of the house and took his government to the polls. Hall took a position—again, principled: standing by science, engineering and economics. Dartmouth Dam today provides valuable water storage for our country. In contrast, despite Hall losing the election to Labor, Chowilla was never built—and for good reason. Steele Hall's loss of the May 1970 state election saw him return to the position of opposition leader. True to nature, he continued to argue for reform of the parliament, especially its upper house, as well as of the state and of his own Liberal and Country League. By doing so, he also continued to earn the ire of those opposed to such reform. In seeking to contain the reformist Steele Hall, his party room voted in March 1972 to remove the power of their leader to select the frontbench. Ever the parliamentarian, Hall's reaction was to take himself to the house, seat himself on the back benches and announce his resignation, by stating: 'I cannot continue to lead a party that will not follow.' Great controversy in the LCL was to follow. The Young Liberals took a motion to the party's governing council calling for Steele's reinstatement as leader. It failed, but only just. The party was riven—but not just on personality, for Steele was seen to embody principle and stand for the modernisation the LCL needed. And so the Liberal Movement was born. Six state MPs joined Steele Hall in forming the party within a party. Others were to follow, along with candidates and members. But the internal reform movement was not long to be tolerated, and, by 1973, Steele was leading the Liberal Movement as an independent political party. As Hall wrote in A Liberal Awakening: The LM Story—which I sadly left sitting on my desk in the office; otherwise, I'd hold the great prop up—'The aim of the Liberal Movement is to be the spearhead of liberalism in South Australia. We have the most attractive philosophy of any in Australia.' Steele wrote of young people and their call to be free—the idealism he, rightly, saw as connecting an enduring Liberal philosophy with generation after generation. He described the Legislative Council and the conservative members of the LCL within it as being too conservative for our modern way of life. In seeking to build support for, and the impact of, the Liberal Movement, Steele announced in 1973 his intention to seek a Senate seat. With the fledgling party securing 9.8 per cent of the statewide vote in the 1974 double dissolution, Steele Hall made the first of his interparliamentary moves from the SA lower house to the Australian Senate. Upon his election, Steele was eager to ensure the LM position was not misconstrued on the national stage. He did not see himself as a radical, simply as a moderniser. He told Michelle Grattan in 1974—yes, the same Michelle Grattan in our corridors today—that, 'Only in the context of South Australia would I be considered a radical,' and 'the LM looked forward to being the Liberal Party from South Australia in the future.' The year 1974—what a time to arrive as a minor party senator in the Australian Senate! But Steele, though happy to have won, saw the irony in his victory, having spent much of his career to date fighting with an upper house. Noting that he could in no way claim to be a parliamentary 'maiden', Steele said in his first speech to the Senate: I find it very ironical to be here in the upper House of the Australian Parliament having come out of a party which has gone through the procedure of self-destruction under the influence of its members in the upper House of the South Australian Parliament. Though no longer a member of the LCL, Steele still clearly defined himself as an anti-Labor politician, stating: … our inflationary worries and concerns today can be laid quite effectively at the door of Labor's … expansionary plans. It almost sounds like today's question time. He criticised policies that destroy incentives and control, rather than encourage, amongst an environment of very high spending and very great economic difficulties. In four telling events that were to unfold more than a year later in that infamous year of Australian politics of 1975, Michelle Grattan wisely assessed that, 'Hall's own battles with the South Australian upper house reflect his attitude of what is and is not the proper role for the second chamber.' So, despite his opposition to so much of what the Whitlam government did and stood for, Steele was again to stick to his principles and his view on the proper role of the upper houses. As controversy raged in the Senate and opposition parties and forces combined to block supply, Steele Hall refused to vote with the then Fraser opposition in that blocking of supply. Unsurprisingly, many of the Liberal senators of the day were unimpressed. The late Senator Reg Withers later recalled: 'Hall was very cranky, and the 1975 double dissolution made him even crankier. He was a man with a mission, a crusader.' But even there, the respect was equally evident. Withers also said that there weren't many like Steele Hall left and rated him among the best two debaters in the Senate, alongside an ideological opponent, in some ways, the conservative warrior Ivor Greenwood. Steele, true to his word, though, would come through those years and chart the course of return to the Liberal Party. Working with most of his Liberal Movement colleagues and negotiating a pathway back, Steele was to oversee reform of the party that he had championed to have reformed and to find a pathway back to merge those non-Labor forces within South Australia. With that, he also saw the time in the Senate coming to a close. He said that he thought the Senate would go to sleep for about six to nine years, and he said, 'I just don't enjoy sleeping politically'. I think he was reflecting on the changed numerical balances with the landslide win of the Fraser government. So Steele did leave the Australian Senate, in 1977, after just 3½ very tumultuous years. He did so having rejoined the now Liberal Party in South Australia. He did so to contest the Labor-held seat of Hawke, showing Steele's customary self-belief that, even after the Liberal landslide of 1975, he still believed he could win the seat that Labor had held onto. It was not to be but it was in this campaign that a young Liberal called Lynton Crosby first met Steele. As the now Sir Lynton Crosby said at the state memorial service, 'It was the beginning of a lifelong association, starting with politics and ending in friendship.' Though unsuccessful in Hawke and also in a preselection bid for Wakefield in 1979, Steele Hall remained customarily undeterred. In 1981 he was preselected as the Liberal candidate for a by-election in the seat of Boothby. Again his selection was anything but simple, with Lynton recalling that after seven ballots the selection meeting was so intense and the contest so tight that the chairman, who was no fan of Steele's, initially announced the wrong winner. But Steele endured by one vote and the runner-up, Alexander Downer, had to wait. Steele won the by-election. Peter Bowers wrote in the SMH that when it came to politics Steele Hall just cannot stay away, describing him as an instinctive politician, motivated in the final crunch by a simple instinct that many have recalled and repeated in the weeks following Steele's death: 'When in doubt, do it.' With his election as the member for Boothby, Steele was set to give a third maiden speech. It was typically down to business. Drawing on his firsthand experience as premier, Steele argued, as he had done since failed negotiations back in 1969, for a fairer distribution of federal road grants. It was quintessential Steele, saying, 'South Australian motorists are subsidising motorists in other states. We want to be treated as Australian citizens, not as citizens of a colonial outpost not yet admitted to the Federation.' I am sure, as a fellow former finance minister Senator Wong would well know, those formulas for road grants and local government funding continue to dog each and every federal government. In a topic also prescient to modern debate, Steele weighed in on the early debates about allowing uranium mining in Australia. In the context of a three per cent drop in the Labor vote, Steele spoke of the divisions within Labor over uranium mining, including what he saw as their shameful misrepresentation of health and safety advice in a reckless scare campaign that had been waged during their unsuccessful campaign against his election. Steele was to go on and serve in the House of Representatives as the member for Boothby for 15 years. For a while he was to be in Andrew Peacock's shadow cabinet, but alleged enmity between Hall and John Howard saw Steele Hall return to the backbench. Indeed, during those days on the backbench, Steele took a strong stance against the comments reported of John Howard in relation to Asian immigration. Those stances, those views and his strong stance led to reports of potential expulsion or disendorsement as the member for Boothby. But Steele, of course, fought on, fought the battle and went on to contest more elections. In the years that were to follow he also reconciled with John Howard and became one of the strongest supporters of the Howard government. Did trouble follow Steele Hall? Sometimes it is tempting to think so when you look back at all of the turmoil in the state parliament during the split of the SA Liberal Party, in the Senate during the dismissal of the Whitlam government, and in the House of Representatives during the tumult of Howard v Peacock and its associated ideological battles. Steele did not just sit in the front row for many of the big moments in political history; he was on stage as a key actor. Consistent with Steele's view about the appeal of liberalism to younger generations, he was always a strong supporter of, and made a life member of, the Young Liberals. This is how I first met Steele. My first-ever work experience in a political office as a teenager was in Steele's Boothby electorate office. It was old school. Steele may have been a moderniser, but technology wasn't really his forte. I would go on to work with Steele's wife, Joan, in her own successful ministerial career, to enjoy many political discussions in their home and to even house-sit it on more than a few occasions. I can recall the national Liberal student's conference being held in Adelaide, at one time, when I held the keys to the Hall house. I awoke the next morning to find rising bodies of hungover Liberal students scattered throughout the lounge room with an accompanying array of empty wine bottles and pizza boxes. Somehow, I was invited to house-sit again. Perhaps the fact that we'd won the key votes on the conference floor was all the forgiveness I really needed from the ever-political Hall household. Although Steele was soon to leave the parliament for the final time, he swapped their historic roles in the years to come to play advisor in support of Joan's career, but he would still step up in the big internal debates of the Liberal Party when required. To see Steele speak to a state council or other major meeting was a display of persuasive force, of deep insight and of wisdom that came from so many years—from so many decades—of political discourse. That passion and drive for politics can be juxtaposed against the Steele Hall who, in other ways, would happily have opted out. Former premier John Olsen recalled Steele choosing to go fishing on election day. He had a sort of calmness that he could bring to the political battle when required. In those years post politics, Steele would dabble in many different things, including, I fondly recall, the effort to start a seedless watermelon business. With all that science, all that evidence and all that understanding of water, somehow, he embarked upon seedless watermelons in South Australia. It was not to be, that one, but, of course, there were many other great successes. It is impossible, for me at least, to dive into a political career like Steele's without it prompting some deep questions for yourself. When to fight within, when to dissent publicly, how to lead those of competing philosophies, what price unity and what price victory—the compromises of party politics are not easy. In the main, Steele did fight within. He believed in the value of strong parties of government. But, when the very principles of democracy were on the line, he was willing to take the fight all the way, and he was proven right. The times have changed, but some of the problems continue to re-emerge in strikingly similar ways. Successful parties need to be ever true to their philosophies, yet modernise the application and presentation of those values to voters. With the share of major party votes declining for both sides of this chamber, we are, arguably, all failing no matter who gets to sit on the government benches. The first of us to find a way to reverse this trend and rebuild a broader base, as Steele Hall always championed, will undoubtedly enjoy a great advantage. Steele left the parliament still savaging the financial mismanagement of Labor governments—at that stage, in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and federally—but also holding the parliament in the highest of regard. He believed that members of the parliament from both sides of the house were always there with high motivations to serve Australians. He disagreed with many and argued intensely, but he always respected the differences. John Olsen said that his principles were always unimpeachable. Fellow former premier Steven Marshall called him a wise, generous and courageous man, who embodied the term 'principled'. Current Labor Premier, Peter Malinauskas, describes Steele's electoral reforms as the bravest political move in the state's history. Steele was to have one son, Michael, and three daughters, Kathy, Mary and Elinor, with his first wife, Anne, a school teacher. Son, Ben, and daughter, Alexia, were to follow with his second wife, former reporter, adviser and partner in the Liberal movement venture, Joan, who, as you acknowledged, Deputy President, is with us in the Senate today—perhaps appropriately having found her way into the adviser's box rather than the public galleries. Steele and Joan were to enjoy a 45-year-long marriage. It got off to such a romantic start, with the Australian reporting in 1978 that for their honeymoon they were going to Canberra for the budget session. Despite their common love of politics, Joan described their relationship as a classic case of opposites attract. Joan is crazy for sports, the ballet and loves a big occasion. Steele not so much. Every year he would agree to join her at one Crows game and one soccer match. Infamously, the ballet was only to happen once. Steele's snoring during the performance was too much for Joan to ever risk again. His has been and was an extraordinary life. Indeed, it is the likes of which we are unlikely to see again in this day and age of politics as it is undertaken, but it is one that leaves many lessons for all of us to reflect upon. He was called and described by some as a 'provocateur extraordinaire'. But again, he was simply Steele Hall who fought to get done what he believed was right. Vale. 16:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the death of former senator, former member of the House and former premier of my home state of South Australia, Raymond Steele Hall, at the age of 95. At the outset I convey, on behalf of the government, our condolences to his family and friends and to his parliamentary colleagues who are mourning his passing. I particularly acknowledge Joan Hall, who is with us today. Steele Hall was a giant of Liberal politics in South Australia. He was a man of principle, a man of intellect and a man of courage. All those associated with him are rightly very proud of his place in political history, but particularly in South Australian political history. Demonstrably this includes Senator Birmingham, who just delivered a very fitting tribute and to whom I extend my personal sympathies. Steele Hall was born in 1928 in South Australia, in the mid-north. He was engaged in politics as a young man and secured election in 1959 as the state member for Gouger, centred on his home district, and entered the House of Assembly shortly after his 30th birthday. By 1966, political times in South Australia were changing. Steele was elected leader of the Liberal and Country League and therefore leader of the opposition at age 37. He was described earlier as having a streak of independence. With Labor's Don Dunstan becoming Labor leader and Premier in 1967, a new generation of South Australians were at the helm, and our state entered a period of political and social reform. In 1968, Steele Hall became Premier. These historic reforms included the electoral changes to the so-called playmander, a system of malapportionment between country and city electoral districts that was especially detrimental to Labor. Steele Hall, then the youngest premier in state history, saw that the situation was untenable—and he acted. He acted not in his own political self-interest, he acted, frankly, not in the narrow interests of his party. Instead, he took a principled stance in the interests of democracy. Through these electoral reforms he reinforced the enduring principle of one vote, one value that underpins electoral fairness. It was a principled stance which earned some enduring enmity from conservatives within his own party who opposed these changes. Ultimately, he was, if not the architect of, certainly a contributor to his own demise, with Don Dunstan regaining the premiership in 1970 and leading the state until 1979—a tenure in no small part due to these electoral reforms. Premier Malinauskas, the current Premier of South Australia, reflected on this brave achievement and also on many key accomplishments, including: the development of important industries, such as the gas industry; improvement of Aboriginal rights; access to safe abortion services; and fluoride in Adelaide's water supply. After his government's defeat, Steele Hall continued to lead the opposition until resigning as opposition leader in 1972 as a consequence of internal party dissent. Senator Birmingham has gone through that in a little more detail than I propose to. This was the catalyst for his founding of the Liberal Movement, the spearhead of liberalism, a movement that was a distinct political organisation first within and then cleaved from the Liberal and Country League and the conservative forces that opposed and undermined the policies Steele Hall had sought to advance. Those who joined and followed Steele Hall sought to rebuild liberalism in South Australia. They saw being in government as a critical plank in this process and the necessity of securing the support of a broad section of the South Australian community in order to achieve this. This was counter to the attitudes and the practice of some in the Liberal and Country League. Steele Hall described some of the conservatives who opposed him as being 'bound tightly to the ambitions of a few individuals who will put party before state'. In contrast, the Liberal Movement sought to be pragmatic and dynamic, responding to prevailing attitudes of electors through emphasis on human values and the quality of contact between one and another, balancing personal freedom with the rights of others. It was idealistic, educated and democratic. After continuing in the House of Assembly for a brief time fostering this nascent movement, Steele Hall resigned and successfully won election to the Senate. His arrival in this place as a Liberal Movement senator following the 1974 double dissolution election came at a pretty momentous time in Australian politics. As we all recall, the coalition did not recognise the legitimacy or mandate of the Whitlam government from the first time it won office in 1972. Steele Hall, again, took a principled stance. He resiled from and chided the coalition over its position, stating, 'If they were to some day understand that they do not have a divine right to govern but that they have to earn it, they might return to this side of the House a lot more swiftly than they are likely to return at the moment.' He didn't think much of their arguments, going on to suggest they wouldn't stand the analysis of any secondary-school child in Australia. It was a febrile atmosphere. The Senate was finely balanced, with Steele Hall at the fulcrum. Having again rejected the legislation that brought about the simultaneous dissolution, a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Representatives occurred. It's poignant to consider that the Senate is considering this condolence motion a week after the 50th anniversary of this unique event in Australian political history. Three of the bills before the joint sitting dealt with electoral matters. Steele Hall supported these bills, consistent with the part he had played as premier in improving unequal electoral arrangements in South Australia against the opposition of some in his own party. Yet again he put democracy ahead of party allegiance. He opened his remarks by saying, 'One the tragedies of the non-Labor side of politics in Australia is that it almost invariably stands against the extension of the franchise to its fullest.' The following year, through a series of events, the coalition gained capacity to block supply in the Senate, actions that brought about the dismissal of the Whitlam government. Again, taking a principled stance, Steele Hall wanted no part of this tactic. Indeed, he called for the Senate to be a house of review, not a house of execution, and advocated for the removal of the Senate's power to block supply. Political realities in South Australia saw the Liberal Movement and the Liberal and Country League come together in 1976. Steele Hall, who was not part of the negotiations, committed not to seek Liberal preselection for the Senate. As a consequence, in 1977, he resigned his place in the Senate to contest the now abolished House of Representatives division of Hawker. In recognition of how the roots of the Liberal Movement had taken hold elsewhere, he was replaced by a senator from the Australian Democrats. Not successful in his initial attempts to continue his political career in a third parliamentary chamber, Steele Hall achieved this aim in 1981, when he won a by-election in the division of Boothby, having defeated Alexander Downer for pre-selection. He was re-elected five times before his retirement. It's difficult to express to this chamber how well regarded Steele Hall was through the South Australian community. He was regarded with deep respect and genuine affection by so many South Australians across the political spectrum and community. Although he briefly served as a shadow minister following the election of the Hawke government, the majority of Steele Hall's remaining time in parliament was on the backbench. However, he did not cease to be the courageous and independent thinker he had demonstrated himself to be. He was courageous, he was principled and he thought independently. Steele Hall was particularly sceptical about the leadership of John Howard, including Howard's call for a reduction of Asian immigration in 1988. He told the House of Representatives at the time: The question has quickly descended from a discussion about the future migrant intake to one about the level of internal racial tolerance. The simple fact is that public opinion is easily led on racial issues. It is now time to unite the community on the race issue before it flares into an ugly reproach for us all. I remember how much his courage and that of other Liberal moderates meant to the Wong family at the time, and to so many like us. Steele Hall's life and contribution to public life will be forever characterised by principle, courage and conviction. He didn't do that which was easy; he did that which was right. He was prepared to act, not in his immediate personal and party political interests but to protect and strengthen our democracy, which, when all is said and done, matters most. He put state and nation above party. These are qualities that are increasingly rare in today's public life. And his passing is a time for all of us to reflect on how we in public life conduct ourselves and on what we are here to do. Once again on behalf of the government, I express my condolences following his passing to Joan Hall, to Steele Hall's family and his friends. Vale. 16:17 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise to speak on the condolence motion before this chamber on the life of the Hon. Raymond Steele Hall and would like to associate myself with the remarks of the leaders in this place. There is no doubt Steele Hall was a legend of Australian and South Australian politics. His passing gives us a significant opportunity to reflect on the amazing contribution that he made not just to our state of South Australia but to our nation in an extensive political career by anybody's interpretation, 1959 to 1996, but, boy, what he packed into those 33 years! He served South Australians as the member for Gouger and for Goyder, as the South Australian Premier, as an Australian senator in this chamber, as well as the federal member for Boothby. Today we won't just remember him as an impressive state and federal politician; we most importantly remember him as a very intelligent man, a man of deep conviction and principle and someone who epitomised the qualities of duty and integrity. His legacy will live on not only in the many people he influenced—and we've heard today the extraordinary influence that he had on your career, Senator Birmingham—but also in the communities that he diligently represented over so much time and the colleagues in the Liberal Party who he mentored and supported over his long career. Mr Hall, like me, was raised in the country. After graduating from Balaclava High School, he worked on his family's wheat and sheep farm in South Australia's beautiful mid north. There seems no doubt that living and working in a rural community in his early life contributed significantly to his commitment to rural and regional South Australia throughout his entire political career. Steele Hall understood firsthand the importance of supporting our regions and our farmers and the benefit our rural and regional communities make to our state and our entire country. It was the opportunity of representing his home community, where he'd worked on the land and supported his family, that is said to have driven his passion to go into politics in the first place. It's a passion that has inspired many in South Australia's Liberal Party and within the community. I have to say that it was, in fact, Mr Hall that first influenced my first connection to politics as a very young child. As outlined by Senator Birmingham, Steele Hall formed the splinter Liberal Movement, the LM, for which my uncle Jack Seekamp ran as a candidate when I was still in junior primary school. I remember being given stickers at the time that said, 'I've got the LM bug.' What kid at the age of seven or so is not excited about running around sticking stickers all over their bedroom, which is exactly what I did—much to my mother's disgust because when they were removed, most of the paint came with them as well. Little did I realise at the time, with Liberal campaign stickers stuck all over my bedroom, that one day I would go on to join and represent the same Liberal values that Mr Hall did. There is no doubt that it is Mr Hall's principled approach to politics that will cement his legacy for a very long time to come. He stood by his convictions above all else—above popularity, party politics or political ambitions. For that, he will be remembered as a legend of the South Australian Liberal Party in its very many guises. For my home town of Renmark in the Riverland of South Australia, Steele Hall will be remembered for his foresight in opposing the Chowilla Dam in preference for water supply security from the Dartmouth Dam. At the time, many people in my home community were convinced about the great boon of the economic benefit of having a dam built on our doorstep. But Steele Hall took a longer-term perspective, supported by his good friend and colleague the then member for Chaffey, Peter Arnold, as well as my uncle Jack, which is probably the reason why he eventually stood as a candidate in Steele's newly formed party. All three men, and a handful of others—I say only a handful because many didn't support them—believed that the Chowilla Dam would have been an absolute environmental disaster. Who would have thought one of the first actions of environmental activism would actually have come from the Liberal Party! The damming of the River Murray, of the Chowilla Creek and of the Monoman with a 5.5 kilometre wall would have flooded an area upstream of Renmark in excess of 1,370 square kilometres. They also realised that this water mass would have a huge impact on salinity levels downstream. Because of the huge water service and the shallowness of the dam, it would result in massive evaporation losses, which would have made the Chowilla dam a very inefficient water supply. Hindsight shows that the dam, if it had been built in my home town of Renmark, would no longer exist. Luckily common sense prevailed at the time, and the dam was never built. Steele Hall's time as premier was defined by his preparedness to stand up for what he believed in, even when it meant that his time as the premier was to be compromised. His conviction was stronger than his personal self-interest. He always believed in what was right. But first and foremost, Steele Hall was a husband, father and a grandfather, and my sincere condolences go to you, Joan, and to your family. It is an amazing career and one that many South Australians and Australians will reflect on for a long time to come. Vale, Steele Hall. 16:23 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Hello, Joan and loved ones watching on. I didn't know Steele personally, but what a reputation. Steele Hall wasn't just a legend of the Liberal Party; he will forever remain a South Australian hero. In his time in the South Australia legislature, he was known for pragmatism, common sense, independence and strength of conviction, ambition and a strong sense of justice. We've all heard some of that today. In his time as member for Boothby, the strength of his convictions continued to be demonstrated by his crossing the floor to vote against the use of race as a criterion for selecting immigrants. When I came into this place, in my first speech in 2022, I talked of too much talk of race rather than on the individual. In politics as in life, Steele Hall was a great statesman and understood the importance of his position and about the love of South Australia. I also recognise that it is because of people like Steele that I stand in this place today. I would like to offer you my sincere condolences—to you and his family. Steele used his time on this earth well, and he used his time in our party well. May Steele now rest in peace. 16:24 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I'd like to acknowledge Joan here and I rise to support the remarks of my colleagues, particularly those of Senator Birmingham. I won't repeat all the remarks. They have done Steele proud by recounting his long and illustrious career. I just want to make the point that Steele represents something that I think all should aspire to, which is to value our parliament and the parliamentary system, to value the fact that you need parties of government and also to value the fact that, ultimately, you must put nation first, followed by state, followed by your party and then followed by your own self-interest. If democracy is to work, that is how everyone should work. Steele modelled that, and he served the nation and our state. For that, we say thanks for many years. I don't necessarily say that I would have agreed, if I had served with him, with all of his decisions, but the fact that he was true to them is something that we should celebrate and seek to emulate. Many times, when we give speeches in this place on motions of condolence, we thank families for releasing their loved ones to serve. In the case of Joan, not only do we thank you, but we thank you for your service as the member for Coles and the member for Morialta and for your service with Steele. But that's also flowed through to your family. Your son, Ben, served Alan Ferguson, who was my predecessor in the Senate, and Ben went on to serve in the Australian Army for eight years and is now making his own mark overseas. We remember Steele. Joan, we say condolences to you and your extended family. Vale, Steele Hall. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I add my own condolences to you, Joan, and your family. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. NOTICES 2753 NOTICES Presentation 2753 16:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bill This Bill would amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to place the Construction and General Division, and each branch of the Construction and General Division, of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union into administration and make related provision. Reasons for Urgency On 13 July 2024, The Age, the Australian Financial Review and the Sydney Morning Herald published details of an investigation they had undertaken into the Construction and General Division involving serious allegations of wrongdoing by its officials and those associated with the Construction and General Division. On 14 July 2024, similar allegations on the 60 Minutes television program were broadcast. Further allegations have reported on since. Those allegations include statements about alleged links between some Construction and General Division officials and various persons with criminal histories, including persons associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs, and some statements alleging that persons had represented themselves to employers within the building industry as being able to procure the agreement of the Construction and General Division to make an enterprise agreement with the employer which would facilitate that employer obtaining building or construction projects. The Bill requires passage in the 2024 Spring sittings to provide an effective response to the grave allegations that have been made, with the necessary speed and efficiency. Presentation 2754 BUSINESS 2755 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 2755 16:27 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators, for personal reasons: (a) Senator Antic from 12 August to 22 August 2024; and (b) Senator Nampijinpa Price for today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 2755 16:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Barbara Pocock from 12 to 22 August 2024, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 2755 NOTICES Withdrawal 2755 16:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Shoebridge and Senator Thorpe, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 121, standing in their names. While I'm on my feet, I, at the request of Senator Shoebridge, withdraw business of the Senate motion No. 2, standing in his name, for today. CONDOLENCES 2755 CONDOLENCES Steedman, Mr Alan Peter (Pete) 2755 16:30 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 10 July 2024, of Alan Peter 'Pete' Steedman, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Casey, in Victoria, from 1983 to 1984. BUSINESS 2755 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 2755 16:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the following general business orders of the day be considered this week at the time for private senators' bills: No. 26—COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022—on Wednesday, 14 August 2024; and No. 47—Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023—on Thursday, 15 August 2024. Question agreed to. NOTICES 2755 NOTICES Postponement 2755 16:31 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 If there be no objection, the business is postponed. There are no objections. COMMITTEES 2756 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 2756 16:32 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Is there any objection? There is no objection. MATTERS OF URGENCY 2756 MATTERS OF URGENCY Browse Gas Project 2756 16:32 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 12 August 2024, from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Federal Government to unequivocally rule out approval of Woodside's Browse gas project following Western Australian Environment Protection Authority advice that its impacts on Scott Reef and its threatened wildlife are unacceptable." Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Federal Government to unequivocally rule out approval of Woodside's Browse gas project following Western Australian Environment Protection Authority advice that its impacts on Scott Reef and its threatened wildlife are unacceptable. I rise to contribute to this important debate today because one of our country's most precious places is under serious threat. Scott Reef, in Western Australia, is an ancient coral reef. It has been growing for over 15 million years. With at least 29 species of marine mammals, 41 species of birds and almost a thousand species of fish, sharks and rays, it's a very, very special part of our ocean. Last week, WA's own environmental protection authority revealed their preliminary recommendation that Woodside's Browse project—that is, a big gas well—would have unacceptable impacts on the environment. Now, this proposal from Woodside is for $30 billion to drill for gas in the heart of this very, very special part of Scott Reef and would continue until 2070 or beyond. The Environmental Protection Authority of Western Australia doesn't make these decisions lightly—in fact, it's virtually unheard of. This authority is saying the threat to the environment at Scott Reef is so concerning that this project should not be given environmental approval. The EPA says it will have unacceptable impacts on endangered green turtles and their nesting areas sinking below the sea level and unacceptable impacts on blue pygmy whales, who pass through on their migration. The EPA is very, very concerned at what would happen in the event—a devastating turn of events—that there was an oil spill on Scott Reef. There are moments when big projects like this need to be called out for being unacceptable. We have some very precious and ancient environments right around this country, and over and over again we see development and corporations come in and argue that, because of their desire to drill in that area or to build or to knock down or to log, the environment will just need to cop it. Sometimes we need to say no, and the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority is saying, 'No, this is unacceptable.' We don't need to change any law to make this happen. We actually have environmental laws. They are not perfect; they are pretty weak. But do you know what? They would stop this project in its tracks, if they were implemented properly by the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek. So the environment minister has a very big choice to make—to listen to the scientists and the experts to protect this precious ancient reef, to look after the sea turtles, to protect the whales, to make sure those migratory birds and those very special fish and those shark species are looked after, to make sure there isn't an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to them. The environment minister needs to do their job. Rule this out of order. Agree with the WA EPA that the environmental impacts are simply unacceptable. This is no place to drill for gas. This is not an area that should be sacrificed just because Woodside wants it. 16:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's all or nothing with the Australian Greens when it comes to projects that need to occur across our country. I note that this motion calls on the Commonwealth government to unequivocally rule out approval for the project that's been mentioned here, a project described by the Prime Minister as one that is needed for energy reliability. That's something that wasn't canvassed in the contribution we've just heard or, indeed, canvassed in the motion we have before us, and that is part of my problem with the debate we're about to have. There is one word that you will never hear pass the lips of the Australian Greens, and it starts with the letter B. It's the word 'balance'. There should be a balance between the considerations of environment, the need to protect what is fragile, what is special and what needs to be looked after for future generations, against the economic imperative we have—the need to have economic activity and productivity, the need to bring down power prices, the need to have jobs in our country. A balancing of those considerations is absolutely essential, but it's something that isn't in any way considered in what we have before us here. It really is a sneak preview into something I think we may, as a country, see more and more of as time progresses. While I'm on it, a news poll came out overnight which pointed to the high likelihood of there being a hung parliament after their next election. Coming from the great state of Tasmania, which has had more than its fair share of hung parliaments, I know what goes into decline with a hung parliament, where there's a power-sharing arrangement with a particular cohort—the Australian Greens or perhaps the Tasmanian Greens. It's the economy. Jobs go missing; they go offshore. Standard of living heads south like there's no tomorrow. And this is a sneak preview of the kind of thinking we're going to have in this brave new world of coalition governments between the Greens and the Labor Party, if the polls are to be believed. I hope they're wrong, and I'll be doing my darndest to ensure that they're not accurate come election day, but I know exactly— Senator Chisholm 39801 What about Jeremy Rockliff? Senator DUNIAM 263418 Well, to take an interjection from the assistant minister, the good thing is the Liberals in Tasmania are not in coalition with the Greens—thank the good Lord, I say. One other thing that didn't really rate a mention in the last contribution—and I expect we won't hear it in any other contribution in relation to this, perhaps even from the government—is that we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and that is in part because of the cost of energy. This project isn't there just because Woodside want to make a dirty, great, big profit and want to destroy the environment. It's actually because we need energy to be fed into the grid. There's this shocking notion that we need resources to make our economy tick over—as if it's going to come out of thin air if we don't get it out of projects like this. The idea that, frankly, we don't need these projects to be able to generate energy in our current energy mix is quite fanciful, and, again, it demonstrates just how out of touch the Australian Greens are when it comes to ensuring we have stability in our economy and indeed in our grid. But, again, why would we worry about that when they're going to be in charge after the next election, calling the shots! It'll be the Greens tail wagging the Labor dog, if the polls are to be believed. Of course, one could be forgiven for thinking that the federal environment minister would give in to such a demand from the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens are calling on the government to unequivocally rule out this project, calling on the Australian government— Senator DUNIAM 263418 It is not an EPA motion, just to take Senator Hanson-Young's interjection there. It's a motion from Senator McKim that the federal government unequivocally rule out approval for this project, so it is a Greens motion. Frankly, I would not be surprised if the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, did rule it out, because of course the Greens are snapping at her heels in her electorate. It's the kind of thing that she will be worried about in terms of her own re-election chances and of making sure that green votes flow to her in her seat. So decisions will be made on a political basis rather than a practical one—one where we should be balancing these considerations. It's the material approach: balancing the economic against the environmental and factoring in that thing I mentioned before and I hope we hear a bit more about—but I doubt we will—and that is the cost-of-living crisis that is absolutely crippling Australian households, making it hard for business to do what they do best. (Time expired) 16:42 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia This motion is calling for us to rule out something that is currently in the middle of a process. The Greens are getting quite vexed about the fact that the EPA WA advice has caused this project to be put on hold while further information is obtained, but that is surely exactly what we want in this country—that, when projects and ideas are put forward, they are fully scrutinised and the process is followed so that that scrutiny follows all of the various elements of the EPBC Act. That's so we know that, at the end of the day, if a project gets up then it's going to be a good project and that, if it's not going to get up, that's because it will do too much damage and will not be an appropriate pathway. But this is what happens in every single case. The decisions are looked at in accordance with the facts and in accordance with the law. It is not appropriate to unpack that specific detail while those processes are ongoing. The federal environment department has paused the assessment, so this assessment is on hold. Just to be clear, because there seems to be a great deal of confusion here, it's on hold because there are questions to be answered. That is exactly what the process affords, and that is exactly what's occurred. The decision about this project will go no further until that information has been received from the Western Australian government and from Woodside. Surely that's exactly what we want? We know that there are shortcomings with the EPBC. Labor's been talking about that for years and years. We have tried so hard to get movement on this. It could well be that, if the Greens want stronger laws, as Labor does, they get onside with our EPBC work. Rather than standing in the way, refusing to engage and whipping up excitement with the environmental groups, they could actually become constructive. They could maybe come up with some ideas, maybe get on board with that whole consultation and the work that we're doing and be the collaborative partner in getting a better outcome—a novel idea, but worth a thought, though. Right? We have done so much since we came to government, two-and-a-bit years ago, to try and strengthen our environmental protections. We've done so much to try and strengthen our climate scenario here, to put in place solid policies to deal with emissions and to improve and increase the renewable energy that is available in this country, and we are, once again, stuck in a situation between 'too much' and 'not enough'. What is missing from a lot of these debates is any form of collaboration or any sense of having a meaningful conversation about what this country needs. What this country needs is more renewable energy to bring down those prices. So, Senator Duniam, it's exactly the case you're making: we need to lower energy prices. One of the ways to do that is to increase our renewables—to make a structured change in our electricity sector that also recognises the change we need in our economy. We have in front of us a motion that is, to be honest, quite ridiculous, because the process is in train. There are laws, structures, going along as they should. Issues have been raised with this project. It has been placed on hold, while further information is obtained to work out what the situation is here: is it a project that should go ahead or is it a project that should not? That process is underway. This motion is another stunt so we can sit around and talk about the 'Don't do anything,' and the 'You're doing too much,' which will get us precisely nowhere. (Time expired) 16:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Western Australia's environmental protection agency has recommended that the Woodside's Browse Basin gas project not proceed. This Greens motion celebrates that recommendation, which was based, in part, on the effect of gas platforms on migrating whales. The Greens support offshore wind turbines off the Illawarra and Hunter coasts—turbines that are not fixed to the seabed but rather held in place by a spaghetti of cables. Those cables are likely to gather debris and provide a substantial hazard for migrating whales. This inconsistency is easily explained: the Greens are happy to use the natural environment only when it suits their political ideology. Offshore wind, the environmental destruction of native forest for wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines and access roads are all okay as long as the net zero wrecking ball continues. The north-west of Western Australia holds 97 per cent of Australia's gas reserves. It makes economic and environmental sense to use that resource for the benefit of all Australians—of course, not in a manner that damages the natural environment, which One Nation cares about all the time, not just when it is convenient. The canary in the net zero maze is South Australia, which no longer has base-load coal power and must rely on gas to keep the power on. The elimination of coal is disastrous enough. If the green lobby is successful in eliminating gas, then Australia would be forced into energy deficiency. The most energy-rich country in the world will not be able to provide enough energy for Australians to live without energy rationing—control of your energy use. One Nation has introduced a bill to create a domestic gas reservation to ensure 15 per cent of Australia's gas production is reserved for Australians. This will keep the power prices down and keep the lights on—not as low as ending this crazy ideological war on coal and nuclear power, yet it will help. Is it any wonder that the Greens oppose these measures? The Greens want everyday Australians to have less, consume less, be less and be controlled. 16:49 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I support this urgency motion brought by Senator McKim today. Pulau Dato is actually the traditional Macassan name used by the Indonesians for Scott Reef. Scott Reef makes up two groups of reefs that are 300 kilometres off the Western Australian coast in the Timor Sea. Most people in this place wouldn't have visited a wonderful place like Scott Reef. With an abundance of ocean life, it sits in the middle of the migratory route of the pygmy blue whale. As a First Nations person I know that there are, in fact, two songlines of whales. One of them goes through my country, and the other goes to the north, around through the Bass Strait and out to the Pacific. We call the whales the elders of the sea. It's our connection between the land, the animals, our lore and sea country, and it's something that we celebrate greatly. But there are 28 other kinds of marine mammals and thousands of other kinds of fish that are out there at Scott Reef, not to mention the abundance of coral. It is places like Scott Reef that are used for an economic base, so I reject Senator Duniam's conversation around how the Australian Greens are not also concerned about this. This actually represents part of the transnational boundary. Indonesian people go to areas around Scott Reef for the collection of sea cucumber and seaweed—and the protection of seagrass in areas like that. These places are precious, because we currently don't have the protection with any legislation, whether it be the EPBC or the OPGGS legislation—offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas. We see time and time again the state capture of the two majors in this place. And in my home state of Western Australia we also see the destruction of climate change and the impact that has on places like the Kimberley. In the East Kimberley just last year there was a flood, for the first time in 120 years, that destroyed the Fitzroy River Bridge, at Fitzroy Crossing. And it is projects like the Browse project, not the use of domestic reservation on the North West Shelf, which comes and flows down the west coast all the way to Perth. That's a myth. The parliamentary committee and the state parliament have already done an inquiry into this. They're supposed to give 15 per cent of the gas out of the North West Shelf to the WA people. Do you know how much they give? It's seven per cent. They're not even halfway into 15 per cent. So it's some fantasy that people have. But it's the First Nations people that have connection to this sea country who have said: 'We don't want the Browse project. We don't want the destruction of the abundance of sea life that exists in the Timor Sea.' On top of that, it's going to pump millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. We've been in this fight before in this area, and I want to acknowledge the work of former Greens senators Rachel Siewert and Scott Ludlam, who were at the front line of the James Price Point protests. When the Browse was first introduced, they were at the front of those picket lines and protests, helping out, shouting louder, echoing what the communities of Cape Leveque, north of Broome, were saying. They knew the destruction. They knew the displacement. They knew that people would be forced from country and from doing recreation like fishing at their favourite spots in case there was an oil spill. We know that methane leaks out of some of these wells already, and they're already not being regulated. The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority is clear, and we need the federal government to back that in. 16:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Scott Reef is our nation's largest oceanic reef system. Some senators might be surprised that it's not the Great Barrier Reef, but it is indeed Scott Reef. It is also one of the most biodiverse oceanic ecosystems in our country. Underneath Scott Reef, precisely because of its geology, lies the country's biggest untapped conventional gas deposit, the Browse deposit. If developed, this deposit would underwrite the North West Shelf assets for Woodside, and the planned Burrup Hub. One project alone would emit 4.3 billion tonnes of carbon into our atmosphere. That is equivalent to 10 years of this nation's emissions—every car, every cow, everything, in one project. Not only will the planned wells that Woodside want to drill—up to 50 of them within two kilometres of this precious ecosystem—risk the endangered and rare pygmy blue whales that migrate through this area, green turtles and hundreds of other invertebrates and marine creatures; we'll be burning those fossil fuels at a time where we've seen, on the east coast of Australia, the Great Barrier Reef record the highest ocean temperatures in 400 years and the seventh mass coral bleaching event in just over 30 years. It's almost hard to believe we are even contemplating approving a project like this. It beggars belief. It flies in the face of all the evidence and the logic we know. For the senators who've said it's somehow some kind of stunt that we've put up a motion on this, let me tell you why the Australian Greens have put up this motion today. We know that this is a corrupted political system and that big companies like Woodside Energy always get their way in this place, and they always have. And if you think the EPA WA declaration that was given—or leaked—to the media, saying that this project cannot proceed because it is too risky, means that they're beyond political interference, think again. I saw, in the paper the other day, Mark McGowan standing with the CEO of Woodside. We know there's been political interference with the EPA's decisions before. They very rarely ever reject a project, but they have very clearly said this is too risky. Remember the Great Barrier Reef was declared a national park and World Heritage Area to avoid oil and gas drilling on its structures. Woodside and the other oil and gas fossil fuel giants that want to access these resources for their profits are insatiable, and our political system supports that. That is why we are bringing this forward. If we accept and approve these projects—and it is in front of the federal environment minister as it is in front of the Western Australian authorities—we are condemning future generations on this planet to climate hell. Every weather record around the world is being broken. We're still seeing record temperatures in our oceans around the planet. We saw record temperatures in Japan this week, after record temperatures in China and across the Middle East. We are in a climate breakdown. How foolish and stupid are we to even think about approving a project like this? We owe it to future generations to stand up and say: 'No. We can do better than this. We are smarter than this. We are not going to corrupted by the greed of a company fighting a rearguard action to protect its profits and its shareholders' profits.' To finish my contribution: that is why the major parties are losing votes. I heard Senator Birmingham reflect on that earlier today. This is why one in three Australians are voting outside the major parties. Labor's Future Gas Strategy was a present to the fossil fuel industry. The Greens won't stand for this kind of development. (Time expired) 16:59 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Woodside wants to turn the pristine waters of Western Australia into an industrial gas zone. The fossil fuel giant is already ploughing ahead with the first stage of its Burrup Hub, drilling up to 30 gas wells at Scarborough, near Ningaloo Reef. Now Woodside has his sights set on the national treasure of Scott Reef, off the Kimberley coast, a biodiversity hotspot, home to the ancient coral which has grown for over 15 million years. Woodside wants to drill 50 additional wells at Browse, some as close as two kilometres from the reef itself. Extracting the gas will create a void under the reef, causing it to sink into the ocean. When research showed that Sandy Inlet, a part of Scott Reef where hundreds of threatened green sea turtles lay their eggs each year, was in danger of being washed away permanently due to Browse, do you know what Woodside's response was? Sandy Inlet would wash away anyway due to sea level rise from climate change, and drilling for gas at Browse would likely just make that process happen faster. The audacity of Woodside to profit from extracting and burning gas, resulting in sea level rise, and to then claim that the additional destruction caused by Browse doesn't matter—well, it matters to the hundreds of threatened green sea turtles, and it matters to the millions of Australians who would rather protect our precious marine environment than see it drilled for gas, which will still be operating in 2070, well past the deadline for Australia to phase out the fossil fuels. Recent reporting at Western Australia's EPA has confirmed what we have long known—Woodside's Browse project would be devastating for the environment in Western Australia and is an unacceptable risk. Woodside's own environmental approval documents show a worst-case oil spill at Browse would cover Scott Reef and 54 endangered species such as whales, sharks, fish, turtles and coral. Putting our marine life at risk to suit the financial interests of one of the world's polluters is unacceptable. For Labor to urge protection of the Great Barrier Reef on one side of the country and approve Woodside's Browse project on the other side of the country would be hypocritical at best and a disaster for nature at its worst. The federal environment minister has the power to protect Scott Reef and the endangered wildlife that call it home by rejecting this project and its unacceptable impacts. Minister Tanya Plibersek must unequivocally rule out Woodside's environment-wrecking project and instead protect this precious ecosystem. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young, on behalf of Senator McKim, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:07]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2761 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 2761 17:09 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 A letter has been received from Senator McGrath: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) told the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living that government spending means that interest rates must be higher for longer, but instead of heeding this warning and reducing spending to allow the RBA to cut rates, Labor has spent an additional $315 billion since coming to office, and told Australians they should be grateful the Government is being 'so helpful'. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:09 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I think it is very handy to read out this matter of public importance for those who are playing along at home. I will read out what this debate is about today and why it is a matter of public importance—that is, the Reserve Bank of Australia told the Senate cost of living committee that government spending means that interest rates must be higher for longer. But, instead of heeding this warning and reducing spending to allow the Reserve Bank of Australia to cut rates, Labor has spent an additional $315 billion since coming to office and told Australians they should be grateful the government is being so helpful. It is very much a Marie Antoinette approach to fiscal policy—that is, the mob are doing it tough, but you should be grateful you have the Labor Party in power because we are being so nice to you. The thing is it is actually the policies of the Labor Party that are causing Australians, in particular Queenslanders, my constituents, a lot of pain and a lot of suffering. When it comes to inflation, that means the cost of living. Australia is in a cost-of-living crisis that has been caused by the policy decisions of this Labor-Green government. If you have a mortgage—and the average mortgage in Australia at the moment is about $750,000—since Labor have come to power, you are now $35,000 a year worse off because of the Labor Party, because of the 12 interest rate rises that have happened under the watch of the Labor Party. So you are in middle Australia, you have a mortgage, you're doing it tough, but it's even tougher because of the Labor Party. The Labor Party profess to be the friends of working Australians, but working Australians have found out since Labor have come to power that the price of food has gone up 11 per cent, health has gone up 11 per cent, education has gone up 11 per cent, housing has gone up 15 per cent, rent has gone up 15 per cent, financial and insurance issues have gone up 17 per cent, electricity has gone up 22 per cent—I will come back to electricity in a moment—and gas is up 25 per cent. It is a cost-of-living crisis. And what do we get from the Labor Party? Well, it is the political equivalent of crickets or the political equivalent of a fruit salad in terms of the words that they throw at this particular issue, but they are failing to take any real action apart from making it worse. I mentioned that electricity had gone up 22 per cent since Labor have come to power. Who can forget that before the last election Anthony Albanese promised at least 97 times that he would cut your power bills by $275? That was a core promise, a core commitment. He so believed it he said it 97 times. Well, hands up in this chamber if you think your power bills have gone down by $275? Just so those people following along who have the misfortune of reading this Hansard later know, no-one put their hand up. In fact, across Australia no-one is putting their hand up to show that their power bills have gone down by $275. Labor will promise anything before an election to try and get in, but, ultimately, the Australia people always find out that Labor will always cost you more. Before the last election, the coalition said that life would not be easy under Mr Albanese. How right we were, because life under Mr Albanese and the Labor Party government is actually really tough at the moment. But what we do have is a prime minister who likes to spend time on the red carpet, who likes to go to celebrity weddings, a prime minister who is actually not across his brief, a prime minister who is frankly not just a disappointment but a disaster for Australia, and the sooner he calls an election, the better so that we can throw out this Labor government and bring in Peter Dutton as Prime Minister. 17:14 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania What a stark contrast from those opposite, who had 10 years in government and left mess after mess. We've just had that contribution without giving any credit to our government, because, let's not forget that, when they were in government, they were opposed to Australian workers getting any pay rise. It was actually their policy—which they admitted—to keep wages low, but, under our government, wages are going up for Australian workers. That is helping with the cost-of-living crisis that we already acknowledge, and it's why we have taken measures to ensure that we do everything we can to tackle inflation. We know that inflation has, in fact, started to moderate. There is no doubt that Australians are better off since the election of the Albanese Labor government. But we know that it hasn't just been the tax cuts that Australian workers have received from their first pay packet after 1 July this year. Not only have they got that tax cut but they got a tax cut twice the size, on average, of what those opposite committed to when they were in government. Since we made the announcement that we were going to increase it and, in fact, give a tax cut to low-paid Australian workers, those opposite have had so many different positions to stop it, cut it or take it back to what it was. It's a bit like their energy policy. They're now up to 23 energy policies during the time they were in government and now in opposition, and we know the disastrous energy policy that Mr Dutton has been putting forward. But this government is taking real action to address the cost of living, unlike those opposite when they were in government. Their attitude now is just to let the pain continue on and let it rip through the Australian economy. We just had a contribution where they talked about whether or not your energy bills have gone down by $275. Obviously, they were not paying attention to the budget, because this government is delivering $300 energy payments for residential homes and $350 for small businesses. What did they do with that legislation? They voted against it. That's what they did because this is an opposition led by Mr Dutton, who's better known now as 'No-no-no'. What did they do when the energy legislation came through to support residences and small businesses? What did they do with that legislation? That's right—they voted against it. They voted against the tax cuts, and they voted against the energy levy that we were giving to Australian residents. What did they do when we introduced cheaper medicines? That's right—they voted against that as well. When we increased scripts to 60 days to help people with their medicines, which means fewer visits to the GP, which saves them money and allows more people to see GPs, what did they do with that measure? They voted against it. They voted against better wages for people who care for our most vulnerable and people who live in residential aged care. They voted against that. They have not supported any of our measures to actually help with a strategy to reduce the cost-of-living pressure on Australian families. We've introduced cheaper child care. We've also just committed to a 15 per cent pay increase for early childhood educators. That is good for the early childhood educators. It will mean that more people will be attracted to work in that very important area of responsibility. It is good for families. We want centres not to increase their prices, obviously, just because that money is rolling out. The real benefits, as well, for tax cuts, for energy, for all the measures that we put in place— (Time expired) 17:20 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Millions of Australians are getting smashed by high inflation and the high interest rates that follow from that. Do you know who's not getting smashed? The big corporations who are making obscene profits, which are actually driving inflation up. What is Labor doing about this? Absolutely nothing. Labor is refusing to go after the big corporates who donate so generously to Labor Party coffers, refusing to take on their greed and their profiteering, and refusing to take action that would help reduce inflation. A corporate super profits tax would remove the incentive for corporations to profiteer. Make price gouging illegal to stop the big corporations price gouging. Break up the supermarket duopoly and put more competition into the supermarket sector. The result will be cheaper food and grocery prices. Freeze rent increases. Provide some relief to renters. If Labor did these things, it would allow the RBA to bring down interest rates, providing relief to mortgage holders. The Australian Greens stand ready to take on the big corporations, in this place. It's just a crying shame that the Labor Party is not ready to join us. 17:21 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The government have done everything they can to make housing in Australia so much worse than it was when they came to office over two years ago. All you need to do is look at what the RBA said in their announcement last week, where they said that they were looking to now only hit target inflation in 2027 because, 'In part, this owes to a stronger outlook for domestic demand'. The government is spending too much money, which is driving increased demand from the public sector, and that is keeping the pressure on the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank is considering its position on whether it needs to increase rates, rather than cut rates, as we've seen in comparable economies. What does this all mean? It means that we have a persistent inflation problem, which not only makes things much harder for prospective homeowners but also for renters. It comes on top of a series of disasters in the housing portfolio, which has recently been flipped by the Prime Minister in his reshuffle, where he sacked the old housing minister and appointed a new one. The problem with the new housing minister is that the new housing minister is committed to the same policies as the last housing minister. We've seen, frankly, a disaster in relation to this Housing Australia Future Fund slush fund, we've seen a failure on the housing targets and then we've seen this build-to-rent idea. The idea here is for foreign corporations, foreign fund managers, to become the landlords to Australians. This is a massive perversion of the Australian dream—a twisting of the Australian dream, from a dream where people own their own houses to an idea where your house is owned by BlackRock, Vanguard or Cbus. That is a disgusting perversion of the Australian dream, which has been perpetrated by this Labor government. We've seen today that the new minister, Minister O'Neil, has said on radio, 'And what I can tell you is the Treasury modelling for this bill tells us that we'll have an additional 160,000 houses'. That is the end of the quote, and it's also false in the sense that Treasury never did that modelling—and that has been exposed as a huge mistake. The point here is not so much that the minister has made a gaffe—I understand that people get things wrong from time to time—it is that the policy itself is a sick idea because it gives up on the idea of individual ownership and agency and hands the keys to the city, so to speak, to the foreign fund managers. Foreign fund managers are the only people that are going to get a tax cut to build a house. Go figure! We've now seen the disaster of the shared equity schemes, which the government hasn't even brought on for a vote. When you think about this broader position on housing, which is a massive problem the Australian people face, we've always been a country where people could afford to buy a house of their own. Now we have a position where that is getting away from the average worker. So what are the things that the Commonwealth government could do to help here? There are limited options because we don't run the planning system, so the interventions from the Commonwealth government need to be very carefully calibrated. We hear nothing from the new minister or the old minister on banking and lending policy. We hear very little on super, which is a Commonwealth issue, other than trying to help the big super funds buy the houses and lease them out to Australians like they are serfs. We have seen this with the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will go down in history, I'm sure, as one of Labor's greatest boondoggle slush funds. These slush funds are never good ideas, because you end up running them for the unions and other vested interests. In this case, I think this Housing Australia Future Fund wanting to partner with the super funds will be a disaster, because Australians don't want to lease their home or rent their house from a super fund; they want to own it themselves. So you see nothing on banking, nothing on super. The only things on tax are proposals that are bandied around in Labor's caucus to increase taxes on houses like negative gearing or capital gains tax, or of course the idea that you cut taxes for the build-to-rent class—the Vanguards, BlackRocks and the other foreign fund managers. So far this has been Labor's worst policy ever, you would have to say. There are a few to compete with, but housing has been a disaster. The people who are paying the price here are the renters and the prospective homebuyers, who have seen the Australian dream slip away. 17:26 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria We are proud of the work that we are doing to push inflation down, to get the economy moving and to help Australians in what we know are tough times. Those opposite should remember that we inherited from them inflation with a six in front of it. It now has a three in front of it. We also inherited from them the slowest wage growth on record. We are getting wages moving in this country again, particularly for our lowest-paid Australian workers. On the one hand, we inherited from those opposite budget deficits as far as the eye could see, from a coalition government that, despite those deficits, still failed to invest in the services that Australians actually want and need. On the other hand, our government has delivered two surpluses and we have delivered those surpluses while continuing to provide the support that Australians need and that Australians rely on, including tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer and energy bill relief for households and businesses too. Despite the words in the motion, this is a fact that is actually acknowledged by the Reserve Bank governor, who is invoked by those opposite. The RBA governor said: My job and the Reserve Bank's job is to get inflation down. The governments have a different job. Their job is also to get inflation down, and they acknowledge that, but it's also to provide services and infrastructure for the Australian people. She further said, 'My personal view is that they are doing what they can do.' So if those opposite are coming in here today to tell the Australian people that they are concerned about government spending then they need to also tell the Australian people exactly what it is that they are going to slash if they have the chance at government again. They need to tell the Australian people what it is that they want to cut. Is it the energy bill relief? Is that what it is? Would it be Medicare again, like they slashed on their last watch? What will it be? Will they go after the wages of the Australian people again? Because we know that under those opposite low wages were a deliberate design feature of the economy. We don't do things that way. We know that Australia's lowest-paid workers right now are receiving their third wage increase backed by and supported by our government, wage increases that those opposite just don't want to see. They want to see low wages as a deliberate design feature of the economy. Early childhood educators will receive a 15 per cent pay rise under our government, off the back of the 15 per cent already delivered to aged-care workers. Wages are moving again in this country. Our responsible budget management is paying dividends. We are returning revenue to the bottom line. We've delivered back-to-back surpluses for the first time in almost two decades, surpluses that we know have been acknowledged by the RBA governor herself, again invoked in your motion, as putting downward pressure on inflation. Those opposite couldn't even deliver one surplus. We've delivered those surpluses all while delivering at the same time cost-of-living measures that actually help Australians, like those tax cuts for 13.6 million taxpaying Australians—every single taxpayer, not just a few—or like those $300 energy rebates for every Australian household and those $325 rebates for small businesses. This government, our government, knows that you can tackle inflation and you can deliver the services and the relief that Australians need at the same time. But those opposite just continue with motions like this, with comments that they make, to threaten the measures that actually are there to help all Australians. So, if the opposition want to target government spending, they need to come clean and tell the Australian people what they are proposing to cut should they get the chance. Is it those energy rebates? Is that what it is? Would they cut wages for our essential and undervalued early childhood educators? Is it the wage increases that they can't decide their position on today? Would they close the door of our Medicare urgent care clinics? We know they loved cutting Medicare when they had the chance. So, when it comes to inflation, those opposite have no plan. They have no answers and no problems with cutting the services Australians need. (Time expired) 17:31 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Every day, millions of Australians feel the crushing stress of living on Centrelink. They're not turning on the heating to save on bills, they're foregoing necessary medication and they're choosing between paying rent and eating. Families are being evicted into homelessness. Pensioners are sleeping in their cars. Parents are skipping meals to keep a roof over their kids' heads. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one should have to live like this. Labor promised when they came to power that no-one would be left behind. Yet people on income support are starving while Labor turns a blind eye. Expert after expert, report after report, inquiry after inquiry, the evidence is clear, and it has been for years. The government must raise the rate of JobSeeker. Poverty is a policy choice. I'm sick of hearing this do-nothing-government list of excuses for why it can't help people. This government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on stage 3 tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, on AUKUS submarines and on tax breaks for fossil fuel companies, all while leaving the most vulnerable Australians to suffer. It's time to get real about the cost of living and make a difference to people's lives. Raise the rate, freeze and cut rents, build public housing, and tax wealthy corporations. 17:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland If you feel like you're going backwards, you are. Inflation is running out of control and is way too high. Wages haven't caught up to cost-of-living increases. When adjusted for inflation, Australia's real wages have collapsed to a level not seen since before 2010. That means that government caused inflation has wiped out 15 years of hard-earned pay rises. The government has its foot on the accelerator now, making it worse, while the Reserve Bank is stomping on the brake for mortgage holders. This coalition motion claims $315 billion of Labor government spending is unhelpful in the inflation fight. The coalition's $508 billion spend on its mismanaged COVID response was just as unhelpful. That created the inflation that Labor is now prolonging. The Liberal-Labor uniparty cannot fix the cost-of-living crisis when both are committed to net zero insanity, making inflation worse. While government subsidises foreign-owned, Chinese-dominated companies to put up environment-destroying wind and solar complexes, inflation will continue. While farmers are restricted from using their land to grow fresh food, inflation will continue. While government crushes small business and lets multinational companies get away with economic murder, inflation will continue. While 40 per cent of the cost of building a new house continues to be taxed, inflation will continue. The solutions are simple: cut the subsidies to the foreign-owned, net zero parasites, and use Australia's abundant oil, coal and gas reserves right here for the benefit of the people in this country. Let farmers be free to use their land to cheaply grow the world's best food so Australians can afford to eat. Finally, adopt One Nation's housing policies that will get Australians into affordable houses. Only One Nation policies will put Australia first and bring inflation under control. To the Labor-Liberal uniparty, stop looking after your mates and start putting the country first. Adopt One Nation's policies on housing and immigration. 17:35 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I was reflecting on a comment that Senator Walsh made about how this government knows how to tackle inflation and deliver services at the same time, and I'm trying to work out why they're not doing it, if they know how to do it. It would be much simpler for all the Australians who are struggling under this cost-of-living crisis if that were the case. It would be a lot simpler for young Australians who can't even fathom renting a property because it's so expensive so much as having the dream or the aspiration of owning their own home, and it would be very helpful to Australians who have seen their mortgages double over the last 15 months or so. So I would suggest that if they do know how to do it, Australians who are struggling under this cost-of-living crisis should be put out of their misery and the government should do its job. On Wednesday last week, the RBA told the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living that government spending means that interest rates must be higher for longer. That's not the opposition saying that; that's the RBA saying that in a Senate select committee. Instead of heeding this warning and reducing spending to allow the RBA to cut rates to ease cost-of-living pressures for everyday Australians, this government has instead spent an additional $315 billion since coming to office, and then it's told Australians that they should be grateful that the government has been so helpful to them in offering all of this cost-of-living relief. The RBA conceded last week that government spending is not helping the inflation problem. The Australian also reported AMP Chief Economist Shane Oliver telling that same committee that he thought the RBA 'should be cutting interest rates now' but argued that increased government spending had cruelled that chance. Again, you have a specific link between interest rates and the doubling of those interest rates for Australians and the economic mismanagement of this government. He went on to say: The Reserve Bank would probably be a lot closer to that if they didn't revise up their growth forecast. Why did they revise up their growth forecast? Partly because they got stronger public spending numbers in there. The RBA's job would be a lot easier if they did haven't the surge in government spending that's been occurring over the last few years. It is very clear that this inflation and cost-of-living crisis is homegrown. There have been comments about things that were inherited. I'm really sorry, but, when you have been government for almost three years, it's time to stop talking about what you think you may have inherited and actually start talking about what you're going to do, particularly when you stated earlier that you know how to do it. Shane Oliver wasn't the only economist making those kinds of comments. It wasn't a one-off. Professor Steven Hamilton made a number of different statements to the inquiry and one really struck me. It was one that the Australian also reported as did other media agencies. He said, 'The RBA has got its foot on the brake, but this government has its foot on the accelerator'. How on earth are the RBA meant to deliver the outcomes that they're trying to achieve when the government is hampering them at every step? The only lever that the RBA has is to lift interest rates, and who does that hurt? It hurts Australian mortgage holders, and it hurts Australian renters. That's about 66 per cent of the economy. The other third of the economy is not impacted in the same way. So what we're effectively doing is we're bashing that same group of people who can't cut their spending. You can't cut back your mortgage repayment. It doesn't work like that. You can't cut back the rent you pay. It doesn't work like that, unless of course you attempt to move, downsize or uproot your family and find something cheaper, which a lot of families, unfortunately, are now having to face the reality of because this government hasn't been able to do their job. I thank my colleague Senator McGrath for putting up this matter, because it is absolutely urgent and important, without question. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for the debate has expired. DOCUMENTS 2765 DOCUMENTS Aged Care 2765 17:40 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to speak on the 2024 progress report: implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, dated June 2024, which is listed as document 8 on the Senate Order of Business. This document is the first statutory report on the Australian government's process in implementing recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. I would like to specifically talk to the update provided on page 125 of the report, which assesses the progress made against recommendation 87 of the royal commission. Recommendation 87 was titled 'Employment status and related labour standards as enforceable standards'. The recommendation called for: 1. By 1 January 2022, the Australian Government should require as an ongoing condition of holding an approval to provide aged care services that a. approved providers: have policies and procedures that preference the direct employment of workers engaged to provide personal care and nursing services on their behalf b. where personal care or nursing work is contracted to another entity, that entity has policies and procedures that preference direct employment of workers for work performed under that contract. 2. From 1 January 2022, quality reviews conducted by the Quality Regulator must include assessing compliance with those policies and procedures and record the extent of use of independent contractors. If I come back to the statutory review released last week, the document noted: The government has committed to implementing a direct employment preference, but the mechanism of how this will be implemented and enforced is still being considered. There is also a comment from the inspector-general, who says: Fundamental aspects of recommendation 87 around preferencing direct employment of workers as a requirement for ongoing approval are still being considered. I note that the work is taking place to implement this recommendation, but it is absolutely essential that this work is put at the core of how we reform the industry. There are vultures operating in our aged-care system—gig platforms like Mable—who are owned by multinational venture capital companies who are making a motza by underpaying the workers that they have classified as contractors. Their work is underpaid against what they would have received under the appropriate award classifications. Those workers don't receive superannuation, which often puts the burden back on every taxpayer. Those workers do not receive workers compensation, which again puts pressure back on every taxpayer. They do not receive minimum shift entitlements, penalty rates or paid leave entitlements, which puts pressure on their cost-of-living pressures. This is all despite Mable being paid by the then federal government a quantum of funding that should have enabled them to pay all these entitlements. On top of all of that, Mable does not pay payroll tax for any of the carers it engages. I'll just go back to this point: at the moment, Mable has actually received, from successive governments, including now, a quantum of funding that should enable them to pay all these entitlements I've just mentioned, but they don't pay them. We have a gig platform owned by multinational venture capital that is both ripping off their workers and ripping off the rest of us through taxes. It's not just workers in government that are getting ripped off. When you rip off taxes, that means the Australian capacity to turn around and put in new initiatives to help all Australians, whether it be in the area of defence, police, fairer wages, gender pay equity and all the appropriate arrangements on education and universities—all those pressures on the many things that we debate in this chamber—is under further pressure because of companies like Mable who don't pay the appropriate wages or have the conditions that many employees would receive. At the end of the day, every taxpayer pays for it and not Mable. It's not just workers in government that are getting ripped off, as I say. Any older Australian or any Australian in the NDIS who engaged Mable probably doesn't realise that Mable does not hold itself accountable for the quality of care that is provided. The platform you are engaging— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Sheldon, the time for the debate has expired. Senator SHELDON 168275 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 2766 National Disability Insurance Scheme, Services Australia 2766 Order for the Production of Documents 2766 17:46 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I table responses to the orders for the production of documents relating to the Information Linkages and Capacity Building grant program and Services Australia. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 2767 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 2767 17:46 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales At the request of the Minister for Social Services, Ms Rishworth, I table the government response to the final report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. 17:47 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 2767 BILLS Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 2767

Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024

Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024

Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

First Reading 2767 17:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 2767 17:48 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— NATURE POSITIVE (ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUSTRALIA) BILL 2024 Labor is committed to a Nature Positive Australia. Our economy, our livelihood and our well-being all depend on the health of our natural world. We are delivering more than ever: on programs, projects, policies and 'on-ground' activities to create a Nature Positive Australia. We want a country in which nature is being repaired and is regenerating rather than being continuing to decline. At the last federal election, Labor made a promise to establish an environment protection agency. To ensure compliance with environmental laws. To improve processes for business. And to centralise data collection and analysis. So there is consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country—to inform decision making and track our progress against our goals. Everybody agrees that the current regulatory system doesn't work. We said we will fix our laws so they're less bureaucratic and provide more certainty for business. And so that they improve nature, protect our unique native plants and animals and prevent extinctions. That's what the community expects and that's what we're delivering. We have had hundreds of hours of consultations with more than 100 groups. We've held public webinars that around 3,000 people have attended. We have received around 2,500 submissions from people and groups passionate about these laws. We are consulting extensively and comprehensively. This is a mature way to develop good policy. We have taken the advice of Professor Graeme Samuel, commissioned by the former Government to report on how the EPBC Act could be improved. We've already completed the first stage of reform. We passed legislation to establish the world's first Nature Repair market and expanded the water trigger to apply to all unconventional gas projects, in late 2023. We're now moving quickly to establish an environment protection agency and Environment Information Australia. These are crucial elements of our plans to create a Nature Positive Australia, and we want to get them in place as soon as possible—so they can begin their important work. We will keep working on the remainder of our reforms outlined in the Nature Positive Plan so we can get them into the Parliament and passed. Combined with a significant additional funding, this stage of the reforms will deliver stronger environment powers, faster environment approvals, more environment information and greater transparency. These are big steps forward, for the environment and for business, and it's all new under this Government. Environment Protection Australia, our EPA, is an important part of delivering the government's Nature Positive Plan. Staging the rollout will mean that some of the teething problems which often occur in setting up new agencies like EPA from scratch would be dealt with before they are being asked to administer new environmental laws. It allows a smoother transition of responsibilities from the department to the agency. We are establishing Australia's first national independent environment protection agency with strong new powers and penalties to better protect nature. EPA would administer Australia's national environmental laws to better protect our environment and make faster, better decisions. It would be charged with delivering accountable, efficient, outcome-focused and transparent environmental regulatory decision-making. EPA would be a truly national environmental regulator that Australians can be proud of, responsible for a wide range of activities under Australia's environment laws, including in relation to recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage and air quality. This independent agency's work would include regulatory work, such as issuing permits and licences and undertaking compliance and enforcement. It would play an important role in educating industry, business and the community to help them navigate our environment laws. By providing better guidance and education, we can make sure businesses are clear about the rules, so they can do the right thing. We're investing in our people, our planning and our systems, to speed up development decisions—to deliver quicker yes's and—when necessary—quicker no's. EPA would be the tough cop on the beat, enforcing our laws through new monitoring, compliance and enforcement powers. The Samuel Review into Australia's environment laws found that the regulator is not fulfilling this necessary function. Professor Samuel also found that serious enforcement actions are rarely used and that penalties need to be more than a cost of doing business. Our audit of environmental offsets echoes this shameful tale. It tells us the current system is not working. Preventing harm and checking and enforcing requirements is one of the most important things we can do to protect nature. For example, if a project proponent promises to provide an offset to make up for an unavoidable impact on nature, the public should be confident that the promise will be kept. Our bills respond to those findings of both the Samuel review and the offsets audit, while we continue to work on the rest of our environmental law reforms. Stage three will continue our broader efforts to halt and reverse environmental decline and protect nature. EPA would deliver proportionate and effective risk-based compliance and enforcement actions, using high-quality data and information. It would provide assurance that environmental outcomes are being met. Most businesses do the right thing. We know that. But when penalties for breaking the law are too low, and the risk of being caught is negligible, some companies or individuals regard breaking the law as an acceptable cost of doing business. That's why we are increasing penalties, too. For extremely serious breaches of federal environment law, courts would be able to impose penalties of up to $780 million in some circumstances. Only individuals or corporations deliberately doing the wrong thing need to fear these penalties. These are the maximum penalties available. A court would still maintain discretion in deciding what penalty to impose in each case. EPA would be able to issue Environment Protection Orders—or 'stop-work' orders—to address or prevent imminent risks of serious damage to protected matters in urgent circumstances. EPA would also be able to audit businesses to ensure they are compliant with environment approval conditions. Creating EPA would promote public trust in environmental decision-making through publication of information, transparency of decisions and providing opportunities for the community, including First Nations people, to inform decision-making processes. We were clear in our Nature Positive Plan that our EPA would be independent. The first national, independent EPA in this country. That it would have its own budget and be led by a Chief Executive Officer. This bill delivers that. It establishes EPA in legislation as an independent statutory agency, separate from the environment department and the government. The CEO would have the discretion to perform their functions, and exercise their powers, without being subject to the direction of a Minister or anyone else. But they would be expected to operate consistently with Government objectives. The Environment Minister can issue the CEO and EPA with a formal Statement of Expectations. Through Statements of Expectations, the Minister can provide greater clarity about government policies and objectives relevant to EPA, including the policies and priorities the agency is expected to observe in conducting its operations. The CEO must respond with a Statement of Intent. The exchange of statements recognises the independence of the statutory agency. This is common for government statutory agencies—like the Australian Tax Office, Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Securities and Investment Commission. EPA's performance against these statements would be examined when independent reviews of the administration of EPA are undertaken. These reviews provide opportunities to test the operation and performance of EPA and its CEO, and the settings the government has put in place over their remit. Early and regular reviews hold EPA and the government to account. Hiring and firing of the CEO are significant and important tasks, not to be taken lightly. The Governor-General would have powers to appoint and terminate the CEO. Good practice, enshrined in the Australian Public Service Commission's Merit and Transparency Policy, upholds that appointments should be open, transparent and merit-based. That is our clear intent. Similarly, termination must be justified. This bill would provide clear grounds for termination of the CEO by the Governor-General, including failure to carry out statutory duties, dishonesty, financial mismanagement or misbehaviour. This CEO would be supported by an advisory group, to ensure that they have access to the expertise they need to do their job. This is a big step. An important step in delivering on our Nature Positive Plan. We want to get EPA in place as soon as we can. Our EPA would initially operate within the department to administer Australia's current national environmental laws, until it becomes an independent statutory agency on 1 July 2025. New compliance powers and penalties would come into effect as soon as possible following passage of the legislation. Responsibility for assessing environmental approval applications would be delegated to the CEO of EPA. The CEO of EPA would also be a delegate of the Minister who can make approval decisions, as currently occurs with the department. The CEO cannot subdelegate their decisions any further. Only the Minister can choose to whom to delegate their EPBC Act decisions. The Minister would retain the power to make decisions where they wish to do so. And, in practice, will make decisions the Minister makes would be based on the advice of EPA. EPA would play an important role in the full delivery of the Nature Positive Plan and beyond. EPA would advise the Minister and government of the day on how Australia's environmental laws can be improved. EPA would work closely with Environment Information Australia, as well as state and territory governments, to enable better availability and use of environmental data, both in planning and decision-making. NATURE POSITIVE (ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION AUSTRALIA) BILL 2024 In the Nature Positive Plan, we committed to provide the public with easier access to up-to-date environmental data. To make high quality data and information publicly available. And to increase transparency and public accountability on matters affecting the environment. This Bill establishes the Head of Environment Information Australia. An independent position with a legislative mandate to provide environmental data and information to EPA, the Minister, and the public. An independent position to transparently report on trends in the environment. This will support actions and decisions to halt and reverse the decline, and in turn protect and restore nature. Charged with working in collaboration with Australia's experts, scientists, and First Nations people to collect information and produce consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment. And charged with leading Environment Information Australia, a division in the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water. A Nature Positive Australia is good for the economy, livelihoods and wellbeing. But achieving a Nature Positive Australia relies on good quality and useful environmental information. Information to inform investment, policy and regulatory decisions by government, the private sector, community groups, academics and scientists, and philanthropic groups. We know that national environment information and data is fragmented, its quality uncertain, and what is available is not readily accessible and useable. Through its public portal, the Head of EIA will be a source of the best available, verified environmental information. A consistent and reliable resource for business, enabling better site choices to avoid removing high value habitat for our unique plants and animals. When project proponents are more easily able to select sites which minimise impacts on nature, projects can be approved more easily and completed more quickly. A consistent and reliable source of environmental reporting, will mean that no Australian government can hide the truth about the state of our environment—like the previous government did. Environment data and information comes from a variety of sources. There are a lot of organisations doing great work to further our understanding of nature. The Head of EIA will form partnerships with government and non-government organisations with a shared purpose of making data better, easier to access, and more useful. This includes partnering with State and Territory government organisations to provide a rich national picture of the environment. The Head of EIA will also gather information relevant to the Minister and the functions of the CEO of Environment Protection Australia. Our improved information and data will underpin faster, clearer decision making. It will also avoid the need to collect and provide the same data over and over again. We recognise that there are good reasons why certain information and data should not be made publicly available. Our Bill balances the need to make more information public, while protecting information where the public release of it could cause harm—for example, to individuals, businesses, critically endangered species, or for cultural reasons. It applies protections on the use and disclosure of sensitive information to individuals but allows information essential to inform Environment Protection Australia's decision making to flow between it and the Head of EIA. The Bill also provides more transparency of the critical information and data that underpins regulatory decision making. The Head of EIA will establish an integrated and robust reporting framework to monitor the impact of environmental actions and decisions. This was a key recommendation of the Samuel Review. It delivers on our promise at the last election to provide consistent and reliable information on the state of the environment across the country. The Bill also defines, for the first time, the term 'nature positive' and introduces a requirement to report on Australia's national progress towards that outcome. This will be the first time that any country has defined 'nature positive' in legislation and put in place national reporting against this objective. In short, nature positive means improving our ecosystems, including the species that rely on, and form part of, an ecosystem. Creating a Nature Positive Australia means that, across Australia, nature is repairing and regenerating rather than continuing to decline. Defining and measuring this outcome against an explicit baseline will mean that we can be accountable for our collective efforts to halt and reverse biodiversity degradation. The Head of the EIA will be charged with developing and implementing a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework to report on nature positive, including setting a baseline. This will be an independent function of the Head of EIA. The preparation and publishing of the State of the Environment report will be another independent function of the Head of EIA. Previous State of the Environment reports have been backwards looking and shone a spotlight on the environment's continual decline. Requiring reports to be prepared and published online every 2 years, instead of every 5 years, will allow us to get on the front foot and better apply and track protections where they are most needed. The 2021 State of the Environment Report set a benchmark with the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in environmental reporting. We recognise the important knowledge and unique perspective that Indigenous Australians provide. This Bill ensures that future reports must incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives and knowledge. The requirement for these reports to combine scientific and Indigenous knowledge, with contributions from independent experts, will ensure the reports are based on the best available information and analysis. Australia's environment is a national asset and responsibility. This is why State of the Environment reports include a new requirement to report on the progress of the Government's national environmental goals. The Bill makes it a requirement for the Government to commit publicly to national environmental goals. The Government will be held to account on its actions and the progress of the commitments will be transparent. The Bill introduces a new requirement for the government to respond to State of the Environment reports within six months. It is expected that the response will incorporate input from the States and Territories. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, State, and Territory governments to work together to achieve environmental improvements. The Commonwealth also provides an important leadership role. The data used in reporting and analysing trends will be robust and the best available. The Head of EIA will have a leadership role to establish and maintain Environmental Economic Accounts. The Head of EIA will also prepare an annual statement of Environmental Economic Accounts. The Bill gives the Minister the responsibility of tabling the statement in the Parliament each year, to provide a national picture of how the health of nature is supporting the health of the economy. The challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, air and water pollution, carry implications for the economy, the environment and the wellbeing of future generations. Australians care about and want to preserve the environment for our children and grandchildren. Australians also care about a strong economy and having secure, paid employment. Regulators and regulated industries increasingly desire dependable information and structure to devise and plan for regulations that protect the environment, while growing the economy and creating jobs. The work on environmental economic accounting will bring together, and make sense of, information about the interrelated challenges and opportunities facing our important industries and the environment. It will also show both economic and nature positive gains that can be made by investing in the environment. This will lead to better decisions by government, business, and the community. NATURE POSITIVE (ENVIRONMENT LAW AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2024 The Minister for the Environment would retain responsibility for direction-setting and Australian Government policy under national environmental laws, including the determination of nationally protected matters. With this bill we are amending nine pieces of environmental law to give appropriate responsibilities to our independent national Environment Protection Australia. This is consistent with the approach outlined in our Nature Positive Plan. These amendments would confer permitting and licencing, and compliance and enforcement responsibilities directly onto the CEO of EPA, including in relation to recycling and waste exports, hazardous waste, sea dumping, ozone protection, underwater cultural heritage, air quality and species permitting. It also would allow for the Minister and Secretary to delegate their powers and functions under the EPBC Act to the CEO and EPA staff. It would confer key compliance and enforcement powers in Commonwealth protected areas directly onto the Director of National Parks. It also supports the establishment of Environment Information Australia by repealing existing State of the Environment provisions from the EPBC act. As part of our Stage 2 reforms, we are making a number of important changes to the EPBC Act that would commence immediately after the passage of legislation. The compliance powers available under the EPBC Act have not kept up with modern standards or community expectations. That is why we are also introducing critical changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to deliver stronger enforcement. This bill would expand and update audit powers, introduce environment protection orders, increase criminal and civil penalties for serious contraventions and introduce a civil penalty formula. We know that most businesses do the right thing. However, the changes to the civil penalty formula would bring it into line with similar federal regulatory regimes such as those that apply to financial crimes. As with the legislation on financial crimes, this new regime would allow an appropriate financial penalty to be given that reflects the seriousness of an offence and is of substance to deter and punish misconduct. Our framework would provide flexibility in the range of penalties that can be given for the most egregious offences, safeguards against the consequences of an unlawful action being considered a cost of doing business, and ensures financial penalties can be commensurate to the value and capacity of a body corporate. New compliance audits would provide more flexibility to audit a range of activities covered by the EPBC Act. Existing directed audits will be expanded to cover a greater range of circumstances. Environment Protection Orders (EPO), similar to the powers that state and territory EPA's have, are intended for use in response to urgent circumstances where there is an imminent risk of serious damage to a protected matter, or where the damage has already occurred. These would only be used where the Minister or CEO of EPA reasonably believes there has been or is likely to be a contravention the EPBC Act. An EPO would need to be revoked where the Minister or CEO of EPA reasonability believes it is no longer necessary. These would all add to the compliance and enforcement powers of EPA. The 'stop clock' amendments would allow proponents to tell the decision-maker that they do not want certain decision-making timeframes to be paused while additional information is sought. It would give proponents a greater say over statutory timeframes. These changes would give proponents transparency about why additional information is needed because the Government understands the very real cost of delays to business. This is a balanced set of reforms, that moves quickly to set up crucial institutions and reporting. And would get them in place as soon as we can. So that work can continue in Stage 3 of our Nature Positive Law reforms. We will keep working with individuals and groups—as we have done to date—to develop the remainder of our reforms so we can get them into the Parliament and passed. That's what the community expects, what we will deliver. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 19 August 2024. Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 2772

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 2772 COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023, Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023, Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023, Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2024, Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024, Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024, Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024, Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024, Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 2773

COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Services) Levies Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2023

Primary Industries Levies and Charges Disbursement Bill 2023

Primary Industries (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023

Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

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

Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024

Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024

Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024

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

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

Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024

Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Assent 2773 National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 2773

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

In Committee 2773 17:49 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 264449 The committee is considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 and amendment (1) on sheet 2649 moved by Senator Hughes. The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Hughes be agreed to. Senator Steele-John, are you seeking the call on that amendment? 17:50 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia No, not on that amendment, Chair. It was in relation to my line of questioning; I have further questions in relation to the bill broadly. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You have the call. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Minister, are you able to please confirm for the Senate whether the government has undertaken any investigation of the capacity to play that role of any workforce that is being considered for the role of needs assessor? 17:51 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think that your question is, in many respects, similar to the one that I responded to earlier today. It goes, I think, a little bit further, in that it seeks a response in relation to any work that the agency or the government may have done in relation to workforce issues more broadly. I can only say, in relation to the needs assessment process, that the government's view is that that work should occur once the needs assessment process has concluded. That is, of course, one of the major changes that was proposed by the NDIS review. It would result in each individual participant being given a flexible budget. That is a substantial change, in terms of the way that the process will unfold. It is, as I think you're pointing to, going to require the persons who are undertaking that needs assessment process to have a set of skills and capabilities. That is all to be worked through. That process of working through those issues commences on passage of this legislation, and it's our strong view that it ought not be pre-empted by the government in terms of the final outcomes. 17:53 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thanks, Minister. Because there have been a number of amendments made at very late stages to parts of the bill, are you able to confirm for the Senate, just so that we are clear: the legislation that we are considering still requires that, once a person has gained access to the scheme and been accepted as a participant, there is a legislated requirement that remains within the bill for them to undergo a needs assessment. Is that correct? 17:54 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The short answer is yes, but the framework that applies to that is of course part of establishing the new needs assessment model, and the process of determining the model will be the subject of the consultation and co-design process that I outlined earlier today. It's anticipated that not all participants will be available on day one of the framework. There will be a phasing process to work through existing and new participants so that that is done in an orderly and fair way. 17:55 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. Can you confirm something, just so we are talking about the same thing. When you say 'framework process', are you referring to the new budget framework outlined in the bill? 17:55 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes; it's the new individual budget framework based upon the new needs assessment model, which will be based on a holistic assessment of support needs and not solely on primary disability. 17:55 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia When you talk about the transition that you reference there, you're referencing the transition from the old budget frameworks as referenced in the bill to the new budget frameworks referenced in the bill. Is that correct? 17:56 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The short answer is yes. I want to be precise, because there will be people listening. There are two ways of answering it, in an effort to be precise. One is moving from one framework to the other, but individuals will experience this at different speeds, as the processes are undertaken for individuals. 17:56 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Can you confirm that new participants entering the scheme will apply for access through whatever process is created, but, once there is access, they will begin on a new budget framework? 17:57 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. That's correct. 17:57 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Could you outline this for the Senate. Again, as a committee, we've heard some of these timeframes in evidence that we've received, but I just want to understand clearly the government's current intention. When does the government intend for participants who gain access to the scheme subsequent to the passage of this legislation to begin receiving new framework plans? 17:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I thank the Senate for indulging me; I'm just making sure that we're precise. We expect—and this is subject to the vicissitudes of the co-design process—that that process ought to take in the vicinity of 12 to 18 months to work through. The government anticipates that participants will then be moved across to the new system over the course of five years. That is around five years. It is a large reform task. We intend, consistent with what I indicated before, to carefully work through those issues with the disability community and with experts and service providers in terms of the framework. There are people who are currently on the scheme and, as you've indicated, Senator Steele-John, there will be new admissions to the scheme, and we anticipate that it will be of the order of a five-year period to work through all of those people. That will require, over the course of that 18 months, attention to be given by government to ensuring that there is, in a stable and orderly way, the workforce that is required to undertake those needs assessments consistent with the co-design needs assessment tool. 18:00 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia For the context of the chamber, the reason why I am exploring these issues is that the question of timelines and impact is critical to the disability community's consideration of this legislation. Minister, thank you for reconfirming that that is the attempted timeline by the government in this regard. Can I get a little bit more detail there? Is it the government's intention that, in 12 to 18 months time, participants entering from that point will be subject to a needs assessment and then a new framework plan created for them and given to them? 18:01 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It will, in the government's view, take 12 to 18 months to introduce the new framework. We anticipate that it will take a five-year period to transition new and existing participants in the scheme over to the new framework. It will need to be determined, during the design of the needs assessment tool and the needs assessment process, what is the likely volume of new applicants and whether all new applicants will go through the process as you've outlined in your question or whether there will be some other streaming process to do that in a way that the capability the department and the agency possess can manage effectively. 18:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia So the 12- to 18-month period refers to transitioning participants currently on old framework plans to new framework plans? 18:03 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Just so I can be precise: the 12- to 18-month period is about the co-design process of the new framework. Once that is determined, then it is, in the government's view, going to take circa five years as each individual participant goes through that process and new applications for the scheme are assessed consistent with the new process. In relation to the question that you asked me prior to this last question: that means, for clarity's sake, 12 to 18 months. There are two classes of participants. Current participants can expect that it will take in the vicinity of five years to move through that cohort of participants. That process will be set out in the co-design framework process. In relation to new applicants, it sounds to me desirable that all new applicants would come through on the new process at the commencement, but the government are not committing to that. We will work through that with the disability community, with experts and with organisations, as part of the co-design process, to see whether some additional streamlining or prioritisation process is desirable. And some of those workforce and capability issues that you've referred to will have to be attended to in determining whether, on day one, it is ready to go in terms of new applicants to the scheme. 18:04 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia What work has the government undertaken to this point to determine the parameters and/or instructions that will be given to assessors? 18:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As I said when you began this line of questioning before lunch, all of these questions will have to be resolved in the co-design process that I referred to. That is, as a government we are not pre-empting any of those questions and will rely upon that process to develop the new needs assessment tool in full. 18:06 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Will the agency cover the cost of the needs assessment? 18:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales That is a decision for government at this stage. I think the NDIS review, as you would know, recommended that government fund the needs assessment process. That is a decision that is not yet made. 18:06 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Just so that we can be clear, given that it is a decision that has not yet been made, are we to take it that one of the things being considered is whether to, in fact, fund a needs assessment? 18:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As we walk through this process of determining the needs assessment model, that will determine who is undertaking the needs assessments. It's a procedural step that provides information required for the decision to approve the statement of participant supports. And, of course, there are rights of review in access to a needs assessment engaged there. A needs assessment can be challenged if a participant seeks an external or internal merits review of a decision to approve a statement of participant supports. There were amendments in the House to clarify that a replacement needs assessment must be arranged if the decision-maker is satisfied that this should occur and that category A NDIS rules can determine circumstances in which another needs assessment must be undertaken and matters that the CEO must have regard to in considering whether a replacement assessment should be obtained. A legislative note was also included in the amendments to clarify and confirm that the same requirements apply when a decision is being reviewed. So participants will be able to explain to the reviewer why they disagree with the assessment report and want a replacement report to be obtained. I went through some of that detail just to say that the scope of the work of the needs assessors, if that is the correct term, who are undertaking that work and broader issues about the needs assessment process will be the subject of government decision-making. That is why a decision in relation to funding that work has not yet been undertaken—because there is still work to do through the co-design process to determine the needs assessment tool. That needs to be done before government makes a decision in relation to funding. 18:09 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Senator Steele-John just raised an excellent point, and I really think we need to clarify this, because this is quite astounding. The question that Senator Steele-John asked was whether participants were going to be required to fund their own needs assessments. The fact that the government cannot just say no is extraordinary. The fact that there is any suggestion that participants, who aren't that enamoured of the whole needs assessment process, may be forced to pay for a needs assessment when they don't even understand what's in the needs assessment is breathtaking. The fact that that is not an out-and-out no is extraordinary. So, Minister, perhaps you or someone that you're speaking to might get onto the minister's office and find out very, very quickly if there is any expectation at all that participants will be put in a situation where they are forced to pay for a needs assessment that they are required to have in order to access an NDIS plan. 18:11 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The current situation for many participants is that they go and get some of this assessment work done. Families get it done for individuals, and they pay for that themselves and later seek some reimbursement in relation to those questions. Senator Hughes 273828 No, they don't get reimbursed, Minister. They do not get reimbursed. Senator AYRES 16913 I just want to make sure that what I'm saying is precise. Some participants are able to use their NDIS funding. This will require a further budget decision of government. That will be taken at the appropriate time and is not able to be undertaken until all of the work in the co-design process that we've spent some time discussing is finalised. A government decision to fund a particular activity prior to the activity being scoped out properly is not a sensible thing to ask government to do at this stage. But the NDIS Review panel was quite explicit in its own recommendation in relation to these issues, and obviously the government will have regard to that and to the work of the needs assessment tool development process. 18:13 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I have a few questions for the minister, but before I get to that I wanted to make a few observations about what I've seen happen over the last few months. There's this massive gap between when you actually talk to people on the NDIS about their experience of it and how life changing it has been for so many families. Sure, there is some fraud, and I welcome the minister's focus on that. But seeing that most of the narrative has been around painting NDIS participants and their families as criminals who are somehow living it up, living the good life on the NDIS, it does a real disservice to this debate and this really important issue. Most of the participants you talk to are incredibly grateful for the support they receive to make a modification to their house to help them live comfortably. They're grateful for the hours of support they receive that help them access the community, go shopping and meet new people. I think we need to remind ourselves that the point of the NDIS is not just to allow people to survive but actually to allow people to be part of society and to contribute. That is the core of this system that was set up. In truth, the biggest issues that are raised with me around genuine fraud are about providers inflating their prices to draw as much out of the NDIS as possible. I've seen invoices where a provider has charged an extremely vulnerable person around $60,000 for a week of respite care. That's clearly not good enough. Again, I thank Minister Shorten for focusing efforts to ensure this doesn't happen. Minister, I want to ask about co-design. Clearly a central concern that's been raised from the beginning is about the genuineness of the government's offer to ensure reforms are co-designed with the disability community. I want to draw your attention to a consultation that's currently underway on the draft list of NDIS supports. The bill we are debating right now will enable this list to become a regulation, and this is a pretty big reform. It will essentially determine what's provided by the states and territories in some cases and what can be provided through the NDIS. This list is only open for consultation for a period of two weeks—two weeks! Organisations are contacting my office, raising concerns, saying they don't have the resources to respond to all of the issues in two weeks at the same time as they're watching this bill go through. So I am keen to get on the record your outline of what co-design means to the government and whether a two-week consultation would meet that definition. 18:17 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Perhaps I can start at the beginning. At the beginning of your contribution, Senator Pocock, you indicated that there were criticisms of the operation of the scheme that were pretty unhelpful in the way they make our participants in the scheme and their families feel. I agree with you and I think the government agrees with you. It is not only for the proper public policy reasons that the reforms are being undertaken but also in order to establish public confidence in the long-term operation of the scheme. The bill is in many respects enabling of reform rather than finally determining reform, and setting out a process to undertake reform rather than determining the kinds of questions that have been put thus far in the debate. It is designed to require the NDIA to provide participants with a clear status of the basis upon which they enter the scheme by meeting the disability requirements, the early intervention requirements or both. This bill will do some of that work. It will create a new reasonable and necessary budget framework for the preparation of NDIS participants' plans. It will set out the needs assessment process and it will set out the method for calculating the total amount of the participant's flexible funding, with funding for stated supports for new framework plans to be specified in legislative instruments and in NDIS rules. Much of this work must be undertaken by the co-design process, the consultative process that the government has set out. Earlier today I was taken to some of these issues. Of course, the term 'co-design' has a meaning for people who deliver services from government. In the bureaucracy here in Canberra, people understand what 'co-design' means. Organisations who interact with government and represent people understand what it means. I'm not sure that it has an ordinary meaning for ordinary people in the street, who might not understand what that is designed to do. The minister has arranged for the department website to set out how co-design is supposed to operate from the department's perspective. In relation to the list that you just took me to, that list has been developed with the states over the last month. It primarily reflects the current guidelines, with some practical changes, and government will continue to accept feedback on the lists over time. Just for clarity, the two-week process is in relation to the current draft. It is anticipated that there will continue to be—I hesitate to use this language—an iterative process of going backwards and forwards on the list. I think there is some discussion about elements of the list—of course in the debate in committee—but, in terms of the process that the department and the agency undertake, it is anticipated that that will continue for some time. 18:21 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Minister, I'd like to take you back to a few statements that you made in your speech at the end of the second reading debate earlier today. One of the things you said is that this legislation was actually based—I think these were the words—on the NDIS review, the report for which the government received in November last year. Also, you said that it was based on the government reply to that review. Now, that's very interesting for two reasons. One is that I'm not aware that there is a government reply to the review, which is something that those in this chamber have been calling for so that we can understand the position you're taking in this legislation. The other is the waterfall of amendments that seem to have come out of nowhere. Can you advise, first of all, in relation to the government response: what government response were you referring to, and can you table it? 18:22 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm getting some instruction, Senator Reynolds. As I indicated, the NDIS review made a number of recommendations, but a number of those recommendations are reflected in the legislation which is before the Senate this evening—in particular recommendations 3, 6, 7 and 8. A core recommendation from the NDIS review is that the scheme should provide a flexible budget for participants based on a consistent, transparent needs assessment. So the bill introduces a statutory framework to implement that recommendation, with the detail of how that assessment process should work to be further designed with the community. National Cabinet agreed in December 2023 to move legislation as an initial immediate response to the review. To the extent that the government is responding to the review, that is the response that I, perhaps inarticulately, indicated. Of course, the legislation is not the last word in terms of the government's response to the review or to the reform question. So there will be further legislative work. The work that the legislation itself enables will commence if the legislation proceeds through the Senate. 18:25 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Can you just confirm for me that the government response to the review, which it's now had for 10 months, give or take—did you say that you do have a government response but it hasn't been released and that that's what has informed this legislation, or did you misspeak in the Senate earlier? 18:26 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think we traversed this issue a bit in estimates as well. The Commonwealth and the states agreed at the DRMC to develop a response, and it's anticipated that that will be finalised by the end of this year. The release of that document is a decision for government in the normal way. 18:26 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia You've had a review for 10 months. We've now got legislation that's been the subject of the most secretive process I've experienced here in 10 years. There were 27, 29—can you just confirm how many recommendations were in the report? How many of the four—recommendations 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the 27 or 29 recommendations—are in full and how many are in part? What sections of the bill relate to each of these recommendations from the NDIS review? 18:27 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales If I've got anything further to add in terms of whether they are in full or not, I'll provide that later—if that assists. The amendments in this bill give effect to review recommendation 3 and interconnected elements in recommendations 5, 6 and 7. The amendments also support the partial implementation of recommendation 17. I'll just point out for the chamber that the government is working through these issues carefully, in an orderly way. The task of reform here is a very significant task indeed. There was no reform in the unhappy 2013 to 2022 period. The government is taking responsibility here for undergoing a process of reform to make sure that this scheme is sustainable and has a deep reservoir of support across the community not just for 2024 and 2025 and not just for the budget forwards but for future generations. That will take time and careful work. As should be evident from even a casual observation of this piece of legislation, it is designed to deal with a number of recommendations. It resolves some issues and sets up a process for the development with the disability community itself of a fair and sustainable approach to questions on things like the needs assessment. This process will go on for some time, in terms of both further legislative responses and working with the state and territory governments in a careful and thorough way. It is not a one-hit wonder. I would anticipate that most Australians would understand that reform of a scheme of this magnitude that intersects with the rights and life experiences of so many Australian citizens ought to be done carefully and in the most collaborative way possible but also with some urgency. This bill will set up a process that will determine some of those questions, and there will be further reform in this area. I expect wave after wave of consistent approaches to that reform and improvement in terms of the delivery of services, the interaction with the disability community itself and the ongoing sustainability of the scheme. 18:31 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia This is going to be a very, very long committee stage if you can't even answer my first, very basic question. I will come back to my question, Minister, and your first answer to it. My most basic of questions about this legislation was: what recommendations of the NDIS review is this implementing? If I heard you right, you first said recommendations 3, 6, 7 and 8. You came back for a second bite of the answer, and then you said there's a little bit of 5 and a little bit of 17 in there. Could you please go through each of those. To be very specific, it's not the detail of it yet, but could you indicate what parts of the bill are linked to recommendations 3, 6, 7, 5, 8 and 17. What parts of those sections are in the bill? 18:32 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Again, I want to be precise about this as well. The amendments in the bill give effect to recommendation 3 of the NDIS review and to interconnected elements in recommendations 5, 6 and 7. They also support the partial implementation of recommendation 17. You are correct, Senator Reynolds, to point out that I did say recommendation 8 earlier. It's an error in my notes, and I take responsibility for that. Thank you for pointing it out. 18:33 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I thank the minister for that clarification, but could the minister actually explain what parts of this bill are implementing recommendation 3. You've said 5, 6 and 8 are interconnected—and no 8, but 17. What parts of the bill actually implement those recommendations in the review? 18:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales On the basis of what is in front of me, the bill does the following things. In relation to access, the bill requires the National Disability Insurance Agency to provide participants with a clear statement of the basis on which they entered the scheme—by meeting either the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements or by meeting both. The bill will also clarify and expand the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules relating to access provisions, including the methods or criteria to be applied when making decisions about the disability and early intervention criteria, and the matters which must or must not be taken into account. Further, it creates the new reasonable and necessary budget framework for the preparation of NDIS participants' plans. The bill provides for the new framework plans to be developed in accordance with the new budget framework. Participants will receive funding based on whether they access the scheme on the basis of impairments that meet the disability requirements, the early intervention requirements or both. The bill amends the act to provide for the needs assessment process and the method for calculating the total amount of a participant's flexible funding and funding for stated supports for new framework plans to be specified in legislative instruments and NDIS rules. These will be developed in consultation with people with disability— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 256063 A point of order, Senator Reynolds? Senator Reynolds 250216 Thank you, Minister, for that information on access and the reasonable and necessary budget framework, but my question goes to the recommendations in the review: how do they link, and to what parts of this bill? Senator AYRES 16913 As I was indicating before—and now I have both electronic and paper material in front of me—recommendation 3 is essentially about providing a fairer and more consistent participant pathway. This bill amends the act in relation to access to establish a fairer and more consistent participant pathway; that is recommendation 3. We may need to provide more information in relation to which sections of the bill, but if you're looking for a cross-tabulation table of the bill with each recommendation, I'm not in a position to provide that to you. I can say that, in relation to recommendation 3, which is about participant pathways and providing a fairer and more consistent approach, the bill is designed to amend the act in relation to access to provide participants with a clear statement on the basis upon which they entered the scheme. As I indicated before—I won't go through it all again—in developing the access provisions, including the methods or criteria to be applied, when making decisions about the disability and early intervention criteria and the matters which must or must not be taken into account, that process in relation— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: A point of order, Senator Reynolds? Senator Reynolds 250216 Yes, a point of order, or something that might help the minister: the minister said he didn't have the information available, so will the minister consider taking that on notice and perhaps coming back later this evening with the information? Senator AYRES 16913 If one is seeking a cross-tabulation table, I indicated that that is not in front of me. If we're able to provide further information, I'm sure we'd be happy to. What I am doing is answering your question. Recommendation 3 goes to pathways. I was just about to make the point that the act sets out a process for developing that criteria. Recommendation 6 goes to creating a continuum of support for children under the age of nine and their families. Recommendation 7 goes to introducing a new approach to NDIS supports for psychosocial disability, focused on personal recovery and developing mental health reforms to better support people with severe mental illness. If there's additional information that we can provide about the relationship between those and the bill, we will, but, as I have indicated before, the bill will provide for a needs assessment process and the co-design process to finalise that in consultation with people with disability, the disability community, health and allied health technical professionals, and all states and territories, consistent with the governance arrangements. It will insert a new definition of 'NDIS support' and a series of measures focused on protecting participants. All those measures in the whole go to those recommendations that I referred to and that are useful and important parts of the government's response to the overall NDIS review. 18:41 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I find it absolutely extraordinary that we've got the NDIS bill before us, and the government purports to do two things. One is to implement the review, which we don't even have the government response to yet. I've asked several times now if the minister can explain how the review recommendations are actually reflected in this bill. Not only could the minister not even tell me how that occurs, but he was also reading from the review itself, not from the bill. This is the most basic of questions on this bill: how is it implementing—and in what sections? The next question was going to be, 'What amendments have been made in the 50 we've received before this and the 18 that we got three hours after we started committee today?' I find it extraordinary that this government can't even come in here and explain this bill beyond reading from the review report. There are almost no words for how incompetent this is. Minister, by my count, there are at least 20 questions on notice from the inquiry into this legislation which have been taken. Minister, are you able to advise when they will be provided? 18:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I will clarify this if what I am saying is wrong, Senator, but the office understands that those have been provided. As I said, I'll clarify if that's wrong, but that's my understanding. 18:42 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I want to come back to this needs assessment because I'm becoming increasingly confused, which is very concerning considering the whole 5½ days of hearings that we had in this inquiry, which we've been assured is more than enough. One of the things that we heard throughout the hearings that we were allowed to have, that we were assured the government senators were available for, was that the needs assessments were going to be about fairness. They were going to be about equity. We heard the minister quote that families currently pay substantial sums of money to garner reports and the like in regard to their NDIS planning. The needs assessment, as was told to us throughout these hearings, was to ensure there was equality of access; families would no longer be burdened with this cost because there would be this standard, functional needs assessment that would be made. Different disabilities would have different assessments. We were being assured, 'Don't worry; we will come to who is going to develop new ones versus using best practice already established so we can spend more money and make it more difficult and more complex to deliver.' You just quoted recommendation 3—and, to note Senator Reynolds's point, you were reading from the review, not the government's response or the legislation—which was for fairer and more consistent pathways. Again—equality of access, ensuring that everyone with a disability can have a functional needs assessment done and their plan made. They don't have to go and spend thousands of dollars with paediatricians, psychologists, OTs, speech therapists and behaviour analysts to deliver these reports for them, because they're going to have a functional assessment that the government is now saying, though it's not decided yet, that they may have to pay for themselves. I'm sure people in the disability community would want to know this: how much are they going to be charged? And I know Senator Steele-John has asked questions about where the workforce is going to come from here, but is this an attempt to set up a new cottage industry? We're now going to have NDIS providers who deliver functional assessments. They are paid by the NDIS, no doubt at top dollar, to deliver these so-called NDIS approved needs assessments that will be delivered by outsourced providers. Is there another provider industry about to be set up? The point of this bill, the point of why we've been trying to work with the minister and what we've been saying since we were in government, is that sustainability is an issue. It was denied by Minister Shorten when he was the opposition spokesperson. It was pearl-clutching kabuki theatre players when anyone talked about sustainability when we were in government, but now, no, no, no, sustainability is an issue! But is this now setting up another little cottage industry of functional assessors who can go out and charge at top rate, which will then actually remove the equality of access because there will be families who can't access one, who can't afford to pay for a needs assessment or a functional assessment? And then we'll run into the next problem: rural and regional access. People in remote communities won't be able to have one. Then the providers will have to charge all those big travel costs to go out there, won't they? And how many times do you think the travel costs will be charged? They might go out and do four assessments, but they'll charge those travel costs four times. We know that is what is happening. This is why the NDIS has sustainability issues. It is because so many of the providers are completely and utterly rorting the system and using participants to rort the system. This is where this legislation is not focused, and we have a long way to go on this committee stage. Minister, please confirm or clarify: Are participants going to be required to pay for functional assessments? Will this be a new cottage industry set up of NDIS providers to deliver NDIS approved functional assessments? Senator Reynolds 250216 You should have gone with independent assessments. Senator HUGHES 273828 You didn't have to pay for those. People didn't like them. I wasn't a big fan myself, Linda, as you know, but you didn't have to pay for them. But now here we are. This is new information. Throughout these so-called 5½ days of hearings, where we got so much testimony and so much evidence that we should have all been just bowing down and going, 'Yay! Great piece of legislation'—so great that we got 18 amendments today from the government! You were so ready to pass it six weeks ago. I might just remind Minister Ayres that, in one of his most recent previous answers, he was just saying that it needs to be done carefully and ought to be done in the most collaborative way possible but also with urgency—with urgency! Well, let me tell you how urgent you think this bill is. Let me tell you how urgent: you don't even have it listed tomorrow! That's how urgent you think it is—it's not even on the papers tomorrow! You are a joke. This is absolutely embarrassing and insulting. Minister Shorten claimed that this bill was ready to be passed six weeks ago, then ran an absolutely rubbish campaign on the cost. We had testimony from the actuary, and we'll come to more of that too. When we asked the actuary how he derived the billion-dollar figure that these couple of weeks of delay were going to cost, the actuary told us that what he went through was that they had worked on the assumption from the day this legislation was passed that the full five per cent of savings were straightaway—straight there. All the state governments were on board, foundational supports were ready to go and the five per cent savings were immediate. Funny, though, when we asked him about what the savings were estimated to be in the next financial year—around three per cent. In 2028-29 we're getting to 4.6 per cent. In this fallacy of a smear campaign conducted by Minister Shorten, he was claiming this great loss that was going to be felt by the scheme because of a delay from having hearings. Wow, having some scrutiny of a bill that's required 18 amendments from you today—what a joke! The actuary's acknowledged that the billion-dollar figure you came up with is a fallacy because all of the assumptions around it are wrong. He's doing a figure based on a full rollout of every single fairyland idea you have of savings. Let me tell you: with this functional assessment and a possible new cottage industry, you guys are just blowing it up. Not only is it functional assessors—we'll get to the navigators as well. We had a great inquiry. I asked a question about the navigators. The navigators that you're doing, because they're part of the review—'recommendation of navigators'. They're like a concierge service for both NDIS participants and not NDIS participants but funded by the NDIS. I asked: would these navigators perhaps replace support coordinators? The answer was given to me: 'Oh, no. They will be on top of.' So you will have a functional assessment, probably paid for by you. You will then have a meeting with a navigator, possibly, who tells you this is where you should go. Then you'll have a meeting with an LAC—we know that's been a complete disaster of a structure, because we know how many of the LACs then have to go to review from their referrals—and you'll then go to the planner in the agency who writes the plan. It then comes out and you may have a plan manager or be agency managed. So you're hitting four, five or six people before you've hit a service provider. Before you've seen a speech therapist, before you've seen a psychologist, before you've met with the behavioural therapist or the OT, you have seen a number of people—all paid for by the NDIS—to put a plan together. And we wonder why the scheme is blowing out! It is not the fault of the participants. The emperor has no clothes, and this legislation is the definition of that. It is appalling. The urgency side is a fallacy because you don't even have it on the papers tomorrow, not even on the red. That's how urgent it is. And now we've had a spanner thrown in the works tonight that's never come up before—we were specifically told it was about equality and fairness of access—in that participants may be required to pay for the needs and functional assessments they don't even want in the first place but are mandatory in order to access the scheme. And you wonder why the disability community is up in arms. 18:52 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales That's certainly not what I said, Senator Hughes. What I said was that further work is going to need to be undertaken in relation to the design of the needs assessment process and that a decision will be made in the budget context around payment. If anybody wanted an insight into the dysfunction of the coalition's approach to these questions, they need only have listened to the last 10 minutes of this debate. The problem here is that no reform was undertaken in relation to these issues over the course of the period 2013 to 2022. No reform. Senator Hughes 273828 That is a lie! Stop misleading the chamber! The TEMPORARY CHAIR 256063 Order! Senator Hughes 273828 It is a lie! Senator Reynolds 250216 I took two bills through. Senator AYRES 16913 Chair, I think— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! We're going to have an orderly discussion here where the minister's going to be asked questions and then the minister will answer questions. Senator Ciccone 281503 You should withdraw 'lie'. Senator AYRES 16913 One would think one would withdraw it, but sometimes senators aren't capable of self-reflection to be able to do that kind of thing. So much of the contribution over the course of the last 20 minutes has been about defending the legacy of the coalition's inaction in government around these questions. So much of it is about that. It's a sort of thin-skinned approach and a sensitivity to criticism and a developing grievance politics felt on that side of the chamber about the inadequacy of the reform process. I understand that criticism while you're in government hurts people's feelings. I get it. But the most important issue here is not how people feel about their period in government; it's about what we do. Senator Reynolds 250216 I took two bills through. You just said we didn't do anything. Senator AYRES 16913 There Senator Reynolds goes again, defending her period in government. That is not germane to the questions that are in front of this chamber that are engaged by this bill. This bill is a response in part to recommendations from the review panel report. It does the work that it says it is going to do and no more. There is more work, of course, to come. In relation to the requirement to pay for needs assessments, as I said, as part of the co-design process, further work will need to be undertaken around the design of that assessment process, and a decision will need to be made in a future budget context around payment. 18:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thanks, Minister; it's good to know there will be further consultation. I'm hearing that people want to be consulted on the early stages of this list—in these two weeks—and would love that to be extended. This list determines that community transport is not a NDIS support, and I'm told that this could throw a spanner in the works for so many people in communities across the country. I presume the intention is for states and territories to ensure that there are community transport services through foundational support funding. However, I'm interested to know if the ACT disability minister or any disability minister is aware that they may be on the hook to ensure these supports are available, potentially within the next few months, through foundational supports. Can you give the Senate any assurances about the work that has gone on with the relevant ministers around community transport? 18:57 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'll come back to you again, Senator, if there's anything additional that I can provide on this question. As it's explained to me, community transport is something that is essentially provided at this stage by the states, and it's not anticipated that there will be any change to the list in relation to that question. 18:58 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Senators, there are times in our roles when we may question the value of processes such as that which we are engaging in this evening. Sometimes, these debates can seem as though members of parliament are just burning up time, trying to achieve other strategic goals. What we just witnessed in this chamber is an example of exactly why parliamentary scrutiny is so important. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the two pillars of our national social security system. It represents the very best of our community's values. It is the response demanded by the community of their governments to embody in social programs a commitment to fairness and equality. Responding to that demand was the impetus for creating the scheme in the first place. We have just learned that this government, with the legislation it is attempting to pass through this parliament tonight, is proposing to subject the 660,000 participants who rely on the NDIS for basic supports to be able to get out of bed, have a shower, go to work, see their friends and be part of their communities—every single one of those participants—to a mandatory government-run needs assessment process, and they may well have to pay for it. Tonight we have had it confirmed that the government, as it seeks to pass this bill, cannot assure the 660,000 participants who rely on the NDIS that they will not be slugged with the bill for the mandatory assessment process that is proposed in this bill. In case any member of the government is trying right now to weave around the mandatory nature of these assessments, let me refer you to section 32L(1) of your own piece of legislation: The CEO must arrange for an assessment of a participant's need for supports to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the CEO commences the preparation of a plan for a participant. There is no wiggle room here. Never in the course of the inquiry into this bill, nor in the course of the previous inquiry into this bill, has any member of the government come clean with the community that it is asking the Senate to pass a piece of legislation which will require a mandatory assessment that they may well have to pay for. It absolutely beggars belief. Let us remember that right now there are folks on the scheme who've had to pay tens of thousands of dollars for specialist reports not because they were needed but because the agency you run required them to undertake those reports to continue to receive those supports. So before you jump up and say, 'Oh, well, tens of thousands of dollars are terrible, but this'll be cheaper,' let me tell you right now that, in my seven years in this job, I have lost count of the number of disabled people with permanent, basic, well-understood disabilities asking for commonsense supports who have been asked to undertake additional assessments not because the information was needed but because the bureaucracy, at the government's behest, was trying to find as many ways as possible to kick them off. If you don't believe me, go and read the transcripts of countless Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearings and results that have demonstrated again and again that the government and the agency together have colluded in a process of requiring participants to give additional information as part of a process of bureaucratic abuse. That is what we experience now, and what we have learnt from the government this evening is that, under their bill, you'll be subjected to all of that, and you'll still have to pay for it. It is an absolute disgrace for you to come in here and attempt to pass this bill without being willing to commit this evening to covering the cost of the assessments that you require. Disabled people don't want this. We're actually quite satisfied with the idea—and let's take this as a radical idea—that we would tell you what disability we have, that we would share with you the mountain of medical reports that we have acquired over the course of our lifetimes, that you'd have a look at it and that if you needed any additional information you'd foot the bill for it, because it's you who wants the information. Why should a disabled person with a permanent, well-demonstrated and well-documented impairment have to once again prove it to the government? It is ridiculous. This whole process of pretending to the disability community that this bill is in our own interests, that it is good for us, is a myth designed by RedBridge polling and all your good mates as part of the speechwriting pools that you've created together. This myth was pulled apart during the course of these inquiries—inquiries that you opposed on the basis that your bill was signed, sealed and sorted. 'No changes or additions needed,' say the government, and then in the next minute there are 18 amendments, most of which do not relate at all to the evidence that was taken during the inquiries. The schedules I've read tonight make me laugh to the pit of my stomach. God, you've been busy, how you've been busy, finding new ways to give yourselves more powers. During the course of this debate I have tried to engage and have committed myself to engaging in a process of analytical scrutiny of what is before us—and I will return to that. But, for goodness sake, to have come all this way, to have come all of these years into this process, to have required disabled people to expend so much energy and expertise for your government as part of the process of so-called reform that you have proposed to us over the last couple of years, to get here tonight, and you can't even confirm that the assessment you will require of us under law, this mandatory process, is one which we will not have to pay for in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis! So, Minister, I finish with this: can you confirm that section 32L(1) requires that the undertaking of a needs assessment is in fact a mandatory process? 19:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What I'll do before I answer that is respond to some of the assertions that you made. Imagine if we came here with a predetermined outcome. Imagine if we came here with an outcome in relation to what the needs assessment process was going to be. Imagine, if we advanced that proposition, what the chorus of complaints would be. Imagine that proposition. What we have set out here in the bill is a process for co-design of the needs assessment process that was asked for in the review of the legislation. That is what has been determined. It is absolutely proper—and it would indeed be very strange if it were any different, if the government were to say anything else—that decisions about the scope of payment, the response to that co-design process, will be a future budget decision of the government at the appropriate time. Now, if the response of our political opponents out here is to try and describe that perfectly reasonable outline in the florid and scaremongering terms that I've just heard, they ought to take responsibility for the kind of language that they use here, the kind of misrepresentations that they make in relation to these questions and the impact that has upon people. Senator Steele-John, you said, through the chair, that there are deficiencies in the way that the agency conducts some of these assessments. You said that people, participants, sometimes—I'm not sure whether it's sometimes or often—have to pay a considerable amount of money to provide additional information in their assessments. Senator Reynolds said 'hear, hear' as if that hasn't been occurring for the last decade. We as a government are establishing a process to develop a needs assessment framework that will apply to every participant. Senator Reynolds 250216 Do they pay or not, Minister? Senator AYRES 16913 Again, another misrepresentation from Senator Reynolds, who appears not to understand how to do anything else. But the process— The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T Order! Senator Reynolds, your chance to ask questions will be later. Senator AYRES 16913 The process, the framework, will be determined in collaboration with the disability community—that is, stakeholders, participants themselves, their representative organisations—and, when that process is determined, the ordinary budget questions will be engaged with and dealt with. That's a normal process. It is a normal process, after the legislation was deferred—I think because of a political calculation of the coalition—that amendments will be introduced over the course of the debate. That is what is happening here. Amendments are being introduced over the course of the debate. It is a normal thing to occur for legislative debate to be scheduled in a way that the government determines so that we efficiently get to all of the legislative priorities of the government over the course of the week and the fortnight. There is nothing extraordinary about that, and the hyperbole that's been engaged in, particularly by those opposite, on these issues does not reflect very well on their commitment to policymaking and reform in this area. There are two types of assessments: functional capacity assessments and needs assessments. The processes for both need to be worked through through co-design to determine cost and workforce, and Senator Steele-John has taken me to both of those issues over the course of the day—that is, the consequences of workforce have to be worked through in that co-design process. The shape of that framework will determine the cost, and the government will need to make an assessment of how cost is dealt with at the conclusion of that process, not at the beginning of that process. That is a normal discipline. It is expected that the needs assessment process will be paid for by government. What's not yet determined is how these assessments will be conducted. They could be done externally or they could be done by the NDIA workforce. There is some history to these propositions. The functional capacity assessment needs to be determined. It's currently paid for by participants. The review recommended that the government pays for that. The government needs to consider, like a responsible government would, setting up a scheme that is sustainable for the future and what workforce is required to best support participants. Once the legislation has passed, we will coordinate a co-design process with the disability community to finalise those questions. Once that is concluded, then there will be, in the normal way, the kinds of budget processes that are engaged to resolve payment and workforce questions. Any other suggestion is mischievous and misrepresentation. 19:15 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I think it's worth asking you, Minister, to clarify a couple of things in relation to your contribution there. Tonight, in answer to my question—and it was a very simple question; I can read it back to you. My question to you was this: will the agency cover the costs of the needs assessment? You said in response to that question, 'That is a matter for government.' I then gave you multiple additional opportunities to confirm whether the agency will cover the cost of the needs assessment. You refused to do so, and in refusing to do so you have repeatedly cited the view of the government, it seems—though please feel free to clarify this—that it would be inappropriate for the government to clarify tonight whether the agency will cover the costs, for two reasons. Firstly, you have not yet determined the scope of work required in a needs assessment; and, secondly, you wish to engage in a process of co-design with the disability community as to the nature of the assessment. On the first point, you ask us to accept as reasonable that the Senate would pass a piece of legislation requiring the undertaking of a mandatory process without understanding the ramifications of that mandatory process either for the workforce required to undertake that process or indeed for the individual upon whom that assessment will be carried out. Now, we can go into very significant detail as to the potential dangers that that process may expose the individual to. For examples of what that trauma could look like, it is fair enough to look at previous government proposals around this process. They can be serious. However, before you get anywhere near the trauma the individual may be exposed to, there is the basic question of cost. Who will pay for the assessment? You say, 'Can't tell you that because we haven't defined the scope of work.' Then why are you asking us to pass this bill? You may well wish to determine down the line what the scope of work is, but wherever you land on those questions the assessment itself will still be mandatory, as it is required in the legislation—as the role of a needs assessor is laid out in legislation. The whole idea that, just because you haven't figured it out yet because you need to define that scope of work—which you do—we should therefore move on from this question and just pass the legislation without having that basic level of information is, I would put to the government, stretching the limit of credulity. You're asking us to just trust you that there will be enough people and that you'll define the scope of work in an appropriate way that will actually enable this assessment work to be carried out. I cannot see, and I would put to my fellow senators that we have been given no reason to believe, that we should trust the government in that regard. Secondly, to your point of co-design: I am the most passionate advocate of co-design you could find in this building. I would be happy to debate, to scrutinise, to engage with any piece of legislation in relation to co-design the government may wish to bring. In all of the years that I have worked on that topic and explored what it would look like to bring co-design into being in a legislative context, I've never once come across an example where individuals, when brought together, opposed a question about a policy that they may wish to engage on and have actively volunteered that they really believe that a critical outcome of that co-design process is that they pay for yet another assessment of their need, function, ability or capacity. To bring that here tonight as a credible suggestion is just ridiculous. Let us remember the structural unemployment and the chronic poverty that we are subjected to as a community. To suggest that any disabled person or any representative organisation would come before a government, as part of a co-design process, and say, 'We really believe that we should pay for this; it's really important that we do,' is nonsense. And I think the government knows it's nonsense. I think the government has been very happy to let the perception develop within the disability community that the needs assessment process will be paid for by the government. It has been very happy to let the disability community and disability representative organisations conclude that, because the NDIS review recommended that the cost of a needs assessment be covered by the government, that was the position of the government. What we have heard this evening is that that is not something the government's willing to commit to. It will need to wait for the usual budgetary processes. Fine. But why then ask us to pass this bill this evening in the absence of such a budgetary commitment? We've not long gone through a budgetary process where there was an opportunity to at least earmark some funding, some public revenue, for a bit of a sandbox for the co-design process to take place within. You didn't do that. You're asking us to sign 660,000 people up to a process, up to a bill, that will require them to undergo a mandatory needs assessment process. You haven't been able to tell us this evening who will conduct that assessment, when and where, or how it will be paid for. You haven't been able to rule out that the participant themselves will have to pay for it. You haven't been able to confirm whether any work to understand whether any of the professions that might be required to engage in the work of delivering those needs assessments has been commenced or undertaken. So then I have to ask: why should the Senate accept the contention, in the absence of any of these basic pieces of information, that we should pass this bill? Now, the government will probably respond to that by saying, 'Well, there is an urgent need to pass this enabling piece of legislation.' But, in relation to this bill and needs assessment, there's no enabling occurring. It is a stated, mandatory, legislated fact. You can consult and you can co-design—whatever you decide that means—what the assessment may or may not look like, but there is nothing that I have been able to identify or that the committee has been able to identify that enables a participant, at the end of the 18-month transition that the minister has outlined—or whenever we end up in that five-year process arriving at the destination of the required needs assessment—to opt out of a needs assessment and yet still receive funding. So that is my question to the minister: is there a section in this bill that enables a participant to opt out of undergoing a needs assessment and yet still receive an NDIS budget amount? 19:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There's a series of propositions in there; I'll just say to Senator Steele-John that there's a binary proposition here. The first proposition is a predetermined outcome in terms of the needs assessment framework. If there were a predetermined outcome, one might expect that there would be a decision of government in relation to budget. The second proposition is a process—in this case a co-design process, The government has opted, out of those two ways of dealing with this, to go with the co-design process—to design this with an open approach with the disability community and with experts that will go to the process, to the workforce and to the way that individuals and their families and carers interact with specialists and all the people who are engaged in the needs assessment framework. One of the questions that will, of course, be engaged in that will be the scope of that activity and what that means in terms of cost. If you open up the process to the community in the way that this bill enables, it is entirely proper for government to engage with that co-design process about those issues and engage the normal budget processes in the way that I've suggested or outlined on behalf of the government. There are, as you've indicated, Senator Steele-John, a set of propositions that will be worked through, and some of them are very difficult—about the rights of individuals and how the process interacts with their sense of wellbeing; how it's done efficiently; and how it's done, as the review suggests, to provide a pathway for individuals that's well understood. I think the expression is 'a clear pathway'. All of those issues are engaged, and I think you quite properly apprehend that there are some difficult issues in there. But the truth is that they have to be resolved together—the process issues, the workforce issues and what I call the scope issues. How all those things interact, and the cost issues, will be dealt with over the course of what I think I indicated to you was likely to be a 12- to 18-month process. When that needs assessment framework comes back, it will come back in the format of a disallowable instrument. There will be absolute clarity for the people and organisations that have participated in the co-design process, for the public and, indeed, for the parliament about how that process will work. The truth is that government matters. Who has decision-making capacity on some of these budget questions matters. I reckon Australians would have regard to the history here in relation to the slash and burn operation over there, what they have said about government spending even over the course of today and the kind of decisions that would be likely to emerge from government in relation to these issues. It is not possible to have it both ways. The co-design process comes with a requirement for decisions to be made by government in conjunction with the community, and that will lead to a budget decision about how costs are allocated in the normal way. All I can say in relation to that, firstly, is that the review had a set of recommendations about that. As I said earlier, it is expected that needs assessments will be paid for by government. What is not yet determined is how these assessments will be conducted. That is why I have said consistently that a decision will need to be made in the budget context about payment. That is a normal and sensible way for these processes to be determined. The alternative would be for the needs assessment framework to come here without the co-design process in a predetermined way and be served up to the disability community and this parliament as a fait accompli, and this government will not do that. That's why this legislation is framed very much in a way where its role, particularly in terms of this issue, is to enable reform. I think you said 'enabling', Senator Steele-John. That is the approach that much of the bill delivers. It enables a process of reform. It is urgent that we get on with it. Some of the answers will only be discovered in that co-design process. It is not fair, and it is misleading, to suggest that the government should have answers to all of these propositions absent that collaborative process that the bill outlines. That would be a contradiction in terms. You can't have co-design with absolute certainty about the outcome. The principles and the rationale for the act are set out there. The government will be accountable on these questions in the normal way. We will engage in the normal budget processes once these questions have been determined. There will be amendments circulated and proposed by the government. There are a series of amendments circulated and proposed by the opposition. Debate will be scheduled over the course of this week, and next week if necessary, to facilitate the passage of this bill and the Senate's consideration of it. There is nothing unusual about that. There is nothing unusual about an amendment process. This is going to be continuous reform in this area. This package of legislation is part of a reform process that enables further legislative reform. Our task here is far from done, and this is the first legislative step in that work. 19:34 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Having listened to the minister over the last few hours in this committee stage, I think that even the scriptwriters of Utopia would not believe that this amount of incompetence over the last 2½ years could be remotely plausible. My heart genuinely breaks for the thousands, if not more, of participants and their family members who will be watching this this evening. I think a little bit of truth-telling about this is actually required. Let's go back in history a little bit. Four to five years ago, when we were still in government, the scheme had been implemented far too fast. The scheme started in 2013 and it took about five years, as it developed, to realise that there were some serious structural flaws in the legislation and also in the intergovernmental agreements that needed addressing. As everybody in this chamber knows, when making serious and meaningful reforms to a creature of the federation, states and territories need to agree. This is not just for amendments to the intergovernmental agreements but also for the categories of reforms in the federal legislation. It is a fact that just under five years ago, the coalition, and the then minister, Minister Robert, came to the opposition and came into the parliament and said, 'We need to make reforms.' In the legislation, it said there needed to be a needs assessment, and we didn't yet have one. In good faith, the minister developed one that was to be paid for by the government. He went through a process of consultation, and then, when I became minister, I inherited it. I put out the hand of bipartisanship to the then shadow minister, Bill Shorten, and instead of saying, 'Yes, we will work together on it', he saw it as an opportunity to play politics. Nobody else can quite do it like he does. He went out and scared the living bejesus out the sector and said we, the government, were lying. He said, 'There are no problems with the scheme.' He called us every name under the sun—the only invective Bill Shorten still uses. He said: 'Don't worry, they're lying. There are no problems with the scheme. Trust us. We will make no cuts to the scheme if you trust us and vote for us.' Anybody in this country can google it. You will find probably hundreds of examples of that. Despite that, and despite what the minister has just erroneously told this chamber, when I was minister, I got two pieces of significant legislation through this place. I had the full support of states and territories. I had the support of the sector because we actually consulted with them. We had exposure drafts. We went around the country. We didn't have non-disclosure forms for the selected few. We didn't keep it secret. We had exposure drafts. We changed the drafts before they hit this place and we got two pieces of legislation passed, and yes, Bill Shorten did support that legislation. Two and that half years later, when Bill Shorten came into government, he probably thought: 'Oops, I've just told everybody there are no problems. I knew there were problems. The budget showed there were problems. Thirty reviews into the scheme showed there were serious problems. But now I've got a big problem. I just said I'm not going to make any changes.' He didn't do the right thing as a minister of the Crown and say, 2½ years ago: 'Oops, I got it wrong. There actually is a problem with this scheme and I want to work with everybody in this place and with the sector to fix this before it gets worse.' The problem with the scheme is the scheme and the Commonwealth government cannot control either of the two drivers of cost: the number of participants and the packages they receive. No other insurance scheme in this nation, probably in this world, has a scheme where you can't control the drivers of cost so that it has to live within its budget. Instead, what did Minister Shorten do? He called another review which took nearly two years. Guess what? The review found exactly the same things the previous 30-odd reviews had found: the scheme needed urgent reform. So what did Minister Shorten do then? Nothing. Going back, I'll tell you what he did when he came into government. I'd actually started the process. After cancelling the independent assessment process, I commissioned the IAC, the Independent Advisory Council, to start preparing a new system, co-designed, for needs assessments. Guess what Minister Shorten did? He stopped everything. He stopped all of the co-design reviews that were underway and said: 'Don't worry. Trust us. We'll have this review. We'll find out what's wrong. We'll talk to lots of people. We won't listen to them. We'll have this review'—that you've been sitting on for seven months and that apparently now this bill is implementing. But the minister just then couldn't even tell us how it was implementing the review. He said he was reading from the review itself. Roll forward 2½ years—a review, doing nothing. Now they're trying to ram through this piece of legislation because they've got a problem, because they haven't taken measures, in 2½ years, to work with the states and territories to start to find solutions to functional assessments, to all of the things about which the minister is now saying: 'We'll put them in regulations and we'll work it out later. We're sure the states aren't going to mind paying all this extra money. I'm sure we'll get them on board.' Well, I don't know what rock you've been hiding under, because every single state and territory have said that you have bungled the process, and they ain't on board. So why is the government really doing this? I think it comes down to Shortenomics. Shortenomics goes something like this: 'We've got a problem. We'll shunt this legislation through the Senate. We won't give the sector or the Senate time to review it. And, by the way, we're going to throw in another 50-odd amendments as you're trying to review the bill, because we realise how bad it is in the first place. We'll get a few people we like to sign NDAs. We won't let the rest of the sector look at it. There'll be no exposure draft. And we'll just try and ram it through this place.' Well, I tell you what: it is a disgrace, and I feel so sorry for every single NDIS participant, who will now feel incredibly unsure about the future. You've had 2½ years. You knew the problem when you came into government. You've got speechwriters. You've got RedBridge to manage the messaging. If only you'd spend half that time talking to the states, talking to the sector and actually getting solutions. Minister, I'd like to come to questions now on Shortenomics. You said earlier that this bill doesn't make cuts to the scheme. Well, Minister, in your last budget I counted 18 times—there may be more but there are at least 18 times—where in the budget papers it said that this legislation was required to realise $60 billion worth of savings, cuts to this scheme, over the next 10 years. That is stripping out $60 billion from the budget, and, when the fourth-quarter report comes out, I think it will be at least $70 billion, if not more. Could you explain to this place, please, how, when it says 18 times in the budget that $60 billion worth of savings are going to be realised through this bill, nobody in the inquiry could explain to any of us where those savings were coming from? The poor actuary, who is a very good man and a very honest man, was clearly told not to answer the questions. So we still haven't got any data on how this piece of legislation is going to realise $60-plus billion worth of savings. When you're answering that question, please also explain this to us. My recollection was that it was going to be about 14 per cent, but it's still going up at 20 per cent. So how on earth is this government getting it down to eight per cent? 19:44 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I might respond to that series of propositions. I note the minister's defence of her own period as a minister, and I'd just say that there are issues of public policy importance to the current cohort of participants in the scheme—around 660,000, I think we've said—and future participants in this scheme. I know that the former minister feels unfairly characterised, but this is not an opportunity to make the dealing with this legislation about herself or her own sense of grievance about the way that she was criticised. That is not an appropriate response. I undertook to come back to the Senate about the relationship between the provisions of the bill, the changes to the act and the NDIS review terms. I intend to do that now and then come to Senator Reynolds's question in relation to the government's strategy to moderate the growth of the scheme. First—if I can take them thematically—in relation to access settings, what the act does is expand the rule-making powers relating to early intervention to create a new pathway and, secondly, introduce a process to consider continued scheme access for people accessing the NDIS through the early intervention pathway. Those are set out in amendments to sections 19 to 28. They engage recommendation or reference 3.7 of the review, which says: The National Disability Insurance Agency should reform … the pathway to provide supports to individuals where there is good evidence the intervention is safe, cost effective and significantly improves outcomes— and recommendation 3.9— The Australian Government should update and clarify legislation to support a more effective approach to determining access— and recommendation 6.2, which says: The National Disability Insurance Agency should reform the pathway for all children under the age of 9 to enter the NDIS under early intervention requirements— and 7.2— The National Disability Insurance Agency should establish an early intervention pathway for the majority of new participants with psychosocial disability under section 25 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013. That's firstly in relation to access settings. In relation to the second theme, if I can describe it that way, funding settings for reasonable and necessary supports, there are new rule-making powers for assessment tools—functional capacity assessments and needs assessments—which we've spent some time on over the course of today. They are in relation to sections 32L and 32K, and they relate to the NDIS review recommendations 3.1: The National Disability Insurance Agency should introduce a more consistent and robust approach to determining eligibility for access to the NDIS based on transparent methods for assessing functional capacity— and 3.4— The National Disability Insurance Agency should introduce new needs assessment processes to more consistently determine the level of need for each participant and set budgets on this basis. The third thematic area is funding settings for reasonable and necessary supports. The bill provides for new provisions, creating the concept of a flexible budget other than certain stated supports; new rule-making powers to state supports and plans; new rule-making powers to specify when and why supports can be stated in plans; new rule-making powers to specify things that the flexible budget can and cannot be spent on; new rule-making powers to determine the process and cohorts for transition to the new budget-setting framework; new rule-making powers to prescribe timeframes for decisions in new framework plans—and plans will roll over if not reassessed or varied before the end date; the inclusion of matters to which the CEO must have regard in a new framework plan and, in approving a plan management type, whether the participant has previously overspent their funds; transition parameters for participants to move from an old framework plan to a new framework plan, to be set out in a legislative instrument, not rules, with a five-year timeframe which can be extended by instrument if required; clarification that NDIS amounts cannot be spent on supports that the rules prescribe as supports that will not be funded by the NDIS. Those relate to sections 32(b) to 32(l), and they engage the NDIS review recommendation 3.3, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should change the basis for setting a budget to a whole-of-person level rather than for individual support items; 3.4, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should introduce new needs assessment processes to more consistently determine the level of need for each participant and set budgets on this basis; 3.5, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should allow greater flexibility in how participants can spend their budget with minimal exceptions; 3.6, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should adopt a trust based approach to oversight of how participants spend their budget, with a focus on providing guidance and support; recommendation 5.4, that the Department of Social Services, the new National Disability Supports Quality and Safeguards Commission and the National Disability Insurance Agency should ensure decision supporters have access to information, training and resources to assist them in providing best practice support for decision-making; and 6.4, that the National Disability Insurance Agency should change the basis for setting a budget to a whole-of-person level and introduce a new needs assessment process to more consistently determine the level of need for each child and set budgets on this basis. The fourth thematic area in terms of quality and safeguards: the bill enables delegation of the commissioner's compliance and enforcement powers to specified non-SES provisions and positions, and expands the categories of person to whom a banning order may be made to include persons that are not related to the provision of supports, such as consultants, enablers and auditors. Those changes are contained in schedule 2 of the bill. They engage, as I alluded to earlier, recommendation 17.6 of the review panel that says that the new National Disability Supports Quality and Safeguards Commission should be resourced to strengthen compliance activities and communications to respond to emerging and longstanding quality and safeguards issues and market developments and innovation. The final area in fraud and compliance includes a prohibition on approved quality auditors employing or engaging a person who is subject to a banning order made by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. That too is contained in schedule 2 and that also engages the NDIS review recommendation 17.6. As I indicated, the new National Disability Supports Quality and Safeguards Commission should be resourced to strengthen compliance activities and communications to respond to emerging and longstanding quality and safeguards issues and market developments and innovation. Finally, Senator Reynolds's question—where she wants, for political purposes, to frighten people by characterising the government's approach to budgeting and further moderation of the growth of the scheme as 'cuts'—is not an honest portrayal of the government's objectives. Senator Reynolds knows that. There is a growth target. The scheme will continue to grow in terms of its cost and in terms of its size. Everybody in this place knows that that's the case. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0T Sorry, Senator Reynolds. You are the one that stood, but Senator Tyrrell did come and tell me she was seeking the call. Senator Tyrrell. Senator Reynolds 250216 Can I have one minute? Senator Tyrrell 300639 Okay, you can have one minute. 19:55 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you very much. I thank the minister for those. Can I confirm the information that you've given me? The review had 26 major recommendations and 139 subrecommendations. This legislation deals with, as we've said, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 17 in part, which you've just gone through—correct?—and, by my count, 11 of the subsections in those five. So 11 of the 139 recommendations have been actioned in this legislation. If it helps, I've got 3.7, 3.9, 7.2, 3.4 and 3.3—actually, one less because I said 3.4 twice. So it's actually 11, I think. Would that be correct? 19:56 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Senator Reynolds, I won't go through it theme by theme, but the review references are 3.7, 3.9, 6.2, 7.2, 3.1 and 3.4. There'll be some repetition here, because there is some cross-referencing— Senator Reynolds 250216 Maybe not 12. Senator AYRES 16913 So it's 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5.4, 6.4 and 17.6. Of course, as has been made plain by the minister at all stages, this bill is not designed to respond to all of the recommendations of the review. Some— Senator Reynolds 250216 So that's 12. Can I confirm if it's 12 of 139? Senator AYRES 16913 I might just conclude my response. I'm not sure what the maths is. Some of the recommendations of the review require a legislative response, but not all of the recommendations of the review require a legislative response. Some of them are in relation to foundational supports. Some of them will require decisions of the relevant Commonwealth-state interactions that we've dealt with. It is not an exhaustive list. It is designed to deal with what it is designed to deal with. 19:58 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The NDIS should be designed to give participants what they need and to support them to live. The bill, as it stands, will not do that. It has gone through two committee inquiries, yet we're still unsure about how the new assessment process will work. What will the assessment tool look like? Who will use it? How will costs be measured against the participant's budget? Participants have been told they will get a new framework plan, but it's not clear what a new framework plan actually is and how it's different to what they have had previously. What happens to participants who have an old framework plan? That's also unclear. Another point we don't know is how costs will be measured and allocated as part of the government's plans to get the scheme back on track. The idea of flexible funding is great, but what happens when the support a participant wants doesn't align with NDIS rules for that pot of money? Can the money be moved to another pot so the participant can still access the support they need? We're supposed to just trust that it will all be worked out, but that's only going to happen after the legislation passes. This is not how we should be making decisions about NDIS participants. Wading through what is and is not approved by the NDIS is already hard enough, but the idea that the participants and their carers will have to refer to an approved list is causing concern in the disability community. What happens if a participant has been relying on a support for years and it is not on the new list? Does that mean it can't be claimed as part of their NDIS package anymore? These questions are valid. None of us have seen this list yet. Participants are expected to be across all aspects of this scheme, but how can anybody be across anything? Instead of this helping the disability community, participants are falling through the cracks. Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 2789 ADJOURNMENT Tasmania: Infrastructure 2789 20:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The continued delays in the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries represent a significant failure of the Tasmanian Liberal government, showcasing a lack of foresight, planning and accountability. These delays not only reflect poorly on the government's capacity to manage large-scale infrastructure projects but also have broader implications for the state's economy and its residents' trust in their leaders. First and foremost, the Spirit of Tasmania ferries are a critical component of Tasmania's transport infrastructure. They serve as a vital link between the island state and mainland Australia, facilitating the movement of people and goods. Delays in their deployment have caused considerable inconvenience for travellers and businesses alike. Tourists, who contribute significantly to Tasmania's economy, face disruptions and uncertainty, potentially deterring future visits. For businesses relying on the timely transport of goods, these delays translate into logistical nightmares and increased costs, undermining their competitiveness and profitability. The Liberal government's handling of this project reveals glaring deficiencies in project management. A well-executed infrastructure project requires meticulous planning, robust risk assessment and proactive problem solving. The repeated postponement suggested that these elements were either inadequately addressed or entirely overlooked. It raises questions about the competency of the officers overseeing the project and the mechanisms in place to ensure accountability and transparency by this Liberal government. It also raises questions about the ability of the current government to even manage our state. Moreover, the government's communications with the public throughout this critical ordeal have been woefully inadequate. Transparency is crucial in maintaining public trust, particularly when projects funded by taxpayers' money encounter these obstacles. Instead of providing clear and regular updates, the government has often resorted to vague assurances and shifting timelines. This lack of candour has only fuelled frustration and scepticism amongst Tasmanians, who are left to wonder about the true state of the project and the reasons behind the delays. The financial implications of these delays cannot be overstated. The prolonged timeline inevitably incurs additional costs, whether through extended contracts with construction firms, increased maintenance of the current ferries or compensation for affected businesses. These costs are ultimately borne by Tasmanian taxpayers, who have a right to expect better stewardship of public funds. The state opposition—that's Labor in Tasmania—under our new leader, Dean Winter, has ensured that Tasmanians know that the estimated additional cost will need to be somewhere in the order of $50 million spent on temporary upgrades. These upgrades are now necessary in order to allow for the Spirit of Tasmania to arrive in Devonport due to these unnecessary delays. Now, the opposition are the ones who have been upfront and communicating with the Tasmanian community. There is also a prediction that the new ships won't be in operation for an additional five years on top of the previously promised margin. This, in turn, is predicted to cause this project to go $500 million over budget and cost an estimated $2 billion in lost tourism revenue. This is unacceptable. This has huge implications for the Tasmanian community, our economy, our tourism industry and our businesses who rely on getting their goods out of the state. It will impact their profitability. We can only hope that the Tasmanian Liberal government learns from these mistakes and makes a commitment to be more open and cooperative in the next major projects, perhaps even the stadium. As I said, this has broader implications for the Tasmanian economy, and it's unacceptable that they are so incompetent. (Time expired) First Nations Australians 2790 20:05 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The latest substantial government reports on the health and welfare of Indigenous Australians have told us what we, or some of us, should already know. The quality of life is not improving for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, so much so across some social and economic indicators that the gap is growing to a gulf. Only five of 19 targets are on track. Four targets continue to get worse: children in contact with child protection systems, the proportion of children developmentally on track, the rate of people taking their own lives, and the number of adults imprisoned. The need for change for those impacted demands truth-telling and the facts being reported exactly as they occur, warts and all—no airbrushing, no absence of critical data, no shirking of truth or accountability. The most recent Productivity Commission report blames the bureaucrats for being too focused on reporting. Come on, you know it's not that simple. As the shadow minister for the prevention of family violence, I find it appalling that on page 33 it says: No data is available to track all forms of family violence and abuse against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander females and children. And that's been the case since 2018 and 2019. It should be there, given we're in the middle of an epidemic. Apparently, it's because data collection is too complex. There is concern over the potential for harm by previous data collection methods and yet no suggestion that it will be fixed. Domestic and family violence is a significant driver impacting the lives of people, and it's getting worse for those most impacted. Is it the harm that's talked about in the pride and feelings of the decision-makers driven by ideology, not intelligence or evidence? Because it's not those depending on change, because they are hurting enough physically, emotionally and sexually from harm. Think about the lifting of the NT alcohol restrictions without a proper transition plan and the removal of cashless debit cards in the communities that wanted them—the harm that was already done to vulnerable people. It's now well documented. You know what's interesting? It's what's not in the document. What's not in the document is the voice of children. What's not in that document is information about alcohol consumption levels. What's not in that document is the change in the number of children in out-of-home care. What's not in that document is the number of hospital admissions for family violence—not in South Australia, not in Queensland and not in other places. Western Australia provided some of the best data. That fits the definition of hypocrisy when the Albanese government continues to talk about the impact of voice, yet it's still not listening to Indigenous Australians or to those who want to speak up or should be heard. Let me explain. Let's consider the draft report on the CDC cessation, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Well, when you look at the draft compared to the final, people's voices have changed. Where those participants talked about—well, they reported—alcohol increasing considerably, the final report says no, they only suggested it. In Ceduna, they said the number of visitors had increased considerably, but the final report says no, they only perceived that it had increased. They live there; they know. They live through the consequences every day. They talked of increased levels of alcohol misuse having flow-on effects for the incidence of assaults and family violence. In the final report, that was adjusted to say: 'No, they only perceived that. They don't know it. We know best in the cities and towns that aren't even near those communities that wanted the cashless debit card.' It appears the report that was provided by the Australian government is a concerted effort to invalidate the voices of Indigenous Australians—to invalidate the participants who contributed, gave their time and honestly talked about the impact. This is from one of the participants: 'I think the impact is that the gambling, the alcohol and the violence on the street are all back. It happened immediately here, as soon as that card ceased. The impact was immediate. It's affected not only adults but the kids as well.' We don't hear from a single child—not a single child—and yet we know the indicators in the Close the gap report are ones that impact children the most. It's disgraceful—making decisions on ideology. Animal Welfare, Greyhound Racing, Gambling 2791 20:10 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales In news that will surprise no-one, the greyhound racing and gambling industry has yet again been exposed for animal cruelty. And, just like clockwork, the Labor Party has leapt to their defence, guaranteeing there will be no serious consequences for this so-called sport built on the abuse of animals. This time the scandal has emerged in New South Wales, with a report from former veterinary officer Alexander Brittan. The report details Greyhound Racing New South Wales's indifference to the welfare of greyhounds, highlighting issues endemic in every aspect from rearing to racing to rehoming. Dr Brittan exposes that, despite $30 million of mostly taxpayer dollars being used to improve track safety, there has been a more than 16-fold increase in serious injuries over a 16-month period. He describes this as the greatest increase in the rate of race injuries in the history of greyhound racing in New South Wales. But who cares? Who cares about seriously injured dogs when there is money to be made? Greyhound Racing New South Wales certainly doesn't. Labor certainly doesn't. And the Liberals definitely don't. Greyhounds as Pets, the industry's rehoming body, has come under fire for failing to provide adequate nutrition to the dogs under their care. The industry of course dismissed Dr Brittan's efforts to introduce an appropriate diet, arguing, 'They are just dogs, and they can eat pretty much anything.' Disgraceful! Do you want to know the costs the industry won't cover? Just $2.70 to $3.12 per dog per day. They don't care about these dogs. Dr Brittan estimates that rehoming numbers have been so poor over the past five years that between 8,000 and 13,000 greyhounds remain trapped within the industry. The most disturbing revelations involve the industry's PR piece, the G'day USA program, which sends dogs to the USA for rehoming. It is clear that the industry's wilful negligence and desire to rid themselves of the dogs at any cost are leading to tragic consequences. One dog, Jazzie, died en route to the USA from bloat due to inappropriate preparation. The death was described as one of the most painful imaginable for a greyhound that was in a dark, unattended space. And one can only imagine the immense pain experienced by the greyhound. Another dog, Carey, died when released from the transport kennel into the transporter's van, which resembled a racing starter's box. The greyhound ran at full velocity into a fence, fracturing his neck. It was clearly inappropriate to place a dog so recently removed from racing into such a situation. Rehoming dogs through this program is actually more deadly than the tracks that they have just survived. The death rate of the G'day USA program is four times more dangerous than the average New South Wales race track and more dangerous than any active track in New South Wales. This report also alleges that the supposed independent regulator of racing in New South Wales, GWIC, is not accurately reporting the mortality rates and lax transparency. Massive numbers of greyhounds go missing each year. Each annual cohort of approximately 4½ thousand greyhounds entering the industry suffers a 20 per cent mortality rate between 18 months and 66 months. It's been nearly eight years since the Labor and Liberal parties united in their support for the toxic gambling industry and their indifference to animal welfare and overturned the ban on greyhound racing in New South Wales. I was there and witnessed the opportunistic and craven Labor Party siding with their gambling industry donors to oppose the shutdown. The weak-willed Liberal Party chose to crumble, rather than stand for what was right. Tens of millions of dollars have been poured into giving the industry one last chance. Over the past eight years it's become routine to see headlines about dogs dying on track, drugging scandals, cheating, organised crime involvement, catastrophic injuries and rehoming failures. I won't hold my breath, as it seems Labor is already covering up for the industry, but I won't be silent until this horrible industry comes to an end. Lai, Mr Jimmy 2791 20:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Democracy is a precious and rare state in this world, and it's not to be assumed that it's the norm everywhere. It's fragile and it's vital. It's a value set that demands constant vigilance and care to maintain. Without proper attention, democracy can simply slip away. That's why I recently joined my colleagues Senator David Fawcett from this place and Mr Hugh McDermott from the New South Wales parliament on a trip to Taiwan as part of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. Taiwan is at the very frontline of democracy, and I'm proud to stand with those who share the values of equality and freedom that so underpin our belief in the democratic project. Alongside other parliamentarians and representatives from nations, we shared a commitment to these principles and we reaffirmed our support. To understand the value of democracy in the region, one need only need to look to Taiwan's neighbour Hong Kong. There, democracy has been severely eroded in favour of authoritarianism. The world has witnessed severe political suppression and destruction of dissenting voices that oppose the government's agenda. In this we must be very clear-eyed. Jimmy Lai, the founder of Apple Daily, epitomises the repression that is underway in Hong Kong. Born in Mao's China, he escaped to Hong Kong at age 12, eventually rising from his work as a factory worker to leading a fashion icon label and then onto becoming a media mogul. His newspaper's critical stance led to his persecution under draconian national security laws, which saw the freezing of the paper's assets, raids on its offices, with 200 officials coming in to remove him from his workplace. The arrest of several leaders coincided with the capturing of Jimmy Lai himself. He's been charged with sedition and collusion with foreign forces. Jimmy Lai now faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars simply for speaking out against the government. I've met Jimmy's son Sebastien, who was here in Australia, and I met him again in Taipei. Sebastian has shown remarkable strength and stoicism in the face of personal adversity, reflecting the courage that his own father has shown. He asked that we speak out on behalf of his father, highlight the ongoing oppression that exists in Hong Kong and call for his father's freedom, and that's why I'm making this speech—to draw attention to this matter. Over the past two years, parliaments and other international voices have called for Jimmy Lai's immediate release. This includes the UK, Mr Lai's state of nationality; the United States; the European parliament; the Canadian parliament; five United Nations experts; and leaders of the Catholic Church. Multiple other states have raised grave concerns regarding the collapse of media freedom in Hong Kong, including 24 states who co-signed a media freedom coalition statement in December 2023, shortly after Mr Lai's current trial commenced. It's important to note that, on 6 June 2024, two overseas non-permanent judges of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, Lord Sumption and Lord Collins, resigned. Lord Sumption cited his view that Hong Kong is becoming a totalitarian state, and he described the growing malaise in the Hong Kong judiciary and the profound compromise of the rule of law in any area which the government feels strongly about. I am going to seek support of this parliament to call for the release of Jimmy Lai. He is a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned for his peaceful campaigning activities, for his writing and for his journalism, as well as on trumped-up charges based on an alleged breach of a lease. He has already been in prison for over 3½ years, and his sedition and NSL trial began on 18 December 2023. It's now clear that, with many delays, this will continue until at least the end of the year and possibly into 2025. The prosecution's case makes it abundantly clear that Mr Lai is being accused of engaging in legitimate political debate and discussion with politicians and in his newspaper, Apple Daily; of raising human rights concerns; and of calling for accountability for human rights violations in Hong Kong. I urge all those who are providing external judges from countries around the world, including Australia, to look at the situation in Hong Kong and consider how tenable that position might continue to be. From my experience, concerted efforts by some nations subvert and degrade the rules based order. We need to stand together in support of democracy. Energy 2792 20:20 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Central Queensland is getting a little bit tired of the Labor Party using it as a political backdrop to paper over the cracks in its own energy policy. Ever since the 2019 election gave the Labor Party an unexpected defeat, it has been trying to rationalise the fact that it won't support the major industry of Central Queensland, the coal sector, while still purporting to try and represent that area of the country. Its solution was not to try and reflect on whether or not it should support Australia's biggest export, one of the major industries bankrolling this nation; instead it concocted a fantasy that somehow we could close down this major industry of Australia and simply create another one out of thin air—literally out of air—called the hydrogen industry. Ever since, for the last five years, we have heard on repeat, every time a Labor Party senator comes into Central Queensland, how we're all going to get these amazing jobs and business opportunities in the hydrogen sector. It was always a bit of a fantasy. Sir Joh actually tried this 40 years ago. He announced the hydrogen car back in the early 1980s, but it never came to be. The old physics joke is that hydrogen is just 20 years away, but the problem is it's always 20 years away. There's nothing wrong with thinking big and maybe doing research into something that might pay off in the future, but there is something very, very wrong in gambling people's real jobs and real businesses on a risk. It may not happen. There has never been a certainty that hydrogen will ever produce a commercial amount of jobs and opportunities for Australians, and there is certainly no certainty—almost no possibility—that it would do so in just a few years time. But that's the myth. That's the lie that we've been told in Central Queensland time and time again. The lie is being exposed now, though, somewhat ironically by one of the biggest backers of this hydrogen fantasy. In the last few weeks, Mr Twiggy Forrest, who has been a very successful Australian businessman to date, has announced that he's dropping his fantastical hydrogen dream of trying to produce 15 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2030. In announcing it he actually sacked 700 people. It's an absolute tragedy for those people who lost their jobs, but it should be an alarm bell to the rest of us that we should not gamble the tens of thousands of jobs in industries like the coal sector on something that clearly has a lot of risk associated with it. Twiggy Forrest has worked out that we're not going to produce a commercially viable hydrogen industry in the next few years and—let's face it—probably not in the next decade. So let's drop this fantasy and let's support the hardworking men and women who are already in industries in this country that produce a lot of wealth for our nation and that are growing around the world. Again, despite what you hear time and time again from this government, demand for coal around the world is growing. Last year there was a record amount of coal used. Demand for high-quality coal in particular is growing very, very quickly. Just to the north of us, in Indonesia they have, amazingly, in just two years increased their production of coal by 150 million tonnes. To put that in context, most would recall the controversy we had around the Adani Carmichael mine. For all the ink that was spilled in our newspapers about that mine, that mine is 10 million tonnes a year. So, in two years, Indonesia has opened the equivalent of 15 Adanis. You don't hear that reported, but that's the kind of growth you're seeing. In India, they've increased their coal production over the same time period of two years by 200 million tonnes. They've built 20 Adanis. And our friends up there in China always win the gold medal on these measures They have produced an extra 548 million tonnes of coal a year in just two years—that's extra. China already produces around five billion tonnes of coal a year; it's increased that by over 500 million tonnes—55 Adanis, if you like—in just two years. It's time we get with the program. It's time we drop all of the myths and fairytales we are fed constantly because of the tough times Australian families are facing right now. The cost of living, the weak economy and rising interest rates are happening at least in part because we have a Labor Party that won't face reality but will continue to live in a fantasy world where we can just invent industries. We need to get back to producing what our customers demand, and that is cheap and affordable energy like coal. Senate adjourned at 20 : 25