2024-08-15 2 1 0 Senate 0 0

Thursday, 15 August 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 3027 DOCUMENTS Tabling 3027 BILLS 3027 BILLS Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 3027

Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 3027 09:01 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which has been prepared and brought to this place by my colleague Senator Dean Smith. At the outset, I would like to say that Senator Smith has put an incredible amount of hard work into the preparation of this bill which we're debating here this morning. It's a bill which addresses the pressing and concerning issue of organ harvesting. There is evidence that occurrences of organ harvesting have been increasing throughout the world. I know we are living in the 21st century, but it is somewhat staggering that this heinous crime is only becoming more prevalent. This is a deeply, deeply disturbing fact, and Australia should be doing all that we can to combat this incredibly dark criminal activity. I think that Senator Smith's bill, in the very good Liberal tradition, is a very practical and simple change to law and to policy that can enable just a small but important amount of improvement in how we deal with this issue here in Australia. Before addressing the content of the bill, I do want to go to the issue of organ harvesting and explain to the chamber what this is. Like I say, it is incredible that this is still occurring in the 21st century, and I think it is pertinent to remind colleagues of just how horrible this practice is. The practices of organ harvesting and trafficking are some of the most appalling and disturbing human rights violations that exist. It involves the unethical removal, transfer or commercialisation of human organs for transplant, all done in the shadows and well outside of legal frameworks. Frankly, the thought of it is enough to send shivers down anybody's spine. Organs are collected through intimidation and through coercive methods, with unwilling donors pressured into giving up organs or, in other cases, having those organs forcibly removed. Quite frankly, it's like something out of a dystopian novel, but, sadly, this is real life. This is happening around the world. It is frankly inconceivable that one human being is capable of committing such a disturbing act against another person, let alone that a group of people would be involved in undertaking this sort of heinous behaviour. It boils down to a tragic case where, effectively, one human life is prized more than another, and I think that that is something that all of us in this chamber, regardless of our political persuasion or our political colours, can agree is absolutely horrible and that we should be endeavouring to stamp out at all costs. Reliable figures are hard to track down on the illegal practice of organ harvesting. I think Senator Smith's bill goes some of the way to uncovering exactly what those numbers could potentially be, and I will get to the content of the bill in a moment. But, in 2008, the World Health Organization estimated that five per cent of worldwide organ transplants are undertaken illegally. That's pretty significant. I think we've probably all known someone who has willingly undertaken or benefited from an organ transplant, but to think that five per cent of those are done so under coercion or without the consent of the parties involved is absolutely horrible. The act of organ harvesting is an egregious attack on the foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the commitment contained within saying: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Again, we would hope that this is not something that we would have to talk about in the 21st century, but, as I said, in this century, in 2008, the World Health Organization specified that illegal organ harvesting is an issue. To the contents of Senator Smith's Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, this bill, as I said at the outset, puts in place just a small change, but it's a very important and meaningful change that can help us in Australia understand just how widespread the incidence of organ transplant overseas is and then potentially ascertain from those numbers, depending on where transplants have taken place, the potential that organs have been harvested illegally. The bill aims to increase Australia's ability to identify and combat illegal organ harvesting and to uphold and enhance fundamental human rights both here and around the world. Currently, there are no reporting requirements for persons arriving in Australia relating to organ transplants that they might've undertaken overseas. I'm sure any Australian that has travelled overseas knows that, on the way back into Australia by plane or by boat, you are provided with an arrivals card on which you have to declare certain things about what you've done while you've been overseas—whether that's going on a farm or going to certain countries with certain diseases that need to be declared—or, indeed, what you are bringing back into the country in terms of significant amounts of cash, tobacco and these sorts of things. This bill will add a requirement to Australia's migration framework whereby a person coming back into Australia must disclose on that arrivals card, which you fill in on the plane or on the boat, if that individual has received an organ transplant outside of Australia within the last five years. As I said, this information will be disclosed by individuals entering Australia, via the incoming passenger card, which is the system the Australian government already uses to record an individual's entry into Australia, and those other criteria—the boxes that you have to tick or cross on a card. If a person has received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years, that person will be required to disclose information to verify the legality of that procedure, including the name of the medical facility where that transplant occurred and the town or city and the country of the medical facility. Under this bill, the data collected through the incoming passenger card, relevant to organ transplants, will then be made available to the responsible minister, who will be required to table an annual report to the parliament detailing the instances where an individual entering Australia answered that they have received an organ transplant outside of Australia within the last five years, as well as the location of where that procedure took place. Importantly, the bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide that a person does not pass the character test if the responsible minister reasonably suspects that an individual has been or is involved in an offence involving trafficking human organs, so that's in addition to the change to the arrivals card system. The bill will put a specific requirement into the character test, which we've all talked about here in this place many times, to ensure that somebody fails that character test if the minister reasonably suspects that that person has been involved in the trafficking of human organs. Senator Smith's bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at the end of last year. I'm the deputy chair of that committee, and my colleague Senator Ciccone, on the other side of the chamber, is the chair of that committee. The bill was referred to the committee on 9 November and we undertook a public hearing on 22 March this year. There were a number of submissions to this inquiry that were overwhelmingly in support of the bill's passage, and I think that is a testament to the hard work of Senator Smith in drafting this bill. We heard from witnesses including Be Slavery Free; the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, where we know there are significant concerns about organ harvesting in relation to the Uighur population and the Falun Gong; Anti-Slavery Australia; as well as the Department of Home Affairs and Australian Border Force. The committee delivered its report on this bill on 14 May this year, and coalition senators provided a dissenting report to that committee report, which, perhaps not surprisingly, recommended that this bill pass the Senate. It's important to note that the bill that we're debating here this morning builds upon frameworks to combat organ trafficking that have been established by previous governments of both political persuasions. In 2005 the Australian government criminalised organ trafficking under the Criminal Code Act 1995—that was under the Howard coalition government—and in 2013 the Commonwealth Criminal Code was strengthened by the introduction of four standalone organ-trafficking offences. Under Australia's organ-trafficking offences, the movement of people to, from or within Australia for the unlawful removal of their organs is criminalised. It is important to note that an organ does not have to be removed for an organ-trafficking offence to have been committed. The Commonwealth Criminal Code also stipulates that organ-transplant tourism constitutes an organ-trafficking offence if a person organised or facilitated the transport, or the proposed transport, of a potential donor to, from or within Australia. This bill adds to that framework that is already in place, and amendments within the bill complement the efforts that have been taken at the international level to combat the increasing prevalence of organ trafficking. We know that vulnerable people in developing nations are most at risk of the practice of illegal organ harvesting. Although we recognise that there are limitations surrounding the extent to which we here in Australia can prevent human rights violations abroad, we have a responsibility to do everything that we can with the powers that are available to us to uphold and protect universal human rights. It is incumbent on Australia to take practical action and implement sensible initiatives which support global efforts to combat organ trafficking, and I think this bill that Senator Smith has brought before the Senate includes a very easy, practical action that we here in Australia can take. It is not a huge, costly, significant change. It is merely asking Australians, when they return to this country, and incoming passengers, when they come into Australia, to declare on their arrivals card whether they have had an organ transplant overseas. This is so we can start to shine a light on just how prevalent the practice of receiving an overseas organ transplant is and start digging into that data to ascertain whether or not those practices are being undertaken without the consent of individuals involved. In conclusion, I want to acknowledge and thank my colleague Senator Smith for everything that he has done to prepare the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and other Measures) Bill 2023 and bring it before the Senate, because it does important work to address the disturbing practice of organ harvesting. These are some of the most disturbing human rights violations that exist, and evidence suggests that occurrences of this have been increasing around the world, which is a terrifying thought. This bill makes a very small, practical change that I think can make a really big difference to help Australia understand just how widespread this horrible practice is. I commend this bill to the Senate. 09:16 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise to also make a contribution on Senator Dean Smith's Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I know he is very passionate about this particular issue, and on human rights issues he has for many years stood up very proudly in defending the rights of individuals, and I know this is an issue that is very close to his heart. I just want to acknowledge that, as a fellow senator in this place. On behalf of the Australian government, I just want to make a short statement about the proposed bill before us today. The government has no tolerance for human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices, including the abhorrent crime of organ trafficking. This bill is very well intended; however, there were a range of issues and challenges raised as we went through the Senate inquiry Senator Chandler just referenced that would render this bill ineffectual. I want to run through why the government believes that it's not in a position to support this bill. In relation to the proposal to amend the incoming passenger card for data collection, owing to the covert nature of organ trafficking, recipients and organisers are highly likely to obfuscate and to fail to declare accurate information via self-declaration. During the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee's inquiry, the submission from Anti-Slavery Australia observed: … it is unlikely that persons entering Australia will honestly answer the disclosure question given the potential for them to be investigated for a crime. This will have an impact on the accuracy of the data captured. Other stakeholders also noted that personal medical information may be best coordinated and collected by medical professionals in a clinical setting, thus ensuring accuracy of the data and the health privacy considerations. On the proposed new cancellation power, the Migration Act already provides the minister and departmental delegates with a range of cancellation powers in circumstances where there is a concern about the visa holder's character. The Department of Home Affairs also stated during the inquiry that a person who has either facilitated organ trafficking or participated in organ tourism as a recipient of a trafficked organ will be captured by the existing broad cancellation powers in the Migration Act. I want to re-emphasise some of the recommendations made by government senators as part of the inquiry earlier this year. The first recommendation from government senators was: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to delivering one or more public awareness campaigns: to inform the public about the risks, dangers and consequences of illegal overseas organ transplants; and aimed at increasing the number of registered organ donors in Australia. The second recommendation that government senators proposed as part of the committee process was: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government redoubles its efforts to implement the recommendations agreed to in its 2021 response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's report Compassion, Not Commerce: An inquiry into Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism. I think it's worth referencing that because I know this is an issue that has been debated in this place and had extensive inquiry in a range of committees before in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and on the joint committee. I implore colleagues in this place to also look at the recommendations that came out of the joint standing committee's inquiry back in 2021. 09:21 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to support this Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, which is the product of a great deal of effort by my dear friend Senator Dean Smith, and I congratulate him on his endeavours in this regard. At the outset, I would like to address some of the comments which were just made by Senator Ciccone in response to this bill. I was pleased to hear in his opening remarks that, of course, the government has no tolerance for organ harvesting or trafficking of this nature, and that it is acknowledged by the government that the bill put forward by Senator Smith is well intended. I thank Senator Ciccone and the government for that recognition. Where I do differ, though, is with respect to the concerns that Senator Ciccone raises—in good faith, no doubt—in relation to the bill which has been put forward. I think those concerns can be answered. The first concern is that people will simply not declare information on their incoming passenger cards. It could well be that people don't declare appropriately on their incoming passenger cards. But, to the extent that people, when they travel to Australia, do discharge their obligation under law—with penalties if they don't comply—the government will have the benefit of the data which is thereby collected. The second point Senator Ciccone raised, with respect to the privacy of medical information, is again a valid one, but there are measures in the bill to protect the privacy of information and make sure it's anonymised. The third point he raised was in relation to the powers that the minister has, as the legislation stands, to deny visas on character grounds. What I say to Senator Ciccone is that the bill would add another point of pressure in relation to those who are involved in this vile practice. It puts an onus on an individual to declare whether or not they've actually been provided with an organ—whether or not they've engaged in or benefited from a medical procedure—and to disclose that on their incoming passenger card. If they don't do that an added point of pressure can be used to analyse whether or not their visa or entry to Australia should be prevented on character grounds. I think that's a good thing. So I think there are clear rebuttal points to the matters which have been raised by Senator Ciccone. As with all things, this is a balance. The question we should ask ourselves as senators is: does this take us forward in terms of dealing with this vile practice of organ harvesting and trafficking or does it take us backwards? I'm absolutely convinced that this bill takes us forwards. There's no reason why we couldn't include in the bill a statutory review after a few years to assess whether or not there should be any modifications or changes to the bill. I'm absolutely sure—on the basis of the quick nodding of the head that I'm seeing from my dear friend Senator Smith—that Senator Smith would be open to such an amendment to make sure that the procedures were refined based on experience. I think all of those matters could be addressed. I also note Senator Ciccone's reference to further recommendations made by government members on the committee looking at the bill. I agree with the recommendation around greater public education on this matter and the dangers. I agree with the recommendation with respect to increasing voluntary donations of organs, and I agree in terms of a lot of the other recommendations which were raised by government senators on that joint standing committee. But I think we can do better, Senator Ciccone, and I think we need to do better. I think this bill is part of the answer. I firmly believe that Australia has a moral obligation—not a political obligation but a moral obligation—to raise matters of human rights abuses all over the world. I think that every time we come to this place and consider matters such as this, we need to consider the impact of the matters which we discuss in this place upon people all over the world. While some of the topics which are discussed may cause discomfort to some, I think the moral obligation to raise these issues trumps those concerns. It is in that spirit that I'm going to read the press release from the 12 UN special rapporteurs in relation to organ-harvesting allegations in China. This was their press release, released on 14 June 2021: UN human rights experts said today they were extremely alarmed by reports of alleged 'organ harvesting' targeting minorities, including Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, in detention in China. The experts said they have received credible information that detainees from ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations, such as ultrasound and x-rays, without their informed consent; while other prisoners are not required to undergo such examinations. The results of the examinations are reportedly registered in a database of living organ sources that facilitates organ allocation. "Forced organ harvesting in China appears to be targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities held in detention, often without being explained the reasons for arrest or given arrest warrants, at different locations," they said. "We are deeply concerned by reports of discriminatory treatment of the prisoners or detainees based on their ethnicity and religion or belief. "According to the allegations received, the most common organs received from the prisoners are reportedly hearts, kidneys, livers, corneas and, less commonly, parts of livers. This form of trafficking with a medical nature allegedly involves health sector professionals, including surgeons, anaesthetists and other medical specialists." UN human rights experts have previously raised the issue with the Chinese government in 2006 and 2007. Unfortunately, the Government responses lacked data such as waiting times for organ allocation, or information on the sources of organs. In this context, the lack of available data and information-sharing systems are obstacles to the successful identification and protection of victims of trafficking and effective investigation and prosecution of traffickers. Another UN Human Rights mechanism has also highlighted concerns about the practice of removing organs from prisoners of a certain religious minority. "Despite the gradual development of a voluntary organ donation system, information continues to emerge regarding serious human rights violations in the procurement of organs for transplants in China," the UN experts said. Concern remains at the lack of independent oversight as to whether the consent to donation and organ allocation is effectively given by prisoners or detainees. It is also reported that families of deceased detainees and prisoners are prevented from claiming their bodies, they said. The experts call on China to promptly respond to the allegations of 'organ harvesting' and to allow independent monitoring by international human rights mechanisms. The Special Procedures mandate holders have been in contact with China to strengthen dialogue. They would like to continue this constructive engagement with the Government of China. And that is the end of the release put out by UN human rights experts with regard to the allegations in relation to organ harvesting in China. I do note that in evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in September 2022 the Australian government referenced this report. The government has referenced this report to demonstrate its awareness and concern for global organ harvesting and trafficking activities, noting that reports of organ harvesting were deeply disturbing. That has been recognised by the Australian government, and it is fit and proper that it should do so. It should recognise how disturbing these reports and allegations are. They are deeply disturbing. It's for that reason, as much as any other reason, that I rise to speak to this bill today in support of my good friend and colleague Senator Dean Smith. And again, I commend Senator Smith for his work on this important matter. Australia needs to do its bit. We need to continue to apply pressure in relation to this matter, to do our best to see such practices stamped out wherever they occur in the world. Some of these conversations are uncomfortable, but they must be had. We have a moral obligation to raise these issues. We can't stay silent on these issues. We have a moral obligation to raise them, and I do so in good faith here today. In relation to the amendments provided for in this bill, it adds these requirements to Australia's migration framework. Persons entering Australia must disclose if they've received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years. It provides that the individual will be required to disclose the name of the medical facility where that transplant occurred, and the town and/or city and country of the facility. The information is to be disclosed by persons entering Australia via the incoming passenger card. The resulting data will then be made available to the responsible minister, who will be required to table an annual report in the parliament detailing the number of times persons entering Australia have answered that they received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years, and the town and/or city and country where the organ transplant took place. This is important. The parliament needs to be kept informed with respect to developments in relation to this matter. We need to have the data to make our own assessment as to whether or not the steps we're taking as a country are having a positive impact in addressing this issue, so annual reporting is incredibly important. It also calls upon the parliament to agree to an amendment to the Migration Act 1958 to provide that a person does not pass the character test if the responsible minister reasonably suspects that the person has been or is involved in an offence involving trafficking in human organs. There must be consequences. There must be consequences for people involved in this vile practice. There must be consequences. Australia has adopted a number of steps to address this issue, and, as I said at the outset, I see this as an additional step forward in addressing this issue. In 2005, the Australian government criminalised organ trafficking under the Criminal Code. In 2013, the Commonwealth government strengthened those provisions, and now this is the next step. This has got to be the next step in relation to the process. Our overseas partners and allies are also taking action in relation to this matter, so we shouldn't be considering this in isolation; we should be considering this bill in the context of the steps being taken by our international friends and allies. And we shouldn't be out of step with the steps they're taking to positively address this issue. In this regard, I note that the United Kingdom amended the Human Tissue Act in the UK to deal with this issue, and also there have been steps in Canada to amend the Criminal Code in Canada in relation to this matter. So we need to be in step with our international partners. Finally, from the bottom of my heart I wish to thank the advocates on this issue. I have met many of them in my office, in meetings. They are inspiring in terms of the work and commitment they have brought to bear in relation to this important issue, seeking to uphold the human rights of people all over the world, wherever they live. 09:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales This type of bill is the very best of this place in action. The Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill is for a noble cause and is being brought on by a person of passion with all the right reasons. It hasn't been brought on by a government department or a scandal; it has been brought on by the passion of one person, Senator Dean Smith, who is sitting in front of me. This is an issue that is dear to his heart, and in this Senate there will not be a single person—I say this with confidence—that supports the illegal trade of organs around the world. What this bill comes down to is that you can't improve what you can't measure. The greatest criticism against this bill is that they don't think there would be 100 per cent compliance in filling out the card. In one media article they said they didn't think the majority of people would fill it out. I think some people will fill it out honestly. Some people will easily say what has happened and where it has happened. That would build a model for the future; it would start to build an information bank of what we can look at, going forward. It would start to build a lookalike profile on the people that may be going overseas for legal and, unfortunately, sometimes unknowingly, illegal organ trades. What we have here is a situation where I can leave the country and I can have an organ donation somewhere, when there's a match somewhere else. I can go in with the best of intentions; I can think it's being done the right way—or I don't know what's going on—but I'm buying my way into that transplant. I might not know that I've done something wrong. Filling out this form can help, if I think I'm doing the right thing. Also, if I'm doing the wrong thing and I don't fill this out, that lookalike map can help tell authorities what's going on. For the first time, it also makes a crime involved. If I go overseas, get an organ donation and do it the wrong way and then come back to Australia, I'm committing no crime in Australia. I may be committing a crime if I go to a South-East Asian country or to another country where this happens and get it done; I may be committing a crime in that country. But once I'm in Australia I'm safe. No-one can touch me. There are no ramifications. We've all seen, in other committees—and Senator Steele-John is here; we went through the dental committee not long ago—the disparity in the health of those who have and those who have not. And we're seeing this internationally. Where do these organs come from? They come from the dispossessed, from the nonpowerful, from the sometimes detained. They come from the very weakest socioeconomic and least educated people in our communities. In the lead-up to this, I read about—of all things!—a senator from an African country who flew a person to the United Kingdom to harvest their organs in the United Kingdom for a transplant. That is an abuse of power, and it happens. So say I'm that person, and I come back to Australia, having had my organ transplant that I've paid my way into. Someone has suffered to give me that—maybe without their consent; maybe because they're in prison; maybe because they are so economically hard-up that they have had to do this or because of other coercion pressures; who knows what's been done. I come back to Australia, and I'm fine; I am untouchable. This is a very small thing, but at least it's something we can have a go at. It's not a big thing, but remember: when they went after Al Capone, they went after him for tax evasion. Starting the process of calling these people out and getting them found out in doing a wrong thing is important. And what is the cost to the government to start this journey? Almost nothing. We are printing these arrival cards all the time. The information is processed all the time. So there is very little cost to provide a massive chance of improvement for the lives of many around the world who are so impoverished that they have no power. This won't change the world overnight, but it is a step, and we need to start taking the steps to stop this trade—to stop those who are incarcerated being profiled and tested and then having their organs harvested to create an Alibaba of organs—a database of organs that you can buy on the net, from which you can see if you match up—so that the rich and powerful can take the lives of others. We heard the previous speaker, Senator Scarr, read from a UN press release that No. 1 on the list of organs harvested is the heart. Even if people were forced to give up a kidney or another part—even maybe part of their liver—they could still live, though that is a horrible thing to have happen. But no-one survives having their heart taken out. So to say, 'Oh, we're worried that it won't capture all of the data, so we can't move forward,' is to make a weak argument. Capturing some of the data, changing the act so that we have a character test and can cancel visas, building up a knowledge base and starting to track where this trade happens, how it happens and who goes to this trade, are important steps. Let's say this chamber is unified in wanting to stop this trade but there are some other calls for information campaigns, advertising campaigns, to replace this bill. No-one in the world goes to get an illegal organ transplant because they aren't desperate. The people who do so have money, are desperate and want to jump the queue. Some of them might see this as the way. They're not going to be dissuaded from doing this by an advertising campaign. If anything, it would raise awareness that this trade exists, and that is a worse outcome than what we're talking about here. The bill we are talking about, Senator Smith's bill, is taking very pragmatic steps, like those, as we heard, in the rest of the world to build a profile of what happens here. The claims that it does nothing are just wrong, because some people will fill this out and we will know the sites they are going to. When you read the testimony of the people this has happened to, of the horrors of that; when you read about the pressure that people who have sold their organs felt, going into it; when you hear of trafficking where people are used as a travel container to move their organs to another country to get harvested; when you hear that people in prison are killed or maimed for others—it is the worst type of oppression that occurs. So to take a step down the path to make the trade harder, to take a step down the path to eliminate it, is never a bad thing. When we hear that five per cent of organ transplants in the world are known to be illegal, that's 'known'; there may be far more. We also hear about the practices where some countries are using medical professionals—trained medical professionals, who are meant to have a standard of ethics—to do this. Some do not use them. That same ABC article that I spoke about as to the senator from Africa moving someone to London to have their organs harvested—I think it was a kidney in that case—talks about how, in another country, a mechanic was applying the anaesthetics for organ harvesting and the person removing the organs was not professionally trained. So what is the chance of success, even if you go and have these organs, that you won't have rejection or that the drugs will be there to support it? Are these people being killed for nothing? Getting back to the key parts of this bill, a disclosure that you have or have not had an organ transplant in the past five years in an overseas country—that's all it is, on a piece of paper. Why? So we can track the bad guys, so we can start to build a pattern of what happens, so we can start to eliminate the trade. The cost to the Australian taxpayer is minimal—new cards and a bit of data processing. The potential benefit to those that have the least power in this world is magnificent. I sit here and I understand that this is a matter of semantics—'Will it work? Won't it work?' As Senator Scarr raised and Senator Smith nodded to, it can be reviewed. If you want it to be reviewed in two years, bring that on as an amendment. Have a look at what we can do. We want this thing to work. If you have any other ideas, bring it into this bill to add to its efficiency, to add to its efficacy. We can't sit by and do nothing. And, if we are going for the perfect solution all of the time, we are wasting our time in this chamber on everything. Everything has its rough edges. Senator Smith, my good friend, might not like me to point out any rough edges on this one—it may be a polished diamond—but this is something. It comes from a good place, from a pure place in his heart, to help those who are the weakest in the world—not just in Australia; the weakest in the world. Australia is a rich nation, and I feel sure at least one person in our country will have benefited from an illegal organ at some time in their life. If we can stop this happening anywhere, if we can de-incentivise, if we can demonetise, if we can find the areas where this is happening and make it just that bit harder, just that bit less profitable, just that bit more catchable, if we save a life, it matters all the difference in the world to that one person. If we are saying no to that today because we are worried about a little bit of printing ink, then who are we? We, in this world, have to look at what's important to us, and the sanctity of human life is No. 1—the sanctity of dignity of the people all around the world. We sit there on many issues and we look at Australia's effects on the world in so many ways, on our industry, on our unemployment, on our pollution—that comes up. But this is fundamental life and death, to take another person's organs, to take their heart, to take their sight with a cornea or lens removal—and we say it's not worth some printing ink. So I urge everyone here to go home—I don't think we'll get to a vote today—and to think about their positions. If they have these concerns, think about what they could do to make the bill a little bit more to their liking and to bring in those changes so that we can discuss them here, so that we can take that next step. Somewhere in the world, there is a person today who is either being pressured, forced or paid to trade in an organ. That is the reality of what we're doing here today. That is happening today in the world. Somewhere today, someone is being transported to have a part of their body removed for the benefit of someone more powerful, someone richer, someone better connected. If we don't take a step stopping that, we need to look at ourselves. So I commend this bill. I thank the senator for bringing it forward, and I urge everyone to support it. 09:49 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I'd like to begin my comments by acknowledging the work of my colleague Senator Dean Smith in this space and to commend him and the many others in this building who have campaigned against organ trafficking. In particular, it is the leadership of Senator Smith in this space that deserves to be commended, and he deserves to be commended for bringing the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 to the floor of the Senate today. I also acknowledge those in the gallery, who are witnessing and observing the debate in this chamber concerning this particular bill. The coalition, being the party of the individual, particularly are opposed to organ trafficking, as we believe it violates so strongly the rights and dignity of the individual. It is a crime against humanity when states, individuals or corporations engage in the commercial trafficking of organs of their fellow humans. What I'd like to do, to make sure that we actually understand what we are talking about here today, is to make reference to Compassion, not commerce: an inquiry into human organ trafficking and organ transplant tourism, which is a report from the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. This report was quite brutal but definitive in its definition of what is meant by organ trafficking. Sometimes words are used without us fully understanding the context or the full meaning, and I think 'organ trafficking' is a set of words that can sometimes be passed by policymakers without a full understanding of what it means. This report said: 'Organ trafficking' encompasses two related types of activity: trafficking in human organs; and the trafficking of persons for the purpose of organ removal. 'Trafficking in human organs' refers to the unethical or illegal removal, transference or commercialisation of human organs, outside of the governance system of the relevant jurisdiction. Where trafficking in human organs is a crime— it should be— the object of that crime is the organ. The Australian Government considers 'trafficking in human organs' to mean: …the illicit trafficking in human organs, tissues or cells obtained from living or deceased donors and transacted outside the legal national system for organ transplantation. It is important to note that this does not stop organ recipients or donors who voluntarily travel internationally outside of commercial arrangements. For example, it is not uncommon for family members to travel internationally when there is a matching of tissues. It is not uncommon in Australia for people to volunteer their organs for removal. Indeed, in many jurisdictions in Australia it is not uncommon, when someone passes away, for the family of that person or that person prior to their passing to have made arrangements for the removal and use of their organs to save another human's life. That's not the trafficking of organs; that is what good people do to help humanity, and that is to be commended. To those who are listening and are not registered organ donors: I'd encourage you to do so. It's something that I am, and it is something that I'm sure many people in this chamber, regardless of our politics and our many differences, share—that is, a willingness to help our fellow humans. But organ trafficking is not about that; organ trafficking is a crime against the sanctity of the individual. The bill that we are currently discussing in the chamber, brought forward by my colleague Senator Smith, derives its features from recommendations made in that report I mentioned previously. This bill adds a requirement to Australia's migration framework that persons entering Australia must disclose if they have received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last five years, and, if that is the case, the individual will be required to disclose the name of the medical facility where the transplant occurred, as well as the town or city and country of that facility. This obviously would not stop voluntary arrangements that may have been entered into by family members or where people, through their willingness to help their fellow humans, may have given up an organ and then a person who is in ill health has taken that particular organ. This is about clamping down on those who have been beneficiaries of organ trafficking. So this information is to be disclosed by persons entering Australia via the incoming passenger card, then this data will be made available to the responsible minister, who will be required to table an annual report in parliament detailing the number of times persons entering Australia answered that they had received an organ transplant outside Australia, as well as the town or city and country where the organ transplant took place. Before I move on to other elements of the bill, I would make reference to a media release from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is from June 2021—14 June 2021, to be precise. The first paragraph of this press release says: UN human rights experts said today they were extremely alarmed by reports of alleged 'organ harvesting' targeting minorities, including Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, in detention in China. That first paragraph should send a chill up the spine of everybody in this chamber and indeed should send a chill up the spine of every Australian. The United Nations, back in 2021, reported that it has, effectively, evidence of trafficking of human organs. This press release goes on to say: … they have received credible information that detainees from ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities may be forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations such as ultrasound and x-rays, without their informed consent; while other prisoners are not required to undergo such examinations. The results of the examinations are reportedly registered in a database of living organ sources that facilitates organ allocation. That is outrageous. That should make everybody in this chamber very angry. It should make everybody listening, whether in this chamber, in the galleries of this chamber or through the closed circuit televisions that operate through this building, angry that there is a country in this world that effectively commercialises the forced trafficking of organs, and that is why this bill is so timely. This bill will amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide that a person will not pass the character test if the responsible minister reasonably suspects that the person has been involved in an offence involving trafficking in human organs. This is a very simple and, indeed, eloquent response to the issue of human trafficking, and it is something that I would ask those in Canberra, those in the government, to support. Indeed, my colleague Senator Smith would be very happy if the government took the elements of this bill, made them government policy and brought them forward as government legislation. He would be very happy, because what we want to see here is an outcome that not only fixes and brings a remedy to the issue of the trafficking of human organs but also continues to shine a light on this appalling issue. Australia is a liberal democracy. We're a proud liberal democracy, and we need to make sure, as we have done over many years, we stand up to those countries and stand up for those issues where the dignity and the rights of the human are impacted upon. Australia has done more than its fair share. I think we probably almost lead the world in some aspects of this, but what this bill does is make sure that we will do more. And we should do more. No human, whether they be Falun Gong, Uighur, Tibetan, Christian, Muslim or Chinese, who is in communist China and who may be in detention should be put into a subhuman system where they are treated as a commercial product to be harvested as someone would pull a carrot from the ground or pick an apple from a tree. We are talking about humans here. For this bill I commend Senator Smith, and, in looking at the time—I know Senator Smith wishes to speak in this debate that he has initiated—I commend this bill to the Senate and ask everybody in this chamber to please support it. 10:02 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The many freedoms and rights that we enjoy in Australia bring a responsibility to lead and promote fair, open and democratic societies not just in our country but, indeed, around the world, because we are measured not just by the human rights and dignity that we afford to our own citizens but also by the human rights and the dignity of people beyond Australia's shores. The erosion of human rights and the personal dignity of people is a precursor to authoritarian rule. It is also, unfortunately, a tool of authoritarian regimes. This bill is particularly important because, at this point in time, Australia is absent of a remedy, is silent, in supporting global efforts to better disrupt and, ideally, eliminate from the globe that most heinous of crimes which is illegal organ harvesting and trafficking. This bill seeks to advance Australia's mission to uphold and enhance human rights both here and around the world and is crafted in such a way that it will be a practical and least intrusive tool to support global efforts in combating organ trafficking. The features of the bill derive primarily from inquiry and recommendations made in a report that has been before the parliament for many, many years. That report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, called Compassion, not commerce: an inquiry into human organ trafficking and organ transplant tourism, was tabled in the parliament in 2018. I thank Senator Ciccone and my coalition colleagues Senators McGrath, Scarr, Chandler and Cadell for their contributions, but I also understand the frustration that advocates have felt year upon year. Indeed, one of the first things I did when I came to this parliament was attend a meeting with other senators and members interested in this issue and interested in better supporting Australia's efforts to combat this most awful of crimes. Only now, 12 years later, is the parliament debating a bill. I understand the frustration of other parliamentarians, and I understand the frustration of advocates. This is a good bill. It is a necessary bill. I'm pleased to say that, in the spirit of collaboration and collegiality, which is a hallmark of this particular Senate chamber, a number of refinements, as I would call them, have been suggested. I think the government's comment about the necessity of the character test is a valid one. It's actually incorporated in the committee's report. Senator Scarr's contribution, suggesting a statutory review mechanism, is a good one. When we finally come to vote on this bill, I suspect those refinements will be in the final bill, and it's my ambition that this bill be voted on in this Senate before Christmas. Australians would be surprised to learn that this parliament has yet to legislate in a way that other like-minded nations are already legislating. Advocates and others in the community will know that the Canadian parliament, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and parliamentarians around the world are already taking steps. I think it is important to note that for a long time people were disbelieving that this was actually happening in our world. I'm pleased to say, even though it's unfortunate, that I think there is less disbelief now and more realisation that this is happening on a scale that people would be horrified to know and to comprehend. This is a necessary bill. It is actually very timely, and the government's criticisms, which I would characterise as light and faint hearted, have all been dealt with in the committee report. The time to act is now. I think it is worth reminding people that the United Nations themselves have publicly stated that this is real and that persecution happens to many, not just a few. It's important to also add that, at a private meeting at the beginning of this parliament, when I asked officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade what their attitude was to the United Nations special rapporteur's report on this crime, they said that there was credible evidence. So why, two years after that exchange between me and officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, are we still absent of any real effort in our country to disrupt, to report and to collect information so that Australia's response can be stronger and better? This is a necessary bill. It's time has absolutely come. I'm confident that many senators in this place—perhaps not all—will add their support to this bill. I will bring forward an amendment, proposed by Senator Scarr, to have a statutory review mechanism. I suspect other senators might ponder the necessity of the character test cancellation arrangements because they already exist in our migration laws. To the many who have joined us in the Senate chamber today, to the many thousands across Australia who believe this is an important human rights issue and to the many, many people throughout the world who are suffering or who are at risk of suffering: you can have great confidence that this parliament will soon take an initiative that everyone can be proud of. As I stated, it is not good enough to just talk about human rights; it is important to act in order to uphold and sustain human rights. In the complexity of our global environment at the moment and all the danger that it presents, this is the right time and this is the right bill. The government's criticisms, I think, are important to note. One particular criticism it makes is about the honesty of the Australian citizen returning to Australia. That point is neatly captured and rebutted in the Senate committee report authored by coalition senators. I also believe that, as our country moves towards the digitisation of the incoming passenger arrival card, the collection of data like this, which will be held confidentially, becomes easier, not harder. I'm someone who believes in the inherent honesty of Australian citizens, who willingly participate to protect our country, protect other people, by filling that passenger card out honestly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! The time for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and you will be in continuation when debate resumes. Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 3036

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

Second Reading 3036 10:12 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I want to be really, really clear. The amendments that the coalition will put forward, the 20 recommendations for changes that need to be made to this legislation to put the CFMEU into administration, need to be adopted, because we do not want this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, to become a back door for bikies and organised crime to continue to control the CFMEU organisation and have an impact on worksites around this country. I heard Minister Watt on Patricia Karvelas's show this morning refute the fact that CFMEU projects are 30 per cent more expensive for the taxpayer than other projects. This is a fact, Minister. It is classic Labor strategy to state your preferred outcome over reality and evidence based requirements, but, in this instance, if you say you're going to clean up the CFMEU then you need to put some muscle into it, right? That means adopting our 20 recommendations, which are about transparency and accountability. The administrator must be able to compel officers, employees and delegates to not associate with organised crime or outlaw motorcycle groups. It sounds pretty stock standard. Why does the Labor Party not want to put that type of amendment forward? The administrator needs to have the ability to renegotiate EBAs so that we have a sustainable construction sector. These are sensible amendments being put forward by the coalition. We need them adopted by the Labor Party so we can get the CFMEU into administration as soon as possible. (Time expired) 10:14 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to also make a contribution on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, which is before the Senate. Let me begin by remarking that industrial relations debates in our country have, for a very, very long period, been characterised or prosecuted through an ideological lens. On one level, that is very necessary because everyone comes to the parliament with a particular world view, and that world view informs their position on matters like industrial relations laws but also other matters. I'm a coalition senator who—and I suspect there are others as well—believes that the civility that we witness in our broad industrial relations environment is an important part of the work and contribution of the trade labour movement in our country many, many years ago. I think the safety that is afforded to workers and the entitlements that are afforded to workers are a productive and positive feature of our industrial relations system, and I don't mind acknowledging the fact that they were hard-fought gains by the trade labour movement, particularly in the early years of the birth of this nation. But I'd also have to say that the broad Australian trade labour movement of today does not look like that, does not prosecute the interests of Australian workers and does not have a proud legacy like the Australian trade movement of generations before us does. When we look very, very closely, or perhaps look more deeply, at how this particular government chooses to operate, we can see more clearly that it has a very strong preference—a laziness, almost—to work through big business, big government and big unions. And the interests of the ordinary worker in our country, I think, are being left behind. That corporatist style of politics, which I think is rightly a particular style afforded to previous Labor governments and which I think we can see quite clearly in the actions and approach undertaken by this Labor government, I believe diminishes the interests of Australian workers. So, when we come to the particular bill that's before us, which seeks to correct what has been the most outrageous behaviour of a trade union organisation thus far, I think many senators can say with great confidence that the interests of the government in bringing forward this particular legislation are less about wanting to protect and stand up for the rights of ordinary workers and more about wanting to protect the institutional arrangements that dominate the modern Australian Labor Party and are a feature of the modern Australian labour movement. Much attention has been put on the CFMEU and their known activities to date. I'm someone who believes that unfortunately this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Today we talk about the CFMEU; tomorrow we might talk about the HSU or the TWU. I suspect that what we're being asked to address today is not behaviour that is uncommon or almost unique. This is behaviour that has been empowered, emboldened and left unprosecuted because it's been protected by the institutional arrangements that govern the Australian trade union movement in the broadest sense and also its political partner the Australian Labor Party. Much is said about the crimes and behaviour, the thuggery, that is known. Unfortunately, we don't know yet what is unknown, but I suspect, with the passage of time, those unknowns in terms of other behaviours in this particular union and in other unions will become more and more apparent. This is an important issue. This is a very important issue because we have a predominance of economic and political influence by trade unions in our country at a time when the membership of these trade unions is actually falling. When we think about their predominance in Australia's very successful and well-capitalised superannuation scheme and when we think about their overrepresentation in the Australian Labor movement, how can this be possible? How can this be proportionate at a time when trade union membership in our country is declining? It's declining for a couple of reasons. It's declining because the nature of work is changing. It is declining because people don't think they need to have their interests represented by a trade union movement, or they believe that the trade union movement doesn't actually represent their interests. The overwhelming challenges of the Australian economy in 2024 are around productivity gains and competition improvements. The character of this Labor government's approach to industrial relations reforms and so-called improvements has been to introduce rigidity to our industrial relations system, a rigidity that is undermining competition and leading to a worsening of productivity improvements. This country is getting poorer. It's getting poorer not because of bad luck; it's getting poorer because of the conscious policy decisions being taken by this Labor government. There is rigidity in our industrial relations system and an unwillingness to adopt an orthodoxy when it comes to fiscal management—an orthodoxy that I don't think Bob Hawke or Paul Keating would have had any problem with. The fiscal guardrails which were such an important feature, the cornerstone, of successful previous budgets have been abandoned by this government. The country is getting poorer not because it's unlucky but because of the conscious policy decisions being taken by a government led by Anthony Albanese. There's been some media commentary in the last 12 hours about progress towards amendments and getting some coalition endorsement of the government's bill, subject to certain proposals. I think it is important to say that, at this particular point in time, as I'm aware, there is not yet a formal agreement on any of the 20 propositions that the coalition has put before the government. There is not any formal agreement on the 20 sensible propositions for improvement to the bill that Senator Cash, as our spokesman, has made. So I suspect that this debate will go for a little while yet, and it is not to diminish the importance of this debate, but I think it has to be said that the willingness of the government to resolve this issue quickly is not, I doubt, because they want to establish the administration and to start prosecuting the case. I suspect their motivation is driven primarily by the fact that they want this political obstacle, this political embarrassment, removed from the political agenda. One of the propositions that have been mentioned in media commentary in the last few hours has been the requirement, the possibility, of the parliament being reported to regularly on the progress of the administration arrangements. That is a very, very sensible and necessary inclusion, because these problems have been allowed to occur because the CFMEU has acted without transparency. The Australian Labor Party, a beneficiary of the largesse of the CFMEU, has failed to properly ensure due diligence over its relationships. I hope that, when this bill is finally put to a vote, there is a reporting mechanism to this parliament so that senators like me and others see with great clarity what has really happened, not just what we do know but also the things that we don't yet know, because the parliament has a right to know how the traditions of the Australian trade labour movement have been tarnished and trashed by this union. People will want to be sure, Australian workers in our country will want to be sure, that other unions are free from this sort of behaviour and, importantly, that we are not starting to see behaviours become permissible in other unions because of the strife and destruction that have been allowed to happen in the CFMEU. Our industrial relations system is well supported by employer groups. It has traditionally been well supported by Australian trade unions. Their role has been to disrupt and to advocate on behalf of workers. That is part of an open, democratic society like our own. The interests of employers change over time; indeed, the interests of workers change over time. But this particular chapter of the Australian labour movement and its political ally in the form of the Australian Labor Party is a very, very tarnished one. While speed must be taken to bring this corruption, criminal activity, threats, bribery, intimidation and violence to an end, it has to be done in a way that these changes to culture become permanent features of the broader trade union movement in our country and not just the CFMEU, because I'm not sure if anyone in this Senate, and I don't believe any of the Labor senators, can say hand on heart that this is behaviour that is not infecting other trade unions in our country and that it will not infect other trade unions in years to come. Australian workers deserve better, Australian employers deserve better, and if productivity and competition gains are to be achieved in our economy then reforms like this are necessary, and I suspect it will not be the last of them. 10:29 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia 'God forgives. The CFMEU does not' might be not only all over the media this week, tattooed around the neck of the CFMEU thug John Setka, along with all of his other bikie tattoos and symbols, but it is also tattooed in the hearts and emblazoned in the minds of all CFMEU officials. Make absolutely no mistake about that. It's tattooed on some of their bodies. It's on their T-shirts, their hoodies, their bumper stickers, their flags, along with the slogan 'Whatever it takes'. It's not 'Whatever it takes legally'; it is simply 'Whatever it takes' in any way possible to achieve their means. These two statements taken together summarise the CFMEU in every way that is abhorrent to the values of Australians and that is abhorrent and contrary to the laws of our land, to our ethics and to our morals. And yet not only have those opposite turned a blind eye; they have taken active steps to encourage and allow this behaviour to flourish once again. There is no question that for many years those opposite—in fact most Australians who read the paper or watch the news will know that the CFMEU is consumed by, is riddled with, criminals and bikies. It's going about its daily business, using bikies to intimidate and to threaten other hardworking Australians on work sites and building sites right across this country. It is unacceptable, yet those opposite know it, they facilitate it and they encourage it. Well, this is the day and this is the bill to say enough is enough. This is not something we are going to walk past anymore. It is not something we're going to turn a blind eye to simply because they have contributed over $6 million in campaign assistance to the Australian Labor Party—13 pieces of silver which are costing our nation dearly. In Western Australia we have UnionsWA saying: 'Oh, there's nothing to see here. Come back to us when you've got credible evidence.' We've got the Premier saying: 'Oh well, there were some problems, but they're historical problems. Let's not worry about that.' I'll tell you what; that is cowardice and that is not leadership. In WA we are clearly now being taken back to the bad old days of the 1980s, and Labor, federal and state, are actively encouraging and letting this happen to appease—I was going to say to appease their union mates, but they are not just mates; they are their national masters. Today in the West Australian, which for years has been full of stories about bikies and their associations with trade union movements, particularly the CFMEU, they have absolute evidence of this, yet the Premier and UnionsWA, and Minister Watt, are saying: 'Nothing to see here. We'll introduce this almost ineffective'—or completely ineffective as it currently stands—'legislation.' I would implore every Western Australian and every Western Australian senator in this place to go and read the West Australian today just to see how pervasive bikies still are in the CFMEU. The CFMEU don't have bikies on their payroll to bake cakes for them or to give them a ride on their Harley-Davidsons. They have them in there to intimidate and to conduct criminal activities on their behalf. In Western Australia it is particularly of concern. And it shouldn't just be of concern to Western Australians—to those who are working in our mine sites across our state—because the harder you make it for Western Australian workers, and Western Australian mining companies in particular, impacts on the rest of the nation and how we can afford to pay for our education, our health and our criminal justice system. Let me give you some examples of what's been happening in Western Australia. Just this week, on BHP mine sites, we've had unions turning up unannounced to start holding our state's economy to ransom. The CME Western Australia chief executive officer Rebecca Tomkinson has said, 'It is unthinkable, at this critical juncture of WA's role in the energy transition, if the militant unions send us backwards.' The Minerals Council of Australia has said this move is of grave concern to the Australian economy. Along with this chaos in the mining and construction industries, Fremantle port is facing two days of closures this weekend, when workers will walk off the job to demand another incredibly large pay increase. WA's union crisis is slowly turning Australia into a 'state of the union'. It is a blast from the past. The bad old days of the 1980s, which we had hoped, in Western Australia and nationally, would never return are coming back all too quickly, facilitated by those opposite who currently reside on the government benches. What's Labor's role in all of this? This bill is a direct result of them rolling over to the CFMEU and abolishing the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The only beneficiary of that was the CFMEU. It was certainly not to the benefit of Australian workers or Australians who are already struggling to afford to build houses, to afford their mortgages and to get themselves into their own homes. This legislation has come about squarely because of the abolition of the ABCC. As a result of that—surprise, surprise!—we've seen a significant increase in criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence, bullying, standover tactics, the misappropriation of funds, theft and other accusations of lawlessness by the CFMEU right across the construction sector. Again, it's hardly a surprise. Those opposite, when they got rid of the ABCC, can't possibly credibly claim that John Setka, the CFMEU officials and their bikies would not revert to type, and, of course, they have. The Albanese government knew this would happen. They were warned this would happen, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. We believed—and we still believe—that there should have been an inquiry into this bill to hear from the department, the Fair Work Commission and the building sector itself on how this bill would operate. That is the role of this place; that is the role of this Senate. Yet again the government is denying the Senate the opportunity to do our job. Minister Watt himself has spent his entire time in this place being the CFMEU's biggest cheerleader. I remember quite clearly how, at Senate estimates, he would mercilessly attack the building regulator who dared hold his mates at the CFMEU to account and to the law of this land. He achieved his lifelong dream in abolishing the ABCC and giving John Setka, a most despicable human being, control of the construction sector in Australia. So make no mistake: this legislation is a direct result not just of the incompetence of those opposite but also of their inability to stand up, be leaders, govern for all Australians and stand up to the worst of the worst in the trade union movement, the CFMEU. I think there is no question that the PM made this choice to change workplace laws because he got $6.2 million from his mates and his comrades in the CFMEU. Unfortunately, all Australians are now paying the price for this. The CFMEU construction division were bad before, even under the ABCC, but, in a few short years under this government, they have taken their lawlessness, their bikie activities and their intimidation to a whole new level. What does this cost Australians? What does it cost Western Australians? Australians are now paying 30 per cent more for major projects on their homes, on other buildings and on infrastructure generally. Why does that matter to them? It's not just about their own home; it's because their taxpayer dollars are getting 30 per cent less infrastructure for hospitals, roads and all other vital infrastructure projects. In relation to this legislation, the Albanese government is not telling the truth when it says that this legislation will clean up the scandal plagued construction sector. There are more holes in this legislation than you'd probably see in a piece of swiss cheese. It rather conveniently provides the minister, the CFMEU's chief cheerleader, with far too much power and discretion, and, with the stroke of a pen, their biggest cheerleader can end the administration early. For example—heaven forbid—if Labor were re-elected, they could end the administration the day after the election. Not surprisingly, the bill doesn't talk about any links to the $6.2 million of donations to the Labor Party and future donations to the Labor Party by the CFMEU. In fact, this bill is so weak it could well have been written by John Setka himself, and maybe it was. We also need to amend this bill to ensure that this administration will apply to all of the CFMEU's construction divisions, not just a select few. It must apply to Western Australia, and, if UnionsWA and Premier Cook do not think that there is any contemporaneous evidence of the CFMEU's malfeasance, bullying, intimidation, corruption and bikie affiliations, they are completely and utterly wilfully blind. Just look at the West Australian today for evidence of that. Currently, this bill sunsets after three years, regardless of what may or may not have been achieved by the administrator. But this legislation also must, by our amendment, make sure that political donations cannot be made by the CFMEU and that they cannot run political campaigns on behalf of any political party here in this country. This legislation was brought on by the Labor Party abolishing the ABCC and deliberately allowing the CFMEU to run riot. They've been forced into this legislation, but they've presented legislation that will have no practical impact and that allows the chief cheerleader and supporter of the CFMEU over the years to, with a single stroke of a pen at any time, end the administration. This is not leadership. This is not political courage. This is the basest of all political actions and expediency. This country deserves so much better than this bill, and it is so important. We have to set the standard in this place, and, where we see corruption, thuggery, intimidation and a real and practical impact on the Australian economy and on Australian homebuyers, everybody in this chamber has to stand up and say the law applies to us all—to all Australians. It is time to accept our amendments. 10:44 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, although, in reality, it might be better named 'The placing the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff bill'. It is an example of the government acting hastily to try and address a mess largely of its own making. On 29 July, the minister, Senator Watt, became the responsible minister. I wish him well, because he has inherited a portfolio from his predecessor where the balance has completely tilted in favour of the power of the unions. Everyone accepts in this place that Labor has had a close link with the union movement, which founded the ALP. As such, it should be in a prime position to strike a balance between employees and employers, with a view to productive and long-term stable jobs. However, there's been a monumental failure in one of the most vital sectors in building our country's productivity, the construction sector. Over one million Australians are employed in this sector, and many more are in industries which rely on and support it. It is a significant driver of our country's economic growth. Allegations of bullying, intimidation, standover tactics, bribery, retribution and other criminal activities by union officials of the CFMEU's construction division in Victoria have been downright frightening to hear about. Revelations that construction workers across the state were turning up to their worksites and enduring this type of harassment and abuse—let alone the allegations of criminal misconduct—should be an embarrassment to this Labor government. The media has well reported these allegations over several years; however, the government has now sought to introduce this bill to the Senate, after of its persistent failure to take action, because suddenly it realises the Australian public has had enough. The bill can only be described as a knee-jerk reaction that fails to provide any repercussions for the CFMEU and deter them from these activities. This bill seeks to deregister the CFMEU and to place it under administration for three years. It also grants powers to the Fair Work Commission to give them the authority to appoint the administrator and direct the CFMEU to pay for the cost of administration. It is a temporary and weak piece of legislation. This temporary bill fails to send a strong message to the CFMEU that these types of behaviours are not acceptable. It doesn't apply any conditions or penalties to stamp out this behaviour once and for all. It has significant flaws and does not do enough to stamp out the corruption in the CFMEU for good, and it doesn't compel the union to make any changes at all at the conclusion of the administration period. For example, this temporary bill states that the CFMEU will be deregistered for a period of three years with absolutely no conditions. That means there is no incentive for the union to make changes, and they don't need to provide any proof or documentation that they have made the changes. It provides a timeframe to allow the current leadership of the union to simply wait out their deregistration process until it expires, and then they can go straight back to resuming their previous conduct, allegedly engaging in criminal activity, harassing and bullying other workers, and misappropriating funds, some of which have been used to grant sizeable donations to the Labor Party's election campaigns and, it is evident, donations to the Australian Greens in the past. The union movement was established to support employee rights. It was supposed to be for the worker, and many fine Australians have led unions with that ideal in mind. But that philosophy has been thrown away by the CFMEU, who have resorted to dirty tactics to get what they want. It was only a few months ago that the former state secretary of this union, John Setka, was filibustering and holding important AFL infrastructure upgrades, including the proposed development of Tasmania's Macquarie Point stadium, to ransom because of a personal stoush he apparently had with the head of the AFL's umpiring department, who is a former commissioner of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is rather extraordinary that an individual, a union official in fact, has so much clout that he can threaten to stall important infrastructure upgrades and hold them to ransom because of a 'professional' disagreement. Let us not forget that the construction industry, particularly those who work in the commercial sector, rely on a steady pipeline of work and often transfer from one worksite to another. The actions taken by Mr Setka would have caused significant stress and uncertainty for those workers. Every worker on a construction site has the right to go to work and do that work in a respectful environment without the fear of thuggery, intimidation and bullying from a union that purports to support employees. This temporary bill does not go far enough to root out the corruption at the heart of the CFMEU and ensure that all workers can go to work without fear of harassment, intimidation or retribution for having a different opinion to the union. We all have the right to go to work and not be bullied. In fact, this week is the national action week against bullying. If the Labor government were serious about drawing a line in the sand against this behaviour, they would consider adopting the coalition's amendments, as a first step, and support the referral of this matter to a Senate inquiry. The CFMEU is a union with arms reaching far into the construction and building sector across the country. The Victorian branch, on which most of the allegations are centred, also runs the Tasmanian branch of the union. As a senator for Tasmania, that makes me particularly concerned that the behaviours and attitudes of the Victorian CFMEU branch have also filtered down to the Tasmanian branch, which is under its control. There are many honest and hardworking construction workers in Tasmania who may be members of the CFMEU, and I am heartened that so far there have been no specific allegations against Tasmanian CFMEU members. I believe it is important that a bill like this sends a strong message to all members of this union that this behaviour will not be tolerated by this parliament, anywhere across the country. There needs to be an inquiry into this temporary bill, because we need to hear from the department, the Fair Work Commission and other stakeholders about how this proposed legislation will operate if it is enacted. We also need to hear from stakeholders about its effectiveness. Given the seriousness of the allegations, we need to ensure administration of this temporary bill is a transparent and independent process that reports to parliament regularly and sets clear objectives of how the CFMEU needs to change before it can be taken out of administration. I am sure the families of those who are calling out the criminal behaviour of officials at the CFMEU, and those who have experienced the bullying, intimidation, death threats and other behaviour, would not feel that this bill goes far enough to ensure that the CFMEU truly changes its trajectory. There have been calls from within the industry for increased protections for whistleblowers, saying that they fear for their lives and for the retribution they will receive for speaking out against a union with a lot of political and professional clout. There is nothing in this temporary bill that describes how the administration process will provide protections for these whistleblowers, who have, quite literally in some cases, risked their lives to speak out against this behaviour. Some stakeholders have suggested that officials who are found to have been engaged in bad behaviour should be held to account and have their status as a union official removed. That would be a far more effective deterrent than simply deregistering the CFMEU, which is the whole basis of this proposed legislation. It does nothing to allay the concerns of whistleblowers who have alleged criminal misconduct and the misappropriation of funds by members of the CFMEU; nor does it address the serious issues of donations to the Labor Party by this union. Labor wants to rush this bill through—yesterday, if it could—without any scrutiny. If the Senate is to pass this temporary bill, it needs to be amended. After first sighting the bill on Monday of this week, by Tuesday afternoon, just 24 hours after receiving it, Senator Cash had reviewed the contents and the proposals within it and had issued a media release outlining a number of comprehensive amendments required to deal with the many flaws contained in the proposed legislation. Despite circulating several government amendments that simply fix the basic flaws identified in the drafting of the legislation, the minister now, 48 hours after receiving Senator Cash's proposed amendments, has still not agreed to the coalition's amendments. In her media release on Tuesday, Senator Cash noted: The Government's Bill is so weak it could have been co-authored by the CFMEU. It conveniently provides the Minister with far too much power, including the ability to end administration early. For example, if Labor were re-elected they could end the Administration the day after the election. She goes on to point out: Not surprisingly, the Bill is silent on the Labor Party receiving political donations from the CFMEU, despite the clear conflict this presents. In reality, if Labor are serious about cleaning up the construction sector, they must bring back the ABCC, deregister the CFMEU and reintroduce the former coalition government's ensuring integrity bill, which Labor blocked in 2019. The ABCC need all the powers they had in the past, and more, so they can go after criminal activity in the industry. Penalties for breaches of the Fair Work Act need to be increased, and the fit-and-proper-person test for right of entry onto construction sites needs to be tightened. People with multiple criminal offences should never be granted right-of-entry permits. In relation to this temporary bill before us, Senator Cash's media release outlines 20 key amendments that the coalition have proposed. They are crucial to the integrity of this bill, and, for clarity, I'll go through them. The administration must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for a minimum of three years. The minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The scheme of administration can only be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator. The legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme of administration; this should not be determined solely at the whim of the minister. Political donations, political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. For the purposes of transparency, the administrator must provide a written report to parliament every three months from the commencement of the administration about its activities and progress and appear at Senate estimates. The administrator must be given the ability to impose longer expulsion or disqualification periods for officers, as opposed to the 'up to five years' as outlined in the legislation. A new fit-and-proper person test must be introduced for all CFMEU delegates and officers. The administrator must appoint a special-purpose auditor to examine the financial dealings of the CFMEU prior to the commencement of administration, with the cost of the special-purpose auditor paid for by the CFMEU, not by the taxpayer. The special-purpose auditor's first report needs to be tabled by the final sitting day of 2024. The retrospective date must be changed from 17 July 2024 to a date prior to the resignation of Mr John Setka. The administrator must be given additional powers to investigate dealings between the CFMEU and other parties, including other registered organisations and/or political parties. The administrator, in undertaking their duty, should be able to investigate past practices of the CFMEU relating to unlawful conduct. The administrator should be given the power to review and amend the CFMEU rules. There needs to be the inclusion of an objects clause which outlines what the administrator needs to achieve before administration can cease. The administrator must be given the power to apply for the deregistration of the CFMEU if appropriate. The administrator must be able to compel officers, employees and delegates of the CFMEU not to associate with an organised crime group or outlawed motorcycle gang. The administrator must have the ability to renegotiate EBAs. The administrator is required to exercise its functions with specific regard to the objects of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act with a focus on reducing the adverse effects of industrial disputation, ensuring the CFMEU, its officers, employees and delegates act in accordance with the law and promote a productive and harmonious construction industry. And, finally, the amendments will strengthen the powers of the administrator to compel compliance with the scheme of administration. This temporary bill does not go far enough in providing any incentives to stamp out this behaviour from the CFMEU. It does nothing to hold those accused of criminal misconduct to account and will be cold comfort to the families whose loved ones have endured this abuse for years at the hands of a union that has become more of a militant activist than a workers' union. I thank the Senate. 10:58 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make my contribution to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I have to say that, when I first saw this peace of legislation and read my briefing notes that were supporting it, my mind went back to that 1980s advertisement that said: 'What's the drink that you have when you're not having a drink? A Claytons.' My mind immediately went to Claytons because it has become such a ubiquitous part of our language, off the back of that advertisement. I was looking for something different, but the reality was I found exactly what I was looking for. The situation we find ourselves in today is the government purport that this piece of legislation is all about resolving a series of problems that, they say, they had no idea of. They had no idea of what was happening within this union despite the legal cases, despite the convictions, despite the fines, despite everything else that had been going on, despite the work of the ABCC. We have had from Labor, and from the Greens to a certain extent, a conga line of Sergeant Schultzes who have come out to say: 'We know nothing. There is nothing to see here.' Repeatedly, over a continuous period of time, the Labor Party have defended the CFMEU and its actions. Why is that? Why have Labor members come out on a continuous basis and defended the actions of the CFMEU? It's really quite simple. Because the CFMEU are Labor. They are part of the labour movement. They fund the labour movement. They preselect and determine who comes to this place and the other place on the other side of the building. Of course Labor members defend and deny the illegal activities of the CFMEU, and only when they are dragged screaming and kicking do they come to this place with what I genuinely believe is, as it is currently drafted, little more than a clayton's solution to the issues we see in the construction industry today, perpetrated by the CFMEU senior membership. Why do I say that? Quite simply, because everything that Labor have done during this term of parliament has been to facilitate the actions of the CFMEU, to accommodate the wishes of the CFMEU. They abolished the ABCC at the bequest of the CFMEU, the one organisation in this country whose role was to ensure, or to attempt to ensure, that operations within the building and construction industry were conducted within the law. So one of the first things that Labor did was to take away that instrumentality. But then what did Labor do? They then adjusted the industrial relations laws in this country to take them back to what they were in the 1970s, to return pattern bargaining, a facilitative tool for the CFMEU. I know because I saw it when I was working in the construction industry in the 1970s and eighties, before the Hawke and Keating governments brought in the accord, which allowed employers and employees to sit down, to work together, to enterprise bargain for the benefit of both the employer and the employee. This government took that away and brought back the processes that supported the BLF in the 1970s and now support and facilitate the CFMEU today. This government laid the ground rules. This government set the framework for the disgraceful behaviour that we are seeing. This government defended the officials. They denied that they saw anything wrong. That conga line of Sergeant Schultzes walked out and denied that there was illegal activity or that there was anything wrong going on in the CFMEU until it came to the point where they had no choice. The evidence was so stark. In fact, it was so stark that the leader of the CFMEU himself decided his position was no longer tenable. But they continue to deny that there's a problem. The leadership of the CFMEU write to us, as members and senators, and say, 'We can sort all this stuff out ourselves.' I know what the Labor Party would say if a large business said: 'We'll sort this out. We'll do this ourselves.' In fact, I saw it during recent Senate inquiries. 'How can you possibly trust someone to investigate themselves?' was the line that was being run by Labor members. And yet that's what the CFMEU is saying today. Admittedly, the CFMEU don't want this legislation passed, which I have to say, to start with, is one incentive for me to support it and for the opposition to support it. But it needs significant improvement. Who on earth believes that the illegal activity and the corruption that exist within the CFMEU are going to be resolved within three years? Who believes that? This is accepted behaviour. This is the way the labour movement works. This is the way that the government has legislated it, to support the way the union movement works. It's part of their DNA. It's who they are. So this legislation needs serious amendment. Minister Cash has proposed 20 amendments to see the opposition support the passing of the legislation. Minister Watt has been out there saying, 'Things are going well; we're close to agreement.' There he stands with his glass of Claytons and dry, clinking his glass with the Prime Minister, saying, 'Negotiations are going well, Prime Minister,' apart from the fact that they're not. There is no agreement with the opposition in relation to the amendments that we're seeking on this legislation. And the government needs to genuinely come to the table if it wants, as it says, to see this legislation passed quickly. It needs to genuinely take up the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition to support the passing of this legislation. But the government also needs to take a deeper look at what it has done during its term, because it is now the facilitator of this sort of activity—not only in the CFMEU; any union can pull the same tactics now, because the government is the enabler. The government is the enabler of this disgraceful behaviour. And they should take a close look at what they have done—supported by the Greens and the crossbench, I must say. They have taken the money. They have denied the existence of illegal activity. They have been preselected and supported by members of the CFMEU to be here. They should look to the people who they should be serving—the Australian people—in terms of having a decent industrial relations framework to support lawful activity within the construction industry. On what basis should Australian taxpayers pay 30 to 40 per cent more because the CFMEU have a union deal on a particular project? Why should we pay a CFMEU tax because a union is involved in a government project? We're talking schools. We're talking roads. We're talking bridges. We're talking vital infrastructure that supports our economy. If the CFMEU is involved in those projects, we have to pay 30 to 40 per cent more for the privilege of having them involved, and then the union gets to determine who the contractor might be and who the subcontractors might be because they've got a deal with the head contractor that the subcontractors have to have a union deal to be on the project. Then they start milking the project. The CFMEU tax starts getting paid, which is then filtered back to the Labor Party and to the Greens. That's what the Labor Party has enabled. That is the behaviour that has been supported by the actions of this government, yet the minister goes out publicly to say: 'Negotiations are going fine. We're progressing well.' What he doesn't say is that there is agreement on zero of the 20 items that have been put before the minister in relation to this matter. This government needs to come to its senses. Not only does it need to deal with the illegal activity within the CFMEU—this legislation does start that process, but, as it stands, it is woefully inadequate; it is a piece of Clayton's legislation—but it also needs to look very closely at the broader industrial relations framework within this country so that we can get back to a situation where an employer and an employee can sit down together and work out how they're going to work and operate in that business without having the imposition of a union to do their work for them. In some cases, it might be very appropriate. I'm not someone who's anti-union at all. I've had the opportunity to work very collaboratively with many unions over my time both in the business community and in this place. But we don't need standover tactics. We don't need illegal activity. We don't need behaviour like we've seen from the CFMEU, and we don't need a government, like this one, that is an enabler of that sort of behaviour and has legislated to create the situation that we see today by removing institutions such as the ABCC and legislating to bring back things like pattern bargaining, which support the thuggish, illegal behaviour of these unions. And, all the time, the government keeps taking the money, and so do the Greens. They continue to take the money, and, on many occasions, they trot out the Sergeant Schultz line: 'I didn't know anything about this. I know nothing.' It's about time they genuinely came to the table. 11:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 is a hallmark of this government's approach to doing business, and it's what we've seen consistently over the last couple of years. It's this embarrassing approach to not being able to manage their agenda, not being able to keep the promises that they make to the Australian people about the things they said they would do at the last election and, of course, that usual high degree of opacity around what it is they're actually doing. Some of us are old enough to remember Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, who was otherwise known as 'Baghdad Bob' or 'Comical Ali'. He was the Iraqi foreign minister under the Hussein regime in Iraq as it was about to end in the early 2000s. I reference this character because he was the fellow who would hold those daily press briefings telling the world that the Hussein regime was on the march, that everything was under control, that there was nothing to see in Iraq and that there were no US tanks in Baghdad while, only a couple of hundred metres from where he was holding these press conferences, there were scores of US tanks taking Baghdad. It reminded me of something. It reminded me of Minister Watt and his claims that everything is under control—that the government have got control of their agenda, so much so that they would march in here with a guillotine motion and they would demand that by the end of today we would have this bill passed, not having entertained one of the very reasonable amendments that have been put forward by the coalition to make this bill fit for purpose. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Duniam. I'm assuming you're seeking to be in continuation? Senator Duniam 263418 I most certainly do. The PRESIDENT 112096 It being 11.15, we'll move on. NOTICES 3044 NOTICES Presentation 3044 Withdrawal 3045 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator O'Neill, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, proposing the disallowance of the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fires Rules 2024, made under the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fires Ordinance 2014, for 12 sitting days after today. COMMITTEES 3045 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 3045 Report 3045 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the eighth report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of bills committee Report no. 8 of 2024 15 August 2024 Members o f t he Committee Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacquie Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 8 OF 2024 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 7.08 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— the provisions of the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 15 August 2024 Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 3046 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3046 11:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion no. 570 standing in the name of Senator Kovacic, relating to the cost of living, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 3046 11:16 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons: (a) Senator Nampijinpa Price for 14 August; and (b) Senator Hughes for today. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3046 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 3046 BILLS 3046 BILLS Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 3046

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024

First Reading 3046 11:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator McCarthy, I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator GALLAGHER ING 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 3047 11:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— It is my pleasure to introduce the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 (Bill) to the chamber. The Bill adds an area of land to Schedule 1 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Land Rights Act), enabling the grant of land to an Aboriginal Land Trust and finalisation of the Wakaya Alyawarre (Repeat) Land Claim. The land comprises approximately 484,000 hectares near Canteen Creek community, in the Barkly region of the Northern Territory approximately 275km south east of Tennant Creek. The scheduling and proposed grant of Aboriginal land is supported by Traditional Owners and all relevant stakeholders, consistent with the terms of the Canteen Creek Area Indigenous Land Use Agreement executed by the Central Land Council and the Northern Territory Government under the Native Title Act 1993. The Indigenous Land Use Agreement resolves native title rights and interests over all land within the boundary of Canteen Creek Township.. The Bill recognises the rights of First Nations people to own and control their traditional lands and demonstrates Government's commitment to finalising land claims in the Northern Territory. This Bill recognises the enduring connection of the people of the Wakaya and Alyawarre language groups with the land, which is associated with Emu and many other Dreamings. Traditional Owners have been waiting many years for resolution of this land claim. The area, along with other land, was previously subject to a land claim lodged in 1980 and subject to the Wakaya Alyawarre (Repeat) Land Claim lodged in 1990. The Bill directly contributes to targets under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, under which governments have committed to a 15 per cent increase in legal rights and interests to land and sea by 2030. Legal recognition of rights and interests is critical to enable First Nations people to maintain distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationships to land and waters. Rights and interests in land are a central pillar enabling First Nations Territorians to harness economic development opportunities including from key priorities including the transition to renewable energy, Future Made in Australia and critical minerals. The Government acknowledges the work of the Traditional Owners, Central Land Council and the Northern Territory Government to reach this significant step towards the realisation of land rights and looks forward to the finalisation of the grant of Aboriginal land to the Traditional Owners. I commend this Bill to the chamber. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. NOTICES 3047 NOTICES 11:18 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the request of Senator Henderson, I formally withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 562. DOCUMENTS 3047 DOCUMENTS Australian Federal Police 3047 Order for the Production of Documents 3047 11:19 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than Monday, 9 September 2024: (a) a list disclosing the total cost in each year from 2019 to 2024 of settling civil claims against the Australian Federal Police or its members including matters relating to: (i) unlawful searches, (ii) illegal arrest, (iii) false imprisonment, (iv) trespass, (v) assault, (vi) harassment, (vii) malicious prosecution, and (viii) other civil liberties infringements or claims resulting from police misconduct; (b) a list disclosing the total cost in each year from 2019 to 2024 of court judgements for civil claims against the Australian Federal Police or its members including matters relating to: (i) unlawful searches, (ii) illegal arrest, (iii) false imprisonment, (iv) trespass, (v) assault, (vi) harassment, (vii) malicious prosecution, and (viii) other civil liberties infringements or claims resulting from police misconduct; and (c) a list disclosing the following information relating to civil claims against police in each year from 2019 to 2024: (i) the number of civil cases brought against the Australian Federal Police or its members, (ii) the number of civil cases settled, (iii) the number of cases brought by current or former members, and (iv) the number of cases brought by citizens. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 573, standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:23]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 BILLS 3049 BILLS Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 3049

Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 3049 11:26 Senator 39801 Queensland CHISHOLM (—) (): 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 3049 11:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland 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 speeches read as follows— CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING AND MODERNISING LICENCING AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2024 International trade and investment is critical to the Australian economy, creating jobs and prosperity, and opening up opportunities for Australian businesses to expand and diversify globally. This Bill, the Customs Amendment Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures Bill 2024, introduced together with the Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024, forms the next steps in the Albanese Government's Simplified Trade System agenda, which makes trade faster, cheaper and easier. These Bills represent some sensible and overdue steps to modernise Australia's customs processes. These Bills will deliver reforms to simplify and support the digitalisation of border processes for both business and government, and improve the effectiveness of the Australian Border Force in protecting Australia's borders. Many of these reforms will save business time and money, reducing regulatory burdens of complying with certain customs processes, and industry has been supportive of the proposed reforms. The amendments in this Bill will also strengthen the customs licensing regime against threats of criminal infiltration and bolster the efforts of the Australian Border Force to ensure integrity in our supply chains. It will align requirements across licence types, and close compliance gaps to enhance the integrity and security of Australia's borders. There are over 450 licensed depots, 500 licensed warehouses, 400 airports, seaports and cargo terminals, 2,100 licensed brokers and numerous freight forwarders and cargo reporters currently being regulated. Current legislative provisions for the management of these customs licences are complex, outdated and in some cases paper based. This puts additional burden and costs on the government to administer and for industry to comply. The amendments to the Customs Act will, in particular: a. modernise customs licence administration by allowing electronic communication methods; b. streamline administration across depot, warehouse and broker licences; c. strengthen the entry requirements to be eligible to hold a licence; d. align and enhance powers to give directions in respect of depots and warehouses; and e. strengthen the licensing regime by bolstering fit and proper checks of licensed entities. The Bill will strengthen the eligibility to hold and maintain a customs licence that ensures the integrity of goods under customs control. As well as reducing the regulatory burden on businesses, the amendments in this Bill will support an equal playing field for businesses. This Bill will help ensure that businesses that comply with their obligations are not undercut by entities who seek to circumvent controls. The Bill will also make consequential amendments to the AusCheck Act 2007 to, among other things, permit the disclosure of information to an officer of customs for a purpose under the Customs Act. This will allow disclosure of the information under the AusCheck Act with respect to the cancellation, refusal or suspension of a Maritime Security Identification Card or an Aviation Security Identification Card held by a person, bolstering the fit and proper assessment. The Bill is informed by "The Review of Customs Licensing Regimes Final Report" which was formally submitted to the Comptroller-General of Customs on 31 March 2017. The Report noted that the Review's recommendations are intended, among other things, to strengthen and streamline the current licensing regimes, with the primary purpose of implementing savings and efficiencies for the Department and industry. The Report also assessed that the focus on the integrity of the licensing regime would only grow in importance in the future and that strengthening the integrity of the system would better protect the community. The Australian Border Force conducted further consultation with key industry stakeholders in 2023 and 2024 to introduce the proposed amendments outlined in the Bills. The Australian Border Force will continue to consult and support businesses with their transition to the changes, including through existing industry forums such as the National Committee for Trade Facilitation and its working groups. The Bill being introduced today will enhance the integrity of Australia's borders, which is vital for a prosperous, secure and safe Australia. I commend this Bill to the Chamber. CUSTOMS LICENSING CHARGES AMENDMENT BILL 2024 The Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 will modernise, streamline and strengthen the calculation of depot licence charges in support of the Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Alongside the primary changes to the Customs Act 1901, this Bill will amend the Customs Licensing Charges Act 1997 to align the calculation of depot licence charges with that of warehouse licence charges. Streamlining licence fee processes and aligning payment requirements between customs licence types will support businesses to be better equipped in complying with their obligations under customs legislation. The alignment will enhance licence compliance by closing a loophole that has allowed licence holders not to pay their first renewal fee charge if the new depot licence was first granted between 1 April and 30 June in any given year. This Bill will amend the Charges Act to: a. set the default annual cost of a licence at $4,000 where the licence comes into force on 1 July; b. provide a formula based on a per diem value where the licence comes into force on a day in a financial year other than 1 July; and c. set out the criteria where the renewal charge for a depot licence is by default $4,000 and only where the depot is licensed for a full period of 12 months and handles fewer than 300 transactions is the charge $1,500. These amendments will support a level playing field for businesses by setting rules to ensure licence holders are not financially disadvantaged by the date on which their licence is granted. Together with the Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill, this Bill will modernise and strengthen the customs licensing regime, and have been consulted with industry. I commend this Bill to the Chamber. Debate adjourned. Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 3050

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024

First Reading 3050 11:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 3050 11:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I present the revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Australians understand the importance of education. The power of it. We value it. What it can do to open the doors of opportunity for Australians. To change lives. We invest in it. You see evidence of that in this year's budget. And we export it to the world. And it's a big export. The biggest we don't dig out of the ground. Our fourth largest export overall. In the last decade we have helped educate more than 3 million people from around the world. A $48 billion dollar industry. But it doesn't just make us money. It also makes us friends. Because when a student comes here to study they don't just get an education. A bit of Australia rubs off on them. They fall in love with the place. And when they go home, they take that love and affection for us back home with them. And they use the knowledge and the qualifications they gained in Australia to become leaders and scientists, teachers and entrepreneurs in our neighbouring countries. That makes this no ordinary export industry. It is important to our economy. It is important to Australia. That's why this bill is important. It ensures its integrity and quality. And it provides long term certainty for the sector and sustainable growth over time. The pandemic kneecapped international education. The former government told students to go home and they did. Almost overnight, an industry worth $40.1 billion was effectively halved to $22 billion. The students are now back, but so are the shonks. Shonks and crooks looking to take advantage of students and make a quick buck at the expense of this critical national asset. Unscrupulous actors who are a threat to our good name as a place where the best and the brightest from around the world can come and get the best education in the world. Since we were elected we have been working on this. In September 2022 we announced the Parkinson Review of the Migration System. In January 2023 the Nixon Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia's Visa System. These reviews brought urgent attention to integrity issues in international education. We've moved quickly on the recommendations of those reviews. In July 2023, we got rid of unlimited work rights for international students by re-introducing a working hours cap at 24 hours per week. This allowed students to support themselves but not at the expense of their studies. And it was the first step in reducing the lure of getting a student visa as a backdoor to work here. In August 2023 I closed the "concurrent enrolment" loophole that was allowing agents and providers to shift international students who had been here for less than six months from one course to another, cheaper one. From genuine study to no study at all. Another backdoor way just to work here. In October 2023 we boosted the capacity of the VET regulator, ASQA, through a $38 million investment and establishing an integrity unit. The same month we increased the amount of savings that international students now require to get a student visa—to $24,505. It's now $29,710. In March of this year we increased the English language requirement for students, introduced a new Genuine Student requirement and increased the number of "no further stay" conditions on certain cohorts of visa students. Many of these measures are in response not only to the Parkinson and Nixon reviews, but to feedback from the sector. They know that dodgy education agents and providers create problems for the whole industry. They are a threat to the reputations of the universities and providers who are doing the right thing. It's very important that this important part of our economy maintains its social licence to operate. Not only are the students back, Mr Speaker, but they're back faster than anyone unexpected. Here and in other countries. At the Universities Australia Gala Dinner in February last year I spoke about how the trajectory of the total number of international students enrolled in our universities wouldn't get back to pre-pandemic levels until the end of 2025. We're back there already. That's a vote of confidence in our institutions and providers. And in Australia as a place where the best and brightest come to study. But it is also something we need to manage carefully and protect from bad actors. And that's what this bill does. It amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act to include measures which directly respond to issues identified in the Nixon and Migration Reviews. The amendments are also informed by the 2023 interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, entitled "Quality and Integrity—the quest for sustainable growth: Interim report into international education", and I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, in particular Senator O'Neill and the Member for Bruce, for their outstanding work on that interim report. One of the issues this bill addresses is the activities of education agents and their interaction with providers in Australia. There's an important role for education agents in helping students navigate their move from one country to another to study. But what the reviews and sector feedback have told us is that we have a problem with collusive and unscrupulous practices between some agents and providers. In response, the bill inserts a new definition of "education agent" which better captures their activities. It strengthens the fit and proper requirement used by regulators to apply increased scrutiny to cross-ownership of businesses, including those between an education agent and an education provider. The bill also inserts a definition of "education agent commission". This will allow for complementary amendments to be made to the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 to ban commissions from being paid to education agents for onshore student transfers. It's something that the sector has asked for and will help address agents poaching newly arrived students to shift from their original course into a cheaper, more limited course at a different provider. To further support this and to increase transparency around the operation of education agents, the bill requires providers to give information to the Secretary on request about education agent commissions they have given, and strengthens the ability of the Secretary of the Department of Education or the relevant regulator to give information to registered providers about education agents. Access to performance data about all education agents, not just agents they have an existing relationship with, will enable providers to make better informed decisions about who they choose to engage with. The bill also introduces measures to improve the management of applications for registration as a provider or the addition of courses to an existing provider's registration. Importantly, it allows the Minister to direct via legislative instrument that relevant regulators, called ESOS agencies in the Act, are not required to, or must not, accept or process these applications for a period of up to 12 months. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade heard evidence of instances where some providers were offering courses to international students only, which can be an indicator of poor quality. The bill addresses this by changing the registration requirements for education providers to require that new providers deliver a course to domestic students for two years before applying to register to deliver courses to international students. This builds on the requirements recently introduced in the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and means that new providers will need a track record with their domestic students before extending delivery to international students. And it means that ESOS agencies have time to focus on any integrity issues with a new provider before they enter the international market. It will also deter dodgy providers from setting up "ghost colleges"—fronts that exist mainly to get students a visa so they can work without ever attending a class. English-language courses—ELICOS—and Foundation programs will be exempt from these measure as they only deliver to international students, as will be Table A providers under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to ensure that they remain able to restructure their existing business operations without attracting the limitation. The bill also helps build quality in the sector by enabling the automatic cancellation of a provider's registration where it has not delivered a course to an overseas student over 12 consecutive months. This complements recent changes to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 and targets integrity risks posed by dormant providers. These providers are not demonstrating a commitment to international students, and can be a vehicle for unscrupulous actors to bypass registration requirements for entering the sector through the purchase of dormant providers. There are protections to ensure that schools are exempt due to the smaller number of overseas students they teach, and applications for extensions may be made to ensure that genuine providers are not affected or inconvenienced. Finally on providers, the bill strengthens the fit and proper test applied by ESOS agencies to providers to take into account whether a provider is under investigation for a specific offence, such as human trafficking, slavery or slavery-like practices. Mr Speaker, I said earlier that we have to ensure that we manage the international education industry in a way that delivers the greatest benefit to Australia, whilst maintaining its social licence from the Australian people. In keeping with the responsible approach from this Government, the bill introduces powers for the Minister for Education to manage sector enrolments to deliver sustainable growth. These are to make enrolment limits by legislative instrument, or by individual notice, for providers. These may relate to a provider level 'total enrolment limit', or at the course level imposing a 'course enrolment limit', or a combination of the two. In setting enrolment limits, the Minister will take into account the relevance of courses to Australia's skills needs. An additional consideration for the Minister for Education when setting limits will be the supply of purpose built student accommodation available to both domestic and international students. Where a limit impacts the VET sector, the Minister for Education must obtain agreement from the Minister for Skills and Training prior to introducing a limit. There are transitional provisions to ensure that any limits only apply to new enrolments for the 2025 calendar year, and the Minister for Education is able to exempt specific courses from any total enrolment limit imposed on a provider. Finally, the bill enables the automatic suspension and cancellation of courses specified by the Minister for Education, with agreement from the Minister for Skills and Training where it affects the VET sector, by legislative instrument. This allows the Minister for Education to limit the delivery of courses with systemic quality issues, limited value to Australia's critical skills need, or where it is in the public interest to do so—for instance, where students are being exploited. At the Australian International Education Conference last October I said that the Government wanted to work with the international education industry to make sure we get reform right. And I am serious about doing this in consultation with the sector. This week the Government released a draft international education and skills framework for consultation. We will consult with the sector on the implementation of the powers set out in the bill. This will be through broad and continued engagement with the Council for International Education, and with the sector. Stakeholders like Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the International Education Association Australia, TAFE Directors Australia, the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia and the Regional Universities Network. This work will take place over the next few months, with the intention that any limits will have a start date of 1 January 2025. One thing that the framework makes clear is that international education is not a one-way street. In the last couple of years we have made great strides in taking Australian education overseas—teaching in international branch campuses where students can get the benefit of an Australian education without leaving home. We are already a global leader here. There are more than 10 Australian universities operating International Branch Campuses across 10 countries, with 3 further branch campuses expected to open later this year. Universities like Monash, who have the first foreign university campus in Indonesia. Or Wollongong, with their campus in GIFT City, India and Western Sydney University in Surabaya. That's a key part of this too. And I look forward to working with the sector as consultation on the framework progresses. Mr Speaker, the important measures in this bill are the next steps in strengthening our international education sector, shutting out the shonks, giving our providers long term certainty and setting this national asset up for future success. I commend the bill to the House. The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 6 September 2024. Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 3053

Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024

First Reading 3053 11:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 3054 11:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to require the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to establish and maintain an SMS Sender ID Register. The bill gives direct effect to the Government's decision to provide the ACMA with funding to establish and run a SMS sender ID register. The register aims to protect consumers and brands by disrupting a specific type of SMS impersonation scam—where scammers send SMS sender IDs to imitate well-known brands such as banks, government agencies or retailers in order to deceive victims. It's hard to imagine an Australian who has not received one of these text messages purporting to be from a bank or a toll road operator. These fraudsters operate domestically and overseas, and use sophisticated technologies to trick innocent Australians into divulging sensitive information in order to steal their money or personal information. The financial losses, psychological damage and general annoyance suffered is immense. SMS is now the most frequently reported contact method for scams, and almost $27 million was lost to SMS scams in 2023, as reported to Scamwatch. Of course, not all scam losses are reported, so the real cost is far greater. The Government has made significant progress in combatting scams, Data released by the ACCC in April 2024 indicates[ ] estimated scam losses were down 13.1 percent in 2023 from 2022. However, while losses have decreased and progress is being made, Australians are still losing too much. There is no 'silver bullet' to eliminate scam activity; scammers will invariably adapt and utilise new methods to contact would-be victims. The formal creation of this Register will bolster existing anti-scam measures. Once operational, this Register is designed to: decrease the frequency and impact of SMS impersonation scams on consumers; increase protections for legitimate brands and agencies against bad actors impersonating them; disrupt the business models for SMS impersonation scams; restore public confidence in SMS as a communications channel; and ultimately, make Australia a harder target for scam activity. A pilot register has been operating since December, which has generated valuable insights. Whether the register will ultimately be a voluntary or mandatory model is yet to be determined and is not the focus of this bill. That decision is scheduled for later this year. It will be informed by detailed costings and analysis as well as the two rounds of stakeholder and public consultation in 2023 and 2024. Following that decision, corresponding rules will be made to bind the relevant parts of the industry to certain obligations. This mechanism does not feature in the Bill, and will be effected by existing powers in the Telecommunications Act 1997. The main elements of the Bill are: A requirement for the ACMA or a contracted service provider (on its behalf) to establish the Register; and a requirement for the ACMA or for a contracted service provider (on its behalf) to maintain all or some of the content of the Register. The Register will be a Register of sender identifications that have been accepted by the ACMA. The Bill sets out a two-step registration process specifying how entities may apply to the ACMA for approval to register before applying to register one or more sender identifications. The Bill allows for a deferred commencement date that will commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within a period of 6 months beginning on the day the Act receives the Royal Assent, they would commence on the day after the end of that period. This recognises that the ACMA will require time to finalise technical and operational aspects for the Register which is likely to be a complex ICT solution platform together with instruments that must be prepared to complete the framework. Accordingly, this Bill provides that the ACMA must establish the Register 'as soon as practicable'—noting the Government anticipates the Register could be expected to be operational by late 2025. The Bill defines what is meant by a sender identification and will also provide the Minister for Communications with the authority to determine, by legislative instrument, other communication services (beyond SMS and Multimedia Messaging Service) which employ sender identifications that may be registered in the future and other things that may feature in a sender identification. The essential elements for applications, refusal of applications, prevention of impersonation of sender identifications (or spoofing) and removal of entries from the Register are explicitly embedded in the Bill; however, new powers will be conferred on the ACMA to make determinations, by legislative instrument. These will set out further requirements for access to the Register; and its administration and operation. The use of subordinate legislation to specify these requirements will be critical in allowing functional aspects of the Register's operation to be adjusted over time to accommodate both changes in technology and services that may be part of the Register in the future. It will also mean the ACMA can respond appropriately to changes in scammers' behaviour, while providing ongoing protection to legitimate entities and consumers. The Bill provides for hybrid decision-making, where decisions based solely on objective criteria can be made by computer programs arranged by the ACMA while decisions requiring evaluative judgments are required to be made by a human. The Bill includes a number of measures to mitigate any risks associated with automated decisions—such as the power for the ACMA to substitute decisions and remove an entry from the Register when necessary. This Government has made significant inroads combatting telecommunications scams, but is committed to doing more. This bill is the next formal step in creating a SMS Sender ID Register, which, once fully operational, will offer better protection for consumers and increase brand protection for legitimate businesses and entities using SMS sender identifications. Debate adjourned. Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 3055

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

Second Reading 3055 11:29 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is a delight to be back and pick up where I left off. I was reminding the chamber of an event in history that many of us can't forget and that is 'Baghdad Bob', who, in the early 2000s, was the foreign minister in Iraq at the end of the Hussein regime, and how, comically, 'Baghdad Bob' reminded me of a certain colleague we have in this chamber—that is, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Watt. 'Baghdad Bob' told us that there were no US tanks rolling into Iraq and taking over that jurisdiction. He was holding a press conference, telling us everything was okay, while tanks were a couple of hundred metres from the room. This week, much in the same way as 'Baghdad Bob', Minister Watt stood up on the second floor of this building and told the media that the government had everything under control, that these laws introduced into this parliament, perfect in their first form, were going to pass, and that pesky Senate, that group of people elected by the people of Australia to interrogate and scrutinise legislation, didn't know what they were talking about, that it was all mis and disinformation and that this crowd, with their objections, were totally incorrect, as were all of the concerns being raised about this legislation. As many of my colleagues have already outlined, there is a long history of these concerns being raised about the CFMEU and its actions that these will laws purportedly address, not only by members of this place, not just by Liberal politicians, but also by workers, by the Federal Court of Australia and by the former ABCC. There are entities out there that have of course pointed to concerns around the CFMEU and their actions. So why is the minister standing up in the Press Gallery holding press conferences telling us, 'Everything is okay. These laws are not necessary. We don't need to do anything beyond what the government proposes to do.'? I will come to the substance of the legislation, or lack of it, I might say, and what the coalition aims to do to improve these laws. It was amazing though, as I said, to watch Minister Watt at his finest, spin like there was no tomorrow, telling everyone that the bills were perfect and that this pesky thing called democracy was getting in the way of the government doing its job, getting in the way of urgently acting on clamping down on the CFMEU and their unlawful activities. The fact is, these issues have been around for a long time. It's not like they weren't alerted to it, as Senator Cash, the shadow minister, has pointed out on a number of occasions. It is not like this government was only just recently informed of what was going on. We had years of allegations, court findings and claims against the CFMEU. Only now is the government seeking to act, having stood idly by doing nothing about the actions of the CFMEU and their leadership, standing idly by while workers got nothing out of their lawlessness. Now this government tells us it's urgent and has the gall to tell the Australian Senate, elected by the people of Australia, to just ram these through, saying, 'They are perfect. There is no improvement to be made here. Indeed, we are so in control as a government, we will have a deal done by end of week.' Yet it was only yesterday that we considered in this place what is known as a guillotine motion. This government often likes to use its numbers in partnership with the Australian Greens—thankfully, on this occasion it failed—to curtail debate on important legislation. It is an end point in time for this place to debate legislation. The government had a motion on the books to bring debate to an end today, only having introduced the bills this week. There was no proper scrutiny, no Senate inquiry, so we couldn't actually look at the bills in any detail; we just had to rush it through here. We couldn't interrogate the department instructed by the government to draft these bills and ask them on what basis certain provisions were drafted up, why they were formed up this way, and was it a request from the minister or was it something from stakeholders? There was none of that, no interrogation of that whatsoever. It makes you wonder, why? Why would they want to just push this off? It's this whole 'nothing to see here' approach. The government have adopted over a long period of time now an approach to doing business on behalf of the people of Australia. But if there is a problem, they will try and get you to look the other way, saying, 'Nothing to see here'—again, back to our 'Baghdad Bob' analogy. They say, 'Things are not as people might tell you but as we tell you. We will tell you what's going on. We will tell you whether things are good or bad and we will ignore the reality out there, the facts that actually relate to the situation, the facts relating to the workers that have been affected by the CFMEU, the facts that were outlined by Senator Colbeck in his contribution a little earlier on—the 30 to 40 per cent premium on public infrastructure projects, of course, because of CFMEU involvement.' How is that in the interests of this country? But, as I say, this minister spins like there's no tomorrow. He tells us that it's all under control and we've just got to get on with it; that it's the terrible Greens and coalition who are holding up this decisive action being taken by government. Again, I go back to the motion moved yesterday as we opposed the government's attempts to curtail debate, their attempts to prevent democracy from doing its thing and prevent this Senate from interrogating this legislation. We had the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, and the minister himself, Minister Watt, whom I've already referred to in this debate, say: 'Okay, you move an amendment to this motion. You tell us when you want to end debate.' Hang on! Government, it's your job to get your bills through this parliament. It is your job to take people on the journey with you. It is your job to ensure that the legislation is right, on behalf of those who elected you to government. Instead of saying, 'Opposition, you tell us when you want this done by,' work with us on the amendments. That is why I now want to turn to some of the things that our shadow minister, Senator Cash, referred to. The holes in the legislation, the shortcomings—many in number—render this bill ineffective. It does not do what the government claim it will do. In line with Minister Watt's farcical claims that everything is under control and we just need to pass these laws is the fact that this bill does nothing at all, despite what he says. It does not deal with the issues at the heart of the problems being faced by Australian workers and taxpayers because of the lawlessness of the CFMEU. As the shadow minister has pointed out, the legislation before us, if rammed through as per Labor's intention, would vest in the minister—Minister Watt, who has told us there's nothing to see here and we should just get on and pass his bill, not interrogate or scrutinise it—too much power, too much discretion, too much ability to do whatever he wants whenever he wants in response to what we believe is a significant situation. It is to that end—we've heard it referred to multiple times in this debate, and rightly so—that we have concerns about at least a perceived conflict of interest. When a union donates to a political party, in this case the Australian Labor Party, which is, of course, the party from which the minister hails—it was a party elected to govern in the interests of all Australians—$6.2 million, you've got to wonder whether a minister elected as part of that political party, which was funded in its election campaign by this union, is genuine in seeking to deal with the issues that we face through the lawlessness of this union. The administration of the union would not apply to all branches of the union for an extended period. With the bill as it stands right now, without any amendment—and this is one of the 20 things that the shadow minister raised—the minister, at his discretion, can end the administration early. To go back to the point I made before: union donates to Labor Party; Labor Party, from which the minister comes, gets elected; Labor Party introduces laws and has sole discretion as to when administration of the union ends; Labor Party could get elected at the next election and end administration the next day. I'm pretty sure Australians can draw a solid line between donation and action. That is a conflict of interest that needs to be managed, and it would be remiss of this Senate not to deal with it. We would not be doing our job on behalf of Australian workers, a group of people that the Australian Labor Party say they stand for. The fact that the scheme of administration can only be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator is also of concern. There is the fact that the legislation doesn't set out what must be in the scheme of administration. It should not be determined solely at the whim of a minister. Again, there is the fact that the minister has discretion in a situation where they're a political player, as part of a party funded in large part by the union that is the subject and central concern of the legislation. The fact that political donations and campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU are not explicitly banned during the period of administration is also of concern. The fact that it is silent on that, that we would allow this to continue to occur despite what concerns have been raised—again, not just by coalition politicians but many sectors, many quarters of our community, including law courts—is just unbelievable. The minister, our friend Minister Watt who, as I said, reminds me of 'Baghdad Bob'—'Nothing to see here; no problems to deal with'—doesn't see this as an issue. Australians are not stupid; they're not mugs. They know when projects are costing a third more than they should—public infrastructure projects like roads and hospitals, schools, essential things that we all need to live in this developed and growing society. I find it astounding that the minister does not have their interests at heart and does not wish to address these issues. There's no transparency around this process either—the administrator not being required to report to parliament as much as it should. One of the requests we've made is that there be a written report every three months from the commencement of administration so that, on behalf of the people of Australia, we can interrogate what it is that is actually happening in this black box of administration of the CFMEU. There are 20 proposed changes that our shadow minister is seeking to deal with and amend within the legislation. Yet Minister Watt has the gall to front up to the press gallery to try and tell Australians that it is all okay and that these silly politicians from non-government parties have got it all wrong and there's nothing to see here. Well, as I said, Australians aren't stupid. The facts, the history, the numbers relating to public infrastructure projects bear out our concerns. Our amendments are reasonable. Our amendments are ones that Australians expect to be put in place to ensure the best outcome for them as taxpayers, as workers, as mums and dads of people on worksites who've experienced some of the issues that Senator Cash and others have referred to. But, again, rather than taking the issue seriously, we've got a minister who, in his first real test, instead of properly dealing with things, simply seeks to spin in the way that failed Iraqi foreign minister 'Baghdad Bob' did. And we know how that ended. It didn't end well for them because it was not based on truth. It was based on a lie. I hope this minister sees these amendments and sees fit, on behalf of the people he purports to represent, to actually make good this legislation, make it fit for purpose, rein CFMEU in and restore law and order to building and construction sites and to the union movement in our country. Workers do occasionally depend on these bodies. Let's make them do the right thing by workers. 11:43 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria This debate isn't just about politics; it's about the very fabric of our society. It's about our economy. It's about our values. It's about what we hold dear. It's about exposing the rot that lies at the heart of a union, a union that is a pillar, indeed a key pillar, of the Albanese government—a government that dares to claim the moral high ground while swimming in the cesspool of corruption and lawlessness that has been demonstrated within the CFMEU. Minister Watt, the newly minted IR minister, was right in one thing. He said this morning that there is no time to waste. Well, he is absolutely right. There is no time to delay. There's no time to delay because the cost of living in this country is spiralling out of control. I've travelled the length and breadth of the country as the chair of the cost-of-living committee and those opposite may not have heard it yet, but everyday Australians are doing it really tough. Really tough! But what do we see? We see a government that is not just complicit but is actively feeding the beast of inflation through turning a blind eye to the poor behaviour that has gone on in this union. Government spending is a key driver of inflation, there's no doubt about that. You don't need to believe me, because the Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, has been saying it too. Government spending is a key driver of inflation, but, when that government spending is tainted by the corrupt dealings of the CFMEU, the impact is catastrophic. The CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities that would make even the most hardened crooks blush—bribery, intimidation, violence and outright corruption. You don't need to take my word for it; you can take the word of senior, experienced journalists writing for the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald and reporting to Channel 9. What has the ALP done about this? Instead of rooting out the cancer, they've actually coddled it, nurtured it, let it grow and let it fester, all the while telling people that union corruption is simply in the coalition's heads and saying: 'It's fine. Nothing's going on. Nothing to see here.' Every time a CFMEU official bullies their way through a worksite, every time they misappropriate funds and every time they engage in thuggish, standover tactics, it costs all of us money. The flow-on effect feeds the inflation beast. It drives up the cost of government projects, which means your taxes are higher than they need to be. It pushes up the cost of living, and the government have been complicit in this. The ALP, far from acting as the moral compass of the nation, has been right there, cheering them on from the sidelines. Again, they're not my words; it has been reported in the newspapers. The cost is not just financial, although the cost is no doubt staggering. Labour productivity in the construction sector has plummeted by 18.1 per cent since 2014, and the decline is no coincidence. It's a direct result of the CFMEU's corrosive influence on the industry. By obstructing work, imposing costly conditions and encouraging lawlessness on worksites, the CFMEU has added 30 per cent to the cost of major projects. That's money that could've gone to hospitals. It's money that could've gone to roads and to schools. But, instead, because of the CFMEU, it's money that's gone to this lawless union. It's taxpayer money siphoned off to cover the cost of union thuggery and mismanagement. Who foots the bill? It's every single one of us. It's every taxpayer—every family trying to buy a home and every small business trying to stay afloat. This is not a small deal. Let me talk about my home state of Victoria, where this corruption has been allowed to flourish for years under the watch of former premier Daniel Andrews and his successor, Premier Jacinta Allan. The Victorian government's Big Build projects have become a monument to waste and a monument to inefficiency and cronyism. They are synonymous with corruption. What should have been a proud investment in my state's future has become instead a black hole for taxpayer dollars. The cost blowouts are staggering—$40 billion and counting. This is the most profound economic waste and mismanagement by a government that we have seen in this country in decades. Why is this happening? Well, (1) it's complete and utter incompetence; and (2) it's because the ALP have allowed the CFMEU to dictate the terms of contracts, to bully, to intimidate and to prioritise their own interests over the needs of Victorians. The figures don't lie. The blowouts, the waste and the inefficiency are directly contributing to the cost-of-living crisis—not only for people in Victoria but for everyone in our nation. Every dollar wasted on a bloated contract is a project delayed by union interference. It's a dollar that could've been spent on those schools, hospitals and roads and on a better standard of living for all of us. But, instead, because the ALP turned a blind eye to this, we are all paying the price. It's going into the pockets of union officials and their cronies, all with the ALP's blessing. But there is hope. In Victoria we have a leader that is fighting back every single day in the state parliament. John Pesutto and the Liberal opposition are holding this government to account. The government are refusing to answer questions; even in question time they are refusing to answer questions about this. But John Pesutto is doing his job, exposing the truth about the CFMEU's stranglehold on our state's construction industry and demanding real action to clean up the mess. It's thanks to his efforts, continually calling out the behaviour, that the public is finally starting to see the rot that is at the heart of the Victorian and, indeed, the Australian governments. For as long as the Australian government is still taking donations from the CFMEU, as long as it's not returning the donations that it's already accepted, this is the standard its accepts. John Pesutto has made it very clear that under his leadership Victoria will no longer be a playground for corrupt union officials. He's committed to replacing the oversight functions lost by the Albanese government's abolition of the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, with a new body called construction enforcement Victoria. That will ensure that Victorian construction, at least, will operate with integrity and efficiency. He understands that the CFMEU's influence has to be eradicated if we're going to restore confidence in our state's infrastructure projects and deliver real value for taxpayers, because surely that is our first job. His commitment to a royal commission on the CFMEU's activities in Victoria will ensure that those responsible for this mess are held to account. The ALP pretend they have only just discovered this rot—'Oh, deary me! There's something going on the CFMEU? Who would have thought?' They act as though this is brand-new information to them, but let's be really clear: the ALP have known this all along. It's been problem, a secret, that's been hiding in plain sight. They were warned about the corruption, they were warned about the violence, they were warned about the intimidation and they did nothing. In fact, they did worse than nothing: they actively defended it. They even promoted it. They fed the beast. Corruption begins at home, and for Premier Jacinta Allan that could not be more true, considering her husband is a former CFMEU official. Tell me: how convenient is it for the Victorian Premier to turn a blind eye to the rot when it has been so close to home! The ALP would have us believe that they are the guardians of moral integrity, the defenders of the downtrodden. But let's look at the facts. This is the same party that turned a blind eye to the criminal behaviour of men who are not just corrupt but violently so. We all know the story of John Setka, the man who plead guilty to harassing his own wife but who was then coddled and cuddled and protected not just by men in the Labor movement but by women too, women who have claimed to be advocates of women and who should have known better. This is a man who is a blight on the labour movement, a man who has been allowed to rise to power and influence under the watchful eye of the ALP's umbrella, warm in its embrace. Now the Prime Minister and the ALP will tell us that they've taken a strong stance, strong action, by suspending the CFMEU, but let's be clear: they've only suspended the union in states and territories where elections are not on the horizon. Isn't that funny? Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have all been conveniently excluded from the suspension. Why is that? Because the ALP will take the CFMEU's 30 pieces of silver. They will take the 30 pieces of silver to betray every other state in the Commonwealth. They'll cut ties with the CFMEU but only when it is convenient to do so. What about their promises of reform? Well, the ALP say they will investigate, they will inquire, they will clean up the mess, but let's not kid ourselves. The Victorian Labor government and the Greens—the Greens, those heroes of fairness and apparent decency!—have treated the calls for these same investigations in Victoria with nothing but arrogance and contempt. Do we really expect anything different from our national government? I hope we do. For as long as the Labor Party pocket CFMEU donations, as long as they allow construction sites to operate without a watchdog, they are as morally bankrupt is the CFMEU itself. Let's be very clear. The Albanese Labor government is now desperate to fix a mess that was directly created by abolishing the ABCC. It was directly created by giving control of the construction sector to their mates in the CFMEU, and the result of that has been a surge in criminal activity—threats, corruption, lawlessness—that has added 30 per cent to the cost of major projects, driving up inflation and hurting everyday Australians. The Albanese government were warned that this would happen. They were warned, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. Who was asking for that abolition of the ABCC? Was it ordinary Australians? Was it parents with kids starting out in trades? Was it the coalition? Who was asking for the abolition of the ABCC? Only one group was—the CFMEU. They were the only organisation that wanted to see poor behaviour on construction worksites. Abolishing the ABCC was the first thing the Prime Minister did when he came into office, and he did it to the cheers of his mates. Why? Because they wanted to enable the CFMEU, not investigate it, not curtail its activities. They wanted it to flourish. Let's be honest. They're trying to now pass legislation to fix the damage that they caused, but it doesn't go far enough; it goes nowhere near far enough. We need an inquiry to hear from the department, the Fair Work Commission and stakeholders about how this legislation will operate and whether it will actually be effective. The coalition has some serious concerns about this bill. It gives the minister far too much discretion over the administration process. Under the legislation, the minister could stop the administration at any time he chooses. Even if he doesn't choose to stop it, it's only got three years to run. At the end of three years, even if there are still problems with the CFMEU, the administration ceases. That's nonsense. It's acceptable. We also need to ensure that the administration applies to all of the CFMEU's construction divisions, not just a select few. We need to ensure that the process is transparent and that it must report directly and regularly to parliament. The legislation should set clear objectives for how the CFMEU needs to change before it's taken out of administration. At the moment, this bill, sunsetting after three years as it does—regardless of whether anything is actually achieved—could potentially make no difference whatsoever. That's why the coalition are moving amendments. That's why we want to see changes to this bill. That's why we want to see it strengthened. Critically, this legislation must ensure that the CFMEU cannot make political donations or run political campaigns while it's in administration. The government has known our concerns about this bill for around 48 hours, and it could have passed this bill in minutes. So when Minister Watt says, 'There is no time to delay,' that is on him. He could come in here right now and pass this bill immediately. But he cannot do it until those positions are strengthened, until the bill that we adopt is one that is actually going to have some effect. If they don't adopted the changes, it's proof of the fact that the Labor Party not only are complicit in this corruption of one of the biggest and most powerful unions in the country but continue to enable the rot that has cost all Australians so dearly. 11:58 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland What a shameful state of affairs we find ourselves in. In one of the most important industries in this country, the construction industry, which provides the infrastructure all Australians need—roads, rail, schools, hospitals—and is responsible for many projects building the houses that Australians need in the middle of a chronic housing shortage, we have a union, the CFMEU, that is dominating the industrial relations landscape and is just beyond the pale. The cost of all that public infrastructure is 30 per cent, 40 per cent—goodness knows what per cent—more because of the CFMEU and the way it conducts itself. Everyone in this parliament knows this has been going on for years and years and years, and yet it's been allowed to persist, until now we've reached this stage. What a shameful state of affairs—which all Australians are paying for. I would like to congratulate the Australian Financial Review, the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes for the investigation they conducted into the unlawful practices of the CFMEU. I want to read from an article that was prepared as part of that investigation, in relation to a young Indigenous Melbourne man by the name of Ben Nash, who took his own life after attending a construction site. He turned up to work at a construction site, came home to his mother and took his own life that night. I'm going to read from this article, and I'd like to specifically acknowledge Ms Tammie Parker, the mother of that young man, for her courage in speaking out: When Indigenous Melbourne man Ben Nash left for work on the morning of January 24, a day before his 19th birthday, all his mother Tammie knew was that her son was heading to a job he loved. "He was drawn to civil construction," she says of Ben … She says he'd overcome mental health issues to throw himself not only into footy, but his dream of building a career in construction. An Indigenous construction firm, Marda Dandhi, had not only offered Ben a job, but gave him what Tammie described as a chance to "just embrace his Indigenous heritage". "Ben loved it. He couldn't have loved it any more." But ever since he skipped out the door that January morning, Tammie's days have been marked with discoveries about all that she didn't know and would yet find out. She didn't know that the construction industry her son was entering was infested with underworld figures and cronyism, fuelled by crooked businesses and certain CFMEU officials who have formed an unholy alliance to control who works, and who doesn't, on major projects. The article goes on to say that she was unaware that the Indigenous company that had given her son his first start—and how wonderful it is that we have an Indigenous company in the construction industry, providing opportunities for people like Ben—had been targeted by the CFMEU. Nor did she know that, according to the article, a union organiser had, many months earlier, threatened to bash the founder of that company, a gentleman called Mr Danny Miller. A CFMEU official had threatened to bash Miller along with another of Ben's bosses and labelled the pair 'dogs'. The article continues: Tammie had no idea that a second senior union official had warned her sons bosses that, without CFMEU backing, they would never access any sites funded by the Labor government … She also wasn't expecting Ben to arrive home early from work distraught that same January day— Picture the mother of this son, who'd left so excited for the start of his work day and who then comes home and tells his mum that he'd been bullied and humiliated on a building site because the CFMEU was angry because he'd previously been employed by that Indigenous construction firm, Marda Dandhi. There's no compassion; there's no empathy. There's anger. The article goes on: Tammie didn't know that the next morning, when she was meant to be making him a birthday brekkie, she would instead find him in his bed, his lips blue and skin cold— It's difficult to read. It goes on: It will ultimately be up to a coroner to formally determine the cause of Ben's death, but Tammie is now demanding action against those behind the culture of fear and intimidation in the CFMEU she believes cost her son his life. These are not a politician's word. These are the words of a mother who lost her son to suicide after he returned home from what was meant to be a day's productive work at a construction site here in Australia. The article continues: Tammie believes Ben's treatment at work "tipped him over the edge". Asked who she blames for his death, Tammy utters five letters: "C.F.M.E.U." She says, in her words: "According to Ben, he was pulled aside [by an unnamed CFMEU representative] and told that nobody that worked for Marda [Dandhi] would ever be welcome on site again. He was told to f--- off. He just wanted to work. He rang his employer to try and sort something out, and CFMEU wouldn't listen to him. They didn't offer any help. They locked him in a shed for three or four hours, just a young boy with mental health issues." It's hard for me to read this. What must it have been like for the mother? The article goes on to say: Nash's death, and his mother's determination to make something good of it, gives a human face—that of the ordinary suburban Australian worker—to an unfolding catalogue of construction union badness. The CFMEU denies responsibility for the death. …   …   … Over the weekend The Australian Financial Review and 60 Minutes also published covert video of the union official threatening to bash the two owners of Nash's company and an industry fixer—caught in a covert sting—who claimed to be able to bribe CFMEU officials in order to parachute corrupt companies onto the Victorian and federal government-funded Big Build and force non-preferred companies off sites. …   …   … Tammie says Ben's last day alive stands in stark contrast to his earlier time working for Marda Dandhi, a fledgling Indigenous construction firm started by Danny Miller. According to Miller's LinkedIn profile, Marda Dandhi's vision— and what a noble vision this is; just listen to this— was to place Indigenous men and women into long-term, sustainable jobs by equipping them with new skills and a sense of pride and purpose. The article then says that the founder of that company, Danny Miller, 'declined to be interviewed, with friends saying he's had his own mental health struggles after the firm's collapse.' It goes on to say: For Ben, Tammie says Marda Dandhi was a "perfect fit". "They were terrific. Employee welfare is really important to them. I'd be ringing him or messaging him, 'Are you coming home for dinner? … The article goes on: Despite initially securing CFMEU and Australian Workers' Union support, the former turned on them. The change in attitude is made clear in covert footage of two senior construction union officials, filmed in March 2022 on a publicly funded Big Build project. The article says the film records a senior CFMEU official: … repeatedly threatening to violently bash Miller— the Indigenous man who started that company with that great vision— telling him he would "f---ing end you, c--- and you know it, don't f--- with me. I'll f---ing take your soul and I'll rip your f---ing head off. Don't f--- with me, c---. F--- you. You're a f---ing dog. In what world is that acceptable? The article continues: The covert video also captures a second high-ranking CFMEU official … warning that any firms without CFMEU backing—in the form of a CFMEU-endorsed enterprise bargaining agreement—would struggle to win work on any big civil sites due to the construction union's control of the Labor government … It quotes the CFMEU official, 'We've got them all, and youse won't be coming in with our companies.' The article continues: It was only in January, the day Ben arrived home early, utterly distraught, that Tammie learned of the extent of acrimony between the CFMEU and Marda Dandhi. He told her he had been bullied by an unnamed CFMEU representative and ordered to sit in a shed for hours because, even though he was working for a new company, Ben had worn a Marda Dandhi T-shirt. He wore a T-shirt. His mum said: He was angry and stressed, and yeah, just not himself. He was worried. Yeah. He'd been told that he wasn't welcome on site because of the … shirt that he had on— a T-shirt. The articles continues: He told his mum he had been "belittled … yelled at, sworn at and ignored". "He said, 'I feel sorry for anybody that has ever worked for Danny, because anybody that has ever worked for Marda will never get a job on a CFMEU site ever again'," Tammie said. Tammie believed Ben's treatment made him fear for his future in a career he had only started: He was worried about his new job … He was 18 years old, first day on site. No other workers there that he knew. No support. Consider his vulnerability; consider the vulnerability of this young man. Who was there on that work site, reaching out to support him? He was put in a shed for three or four hours. His mum says: I thought that's what unions were supposed to do, look after their employees. The article goes on: For Tammie, what happened next is a blur. "I asked him if he was OK … and he said, 'Mum, I just need to sleep. I just need to sleep. I just need this to stop.' "So, he went to bed and I checked up on him at about midnight to make sure he was OK, and he was fine." But when Ben didn't walk out to the kitchen for breakfast, Tammie checked on her son again. "He was cold. His lips were blue. He was clearly dead. His girlfriend was hysterical, obviously, we all were. And then it was just calling triple 0. He was gone. There was nothing we could do." Next came the "most unbelievable pain". "I just sat outside. The ambos came and the fireys come, police come and detectives come, because Ben was so young and an unexpected death." Tammie hopes the coroner will get to the bottom of her son's death. Tammie says CFMEU officials visited her and tried to downplay the role of workplace intimidation in Ben's death. But Tammie isn't buying it. "Where was the duty of care for my son? Why was he locked in a shed for so long? Why didn't they tell him to turn his shirt inside out?" "They didn't want him there. They didn't want him on site. They didn't want him there, purely because he was wearing the Marda Dandhi shirt. "Kids can't go to work and end up dead the next day. No family needs to go through this." This issue has a human face. It has a human cost, and there are families across Australia who are suffering. Their fathers, brothers, sons and sisters are suffering because of the state of our construction worksites. Action is required, and the coalition has put forward 20 sensible amendments to the legislation which has been put forward by the Labor government. In considering those amendments, I call upon the Labor government to consider the words of Ms Tammie Palmer, who lost her son after he arrived home distraught from one day on a construction worksite in our beautiful country of Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Kovacic, before I call you, we have a hard marker at 12.15, so you will be in continuation after. 12:13 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I would like to acknowledge the powerful contribution of my colleague Senator Scarr. I thank you for sharing that very difficult story with the chamber. Here we are, debating the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, a bill that is going to put the CFMEU into administration. I'm sorry to say that those opposite have had their heads in the sand for far too long about the criminal behaviour of the CFMEU. That is why we must act. There has been a lot of silence about the actions of the CFMEU, and we must ask ourselves why. Why have people in the chambers in this place been silent? Is that because of intimidation? Is there also intimidation in this place? I think about the tattoo that we've all seen this week that Mr John Setka has advertised across his social media: 'God forgives; the CFMEU doesn't.' We need to think about that. Who is that a message for? Is that a personal message, or is that a message very clearly and plainly demonstrated and publicised to ensure that anybody that might want to stand against him can be very, very clear about what the consequences will be? We need to ask ourselves if we accept that. As people that have been charged with leading this country, if we accept that somebody can do that— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB It being 12.15, pursuant to order, debate on this bill is interrupted. Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 3062

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

Second Reading 3062 12:15 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The Australian economy right now is in desperate need of productivity reform and competition improvements. Amidst the cost-of-living crisis and broader economic uncertainty and stagnation, we need policies that make doing business easier, reduce friction in our transaction economy and help bring our regulatory framework in line with, or indeed ahead of, our international peers. That is why I'm pleased that the coalition will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022. On the face of it, the bill is a very dry and technical read, but what I would like to do is demonstrate to the chamber and to others that are watching in this debate the real benefits that are to be achieved and realised through this legislation. So I'm going to read from a correspondent who has written to me specifically about the importance of this bill and the importance of passing the bill this afternoon. She says: 'This bill is of significant importance for enhancing consumer rights and promoting fair competition, particularly within the banking sector, with established banks as well as fintech companies having new opportunities to innovate and compete for our small-business customers based on data driven insights and services. In short, the consumer data right represents a groundbreaking economic reform that prioritises consumers in the data sharing framework. As you're likely aware, Australian consumers generate substantial data through daily transactions with various businesses including banks. The CDR provides a mechanism for consumers to access and control this data safely and securely, empowering them to make more informed choices. From a competition standpoint, this bill has the potential to be transformative. It will enable consumers greater flexibility to switch between service providers, especially in the banking sector. The bill will allow consumers to instruct accredited action initiators to perform tasks such as switching bank accounts or updating information across multiple platforms simultaneously. This action could significantly enhance competition, making it easier for consumers to choose services that better suit their needs. For small businesses, the CDR will drive productivity and growth. It will allow small businesses to leverage their data more effectively for various purposes, including securing loans and managing the most important thing for small businesses, which is cash flow. Importantly, the bill also places a strong emphasis on data security and privacy, which is crucial in the current environment, where data breaches are of significant concern. Given the potential benefits for consumers, small businesses and the overall economy, I respectfully ask,' says the correspondent, 'that this bill be given proper attention and consideration and pass the Senate without delay.' The coalition is pleased to be supporting this bill today. But it would be remiss of me not to draw the Senate's attention to an important issue, and that is delay and obfuscation. This bill spent just three months in the House of Representatives—just three months; November, December, January, February. Over the Christmas period, it passed efficiently, prudently, through the House of Representatives. So industry stakeholders are right to ask: why is it that it has taken 17 months for this bill to come to a vote in the Senate today? Seventeen months! Some—I, Senator Davey and other coalition senators—would argue that nothing demonstrates more the tardiness with which the government is approaching productivity and competition issues than this bill. For 17 months it has languished here, and those who have been paying close attention will know that just last month the government pulled it from its legislative program. So the competition benefits that this business owner has written to me about may very well have been not achieved, not realised, for months—possibly even for years. That is the government's commitment to productivity gains and competition improvements in the Australian economy: zilch. I remind the Senate that, with the support of the Australian Greens, a notice of motion in the last sitting week of this place took the bill from oblivion—remember that the government had taken it off the agenda, off the legislative program, and, with the support of Greens and of other senators, it was put back on, which is why we are here today. The coalition won't be accused of delay and obfuscation. I will only make one last comment. In discussions with stakeholders over the last few weeks, the coalition has been alert and paying attention to some of the concerns and hesitations that have been raised with it. That's actually not a surprise. In the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report, coalition senators said: Coalition Senators believe that extensions to the scheme need to be carefully considered to ensure the implementation of the scheme is done properly. This will ensure this policy is successful. We continue to agree with those remarks in the report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. So all stakeholders across the CDR landscape can have great confidence that the coalition will approach this diligently, with an open mind and in good faith. They are characteristics that the government cannot claim to have characterised their actions and engagement on this particular issue. I commend the bill to the Senate and hope that it can pass, without unnecessary delay, shortly. 12:22 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As has been pointed out by Senator Smith, this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022, has been before the Senate, without debate, for well over a year now. There are reasons for that that I will come to shortly. But I do want to say, at the start of this debate, that Labor has abjectly failed to listen to the concerns of consumer groups and to include greater safeguards to protect consumers' privacy. They have abjectly failed to listen to the concerns of consumer groups and to include safeguards to prevent scams and financial abuse in the consumer data right framework that is before us today. I also want to make the point that Labor has abjectly failed to adequately listen to the concerns of small banks and mutuals, who are disproportionately impacted by their obligations under the proposed consumer data right framework. Instead of fixing problems with the framework, Labor just took the easy option and left this bill to languish. There's a reason, of course, that they did this. I note that this bill is under the carriage of Assistant Treasurer Mr Jones—and members would be aware that I have had a complicated relationship with him over the first couple of years of this parliament. Mr Jones took the easy option here and left this bill to languish for one simple reason: the big banks in Australia—and, I might add, the big insurance companies in Australia—opposed this legislation. Now, I'm going to pause here and remind folks what happened when Minister Jones and I agreed that, in relation to passing a particular piece of legislation within a particular timeframe, Labor would include million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers—that is, the capacity for fines of up to a million dollars for banking CEOs who fail to meet their integrity obligations that were conferred in that legislation. After we reached that agreement, within 24 hours Labor had backed out of it because of former Labor premier Anna Bligh, who is, of course, now the head of the Australian Banking Association. It's that revolving door that we see so much from the establishment parties out of this parliament, where senior members of both parties roll out of this place and state and territory parliaments into cushy sinecures with fossil fuel companies, gaming associations, banking associations—big corporate Australia. Of course, Ms Bligh rolled out of the Queensland parliament more or less straight into the job of heading up the Australian Banking Association, which then called the Prime Minister's office and, within 24 to 48 hours, the agreement I had with Mr Jones was reneged on by Labor because we can't possibly have million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers who break the law! In fact, even though the law is still there and creates an offence, there is no penalty at all able to be applied to the dodgy bankers who allowed those breaches to occur. The reason this bill was delayed by Mr Jones, which was lazy of him and an abrogation of his ministerial responsibility, was, in fact, that the big banks were in his ear. They told him not to proceed, so he didn't. I've got to say, taking the side of the big banks instead of the interests of ordinary Australian consumers of banking products is very on brand for the Labor Party. It follows an established pattern of the Labor Party doing as it is bid by big banks, big fossil fuel corporations, big gaming corporations and big entertainment corporations in this country, because this is a government that is captured by vested corporate interests. One of the ways it's captured is that revolving door that I spoke about before, and the other way, of course, is through the institutionalised bribery through political donations in this country. We will be supporting this bill today because it creates a framework to support consumers to access a range of outcomes, including to switch more easily between utility, insurance, telco and banking providers. There are some problems with it that I outlined in general terms earlier, but this bill does constitute a small but important step to make it easier for Australians to get a better deal for essential services and to improve competition in a range of sectors. But we do urge Labor to prioritise fixing the issues in the Consumer Data Right framework, with particular regard to consumer safety and security and to ensure that small banks and mutuals are not unduly impacted. I can't speak about banks today without referencing the obscene profits that banks are making and the obscene salaries of the CEOs of the big four banks in this country. Let's be really clear about the level of profit that the big four banks make in this country. We have the Commonwealth Bank, which has just recently released its annual profit; that's just shy of $10 billion. That's pretty good if you've got a truckload of Commonwealth Bank shares in your superannuation fund, which you no doubt earn massive tax concessions on because of the absolute rort that is the superannuation tax framework in this country. Make no mistake, the other three of the big four banks will also book an annual profit in that ballpark this year. But I want to refer members to the salaries of the CEOs of the big four banks. Mr Matt Comyn, the CEO of CommBank, trousered $7.3 million dollars in the last financial year. Mr Shayne Elliott, the CEO of ANZ, trousered $6.1 million. Mr Ross McEwan, the CEO of NAB, trousered the same amount—$6.1 million. And Westpac's Mr Peter King trousered $5.7 million. You'll note I use the word 'trousered'. I do so deliberately because they're all blokes, of course, like the overwhelming majority of corporate CEOs in this country who are making out like bandits by price gouging ordinary Australian consumers. Most of them are blokes—not all of them, but most of them are. This is an obscene level of profit that the big four banks are making, and their CEOs are absolutely making out like bandits—$5 million, $6 million, $7 million a year for gouging your consumers. It's no wonder people are lining up to get a hold of senior management jobs in the big banks. It's because they can make out like bandits. These banks are too big to fail in this country. They're basically underwritten by the long-suffering taxpayer. It's one of the lowest risk businesses you could ever conceive of in Australia, running one of the big four banks, because they're too big to fail. The government won't let them fail, so they're a zero-risk profit machine. And they're a zero-risk profit machine, profit factory, because they're able to gouge their consumers. We saw during the supermarkets inquiry, which the Greens established and led through this chamber, how price gouging is occurring in the supermarket sector. I remember Mr Banducci, the Woolworths CEO, pocketed over $8 million in the last financial year. Coles and Woolworths are booking billon-dollar-plus profits every single year by price gouging Australian shoppers while single mothers are skipping meals to put food on the table for their kids and university students and others are having to dumpster dive to make ends meet. This country is being run by and for the big corporations, the big corporate establishments in this country and by the big political establishment. The Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics are running this country. They're running it not for the benefit of ordinary Australians who can't put enough food on the table, can't pay their power bills, can't pay their rents and mortgages. It's being run for big corporates and their CEOs, who are making obscene profits and pocketing obscene salaries. There is something grossly wrong in this country where the interests of corporate Australia are prioritised by the political establishment over and above the interests of ordinary Australians. Something is badly, badly wrong. I say to Australians, if you reckon things are going okay for you at the moment, by all means keep voting for the same old mobs; keep voting for the establishment parties. But, if you want change, you're going to have to vote for it at the next election. And, if you want real change in this country, you're going to have to vote for folks who, like the Australian Greens, are going to come into this place and fight for ordinary Australians and fight against the big corporations. That's what people need to do, and I genuinely believe more and more Australians are coming to understand that there is very little to no difference between the major parties. It is Tweedledum and Tweedledumber over there. If Australians want change, they're going to have to vote for it. 12:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland And the Greens' big immigration policies are driving house prices and rents skyward—hurting single mothers, hurting every Australian. It's about time the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 came up for a vote. I wonder why it is that bills which take away rights, like the Digital ID Bill, are guillotined, debate denied, committee processes rigged to produce the desired outcome and then rushed through the Senate in the blink of an eye, yet bills that give people rights are held back for years. One Nation supports this bill, which should have been passed at the same time as the Digital ID Bill—a piece of legislation that relied on the protections provided in the consumer data right bill. This week the Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten MP, released plans for the government's own digital ID, which he calls the Trust Exchange. I don't want to rain on the minister's parade, yet I'm compelled to state the obvious: the government does not have any trust to trade—although the use of the word 'trade' is significant, because it shows the government doesn't understand what it's doing. When you use a digital ID, the circumstances of its use are recorded. There is a data trail that holds rich information about the person being verified—about you. The private intermediary who's performing the data handling can retain a copy of that data for a specified period. Does anyone really think they will delete that data when the retention period ends? That data is worth billions of dollars on the data market. The Digital ID Bill provided no protection against illegal data retention. The consumer data right bill does provide some protections, and it includes an overarching statement of fairness and honesty that would make prosecution of big data for misbehaviour much easier. The minister has announced, apparently proudly, that the government will keep on file a record of every digital ID transaction. Imagine being proud of that! Such a record will be triggered multiple times a day: on public transport, at the shops and, as the minister himself said, in the pub. Can you believe it? It will happen when entering public buildings, like this one; when signing contracts; when using an ATM; and, as announced this week, when accessing social media. As I foretold when the Morrison Liberal-National government introduced the Digital ID Bill, and again when the Albanese Labor-Greens government pushed it through the Senate with no debate—no debate at any stage—each of these uses for the digital ID is in active development. I thank the minister for his honesty in admitting that the government will retain each of these transactions in its myGovID master file. The Trust Exchange QR code, which is to be branded 'TEx', is a massive technological undertaking. I do not trust that this government and our bureaucrats have the technical knowledge to pull this off. I have to wonder how Minister Shorten can pursue justice over the tragic robodebt data-matching horror show so aggressively and then turn around and repeat the same mistake with TEx. Mismatches will be the norm; they'll be normal. Data outages such as we've seen in recent months will occur again and again and cause chaos again and again. Yet the government is intent on creating a centralised database of every citizen, accessible from every business in the country through intermediaries who inevitably will be large foreign companies that make their money selling data. Here's an example of what could and does go wrong. Do you remember when this Labor government demanded a myGov account was needed to register for a director ID? Remember that, Madam Acting Deputy President? It wasn't so long ago. The process was outsourced to Accenture, which immediately treated the exercise as a data-harvesting opportunity, a windfall, and started demanding that applicants for a director ID also provide details of their bank accounts, superannuation accounts, Centrelink account, Medicare number, tax return, drivers licence number and passport number. Yet the only thing the enabling legislation allowed for was the tax file number—one thing, and Accenture harvested seven. One word from the government and big business did whatever they liked with the data of millions of Australians. Accenture committed theft on a fraudulent basis. It was fraud. My office notified the government, and it stopped. There was no punishment, no punishment at all. What happened to that data? Was all that private information destroyed? I'll bet it wasn't. In fact, no, it wasn't. This government actually paid the big-data company millions of taxpayer dollars—your money, our money—to harvest data for its own commercial benefit, and it went against the law to do it. So excuse me if I don't trust this new TEx system. It's appropriately named, though. TEx will be a digital Wild West where the bad guys, big data, exploit the public for profit and power. Earlier, when I said this wasn't a trade, here's why. For it to be a trade, everyday Australians would get something out of it that we, the people, do not currently have. People already have a photo ID. They already have government issued identification sufficient to meet any request. The government does not need to know if a person went to the pub today. Do you know who does? Life, motor vehicle and insurance companies. Do you know who else? Employers. They would love to know how often, where and what time of the day an employee goes to the pub. This is why the value of the data industry worldwide is expected to be worth trillions in the future. In reality, a bank does not trade in money; it trades in risk. Imagine the money they will make if they can entirely eliminate the risk from their books by knowing everything about their customers—everything all the time! Imagine how the government could use that data. The answer is provided in the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's behaviour. Right now he is rounding up people for wrong think and wrong speak. I spoke about that lesson in communism on Tuesday night. This is the future, your future, under the Albanese Labor government or under the other uniparty wing, the Liberal-Nationals, who introduced the Digital ID Bill and introduced the misinformation and disinformation bill. Trust has been lost. Mr Albanese and his Labor government have lost the people's trust, lost the people's confidence, lost the people's support. After the Morrison government grossly and dishonestly mismanaged COVID-19, Mr Dutton and his Liberal-National opposition have not yet earned people's trust, confidence and support. We need a strong crossbench of true conservatives to stop Australia's slide into poor governance. The election cannot come fast enough. 12:41 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill of 2022—and, yes, I did say that right. This bill has been around for quite some time. In fact, it's been before the Senate without debate for over a year. The Albanese Labor government has, sadly, failed to listen to the concerns of consumer groups to include greater safeguards to protect consumer privacy and to prevent scams and financial abuse in the Consumer Data Right framework. They've, sadly, also failed to listen adequately to the concerns of smaller banks and mutuals, who would be disproportionately impacted by obligations under the Consumer Data Right framework. So, instead of actually addressing and fixing those problems, the bill has been left to languish for a year. You ask yourself why? Unfortunately, the conclusion that I draw is that it is because the government have bowed to pressure from their political donors—the big banks and the insurance industry. They oppose this important reform for consumers. Choosing to support massive corporations like the big banks over the interests of everyday Australians is a tragic pattern that we have now seen and continue to see from this Labor government. And I reflect on earlier in this government's term when the Assistant Treasurer reneged on his support for a Greens amendment that would have imposed million-dollar fines for dodgy bankers. It was the right thing for him to originally commit to that, but then he reneged on it, and do you know why? Because executives of the big banks complained to Jim Chalmers. They rang up and said, 'Oh, no, please don't hold us accountable for integrity breaches.' And the government said: 'You want us to jump? How high? No problems, mate.' The big bank CEOs can just call the Labor government and get whatever they want. Yesterday people might have seen Commonwealth Bank, or CommBank, as it's rebranded itself, posted a $9.79 billion profit. That's almost $10 billion in pure profit made by Commonwealth Bank. That is earned off the pain of mortgage holders and renters and struggling families who can't afford the basics to survive. It should be criminal how much money the big four banks have made off the housing crisis. Right now, on average, $400 of every monthly mortgage payment that people pay is going straight to the profit of the big banks; that is $400 a month from every single mortgage payment is going straight to the profit of the big banks. People are forgoing things like fresh fruit and vegetables just so they can make their mortgage repayments. Meanwhile, the big banks are posting collectively profits of $30 billion in a year. It's absolutely obscene. Labor and the Liberals are happy to let the banks rip off Australians, because they take millions in political donations from them. This is exactly why the Greens have long campaigned for political donations to be reformed, for them to be banned from the big banks, coal and gas companies, weapons manufacturers, the alcohol and gambling lobby and property developers. Big corporations should not be able to buy policy outcomes from anybody forming government. That is why we're seeking to clean up the political donations system. It is an obscene and broken system that we live under. Corporations should not be able to make billions in profit when 3.7 million households don't know where their next meal is coming from. That shouldn't be a controversial statement; it should simply be the bare minimum of a functional society. I might add that the wealth of the richest 200 people in Australia is now equivalent to 25 per cent of national GDP. No-one should be able to hoard a quarter of the country's wealth when 761,000 kids live in poverty. It is utterly wrong. People need to know that it doesn't have to be that way. We can change this. But the divide between the billionaires and ordinary people will only get bigger if the Labor Party and the Liberal Party continue to put their corporate mates first. We say tax the big corporates and make them pay their fair share, but, once again, the Labor government have chosen to back in the big banks ahead of everyday Australians and leave their own bill that would help consumers and support better competition languishing for over a year in the Senate. So I'm glad that the bill is on today, and we will be supporting it because it creates a framework for consumers to access a range of outcomes, including to switch more easily between utility, insurance, telco and banking providers. That's a small step, but it's an important one to make it easier for Australians to try to shop around and get a better deal for things like essential services and to improve competition. We urge the Labor government to prioritise fixing the issues in the consumer data rights framework with particular regard to consumer safety and security and to ensure small banks and mutuals are not unduly impacted. But, fundamentally, when you've got a system of one of the banks posting a $10 billion profit and all of them collectively posting a $30 billion profit with 761,000 children living in poverty and with people genuinely struggling to pay their mortgage or their rent and cutting down on food for themselves and their families to try to make those mortgage payments, it is utterly obscene that the big banks are laughing all the way to the door with $30 billion of collective profits. There is a widening gap between the obscenely wealthy and the rest of Australians. It is not good for economic outcomes. It is not good for social cohesion. It is not good for the interests of everyday families that the government is meant to be standing up for. That's meant to be all of our collective jobs—to make sure that people have what they need to live a decent and meaningful life. Instead, we have almost $10 billion in profits from just one of the big corporations that actually run this place. We have our democracy held hostage by big corporates, because they make political donations and then they get the policies that boost their profits. What a nice cosy little relationship between the majority of this parliament and the big corporates! What about ordinary Australians? Why aren't their interests being prioritised ahead of the interests of the big banks and the big corporates? It is obscene. People are fed up with it, and people know that if you want change you've got to vote for it. 12:48 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022. As previous speakers have pointed out, this bill has been languishing for 17 months. I wouldn't mind if those 17 months had been spent consulting with industry and talking to consumer groups, customer owned banking, the Australian Banking Association and the fintech industries. But that is not what this government has done. This government has, for the last 17 months, appeared to have done nothing with this bill except let it languish, and that is time wasted. We've come to this position with this bill where the implementation of the first stages of the consumer data right has been poor and ineffective, because the process hasn't worked. This legislation is the next step of reforms that were spearheaded by the coalition government. We brought it out because we wanted to protect consumers, reduce red tape and improve cyber-resilience in an ever-increasing digital economy. While we will be supporting this bill today, I want to reiterate the serious concerns that the shadow Treasurer, my colleague in the other place, raised: the pace of reform that we are now seeing due to the time lag, the imposts on business and the lack of consultation with business. The government just aren't listening to Australian businesses about the challenges that may stem from this reform. We're highly concerned that they may risk this very substantive and important reform by failing to make sure that it's paced in the right way so that it avoids unreasonable imposts on businesses and does not risk the social licence that this reform needs to be effective, because that is a fundamental part of the consumer data right. For example, I regularly meet with the banking sector and the customer owned banking sector. Customer owned banks are often not considered when we're talking about the financial services, but they operate the largest regional branch network in the country. They have 21 per cent of all branches, and most are largely in rural and regional areas, and they employ over 11,500 people. They welcomed the consumer data right reset. However, since the first stages were implemented, they have raised concerns about the unequal impact of the regulatory changes on smaller, customer owned banks. Due to the poor implementation of stage 1 by this government, what has eventuated is a significant expense to smaller, customer owned banks, with minimal customer uptake. They are not getting the return on investment. To date, customer owned banks have spent around $100 million and countless management hours upgrading their systems, making sure that they can operate. However, they have not seen any return on that investment, because the way that it has been implemented to date has not been effective, consistent and equitable. I echo the concerns raised by my colleague Senator Smith in his contribution, and I caution that rushing the implementation without bringing industry along with you, and with unrealistic timelines that could risk further implementation failures, must be avoided at all costs. As the shadow Treasurer said in the other place: It's particularly important that the impact that the CDR may have on small businesses is right at the front of the government's and the bureaucracy's thinking on how this is rolled out. Small businesses don't have the resources of big employers. Done wrongly, this could wipe out small businesses and reduce competition … And that is the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve with the consumer data right bill. Expanding the consumer data right needs to be done correctly and it needs to achieve a reduction in red tape and to support deregulation, which was the intent of the bill when the coalition commenced this process. But we will be supporting this bill today. 12:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 process may have been initiated under the coalition, but I want to remind the chamber that, in 2017, it was the Greens that proposed measures for bank account portability. I remember asking former senator Cormann several times back in 2017 how we could achieve it, and I had a quick look at the Hansard before to remind myself of that. There were issues around the sharing of consumer data, but the coalition did say they were open-minded at the time to measures that could increase portability of accounts. Of course, the fundamental problem was that banks knew that their customers were, as a general rule, what were classified in the industry as 'sticky'. They didn't tend to move, and there were a lot of barriers to customers moving. For example, if they weren't happy with the service from their bank, their mortgage rates or their fees and charges, they would look at better options, including in the non-bank financial intermediary sector, not just the other banks or big banks. Competition was very important, but the banks knew that it was very, very hard for customers to move. That's why this bill has been sitting on the Notice Paper—as has been pointed out by a number of speakers—for nearly 17 months. And that's why it's taken seven years to get legislation that can actually allow bank account portability and make it easier for Australian consumers of financial services to move. Of course, the banks see customer information as their intellectual property. They have the arrogance to assume that they own this information about Australian citizens and customers—but of course they don't. Essentially what this data right framework will allow is the transfer of information between financial institutions. I would like to put on record, as I know my colleagues have done today, that we need greater safeguards to protect consumer privacy in the consumer data right framework, to prevent scams and financial abuse, and that concerns have been raised around the sharing of information. I think it's fair to say that this chamber played a very important role in the last decade in getting a royal commission into misconduct in banks and financial services in this country, which made a number of recommendations that were supported by the government at the time. It led to over 70 pieces of legislation being introduced in this place to try and protect Australian customers and consumers and battlers—people doing it tough. I think the royal commission was shocking in its revelations. Even the critics of that royal commission—some of them in this place—agreed, when the evidence became clear and was provided to the commissioner, that they were shocked by some of the revelations and that we needed change. That came about because the Greens stood up to big corporations. We stood up for battlers, for Australians that were being ripped off and for victims of financial crime, and it became patently obvious that we needed change and reform. When I think about state capture—blimey! How many years did we have of asking questions, where the previous government refused to acknowledge that there was corruption in the banks and that we had a corrupted political system where politicians and political parties were benefiting from financial donations from banks? We're seeing the same thing in the fossil fuel industry right now. The big problem we face right now is state capture, writ large. If we're going to take action on climate change, we need to change the political system that facilitates the revolving door between fossil fuel companies and parliamentarians and the donations that we see being made to the major parties by big polluters. I was very disappointed to see that, after some of the debate we have had on the Browse project in Western Australia and the plans for Scott Reef, the leaked report from the Western Australian EPA just two weeks ago has led to legislation being introduced in the Western Australian parliament to remove the independence of the NPA. If that is not state capture, what is? (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The time for debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 has expired. In accordance with the order agreed to on 3 July, I will put the question before the chair and then will put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3068 13:00 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 3068

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

Second Reading 3068 13:01 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales My question is: is this behaviour intimidation, and how broad is that intimidation? Or is it arrogance—an arrogance completely out of touch with community expectations of what is okay and what is clearly not okay: decades of the CFMEU running rampant over small businesses, decades of the CFMEU driving up construction costs and decades of criminal behaviour on our building sites? I can share stories—but there is not enough time here—of people who are known to me who have lost their businesses, who have lost their livelihoods, who have suffered terrible mental health impacts because of the conduct of the CFMEU and the way that they engage with individuals and small businesses who refuse to participate in the behaviours and conduct that they require. We heard from Senator Scarr about the devastating impact that caused the loss of life of a young man. This is not okay. We can't look the other way. We can't say, 'There is nothing we can do about this.' It is our job to do something about the CFMEU. At the end of the day, it took a week of national media and a 60 Minutes story to get this government to take action. Let's not forget that it was those opposite that abolished the union cop, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They were warned about this criminal behaviour, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. Why? Out of what—obligation to the CFMEU because of donations, because of the election day volunteers? Why? I am pleased to see this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 before us in the Senate, but it is nowhere near enough, and there are some glaring omissions. We have a number of concerns about this bill. It gives the minister far too much discretion with respect to the administration process, particularly the minister's ability to stop the administration process as they see fit. As an example, the minister could stop it the day after an election, if they so chose. We also need to ensure that the administrator will apply to all of the CFMEU's construction divisions, not just a select few. Under the current legislation, the minister could make a unilateral decision to end the administration of one or more of the state divisions at any time. We must ensure there is an adequate reporting system back to the parliament through the course of that administration. I know that the cleaning up of the CFMEU can only benefit from more transparency and sunlight, and that should be achieved by reporting back to this parliament. There is a complete lack of standards with respect to how the CFMEU needs to change before it can be taken out of administration. The parliament must be absolutely clear in its view that the CFMEU is rotten and needs serious change. We must set out what needs to be done in order for the parliament to be satisfied that the CFMEU has been properly cleaned up and can do its important core job of representing workers, because it has undeniably lost its way. It is not doing its job. That must be outlined in the bill; at the moment, it is not. Strangely, the bill only provides for an automatic three-year sunset on the administration. So it's suddenly out of administration automatically, even if it hasn't fixed the issues. There is no regard as to whether the administrator, the courts or the parliament are satisfied that the issues by which the administration occurred in the first place have been resolved. The administration automatically ends; it just stops. If we recognise, on both sides of the chamber, that the CFMEU is infected with criminal behaviour and has lost track of its fundamental task and that there is now a rationale to appoint an administrator to clean it up, how can we then say that we'll have no regard as to the success of that administration process in cleaning up these issues before the administration stops? It makes no sense whatsoever. Surely it must be the case that the administration cannot cease until the job is done. The legislation must reflect this, and, at the moment, it doesn't. Another glaring issue with the legislation as it stands is the matter of political donations during the administration period. It's one thing for a democratic trade union to make donations to a political party. The reality is that that is just a function of our democracy. Whilst, of course, there is a conflict in terms of Labor governments and their IR and workplace policies, it is a democratically elected body making the choice to make a donation. However, under this legislation, the minister sets the terms of the administration of the CFMEU, which is allowed to make donations to the party of the minister that sets their administration terms. Let's have a think about that. The organisation that is under administration as a result of criminal conduct can make donations to the party of the minister setting the terms of the administration. I don't think that passes any test, pub or otherwise. It is an undeniable conflict. It cannot be allowed to occur under this legislation. Whilst the CFMEU is in administration, it cannot be allowed to make political donations. It is concerning that the government wants to rush this bill through without adequate scrutiny. It should be subject to proper and careful scrutiny. Rest assured, where the government has failed to act, the opposition has sensible, commonsense amendments to ensure that this bill does its job and that it is effective. The administration must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for three years, and the minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The scheme of administration should only be able to be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator. The legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme of administration. This should not be determined solely at the discretion or whim of any minister; it should be clearly set out. As I noted before, political donations, political campaigns, and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. That is an entirely reasonable request and requirement, and it should have been in this legislation to begin with. For the purposes of transparency, the administrator must provide a written report to the parliament every three months, from the commencement of the administration, about its activities and progress, and they should appear at Senate estimates. I think that that in itself is a very clear indicator of good faith and transparency—to note that in legislation as a requirement. The administrator should be given the ability to impose longer expulsion or disqualification periods for officers, as opposed to 'up to five years', as outlined in the legislation. If the administrator sees fit, that longer penalty should apply. Why shouldn't they be able to apply those penalties? We believe that a new fit-and-proper-person test needs to be introduced for all CFMEU delegates and officers. I spoke about that earlier when I spoke about Mr John Setka and the tattoo that he wanted everybody to see. He wanted everybody to know that the CFMEU would not forget and would not forgive. God would, but they wouldn't. If that isn't intimidation, if that isn't bullying, if that isn't attempting to silence someone, I don't know what is. Is that the type of character that we want in individuals who are leading our organisations? Is that a fit and proper person to be leading the CFMEU or any other organisation? The administrator must appoint a special-purpose auditor to examine the financial dealings of the CFMEU prior to the commencement of administration, with the cost of a special-purpose auditor paid for by the CFMEU with the lots of money that they've got, not by the taxpayer. That auditor should be paid for by the CFMEU. The special-purpose auditor's first report needs to be tabled by the final sitting day of 2024. The retrospectivity date should be changed from 17 July 2024 to a date prior to the resignation of Mr John Setka. The administrator should be given additional powers to investigate dealings between the CFMEU and other parties, including other registered organisations or political parties. The administrator, in undertaking their duties, should be able to investigate the past practices of the CFMEU that relate to unlawful conduct. They should absolutely be able to look back and see what kinds of systemic issues exist in this organisation and how long they have existed. The administrator should be given the power to review and amend the rules of the CFMEU. There should be the inclusion of an objects clause which outlines what the administrator needs to achieve before an administration can cease. It should specify what we want to see before we stop administration, rather than just have it automatically stop at a random date three years in the future. The administrator should be given the power to apply for the deregistration of the CFMEU if they deem that to be appropriate, and the administrator must be able to compel officers, employees and delegates of the CFMEU to not associate with an organised crime group or an outlawed motorcycle gang. I can't imagine that anybody would disagree with that or that anybody would have a problem with that. The administrator should have the ability to renegotiate EBAs. We need to ensure that the administrator is required to exercise their function with specific regard to the objects of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and with a focus on reducing the adverse effects of industrial disputation, ensuring the CFMEU—its officers, employees and delegates—act in accordance with our law. 13:14 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales With so many speakers contributing to the debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, I've been sitting here wondering which particular angle to take. I was here for the speech made by Senator Scarr. I hadn't heard the story of Ben before, and it was truly horrifying to hear that a young worker—a young Indigenous Australian—went to work, came home and, apparently, chose to take his own life because of the bullying he received on site for having had a previous employer that the CFMEU didn't like and for wearing the wrong shirt. I can't help but think about the difference in perspective. If this were an employer who bullied a young worker for having a T-shirt on and locked them in a shed for hours and that worker then took their own life because of that, there would be calls from the other side for industrial manslaughter charges. There would be cries for tougher laws and for actually criminalising the directors of the company and criminalising the worksite. We would not hear anything but how unjust it is. But, with the CFMEU, we hear, 'Nothing to see here.' That's sad because we have to have standards that apply equally to all Australians in all circumstances. I hadn't heard that story. I saw Senator Scarr's difficulty telling it. I saw him almost breaking up. I heard the mother talking about how she put her son to bed and that he was excited about a job one day, concerned the next afternoon and dead the next morning, because he wore the wrong T-shirt. If that's the power that enables you to do that sort of bullying—locking people in sheds—that creates a situation where people take their own life, without any ramifications, that is too much power. No-one in this chamber would say it is not. I have very limited experience with this union, but a friend of mine did take me into their home. They were building a development in the Hunter, and they showed me onsite footage of two union members coming on site. One of them assaulted the site manager, and it was captured on video. They couldn't do anything about it. Nothing was a problem until the union found out that they had footage of it, and then the threats came: 'You won't get another employee on site. You won't pass safety checks. There'll be an electrical issue. You won't get final clearance. All of these things will happen if you go to the police, if you tell anyone or if you do anything.' So I was specifically told: 'Don't do anything. Please don't do anything. I need this to go ahead or I'm broke.' That is the power of a union that is out of control. A lot of senators on this side have given Minister Watt a hard time for this action that he has taken in introducing this legislation. But, let's face it, he has been given an impossible task: 'Make it look to the Australian people that you're tough on the CFMEU. Make it look like we're doing something and make it look like we're taking a stand but without actually doing anything, without really taking steps to clean things up and without annoying the CFMEU enough that they'll start talking about what they're doing, about where their donations have gone, about how they have done these things and about who is a recipient of benefits from these actions.' So poor old Minister Watt is treading a fine line. He is walking a tight rope with this legislation: 'Make it look like we're doing something without actually doing anything.' That is the legislation we have before us. One in three of the previous speakers mentioned the 20 amendments that the coalition is proposing. They're not secret. They're not hidden. They were put in a press release on 13 August, and the previous speaker went through them. They are reasonable. I don't think they go far enough in relation to a union that has caused such harm to individuals, such destruction to businesses and such harm to the taxpayer by inflating the cost of doing everything, especially in the state of Victoria. But they are there, and, if they are met, I will vote for the bill because it is something. But let's go back to that idea: 'Don't go so hard that the union turns rat on us.' Anyone looking at Mr Setka and seeing the tattoo he has around his neck will know: he is no rat. You can go harder because he won't turn. He has been a loyal soldier hiding secrets for the Labor Party for ever, and he won't turn now. You can go harder, and Australia needs you to go harder. This is not about punishing the perpetrators of this behaviour that takes lives, closes businesses and threatens people. It is about silencing the witnesses. It is about coming to a deal where those that have perpetrated these acts do not stand up and say, 'A did this; B did this.' And I'm not just talking about politicians; I'm talking about the businesses that paid these bribes, the ones that are big enough to get away with doing it so that the small family businesses and the medium-sized businesses can't compete. They are all wrong, and this is when we get to the size of organisations. This is why Senator Lambie and people on this side all wanted a change of regulation on industrial relations—to be able to allow unions to separate from the CFMEU. That's why the government didn't allow it initially. 'Big' is best when it comes to oversight: big business, big corporations, big donations, big unions. If we had an organisation like this operating in America, it would fall under the RICO Act since 1970. A business with a large number of people representing it that commit a large number of crimes would fall under the RICO Act, and the whole thing would be shut down. But we don't have that in Australia. I get how important unions are for safety. I get how important unions are for worker welfare. I get how important they are for pay and conditions. But I get how attractive they are to infiltrate for those that don't have those interests at heart. I get how easy they are for people who have their own interests at heart to infiltrate them to seek to control them. It is a strange path I go down now. I was state director of the National Party in 2018-2019 when the far right signed up a number of people over time and they all showed up together for the first time at an annual general conference. We got a phone call that morning saying: 'There are a bunch of people here we don't know. What do you know?' Strangely enough, I thought we were being taken over by the Liberal Party because I didn't know who they were. But, after some research over about two days, we found out who they were. As the leader, as the state director, of the party, it was my responsibility to get them out. We didn't hide it. I'm still criticised to this day for being open and clear and allowing what we were doing to go on the front page of the paper. There were 32 people from extreme right-wing organisations—and we were open with the White Rose Foundation; we were open with the Jewish Board of Deputies—and we wanted them in no part of our party, because they sought to legitimise their own interests by taking over our brand and value. A leader does that. I feel, with the CFMEU, the leadership has allowed this to happen—people without the best interests of their workers or of their members. They don't want their members' problems; they want their union dues. They want their superannuation. They want their vote. They want everything but their problems, and they want to control them. That a bill like this, which comes in without detail, without checks and balance and without KPIs, which is so common in government now—no KPIs on anything; 'Let's have our best shot and see how it goes!'—will do that is wrong. The 20 amendments are there. That will put some teeth behind this. I know that the real members, the real builders, the real Labor Party members, who support unionisation and the construction union doing the right thing by its members, will back this. They don't want an organisation that is controlled by those that don't have their members' best interests at heart. And it doesn't. It is all about control. Those seeking to control the world know that they have lost the argument. They can't win on merit. They can't win on facts. They have to have absolute control of every part of their lives. They have to control the worksites. They have to control the contractors. They have to control who can visit and who can't because, if it goes to the market, if there is a free bid, they will lose that control and they will have nothing. So this isn't about whether this union is to big or too small or violent; it's about the absolute control they have over everything. Remember the words from Senator Scarr. Remember the words from Ben's mother. He wore the wrong T-shirt to work, got locked in a shed, was bullied, was punished and took his own life that night because he couldn't face it. That is the control that the CFMEU want. That is the control they have. I feel sorry for the attendants, who have had to walk around with, I think, about 20 or 30 pieces of paper for the amendments that are going to be put to the vote today. There are so many of them because this bill has to have teeth because the bad elements in this union have total control and they have to be put in a box—not locked in a shed like Ben. The bad people have to be forced out, put in a box and eradicated from this union. So when we are voting, I say to the minister and I say to those opposite, be bold. Stand up for what's right. The National Party, when I was getting rid of the far right, got front pages of the paper that I wish we never had. But it was the only way to force out those who sought to do evil to our organisation. Have the boldness and the strength to say: 'These people are not what the union needs. These people are not who the labour movement wants representing them.' Don't stop until they are all gone. Be open, be honest and be bold because Ben deserves nothing less, because the Australian people deserve nothing less and because it is time. Let's get down to the facts here. When you create an environment where evil can flourish, it does. The ABCC was removed, we moved guidelines and we changed laws. In this place, through the laws we passed, we created the environment for this to happen, and, if we aren't taking responsibility for fixing it, we—not just the union—are failing the Australian people. So don't look at what we're doing now as a bandaid, because it won't stem all the blood. As my ex-surgeon wife says, all bleeding stops eventually for some reason. Let's make it stop not because we didn't tend to the wound. Let's make it stop because we fixed the wound. So whenever this comes to a vote—this afternoon, next week, in the future—there is a choice: to do what looks good in a press release or to take the first step in what it takes to build a better country. We need to bring back the ABCC, we need to create an atmosphere where this can never happen again in any other union or any other organisation and we have to reward those organisations that do get infiltrated but stand up to it. We've seen the strength of the manufacturing side, wanting to break away from this union for so long. Up in the Hunter Valley, the mining side managed to escape the grasp of this union because they had their workers' interests at heart, not that of their organised thug group, the CFMEU. When we move forward beyond this, we have to look at laws that create a competitive building industry, rewarding the small and medium-sized businesses that want to come in and have a stake and do things more efficiently than the big guys that have all fallen into line with what's going on down there, who have been complicit. Everyone brings up the $6.2 million worth of donations since the current Prime Minister became Leader of the Labor Party. We don't want that returned; they shouldn't get that money back. It should instead be donations to charities and for people in need, for people in distress and at risk of suicide—to help people who are bullied like Ben. That's where that money should go. But it won't. It'll be kept. It'll be used to get more people elected to support the CFMEU. It'll be used for many things that that money's not meant to be used for, because when you get down to it here everything comes down to money. There's money in control and there's money in superannuation and there's money in union fees and there's money in bribes. If we start putting money above our country, if we start putting money above the lives of the workers in the construction industry, we have lost and we should pack up and go home. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Fawcett, you've got about 40 seconds. 13:29 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Yes, I recognise that the standing orders have a hard marker and that will curtail what I'm seeking to say now, but I'm trusting I'll have a future opportunity. What I would like to cover in this is a range of things—partly the process. Why is the Senate established as a house of review, why do we have Senate committees to scrutinise bills and why is it important that this bill does go before a Senate committee? It's to make sure that the legislation will actually achieve what is intended. I will run through the concerns that the coalition has with the legislation as it stands and the amendments that we seek to bring. More broadly, though, I think it's also important that we look at the weak leadership that Mr Albanese has displayed on this issue compared to— Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Now that it is 1.30, we will be moving to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 3073 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Health Care: Intravenous Fluid Products 3073 13:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia A severe shortage of saline IV fluids has hit hospitals across Australia. Saline IV bags, as we all know, are absolutely critical to the emergency health care provided to patients in our hospitals—hospitals that are already at crisis point under this Labor government as they face escalating pressures. But it's been reported that this shortage has now reached disaster levels. Doctors in every hospital around our nation are being told to ration the supplies of saline fluid that they are using to care for their patients. This should send a chill through the spine of every Australian who relies on being able to get access to adequate emergency health care in our nation. But in this national crisis, we have been left asking: what is Anthony Albanese's Minister for Health and Aged Care actually doing to ensure we have a supply? When asked about the issue yesterday in question time, Minister Gallagher stated that the government has been aware of the impending shortage since at least May 2023. But they set up a monitoring group last Friday, in August 2024. We are beyond monitoring, Minister. We are absolutely in need of dire and urgent action. The health minister has failed to provide a guarantee to Australians that his lack of action on the supply of this essential fluid will not harm patients. Here we are. We have a government who keeps talking about a future made in Australia but who can't even guarantee the supply of sterile salt water which is absolutely essential to the operation of our health system. This is a crisis of national importance, and the time for the government to stand up and show leadership is right now. Workplace Relations: Early Childhood Education 3073 13:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to congratulate our nation's early childhood educators, particularly Cass, who visited me this week with her three-month-old son, Archie. It's wonderful to know that earlier childhood educators like Cass will receive a 15 per cent pay rise, backed by our government. It's also wonderful to know that, when her little Archie enters early childhood education, educators will be respected in their pay packets. This is a pay rise that is absolutely well deserved because our early childhood educators are professional. They are dedicated. They are essential, and they absolutely deserved to be backed by their government. That is exactly what we are doing. We are delivering this for Cass. We're also delivering it for Archie, and we're delivering it for all of the Archies who are yet to come and who deserve quality early childhood education and care based on respected early childhood educators who can actually afford to stay in the jobs that they love. This is a pay rise that means at least $100 more a week in the pay packets of early childhood educators. It means respect. It means recognition. As educator Gemma told me, this is for the next generation of early childhood educators too. I want to shout out Brenda, an educator who I met last week as well. She told me that this pay rise is about being recognised, it's about being valued, and it's about being needed. Congratulations again to all the early childhood educators. We see the work that you do. We value it, and we want to see it valued in your pay packets. We know that the Liberals love low wages. We know that they particularly love them for the women of Australia, but we believe in the women of Australia, and we back their security. Great Barrier Reef 3073 13:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Last week, the Australian Institute of Marine Science reported that the water temperatures in the Great Barrier Reef are the warmest that they have been in 400 years. Record-high water temperatures are causing more coral bleaching and more destruction of our marine ecosystems. Since 2016 the Great Barrier Reef has suffered five mass coral bleaching events, and there have been a total of seven in the last 26 years. In that time half the coral cover of the Great Barrier Reef has died from the climate crisis as well as from poor water quality. These are not records that the reef can afford to keep breaking. You can't save the Great Barrier Reef by making the climate crisis worse. It's that simple. Every bit of warming above current, already alarming levels is a nail in the coffin of the reef. But, instead of taking strong climate action, the Albanese government continues to approve new coal and gas projects, making the climate crisis worse. Since May 2022 Minister Plibersek, the environment minister, has approved 23 new coal and gas projects, and there are another 28 proposed coalmines in the pipeline of approvals. Australian fossil fuel exports rank second only to Russia for climate damage, with no plan for reduction. Labor promised to be better, and they promised to be different from the last government, but they have not stopped the flow of coal and gas being exported. We must stop the reef being treated like a highway for coal and gas. You cannot put the fire out while pouring petrol on it. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It's an employer of approximately 60,000 people in my home state of Queensland. We must take serious action to protect what's left of it. Stop approving new coal, oil and gas! India 3074 13:36 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales On this date in 1947 we saw the birth of a proud and sovereign nation with a long and rich civilisational and cultural history. On this date in 1947 India attained its independence. That independence was the culmination of a decades-long struggle, led by a number of charismatic and remarkable historical figures, and was notable in particular for its non-violent character. In the 77 years since, India has grown to be a strong, proud, energetic, diverse, pluralistic and vibrant country. It's the world's largest democracy which has just conducted the world's largest elections, freely and fairly—a model to aspiring liberal democracies around the world. India today is a major player in its own region but also increasingly in global politics as well, an important partner for addressing the host of global challenges we face, and a valued contributor of ideas, perspectives and solutions for many of the struggles confronting humanity today. For Australia, India in particular has been the source of one of the most dynamic and valued contributors in recent years to Australian society. The Indian diaspora in Australia is strong, vibrant, healthy, growing, increasingly engaged in all facets of Australian life and making a contribution in so many spheres, including culture, education, the economy, business, the arts and leadership. I'm so proud of what the Indian Australian community has achieved, and I'm so thankful that many of them have chosen to make Australia home. On this day I wish India a happy independence day, and to the many Indian Australians celebrating: happy independence day! Albany Surf Life Saving Club, Albany Motorsport Park, Korean War Armistice: 71st Anniversary 3074 13:38 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I recently visited the beautiful city of Albany in the Great Southern region of Western Australia. With the wonderful local member, Rebecca Stephens, I attended the AGM of the Albany Surf Life Saving Club, after hearing about the club's activities and plans. The club awarded three life memberships to Patrick McSweeney, Dani Lynch and Byron Bird for their extraordinary contributions to the club over many years. Patrick McSweeney has been a leader of the Albany support operations jet ski team, has developed safer operational practices for response teams and has been an important club sponsor for many years. Dani Lynch has twice been awarded Boatie of the Year for her commitment to surfboat rowing and for being a mentor and leader across the club, including in surfboats, lifesaving and nippers. Byron Bird, also a former Boatie of the Year, has contributed extensively to surf lifesaving operations, including in situations of considerable risk. He is a highly regarded surfboat sweep and development coach. While in Albany, it was also wonderful to represent Minister Catherine King at the opening of stage 1A of the Albany Motorsport Park, a motocross track and four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicle track. This project is more than a decade in the making and sits on a beautiful site in Albany. The next stage will expand the motorsport park, through the construction of a paved, 3.25 kilometre track for superbikes and supercars. 27 July 2024 was also the 71st anniversary of the armistice which ended the Korean War. Rebecca Stephens and I laid wreaths at the Albany war memorial to commemorate the cessation of hostilities and to honour the service personnel who served Australia in that conflict. Vietnam Veterans' Day 3074 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I asked for leave to move a motion today that the Senate acknowledges this Sunday 18 August is Vietnam Veterans' Day. On that date 58 years ago, 108 soldiers faced an enemy that outnumbered them 10 to one in the Battle of Long Tan—one of the bloodiest and most significant of the war. Sixty thousand Australian service men and women served in the Vietnam War and more than 500 never came home. Those that did come home didn't get the praise. They were spat at in the streets. They were called baby killers. Many were left with physical and mental scars that would never heal. I thought that bringing a motion to honour these veterans would be the easiest thing I could actually do up here. Given the history of the treatment of our Vietnam veterans in this country, I just assumed that all the senators in this place would support my motion. The Vietnam veterans' motto is: 'Honour the dead but fight like hell for the living'. That's what those veterans did. We've seen motions in this place for D-Day and Remembrance Day, but we can't do that for our Vietnam veterans without an argument over it from both the government and the Liberal Party over there. Honestly, I don't know how you look at yourselves in the mirror at times, especially when we have recently seen motions in this place on the Hamas war on Israel. They even got a minute's silence. Have we ever given our veterans a minute's silence in this place when we've lost them on the battlefield? No, we have not. Many of these Vietnam veterans stood by and mentored the younger generations for the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide because they did not want to see them suffer exactly like they did. They didn't want to see another generation of soldiers who had been on the battlefield suffer the way they did and have to fight for their rights and compensation for over 50 years. They did not want us to have to go through this. I am asking all Australians out there to please go to their cenotaph this Sunday and go and stand side by side with one of our Vietnam veterans. Bangladesh 3075 13:42 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales In the last few weeks, we have seen horrendous and horrific scenes in Bangladesh where former prime minister Hasina has been allowing extraordinary violence to be perpetrated against peaceful demonstrators, mainly younger people and students, who have been protesting against unfair employment practices in the civil service in Bangladesh. This has caused great concern across the Bangladeshi diaspora in our country, and many of us across the aisle and across this Senate have taken representations and engaged very thoughtfully with that Bangladesh diaspora. The depth of the feeling has been very moving. There are family members who have been caught up in the violence. There are people who have been detained. So the removal of Prime Minister Hasina appears to be a positive step for Bangladesh. We in the coalition and, I'm sure, all members of this Senate have been wanting to see a much better deal and a stronger commitment to transparency and democracy in Bangladesh, a country with which we have very serious people-to-people links and deep cultural ties and a country that we care about very deeply. I wanted to say to all the members of the diaspora here in Australia that we're very sorry for all the anguish you've had to experience, and we will do our best to ensure that our parliament can work to put appropriate pressure on Bangladesh to maintain a commitment to human rights and transparency for all Bangladeshis. Workplace Relations: Early Childhood Education 3075 13:44 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Along with so many Australians every day, I know that what matters most at school or kindy drop-off is the person who is taking the hand of my child as I walk out the door to work. It makes a huge difference when an early educator connects with children and is committed to keeping them safe and promoting their learning and development. There is a critical window of opportunity in a child's first five years. The evidence tells us that early education helps kids' brains grow and sets them up for success. This dedicated, hardworking, feminised workforce deserves to be recognised with a 15 per cent pay rise. It's all well and good to talk about how amazing workers in this sector are, but accolades don't pay the bills. The Albanese Labor government is acting and walking the talk. This pay increase will see skilled workers return to the sector as well as attract more workers. This in turn will provide more families with quality early education and out-of-school-hours care. This enables more parents to participate in paid work and will ensure these costs are not passed on to families. Early-years and after-hours services play such an important part in growing the brains of our next generation of leaders. Earlier this week I met with SNAICC and Yappera Children's Service to discuss the strength and significance of community controlled early-youth services. Increasing the wages provided to staff is a critical part of the work they do. I also spent time with the Community Child Care Association and Community Early Learning Australia, who have been advocating for many years for these changes to the pay conditions of early-years workers. They were so grateful to us for prioritising this investment in the early-years space amongst many other competing priorities of this government. The Albanese Labor government remains committed to strengthening the capacity of early-year services across Australia. Human Rights 3075 13:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The inquiry into Australia's human rights framework delivered its report in May this year with a very clear recommendation for a legislated enforceable human rights act. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and it must not be kicked down the road by this place. We've seen report after report saying Australia's human rights framework isn't up to protecting the fundamental rights of people in Australia, particularly against governments who seek to impose oppressive laws or deny access to basic needs like housing, food, education, a livable planet or a fair justice system. It's time to get on with nailing down what those rights will look like, and who and what they will protect. A right to fair and transparent administration of government payments could have kicked the entire robodebt travesty over before lives were lost. A right to clean water might be just what we need to finally get safe drinking water for the community of Walgett, who, for years now, have not been able to drink what comes out of the tap. A right to housing could change the housing market to prioritise houses as homes rather than vehicles for investment. A right to data sovereignty could see young people protected from images of themselves being scraped from the internet to feed rapacious AI. And a right to adequate medical treatment could see a renewed commitment to ensuring dental and mental care is available for everyone in the community regardless of what is in their wallet. Focusing on ensuring people have their fundamental rights upheld by government decision-making can give us budgets and laws that are geared towards genuinely helping and uplifting the wellbeing of us all. A human rights act or charter is an essential piece of public infrastructure that we're lacking here in Australia, and it's time to get on with implementing it. Cost of Living 3076 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I start by associating myself with the comments of Senator Bragg in his two-minute statement. Today I'd like to talk about the cost of living and just how grim things are for so many Australians. I'm concerned that while, as parliamentarians, we talk about the cost of living, many of us don't fully appreciate just how hard so many people are doing it. They are making decisions like, 'Do I put food on the table or do I fill that script that the doctor says I need—or do I even go to the doctor, with the gap fee I may have to pay?' We're seeing increases in the cost of housing, insurance, medical service gap fees and energy bills. When are we going to start dealing with some of the root causes of this? When will we start truly looking at household energy bills and dealing with them through electrification, through getting people off gas so they don't have to pay international prices for our own gas here in Australia? When will we truly start to look at and address things like the chronic lack of competition, whether that's in insurance or in our supermarkets? There is so much to do, and I urge the major parties to turn their minds to this. The cost-of-living crisis is clearly not being experienced equally across our communities, and that brings us to the growing inequality we're seeing in this country and the intergenerational inequality. As far as I can see, a lot of that comes down to housing. We have to deal with the housing crisis and we have to start looking at our tax settings, which treat housing as an investment vehicle, not as a human right—not as something that everyone should be able to afford in our communities, to unlock thriving families and thriving communities. There is so much to do in this space. Again, let's start to deal with the root causes and not just paper over the gaps. Water 3076 13:50 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to tell a tale of two different approaches to water policy. On the one hand, in the Murray-Darling Basin, you have consultants at every river bend. For far too long, communities have been sidelined while state government departments across the basin embark on a taxpayer funded, $95 million business-case gold rush that has yet to deliver a project able to be constructed. This government, since coming into government promising reform, has failed over the last two years to hold Labor state governments to account. Now they are again committing $44 million for the next two years for that business-case gold rush to continue. Despite those tens of millions of dollars already being spent, they've also granted $3.5 million to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority so they can produce a road map on constraints. Why do you need a road map when you've got multiple business cases that have been prepared and funded by the taxpayer? On the flipside, in Queensland, because the LNP, running for state government election, had announced $7 million for Longreach water security, the very next day—24 hours later—we saw a commitment from the federal government, the state Labor government and the Longreach local council to build five weir upgrades, commencing this year, complete with raised walls and fishways, with not a word about a business case. So why, in the basin, do we need multiple business cases to get anything done, whereas Queensland can rush ahead and start construction? (Time expired) Competition Policy 3076 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson recently declared that no new airlines could survive in Australia; that was about Bonza. We've since seen Rex's demise, leaving two companies running three major airlines in a market worth $20 billion a year. One Nation believes free enterprise competition delivers the highest quality product for the lowest price to the most people. Competition best meets people's needs. In Australia, we do not have free enterprise competition; we have crony capitalism. Those are not the same thing; they're enemies. Crony capitalism occurs when a cabal of companies acts together to capture production, manufacturing and delivery, to provide the lowest quality product at the highest possible price. That arranged market domination inevitably lowers wages and transfers wealth from working Australians to crony capitalists. Anyone who shops in foreign-owned-and-controlled Coles or Woolies will have noticed that everything is smaller, cheaper and doesn't work like it used to. That's crony capitalism at work. The world's largest wealth funds have bought out Australia and turned our once-loved companies into weapons of mass exploitation. Our corporate sector no longer serves us. Instead, we serve the corporate sector, including by the forced purchase of fake medical products during COVID. One Nation believes government regulation—including of airlines, banking and the medical field—does not protect the public against corporations; it protects the corporations against new competition and, therefore, against the people. High levels of regulation are barriers to entry to new players, allowing large corporations to thrive while small local players like Rex are strangled and wiped out. Masses of regulations protect corporations with expensive lawyers against court cases. If you believe it's time to reduce regulation, to reduce the presence of foreign corporations and governments in our economy, if you believe it's time to unleash real competition, to solve the cost-of-living crisis and provide better choices, then welcome to the light. Welcome to One Nation. Middle East 3077 13:54 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Well, another day, another racist dog-whistle. While the Israeli government continues to bomb schools and refugee shelters in Gaza, Peter Dutton is calling for those in Gaza to be blocked from seeking protection in Australia. By now, we know that Peter Dutton will always choose division, demonisation and discrimination over the truth, and this case is no different. Meanwhile, every day we watch different versions of the same horror: emaciated, limbless, orphaned children who are the innocent faces of an ongoing genocide. Every day we see families internally displaced and starved in their own homeland, unable to flee. Every day we see the death toll of innocent Palestinians rise beyond comprehension, and we ask ourselves: When will the bloodshed end? When will our leaders act? Well, it's not today, it seems. At a time when we should be fulfilling our humanitarian responsibilities, we discover that the Labor government has refused more than 7,000 applications for refugee status from Palestinians fleeing Gaza. Where is its humanity? Meanwhile, the Israeli government has seized, blocked and closed the Rafah border crossing out of Gaza. The vast majority of Palestinians can't come to Australia, because they can't leave Gaza; they're trapped. We cannot pick and choose which people fleeing war, persecution and conflict are deserving of protection. What does it say about a country when we say yes to Ukrainians but no to Palestinians? Everyone has an equal right to seek safety. The Albanese government must stop supplying weapons to Israel. It must sanction the Netanyahu government, and it must use every available means to end the ongoing genocide. Afghanistan 3077 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Today marks three years since the fall of Kabul and three years since the return of the Taliban. Despite repeated assurances that Afghanistan would not again become a safe haven for terrorists, extremist groups such as al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and ISIS-K have all made Afghanistan their backyard. Acts of terror have again become more problematic. All of these terrorists remain a threat to Afghans, with terror attacks in the country going up 60 per cent since the fall of Kabul. Not content with wreaking havoc on Afghanistan and her people, disturbingly ISIS have extended their attention again to the international stage, with an increase of terror across the globe. There is no boundary of human decency this group will not cross. ISIS planned an attack on a recent Taylor Swift concert in Austria, which was intended to execute tens of thousands of young people. The Taliban's refusal to curtail violent extremism in Afghanistan means that Australia must be ready for a potential attack from these groups. Al-Qaeda, ISIS-K and the Pakistani Taliban, which have all found a new life in Afghanistan, have re-formed with the implicit blessing of the Taliban regime. With the ASIO boss recently raising the terror threat level to probable, now more than ever Australia must remain vigilant for looming, new terror threats. Oxenham, Ms Helen Patricia, OAM 3077 13:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise today to pay tribute to a pioneer of family and domestic violence services in our state and a truly great South Australian, Helen Oxenham, who passed away in July. Helen was of a generation of women who built on the progress of early feminists by working tirelessly to improve women's lives. Helen grew up in a violent household in Ireland and later in Adelaide, and, for her, this meant supporting those who had experienced violence in the home. Her early experiences shaped her work and drove her dedication to a life advocating for and supporting victims and survivors. In the early 1970s, in the back room of her shop in Christies Beach, Helen created an informal safe space for women with nowhere else to go. In 1977 she joined with a group of dedicated local women to establish South Australia's first official shelter for women experiencing violence. Helen Oxenham later founded Spirit of Woman, an organisation which aims to change the way we talk about family and domestic violence by creating public memorials to facilitate greater awareness to honour those lost. Her daughter, Heather, continues this important work. For her lifetime of advocacy, Helen was rightly honoured in 2020 with a Medal of the Order of Australia. May her memory steel our collective resolve to eliminate domestic and family violence. Helen Oxenham was a South Australian of whom we can be truly proud, and I express my sympathy to her family and friends. The PRESIDENT 112096 It being 2 pm, we'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3078 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 3078 14:00 Senator 263418 Tasmania DUNIAM (—) (): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to data released yesterday by the Commonwealth Bank which shows Australians are now spending 20 per cent or more of their pretax income servicing their mortgage, a figure not seen since the GFC and double what they were paying in the late 1990s. Commonwealth Bank Chief Executive Matt Comyn stated: We expect to see further increases in arrears in the months ahead, given continued pressure on real household disposable incomes. With unemployment today spiking to 4.2 per cent, how are Australians who are facing joblessness, persistent inflation and ongoing rate pain supposed to get by? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I have said repeatedly this week, we understand that Australians are doing it tough. We understand the pressures on families and on so many parts of our community, and that is why this government has been so focused on seeking to deliver and delivering the tax cuts. That is why this government has been focused on ensuring that every household gets an energy rebate, along with a million small businesses. That is why this government has been so focused on ensuring that low-paid workers get pay rises, and 2.6 million low-paid workers have received their third consecutive pay rise backed by this government—not by those opposite but by this government. We understand the extent to which people are finding making ends meet difficult. That is why the budget delivered the cost-of-living measures that it did. That is why the government reframed the stage 3 tax cuts in the way that we did so that we ensured that every Australian got a tax cut, unlike those opposite who wanted the weight of the tax cuts to be for much higher income levels in Australia. So I would say to the senator that we all care about the cost-of-living pressures Australians face. Some of us actually work at delivering change. Some of us actually work at delivering tax cuts to everybody. Some of us work to deliver energy rebates, cheaper child care and cheaper medicines, and some of us work to ensure wages are fair and decent. Those people who do so are members of the Albanese Labor government. Those who oppose it are those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Minister, the CBA data also reveals that this ongoing financial strain is leading to an increase in the number of households falling behind on their repayments, with the value of past-due home loans increasing from $14.8 billion to $17.6 billion last financial year. A sizeable portion of that increase is from households that are so far behind that they're unlikely to recover unless they receive external support. With inflation persisting due to your government's actions, how do you expect these households to actually survive? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I take issue with that assertion. Yet again we see the true motivation behind the coalition's questioning about the cost of living. Their true motivation is not to try and ensure Australians get anything more; their true motivation is simply to try and play politics with the cost of living. That's all it is. You know how you can see that? You see that from the way in which he asked the question, and you see that from the fact those opposite have opposed so many of the cost-of-living measures that this government has put in place. If you want to come in here and talk to me about people who are struggling, why don't you stand up and tell them all you voted against energy price relief? Why don't you stand up and tell them all you voted for more expensive medicines? Why don't you stand up and tell them you don't support cheaper child care? Because all of these things are things you opposed, Senator Duniam. You would have Australians having a worse— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Minister, overnight data from the United States revealed that inflation has eased in the world's largest economy to 2.9 per cent for the year, the lowest rate in roughly three years and locking in a likely rate cut from the Federal Reserve. Minister, how long will Australians have to wait for a rate cut and an inflation figure below three per cent? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I would make the point, Senator Duniam, that inflation had a six in front of it when we came to government—a six in front of it when we came to government. Now it has a three in front of it— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber! Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I've called order across the chamber. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. It had a six in front of it when we came to government; it's now got a three in front of it, but he's trying to make a political point. At the same time, this bloke, and all of them, come in here and vote against cost-of-living relief. Then they try to pretend to the Australian people they care about cost of living. We all know, actually, that all you care about is a political attack. That is all you care about. On this side we care about making sure we deliver cost-of-living relief to Australians, because we understand how hard they are doing it. That is the difference between you and us. We are trying to ensure higher wages, cheaper medicines and cheaper child care and give people some relief on energy—all the things you oppose. (Time expired) Economy 3079 14:06 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to a minister who does care about cost of living, and that is the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. The focus of the Albanese government, as we know, for the past two years has been on fighting inflation, getting wages moving again and providing cost-of-living relief where we can. Providing support for annual wage reviews and addressing the gender pay gap have been a core plank of our wages and economic policy. Minister, can you please update the Senate on the data that was released by the ABS today? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ciccone for the question and for being the big supporter he is of closing the gender pay gap and supporting women at work. We often see him playing that important role in here with his gorgeous son, who he brings in here from time to time. President, the data today is clear. It's really important data, which we've seen released from the ABS today, that shows we have a record all-time low in the gender pay gap of 10.8 per cent. When we came to government it was 14.1 per cent. We know the important reforms that we have put in place to keep driving that gender pay gap lower and lower. In the May when we came to government it was 14.1 per cent. It dropped by 2.6 per cent. Today it's 11.5 per cent, a record low. The Albanese government continues to work to close the gender pay gap through valuing female dominated sectors and supporting wage increases to those on the minimum wage. We remember that those opposite, when they provided a submission to the Fair Work Commission, had that little chapter that said 'The importance of low-paid work'. It was a pretty important chapter, because that supported the wage stagnation policy that they ran for a decade—'The importance of low-paid work'. We have introduced reforms to the Fair Work Act to make sure that gender equality is considered as part of the Fair Work Commission's work, but also, importantly, we're providing those significant wage increases to highly feminised industries like aged care and, in the announcement we did last week, early childhood educators. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I don't know what those opposite are muttering about. I would have thought driving the gender pay gap lower and lower and lower, something they weren't able to do, is something we would all welcome. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, first supplementary question? 14:09 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thanks, Minister. That's great news for many working women. It's also great news for many men, our children and the community. With cost-of-living relief being a key priority of this government, it's not just wages that the government is focused on—even though those across the aisle laugh. Can the minister please outline other measures the Albanese government is taking to support the cost-of-living pressures that are facing many Australians in our community? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can. Importantly, the new data released by the ABS today shows that the national gender pay gap is the lowest on record—today falling to 11½ per cent from 12 per cent in November 2023 and 14.1 per cent in May 2022. Under the Albanese government, women's average weekly earnings—and this number is really important—have increased by $173.80 a week since May 2022. For those opposite that pretend they care about cost of living, this is a significant increase to women's average weekly earnings and should help—we know women are often in charge of budgets across their households; we know women feel the pinch when cost of living is high. Our work has directly led to an increase of $173.80 per week over the last two years. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria It's fair to say there's more to do, but it's also very clear that this government is fighting inflation and delivering vital cost-of-living relief. This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who are all talk and no action on this issue. Minister, can you please outline what policies, like keeping wages low and the slash-and-burn approach, would be disastrous for the economy and Australian workers? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ciccone for the supplementary. This week in the Senate, Senator Hume confirmed that a Dutton coalition government would cut billions of dollars in services that Australians rely on. Senator Hume 266499 No, I didn't! Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, you did. You say it every time you complain about the additional spending in our budgets. Senator GALLAGHER ING That is what you're saying. It's doublespeak. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING You're trying to have it both ways. We're not going to let you have it. Every time you complain about the extra spending, you've got to explain what that means— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Senator GALLAGHER ING about pensions, what that means about JobSeeker, what that means about rent assistance, what that means about energy bill relief. Asked a number of times this morning— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hume? Senator Hume 266499 Point of order, Madam President. I feel I'm being misrepresented. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will remind you, Senator Hume, when the minister is answering, I expect silence. I called order— The PRESIDENT 112096 You are not in an argument with me! I called order and you continued to ignore me. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you. As our economic plan is working, we are driving down inflation, we are providing cost-of-living relief where we can, we are getting wages moving again. Women of Australia should listen to what those opposite say because they're not interested in what you earn. We have put in place measures that have ensured women get the pay they deserve and it's driving down the gender pay gap. (Time expired) Economy 3080 14:12 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, this week you've continued to insist that the RBA finds Labor's policies to be so helpful, stating that the bank does acknowledge that energy bill price relief will put downward pressure on headline inflation. However, the RBA's chief economist stated: 'Those particular policies are only legislated for one year. By their nature, they are time-limited and temporary.' The RBA governor even talked about inflation popping back up after these temporary policies end. Does the Albanese government accept the clear advice from RBA that these short-term policies will do little to change Australia's persistent, homegrown inflation? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not entirely sure whether those opposite are for the energy bill relief or against it. I think they were against it, and now they seem to be arguing to extend it. That's what I took from the question, so I think you're arguing to extend it. I noticed there wasn't an answer from the shadow finance minister when asked two or three times this morning about whether or not they would move to abolish the energy bill rebates. There wasn't an answer at all. They come in here and vote against it and complain about the extra spending, but then aren't able to answer the simple question of do they support it or do they not? The reality is that when we came to government inflation had a six in front of it. It now has a three in front of it. Inflation is moderating, as the RBA has confirmed and as our Treasury forecasts confirm. The RBA has made a number of statements, including that running surplus budgets—something those opposite were unable to do despite the mugs being sent out as a fundraiser—are actually supporting the bank's work when they are using monetary policy. In addition to that, I think the governor has pointed out that we are doing the job that we needed to do. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, the forecasts show, Senator Birmingham, that inflation continues to moderate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Minister Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU I ask the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate perhaps to cease his interjection against the Minister for Finance for a second— Senator Wong 00AOU and maybe don't call me— Senator Birmingham interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU You are going to call me that? Really? We've let it go. They are very keen to complain if others interject on them. I remember then senator Brandis threatening to throw me out. Senator Wong 00AOU No, I've never said that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I will address the point of order. I have called Senator Birmingham in particular to order and I have called the Senate in particular to order. I would remind senators that question time is a time to listen and to respond if your name is against a question. Other than that, there should be silence. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING In the time left, it is probably appropriate that I repeat the governor's statement from 8 August, where she acknowledges that the government's job is to get inflation down but also to provide services and infrastructure that the Australian people need, like energy bill rebates, for example. Here we go, I will finish on this: 'My personal view is that they are doing what they can.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, first supplementary? 14:16 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Minister, why are the central banks of Brazil, Canada, Chile, the United Kingdom, China, Mexico and the EU cutting interest rates when Australia is not? What is it that the rest of the world is getting right that the Albanese Labor government seems to be getting so wrong? The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Gallagher, I haven't called you. The minute that Senator McDonald finished her question, Senator McKenzie, you immediately interjected. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! That goes for you too, Senator Ayres. I expect there to be silence. Minister Gallagher. 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much. Senator McDonald asked about international rates comparison. Facts do matter and the facts are that inflation peaked here later than most other countries. Rates started rising here later than most other countries and they rose less here than most other countries. Facts do matter and they are the facts. We've seen around the world—and the governor herself has acknowledged this—that inflation doesn't always come down in a linear way. It zigs and zags and sometimes can be more sticky, and it is in other countries as well. We saw inflation tick up in the most recent data in the euro area and earlier in the year in North America. The important thing for Australians to understand is that inflation is moderating. Government policies are supporting that, and, at the same time, we are providing important cost-of-living relief to help through these times. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, a second supplementary? 14:18 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland You often cite the only reason Australia's central bank is taking longer to cut rates is because, unlike many of the countries listed previously, inflation peaked later and lower than in other parts of the world. Even this logic suggests Australia should now have had at least one rate cut. How is it that Australia is still experiencing a worsening inflation crisis with no rate cut in sight? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It's not right to say that, Senator McDonald. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, it's not right! The way that she ended that question is not correct. Inflation is moderating. It is moderating in line with the forecasts. In fact, it was spot on in terms of the RBA forecast, who continue to say that they expect inflation to moderate. Those opposite might like to manufacture this crisis for their own political purposes. They were the only ones last week out there trying, hoping desperately, for an interest rate increase, hoping desperately for one. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I have called you out personally a number of times. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING But the reality is inflation continues to moderate. Our policies are supporting that. We are providing cost-of-living relief that puts downward pressure on inflation but helps family budgets at the same time. Our policies are working. They will continue to work, and we will continue to support Australians. Universities 3082 14:20 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. The Prime Minister graduated with a Bachelor of Economics in 1984. He did not pay a single dollar in tuition fees for his degree. A student commencing the same degree in 2025 will be slammed with more than $50,000 in student debt. So will anyone doing an arts degree, because of the Morrison government's Job-ready Graduates fee hikes, which the Albanese government has been all too happy to retain. Student debt is making the cost-of-living crisis worse, locking people out of the housing market and crushing dreams of going to uni. Year 12 student Saria Ratnam wrote this week in the Sydney Morning Herald: 'As a year 12 student, I dream of doing an arts degree. The price could be a lifetime of debt'. Minister, why is your government punishing students with $50,000 arts degrees? 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi. It is the case, of course, that, as the years have gone by, students and graduates have been asked to make a contribution towards the cost of their university education. That process actually began not long before I started university all those years ago, and, as a result of that, I incurred a student debt as a way of contributing towards the cost of my education, as did many people, no doubt, in this chamber. The Greens would like other people to believe that the Labor government has done nothing whatsoever about the issues facing younger people, including university students. The only problem with the Greens' argument is that we actually have. For example, this year's budget waived $3 billion worth of student debt for the very university students that you are asking about. No government has done that before in Australia's history, certainly no coalition government, which was prepared to— Senator Henderson ZN4 Because there's a 16 per cent increase. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Henderson! Senator WATT 245759 Oh, so Senator Henderson doesn't like cutting student debt. It's good to get your opposition on the record. Thank you, Senator Henderson, for confirming that the coalition does not support waiving student debt. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Senator WATT 245759 This very budget, Senator Faruqi— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 On a point of order, particularly in relation to respect shown by the minister, I'd ask that he not misrepresent my position. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, as you well know, that is not a point of order, and I will also remind you that when I call your name I expect you to come to order. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 The Albanese government are very proud of the fact that we're the first government in Australia's history to waive student debt in the way that we announced in this year's budget. We've cut $3 billion from HECS-HELP and other student support loans for more than three million people. Senator Henderson ZN4 It's your inflation! Senator WATT 245759 Jeez, they're really grumpy about cutting student debt, aren't they, President? They're really upset about cutting student debt. I'm really surprised that you'd be upset about that. But, again, you did vote against cost-of-living relief for everyone, so I guess you would also dislike making life easier for university students. I guess that's a consistent position. We have also provided $350.3 million to fully fund fee-free university-ready courses, $427.4 million to establish a new Commonwealth prac payment— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The plan you refer to is your government's tinkering-around-the-edges, bandaid plan to address soaring student debt, which will still see student debts rise by 11½ per cent in your first term and will provide no cost-of-living relief, so there's nothing to crow about here. Minister, why won't your government do the right thing and wipe all student debt? 14:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, we've seen this pattern with the Greens this week. They were really, really upset that a Labor government delivered a pay rise to early childhood educators: 'What a terrible thing to do! We've got to get up and complain about it in here.' Now they're really, really upset about a Labor government cutting HECS by $3 billion for university graduates. They're really, really upset about providing $427.4 million in payments to university students undertaking prac throughout their course. Basically, you're just really, really upset, aren't you? You're really upset about the fact that you are never going to be in a government able to do any of these things that actually deliver real relief to people, rather than running around having a rally, having a social media blast, complaining and being really, really upset. That is all you have the capacity to do. You have no capacity to do anything that helps anyone. Good luck to you. We're getting on and delivering real relief rather than being really, really upset. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Minister, I remind you, when you're responding to a question, to address the chair. Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:25 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, the students can see right through your PR farce. The Job-ready Graduates scheme was an unmitigated disaster. With punitive fee hikes that punished students and tried to manipulate their study choices, it was a disgraceful plan to start off with. In opposition Labor said the scheme was beyond repair, and the uni accord process has said that the scheme needs urgent remediation. Minister, with a progressive parliament, you have the numbers to immediately scrap Job-ready Graduates. Why won't you? (Time expired) 14:25 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We know that the Greens' political strategy is always to try to criticise what Labor does and say that we should do more. It doesn't really matter what we do; you'll always complain and say we should do more. It doesn't matter if it's housing that you want to stop happening or if it's reducing childcare fees that you don't want to have happening. Everything is never enough, and everything is never good enough to actually vote for, because we know that right now you're working with the coalition to stop investment in housing, as you are across many other ways. I'm proud of the fact that everyone on this side of the chamber is a member of a government that has delivered the real relief to university graduates that they deserve. I'm really proud of the fact that we're making pracs much more affordable for students to undertake, whether they're doing nursing, midwifery, teaching or social work. I'm really proud of the fact that we've changed the indexation of HECS debts for, I think, the first time ever, to make sure that that won't happen again. Senator WATT 245759 Oh, yes, we know Senator Henderson is upset about that too. Renewable Energy 3083 14:26 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. Could the minister please update the chamber on the progress of the government's Reliable Renewables plan in supporting the rollout of reliable and affordable energy for Australian families and businesses? 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question, Senator Bilyk. I'm delighted to report news today from AEMO, the market operator. Their CEO, Daniel Westerman, has said: … electricity generated from the sun, wind and water is already meeting 40% of our energy needs throughout the year, peaking at world-leading records above 72% on the east coast and 84% on the west coast. South Australia and Tasmania already regularly meet more than 100 per cent of their operational electricity demand from renewables and, for a 30-minute interval last December, rooftop solar alone provided more than 100 per cent of South Australia's entire underlying demand. That is reliable renewables at work: powering the grid. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 We know about the record. There are a lot of calls to talk a bit about the record, but the record is this: under your government, 24 coal-fired power plants announced their closure dates. Labor has a plan— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 You did nothing about it, but our plan is to replace that exiting capacity with the cheapest form of energy, and that is firmed renewables. We're delivering. Under Labor we have seen a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national grid. We've green-lit more than 50 renewable projects, and there have been over 330,000 rooftop solar installations in the last year alone. We are maximising affordable, clean energy, getting our grid to 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and investing in battery storage and transmission to ensure reliable power everywhere. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Minister, thank you for sharing that encouraging news about the rollout of renewable generation. At the risk of overexciting those on the other side, could the minister please update the chamber on the progress of the rollout of storage technologies, such as large-scale batteries, in supporting the rollout of reliable affordable and renewable energy? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Minister McAllister. Order on my left! 14:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Bilyk. I'm pleased to have very good news on this front as well, because more storage is coming onto the grid. More of the cheapest form of energy is great news for Australians, for families and for businesses. And it is also great news for the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Dutton said this about batteries back in March: 'Hopefully, the battery technology is about to be discovered, but not yet.' It is my happy duty to inform him that not only have batteries been discovered but they are already firming our grid. In fact, last year, 4.1 gigawatts of big batteries commenced construction—more than four times the previous record, set in 2021—and, this year, we have already had 2.8 gigawatts begin construction in Australia. The plan for reliable renewables is rolling out. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, second supplementary? Honourable senators interjecting— 14:30 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you for that answer, Minister. Could the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, I'm sorry, resume your seat. I'll wait for silence. Senator Bilyk, please continue. Senator BILYK HZB Thank you, again, Minister. Could the minister explain why the government has taken this approach to ensure that Australians have access to reliable and affordable energy? 14:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Bilyk. We take the approach we are taking because it is backed by the best advice from experts at both CSIRO and the market operator. There is, of course, another approach—isn't there, senators—and it's the one taken by those over there, to implement the most expensive form of energy known. That is the policy that is being pursued by those opposite. An analysis by the Smart Energy Council predicts that the seven nuclear reactors proposed by the coalition would provide 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy mix in 2050 and would cost around $600 billion. We have both CSIRO and the Chief Scientist—that they appointed—saying that the earliest deployment would be in 2050. It is no wonder it took them so long to get this out the door, because this policy just does not stack up. (Time expired) Defence Facilities 3085 14:32 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, Senator McCarthy. A project for a $20 million cadet facility in Launceston is still at a standstill. Six months ago, I asked in this chamber if a 29 February deadline for the critical land transfer was going to be met. Spoiler alert: it wasn't. Launceston residents have been left completely in the dark about what's happening with this cadet facility and if the project is still on the table. Minister, can you tell me where the northern cadet facility is at and if the land transfer has finally been completed? 14:33 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for your question. I've certainly been reading up on the city deals and I can say that the Australian government is continuing to work with the Tasmanian government and the Tasmanian university in terms of that deal. I will say, Senator Tyrrell, as you're no doubt aware, that relationship between the Tasmanian government and the university is where this issue still lies. Until they sort out, between the two of them, the land tenure, we will still be waiting for that to be built. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Another good point. This project was first put on the agenda seven years ago and it's still at a stalemate. Lonnie residents keep being told that it's a very complex issue, which you've just highlighted, but we know that bureaucracy is at the heart of the hold-up. What is Labor doing to make sure that this project moves forward in this term of government—because, grown-ups in the room? 14:34 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. As we know, this did begin under the previous coalition government, in terms of the seven years, and I do know that our minister is certainly working diligently not just with the city deals in Tasmania but right across the country. She's still working very closely in particular with the Tasmanian government to see this move along, and we can certainly— Senator Polley e5x We know how hopeless the state government is. Senator McCARTHY 122087 It would be good, President, if senators from Tasmania were perhaps asking this question too. Senator McCARTHY 122087 In fact, you may want to speak to your Premier in Tasmania and ask what is actually going on, Senator Duniam. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order, senators across the chamber! Senator McCarthy, have you concluded your answer? Thank you. Second supplementary, Senator Tyrrell? 14:35 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I get what you're putting down. The Tasmanian state government and the University of Tasmania have been thorns in the federal government's side on this project—previous and current. At what point will the federal government say, 'Enough is enough,' and give up? And, if this project doesn't go ahead, will the Tasmanian state government and UTAS be to blame? 14:35 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I just want to understand that question. Are you wanting the Australian government to give up? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, just allow the minister to answer. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I can certainly assure the senator that we will continue working. We are not giving up. Housing Australia Future Fund 3085 14:36 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Farrell. What steps is the government taking to protect taxpayer funds held by the Housing Australia Future Fund from being used by the CFMEU via the super fund Cbus? 14:36 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Bragg for his question. Of course, we've got a new minister in this space, Minister O'Neil, and she's making sure that the issues that we inherited through the incompetence of the former government are going to be resolved by this government. Of course she— An opposition senator: CFMEU and Cbus. Senator FARRELL I0N Well, if you're serious about wanting to do something about the activities of the CFMEU, then you can do one thing this afternoon, and that is to vote for this legislation— Senator Bragg 256063 A point of order, President, on relevance: the question was quite specifically about the Housing Australia Future Fund. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will draw the minister back to the question, but I'll also remind all senators that, if you make interjections, the minister is entitled to respond to those as well. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President, and thank you for that direction, because there is a way that the opposition can assist in dealing with the issues that we face in this space— Senator Cash I0M The issues that we face in this space! That's an eloquent way— Senator FARRELL I0N Senator Cash, you're a key player in this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator FARRELL I0N Senator Cash, it's within your capability to start to resolve these issues. You have to understand, Senator Cash, that there are obligations on you to responsibly deal with this issue. Senator FARRELL I0N You can intervene as much as you like, but the reality is, Senator Cash, you have an obligation. You have an obligation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Farrell. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The time's elapsed, Senator Henderson, so there's no point to make a point of order. Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:39 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I think the remarks were supposed to be directed— The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator Bragg, the chamber was noisy. I will ask you to begin again. Senator BRAGG 256063 I think the remarks were supposed to be directed through the chair but, in any event, is the minister aware of the statement by the Cbus chair, Mr Wayne Swan, who said, 'We believe that investing through the HAFF will meet the best financial interests of our members.' Are those the interests of the CFMEU? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I will remind the minister to make his remarks to the chair. I will also remind senators, particularly those on my left but not exclusively, they are to listen in silence. Minister Farrell. 14:40 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I'm not sure if I understand that question, to be perfectly honest. I'm not sure whether you wrote it yourself, Senator Bragg, but it's a mystifying question for me. Can I say, in general response to your attacks on the Housing Australia Future Fund, that these are good people that are working very hard in the interests of this country to increase the supply of housing. One of the consequences of this Labor government doing so much to boost our economy, of course, is that we have brought in people from overseas. That has created an issue about housing. We are about to deal with that issue, and those people at the Housing Australia Future Fund, managed by Housing Australia, are doing exactly that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a second supplementary? 14:41 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales This is a very clear question, if my last one was a bit befuddling. Does the government regard Cbus, with three CFMEU trustees on its board, as an appropriate organisation for the HAFF to do business with? 14:41 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My understanding, Senator Bragg, is this is a much clearer question, and I am pleased you followed my advice to ask sensible, straightforward questions. My understanding is that that issue is now under review by APRA and that is obviously an independent— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N There are independent organisations in this country that we have that govern the ruling— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N I was a member of a superannuation fund, a very fine superannuation fund—Rest Super fund—for 15 years. We were always governed by a set of rules which we complied with. Those rules will be applied in this case. (Time expired) Housing: Foreign Investment 3087 14:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Overwhelmingly, Australians don't believe foreigners should be allowed to own residential property in our country. I first asked at Senate estimates in November last year how many potential foreign buyers the ATO is detecting through its data-matching program. The government failed to answer. In February, Senator Bragg asked and was given no answer. In June estimates, I asked again and did not get an answer. Answers to my questions on notice for how many potential foreign buyers are detected are now overdue, again. Minister, why is your government hiding from the Australian people the data on potential foreign buyers of residential property? And when will you actually answer the question I've been asking for nine months? 14:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I recall you asking these questions, Senator Roberts, and I understood they were answered at the time by officials when I was sitting at the desk. If there have been follow-up questions you have asked on notice that have not been answered, I can certainly follow that up. I think the evidence we gave during Senate estimates was that foreign investment plays an important role in bolstering Australia's housing stock and creating additional jobs in the construction industry. But it is monitored very closely for good reason. It is tightly regulated, with foreign persons generally requiring foreign investment approval before acquiring an interest in residential land, regardless of its value, with a few exceptions. Foreign investors make up a very small proportion of the total Australian residential property market, accounting for approximately 0.93 per cent of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in 2022-23. Out of 479,257 transactions, based on ATO data from 2022-23, only 4,463 transactions were by foreign investors. It is a very small component—less than one per cent—of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in the 2022-23 financial year. I think senators have raised this through estimates as something they are interested in—raising concerns about foreign investors squeezing out local residents from being able to purchase housing. But the evidence would show that it's a very small component of the residential property market in the transactions that are being monitored, as was explained in estimates by the ATO. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The New South Wales state government reported more than twice the number of overseas purchases of property that the Foreign Investment Review Board recorded in 2021. The board claims foreigners buy less than one per cent of residential property—and you just confirmed that. Yet in the first quarter NAB property survey, real estate agents say they're selling 10 per cent of Australian housing to foreigners. Minister, if you have confidence in the Foreign Investment Review Board, why won't you hand over the data? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, I'm not sure which part of the data hasn't been answered. I was sitting at estimates when you were given figures, Senator Roberts, so I'm not sure which data is the data you're seeking. The ATO data I just read out—and I can provide this in writing to you—shows that it is 0.93 per cent for the 2022-23 financial year, and that it has come down, as I understand it, from a peak in 2015-16. The ATO do residential real estate compliance investigations—so they follow this up and check that people are compliant with the requirements of foreign ownership of residential property. They identified 428 properties for compliance, they did 410 investigations and found 145 properties in breach, and 55 of those resulted in— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, you want foreign investment, yet foreign ownership is against Australians' interests. Minister, this country is in a housing crisis. When will you ban foreign ownership of residential real estate and put Australians in Australian houses first? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We're not going to do that, Senator Roberts. The numbers show we need good strong rules around it, and there are strong rules around it. We need compliance with those rules, and there are good compliance processes. It's less than one per cent, and this country has benefited from foreign investment. We benefit in terms of our economy and in terms of jobs— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, order! Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING So it isn't something we are seeking to ban. It would help if some of our housing programs, which are currently stalled in the Senate, were given approval by the Senate because then we could build more supply, which is the actual issue. I know there are a lot of distractions about who's to blame, and it's easy to blame foreign ownership. The statistics don't support that. I say to the Senate that there are a couple of bills that are stuck in this chamber that would help people into homeownership and help increase the supply of housing in this country, and I say: let's get on with that job. Western Australia: Employment 3088 14:49 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. On my regional tour of WA I heard time and time again about the challenges facing regional WA when it comes to skills shortages. Businesses are struggling to keep their doors and services open to their communities because they just can't get the staff. Small businesses and industry in the Mid West and Gascoyne regions were consulted for months on the skills they need to get by. The results were teachers, truck drivers, accountants, manufacturers—skills that help our regional communities to thrive. A designated area migration agreement was lodged for the Mid West and Gascoyne regions in November last year, but there has been no response. Minister, when will this DAMA be approved so Western Australians in the Mid West and Gascoyne regions can access the skills they so desperately need? 14:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Payman, for the question. I think everyone understands that there are many parts of regional Australia that are experiencing skills shortages at the moment, particularly as a result of the complete collapse in investment in skills and training that we saw over the last 10 years under the coalition government. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I know you don't like being reminded of your record, but it is your record. You can't run away from it. You cut funding for skills and training, and now we're paying the price. I'm sorry, but it's true. I acknowledge that Western Australia, including regional Western Australia, is one of the states that is seeking more skilled workers. Of course, the government's primary vehicle for dealing with that issue is our investment in fee-free TAFE, because we do want to make sure that Australians have the skills and training required to take up the jobs that are on offer, whether they be in regional Australia or more broadly. Of course, we can't meet all of our labour needs—our workforce needs—through domestic workers, and that's why the government, through the Department of Home Affairs, does enter into designated area migration agreements. As I'm sure Senator Payman is aware, the way in which they operate is that there is a formal agreement between the Department of Home Affairs and a regional, state or territory authority. They provide access to more overseas workers than the standard skilled migration programs, and I am aware that there are particular regions in the country that do seek access to more overseas workers than the standard skilled migration programs. In terms of this specific request, I'm advised that there is a longstanding practice of the government of the day to not comment or disclose details of groups, individuals or companies that have ongoing visa matters before the Department of Home Affairs, but I will take the senator's question on notice and provide an update in due course. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Minister, these delays are severely impacting the Mid West and Gascoyne regions. We've lost output of over $800 million. This DAMA affects 20 local governments in Western Australia, from Exmouth to Three Springs, and these delays are taking a toll. With this in mind, will the minister now consider the Mid West and Gascoyne DAMA as a matter of urgency/ 14:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Payman, for the question. As I've indicated, I'm happy to take the question on notice and provide an update to the senator in due course. But, in the meantime, I can provide a little bit more information about the work that is going on through our fee-free TAFE program to meet some of the needs of both Western Australian employers and employees. In fact, in Western Australia the most enrolled-in fee-free TAFE courses to 31 March this year included the certificate III in early childhood education and care, with 2,740 enrolments, the certificate III in individual support, with 1,896 enrolments, and the diploma of nursing, with 1,527 enrolments. Obviously, there were many other areas—technology and digital and a range of other areas—but I think it is important to note that the types of skills being sought in regional areas often aren't necessarily in mining or some of the major industries; they're in the services sector and the care sector, and they are what that fee-free TAFE program is helping to deliver. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I look forward to receiving an extensive response to the question on notice. Will the minister join me in meeting with impacted industries and small businesses of the Mid West and Gascoyne regions when cabinet visits WA in September? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Payman. Of course, I'm not going to commit another minister to a particular meeting. That probably wouldn't be a very well-received thing to do. But I'm sure Minister Burke will consider your request. I know that he is very deeply engaged in his portfolio since taking it on a couple of weeks ago, and I know that, like all of us—all of the cabinet and all of the ministry—he is very much looking forward to going to Western Australia, a state that we know expressed a lot of support for a Labor government at the last federal election and that we have maintained regular contact with, either because, in some cases, we live there or because we visit there regularly. So I'm sure Minister Burke, like all of us, will be very keen to be at the cabinet meeting, and I'm sure he'll take up your request and consider it. BUSINESS 3089 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3089 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to move a motion concerning the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the consideration of the bill to be moved and determined immediately. Can I indicate to the opposition that, if they are so keen on their last question, then, when the bill is finished, we will come back for question time and give Senator Birmingham his last question. We're very happy to do that. In question time today Senator Cash said that the CFMEU was infiltrated by organised crime. Well, what I would say to Senator Cash is it's time to stop being John Setka's friend. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McGrath and Senator Cash! Senator WONG 00AOU It's time to stop being John Setka's friend. The only people who don't want to pass this bill— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, Senator Henderson, Order! Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU There are only two sorts of people who want this legislation delayed. They are the lawyers and certain officials in the CFMEU and members of the Liberal and National parties in the Senate, led by Senator Michaelia Cash. They are the only two people who want this legislation delayed. So, Senator Cash, what I would say to you—I know you always love to have a fight. I know you always love to have a political fight, but this is a time when we have organised crime— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, resume your seat. Order! Senator Henderson— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Senator Henderson. Senator Birmingham, you might want to turn around. There is a senator on your own side on her feet. Senator Henderson ZN4 Thank you, President. On a point of order, I would ask that you would ask Senator Wong to direct her comments through the chair. The PRESIDENT 112096 I would ask, Senator Henderson, that, when I call your name or the name of Senator McKenzie or the name of Senator McGrath or the name of Senator Cash, that you listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, President. I'm happy to address through you. Senator Cash, President, consistently comes in here and talks about CFMEU corruption, but she is the person standing in the way of this bill passing today. If she tells the coalition to vote against this legislation, then the game she is playing will be clear to everybody in this country and in this parliament. It will be clear that she is only interested in positioning politically on this, not actually interested in cleaning up this union, which is what this government is trying to do. So I say to Senator Cash: listen to the Master Builders, when they say—listen to this; this is the Master Builders of Australia— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Should I wait for you to finish shouting so you can listen to the quote? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! Senator McKim JKM Tell us what Woodside think! The PRESIDENT 112096 Seriously! Senator McKim, order! It is absolutely disrespectful that I've had to call order about 10 times. I'm the President of the Senate and I demand that you respect the call when I ask for silence and not try and outbid each other in shouting across the chamber. It's disgraceful. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I ask the coalition to listen to this statement of the Master Builders of Australia. On 15 August 2024, first paragraph, 'Parliament must pass the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 this afternoon.' Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I'm going to say it again, because they're shouting at me because they don't want to listen. 'Parliament must pass the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024'— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator McGrath! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I just asked for you in particular to be silent. I also asked for you in particular to be silent, Senator McGrath. Both of you are treating what I'm asking the Senate to do with absolute disrespect. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll start again. The Master Builders of Australia said, 'Parliament must pass'— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU You really don't want to hear it, do you? You don't want to hear it. You're trying to pretend—I'll say it again, because they don't want to hear it: 'Parliament must pass the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 this afternoon.' Just so all of the backbench understand, what the shadow minister is asking you to do is oppose what the Master Builders want. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator WONG 00AOU The Australia Constructors Association said: The industry cannot afford continued uncertainty, so we call on all parties to finalise and pass the Bill without further delay. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Senator Hume! Senator Henderson! Senator WONG 00AOU You can tell we've hit a nerve, President, when they can't stop shouting while I'm on my feet, because they know what I'm saying is true. They are playing politics with this issue, and we should all be passing this bill to clean up the CFMEU. This government is bringing it forward; the industry is asking for it. This is about making sure that we weed out the corruption and the organised crime, according to Senator Cash's own words, inside the CFMEU, and you have an opportunity to do it today. And, if you do not, your political hypocrisy will be on display. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU You should listen to the Master Builders, you should listen to the Australian Constructors Association and you should pass this bill without delay. Senator WONG 00AOU You have not drawn breath during this contribution, because you know you are wrong! What Senator Cash is asking the coalition to do is the wrong thing to do. This bill should be passed today without further delay. We know what is happening in the CFMEU. It's time to ditch the politics and do what the employers are asking for. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, I will give you the call in a moment. It has been a long time since there has been such a disgraceful display of blatant disregard for my many calls for order. I called for order; I called senators by name, and you completely ignored me. That was disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. You are representing the Australian parliament and you are representing the Senate. I expect you to listen in respectful silence. 15:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 can pass today if the Labor Party cleans up its pathetic and weak effort— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, the minute your leader got to his feet you started interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 You've started interjecting again! I've asked for silence. Senator Birmingham, I appreciate you are capable of looking after yourself, but I am not standing for such disrespect to be shown to me by senators in this chamber. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X President, if you want to talk about disrespect—it's that lot opposite and the disrespect they have for proper process. It's the disrespect they have for actually cleaning up the CFMEU properly. This bill can pass today if you agree to clean up your pathetic, inadequate and weak effort in terms of addressing the CFMEU. It can pass today if you accept the very reasonable conditions that Senator Cash and the coalition have put to you. It can pass today if you agree to stop receiving money from the CFMEU while it's in administration. I can think of 6.2 million reasons why they don't want this bill to pass, why they don't want amendments to go through and why they don't want a proper administration in place with proper conditions such as ensuring the CFMEU cannot and does not give money, political donations, to the Labor Party or the Australian Greens, who are deeply suspicious in this whole exercise and who seem to be the ultimate cover-up merchants for Mr Setka. There are 6.2 million reasons why the Labor Party quite clearly want to pass a bill that still facilitates the money to flow. So accept Senator Cash's amendment to stop donations and this bill could pass. Accept Senator Cash's amendment to ensure that you can't just unwind the administration straight after the next election and this bill could pass. Accept Senator Cash's amendment to ensure there's some transparency around the administration, that actually the administrator appears before this Senate's committees to answer questions, and this bill could pass. But, no, you don't stand for transparency. You stand for taking the money, you stand for ensuring the CFMEU remains in a position to be able to influence politics through its donations, through its grubby money, and you stand for not having a proper clean-up of this corrupt industry. The real question has to be asked: just how many CFMEU officials or members were actually consulted in the drafting of this bill? It looks like Mr Setka and co sat down and wrote it for themselves. That's what this bill looks like, and you've been dragged, kicking and screaming, to improve the bill thanks to Senator Cash's amendments. But of course you're squibbing it on the ones that really count. You're dodging it when it comes to having transparency. You're dodging it when it comes to having accountability. You're dodging it when it comes to ensuring the job is done properly. And you're well and truly dodging it when it comes to actually ruling out donations and the money. If you want to follow something in politics, if you want to follow something in business, if you want to follow something in life, you follow the money trail. And the money trail leads right back to the Australian Labor Party when it comes to the CFMEU. There is self-interest scattered right around this frontbench and right around that corner as well—the quiet, obsequious, silent Australian Greens. When it comes to the CFMEU, what sort of grubby deals have been done there? Why is it that you've voted again and again in this chamber, even more than the Labor Party recently, to actually protect the CFMEU? Why are you so silent on this? You don't want any version of this bill to pass, because apparently you want the money even more than they want the money. You want the donations even more than they want the donations. You want the CFMEU's help even more than they want the CFMEU's help. You've got this whole corrupt line-up in terms of money flowing and ultimately a union that has been inflicting huge chaos and contempt across Australia. You had the ridiculous situation this morning when Minister Watt was asked about the cost impacts of the CFMEU on the state of construction in Australia. What did Minister Watt say? 'I've had a bit of a look at this and I cannot find any evidence whatsoever to support that.' No evidence! How far in the sand is your head buried, Murray Watt? How far down have you buried your head? Honestly! Or is it that you're so clouded by all the donations that you can't see the corruption, you can't see the wrongdoing, you can't see the impact that it is having on the Australian construction industry? This bill can pass. All you have to do is guarantee you won't keep taking the money. 15:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Right now, at 3.08 pm on a Thursday afternoon, is the time for the coalition to put their money where their mouth is. For years you have been mouthing off about the CFMEU, mouthing off and making all sorts of claims and doing nothing about it. And right now you can do something about it! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham was listened to in silence, and that same respect will be shown to Minister Watt. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, President. They are worried that finally the game is up for the coalition. After years of mouthing off about the CFMEU, they are about to be tested on whether they are actually serious or not. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 It's very easy to get out there and make all sorts of claims about unions, as you have been for years, but you never once sought to put— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. I do not intend to keep repeating that you are to listen in silence. If you can't do that, leave the chamber. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 For years you had the chance to do something about the corruption and criminality that we now know is in the CFMEU. It was under your watch, under your ABCC, and did you ever do anything concrete about it? No, you did not. You never once sought to introduce a bill of the kind that we are seeking to introduce and pass right here today. You never did it, and now, on a Thursday afternoon, you're still squeamish about it, because you just want to run around— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU The opposition completely ignored your ruling then. Senator Cash I0M I don't think Murray needs your protection. Senator Wong 00AOU I'm not protecting him. I'm observing your discourtesy. The President asked for something. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I remind senators once again I have asked for silence. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 For years we have seen Senator Cash and the coalition run around demanding that action be taken about the CFMEU. Even yesterday, Senator Cash was in the media agreeing that we should pass this bill this week, but the moment it comes, 'Oh no, we can't possibly do something about it,' because they would prefer to throw political sledges rather than do something about it. Now— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Birmingham, on Senator Cash's behalf, has tried to make the point that there are three really important things that the government won't agree to. We saw a ridiculous list of requests from Senator Cash the other day— Senator Cash I0M Ca-ching! The 10000 Senator Cash! Seriously! Senator WATT 245759   most of which were already dealt with in the bill. Let's go very quickly through the three things that they say are unresolved. For starters, they want every branch of the CFMEU construction division to be in administration for at least three years, even when an administrator decides there's no corruption, no criminality. That means they would rather have the administrator working in branches where the administrator finds there's no corruption rather than targeting their efforts at a branch like Victoria where we know there are massive problems. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU President, I think what we are seeing today is persistent disorderly conduct. I would ask you to remind senators of standing order 203. I would ask you to remind them of that. I understand that this is a robust debate, and, during my contribution, I accepted quite a lot of interjections, but you have now asked on multiple occasions, and the deputy leader in particular is persistently and wilfully disregarding your direction. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do remind senators. I don't particularly want to have to use standing order 203 which I'm sure you are all aware of, but, when I call for order, there needs to be order. You need to respect the direction of the chair. I appreciate it's a robust debate, but it needs to be done respectfully and in silence. Please continue, Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 The second matter that the opposition says is still unresolved is the issue of political donations. You know what? We have already agreed in a letter to Senator Cash— Senator Cash I0M Because we don't trust you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, which part of what I just explained to the Senate under 203 have you failed to acknowledge or respect? As I said to senators, particularly those on my left, if you can't remain silent during the debate, leave the chamber. That's your choice; leave the chamber. But, if you're going to sit this chamber, you need to respect and acknowledge and follow the direction that I give. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 We've already agreed to Senator Cash that the scheme of administration that would be applied under this legislation would ban donations to any political party for the period of the administration. We've already agreed to that. It's in a letter to Senator Cash saying it will be in the scheme of administration, which is part of the legislation. But that's not good enough for Senator Cash, because she wants to run political games. The third point—this is actually the real dealbreaker for Senator Cash—is that Senator Cash wants the ability to haul the administrator, an independent administrator of a union, in to committee rooms in a Senate estimates hearing and play political football. What this is actually about is Senator Cash's desperate desire to get her face on TV, going after people in the way that she always does. It is important and vital that this administrator is independent of political interference. It doesn't benefit the government, the opposition, the union or its members to have the administrator brought into estimates hearings and treated like a political football. That's what Senator Cash wants. The reality is the government's legislation is the strongest action ever taken by any government against any union or any employer group in Australia's history. It's not just us saying that. That is why the Master Builders Australia—they're not exactly friends of the Labor Party—have said that parliament must pass this bill this afternoon. It's why the Australian Constructors Association say now is the time to act. They are demanding action. These are employer groups. The ACTU national executive has also passed a resolution saying that the CFMEU construction division should be in administration. So the government agrees, unions agree, employer groups agree—who doesn't agree? It's the coalition, and, of course, let's not forget those little people over there, those friends of John Setka, who are going to back him this afternoon, rather than back the Australian people. Let's not forget about them in the process as well. I really didn't expect after all the claims over all the years from Senator Cash and the coalition that John Setka would be the coalition's best friend. That is not something I had on my bingo card for 2024, but that is the point we have got to with their refusal to back legislation that is supported by the government, the peak union movement of Australia and the employer groups in the building and construction industry. It's time for the games to stop and it's time for the politics to stop. It's time to take strong action against the CFMEU construction division. It is time to pass this bill. 15:16 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania John Setka is out there right now with his new tattoo, sitting on his beanbag with his popcorn out, and he's got a whole new cheer squad called the Liberal Party. That's what's going on. This is the trouble with you people. You had nine years, and, by the way, this is the trouble. You go too far. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator LAMBIE 250026 You go too far. I have my right to have my say. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Lambie, please resume your seat. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that Senator Lambie be heard respectfully. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have called the chamber to order. I have reminded senators of standing order 203. Senator Cash, you are a very important part of this debate. I don't want to name you in relation to 203, so you need to listen respectfully. Senator Lambie. Senator LAMBIE 250026 The trouble is you tend to go too far, instead of hitting the target that needs to be targeted and only going after those people who need going after. It's like your ensuring integrity bill. You didn't just go after the CFMEU; you went after every union, and that is not fair. You do not put everybody else in with some bad apples. That is not how this country works, and that's what you have done. But you also had nine years, and, under your nine years, they continued to get worse. Your fines did not help. Your ABCC was rubbish. It did not work. You had your opportunity, because you have to go after the big picture, instead of just those people that are involved. You cannot help yourselves, and it's all about making a political statement. While you make your political statements over the weekend and don't support this, you put lives at risk. You have done that, and you are doing that. You are disgraceful. Let me tell you something: these people have come to an agreement with those 20 points that you wanted. But having this administrator in estimates—how stupid are you? You want to bring in an administrator, who's going to do an investigation over the next three years, and get them to come in to estimates so you can ask them questions. That will probably put people's lives at risk. Really, you must get that. That's how policing works; that is how investigations work. You cannot bring an administrator in, who is hearing all this stuff, and ask them questions. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator 250026 Oh, please, stop the rubbish! You had nine years, and you let your own people down. That is enough. Do the right thing this afternoon. Stop playing politics with this, and let's get this job done. These people over here—my goodness!—are the party of division. How about them? They haven't said anything about the way these women were treated. They know very, very well that most of those union members out there are women, and they are standing up for the behaviour of John Setka and the CFMEU. That is where the Greens have got to. I still haven't heard them justifying their reason why they won't vote for this. I haven't heard you get up and give us one good reason why you won't vote for this. You are absolutely as shonky as they come. Senator LAMBIE 250026 That is not good enough. You haven't come up with one good reason. I don't know what they are getting over here. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Lambie, please resume your seat. Senator McAllister, on a point of order? Senator McAllister 121628 Senator Lambie is really being subjected to some very heavy interjections that are disorderly from the other end of the chamber, and I ask that you call those senators to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sure no senator in this place would be immune to the many times I've called for order, mostly halfway through question time and for all of this debate. I expect all senators to listen respectfully. Senator Lambie, please direct your comments through me, thank you. Senator LAMBIE 250026 So the party of hypocrites over here, the Greens— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, you do need to withdraw that. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I withdraw. Okay, the Greens have an opportunity to make a difference. Why they are doing this is going to come out in the end. I don't feel sorry for you, but I need your voters to know you are doing a shonky thing in here today. You should be onto these people. The CFMEU needs to be taken down, and the investigations need to get started. Once again, the Greens— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKim, if you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Oh, my goodness, it is really shameful when the only comeback the Greens have is that you support native forestry, over people's lives—people who are sitting there scared like hell of the CFMEU right now. We want people to have the courage to come forward. Instead, we're sitting in this chamber with both the Liberals and the Greens playing politics over people's lives. It is absolutely shameful today. You cannot be serious about this. I suggest you have a really good think about this. I would have thought—through the chair—it is enough. We are not going to get to the bottom of it. More things will come out in this, and the sooner they come out the sooner we can rein them in. That is where we want to be, and that is where we should be. You donors out there that give to the Liberal Party: Don't give to them this time around, because they are not doing the right thing by you. That's the problem. Stop giving to them, and make them pay the price. 15:22 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The coalition is actually the party who said 'Enough is enough' when we went to a double-dissolution election in 2016, because we wanted to clean up the construction industry in Australia. The coalition is the party that said 'Enough is enough' when we went to a double-dissolution election in 2016 to restore and put in place the Registered Organisations Commission, and guess what? Despite everything those opposite threw at us, every single step of the way—you want to talk about bullying, thuggery and intimidation? Try standing up the tough cop on the beat. Well, guess what? The Australian people put their faith in us. We went to a double-dissolution election because we believed in cleaning up the industry and we were successful in putting in place the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. But it didn't stop there. We said as a government 'Enough is enough' when we sought to bring in the ensuring integrity bill that would have held—all those years ago, almost going on a decade—union officials who do the wrong thing in this country to account, but guess what? Those opposite made every possible excuse in the book for some of the vilest bullying I have ever heard of in my life, for some of the vilest intimidation I have ever heard of in my life, for some of the vilest harassment I have ever heard of in my life. Believe you me, it wasn't just in the last few weeks that Australia woke up to the fact that organised crime is running the CFMEU. This has been known for years and years, yet so many of those opposite owe their preselection to the CFMEU and so many have worked for the CFMEU in this place. You are all part of the Australian Labor Party, which has taken dollar after dollar, $6.2 million since Mr Albanese became the leader of the opposition—proceeds directly flowing from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. Yet you fought us every single step of the way. When you come into this place and table a piece of legislation that (a) you could drive a truck through, and (b) looks like it was written by John Setka for you, please don't accuse us of running a protection racket for the union. The only people who have ever run a protection racket for the CFMEU are the Australian Labor Party. They talk a big game, but they are weak when it comes to putting in place the legislation that will actually do the job. Why won't they legislate to ban the taking of political donations? That is a question the media should be asking. They say: 'Trust us. We won't take them.' Guess what? I don't trust you. The construction industry doesn't trust you, and the Australian people do not trust you. Legislate the ban on political donations. For a government that talks such a big game on transparency, when the acid is finally put on, they run a mile. Are you actually kidding me that a senior King's Counsel is not able to front the Australian Senate for one or two hours three times a year to answer questions as to how the administration is going? Not only that, why won't you put in place a minimum period of administration? It's because you just want the problem to go away and then start again. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion to suspend as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:31]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 15:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, I understand we're going back to question time for Senator Birmingham's question. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3096 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 3096 15:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask the minister: what CFMEU or ACTU officials or members were consulted on, or involved in, the drafting of Labor's weak and inadequate response to CFMEU corruption, organised crime and lawlessness? Who did you consult? Who was involved? What say did John Setka or his mates have in drafting the legislation? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong, I have not called you. I am not going back to what we had 30 minutes ago. I have warned individual senators about 203, and I will name you. We have one more question. The questions will be heard in silence, as will the answers. Minister Wong. 15:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am advised that the entities which the minister consulted in the drafting of the bill were that hotbed of radicalism Master Builders, ACCI, COSBOA, AIG, the Business Council of Australia and the ACTU. This is a bill which the industry knows is necessary. What we saw just now was the unholy alliance between those who are only interested in protecting Mr Setka and the corrupt elements inside the CFMEU and those who are interested in protecting those elements just so they can continue to play politics. Meanwhile those decent trade union officials who have bravely stood up on this issue and others— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, this is the last time I'm warning you. I will name you. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Meanwhile those decent trade union officials who have been so brave through this process and have backed this because they understand the principles of unionism and why this is so important for the movement—those people have been left hanging by the Greens and the Liberal and National parties. The employers who sought for this bill to be passed have been left hanging because Senator Cash wants to play politics with this. Let's be clear: Senator Cash would rather have a fight than a fix. That's the reality. She wants a fight on this issue, so she has refused to listen to the Master Builders, the construction association and all those organisations who know this legislation matters. Senator Birmingham, you can come in here and ask process questions, but nothing detracts from what you just did, which was to vote with the Australian Greens to protect Mr Setka. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 15:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, given the years and years of illegal, corrupt behaviour by the CFMEU, how long do you think it will take to change the culture and clean the show up? Why is your government opposed to a minimum time of administration to turn this organisation around—this organisation that is forcing Australian taxpayers, families and businesses to pay so much more in construction costs and causing such harm across our economy? 15:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I do wonder what Senator Cash is telling the shadow cabinet, if it has in fact met at all, because the minister advises me that he has agreed to go from three to five years. Is that something that you knew before you voted with the Greens? Is that something that you knew before you voted with the Australian Greens to protect him? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Just a moment, Senator Birmingham—I am just waiting for silence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I'm waiting for silence. Senator Birmingham H6X Madam President, I fear Minister Watt is misleading Minister Wong. The question was about the minimum time required, not whatever— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, resume your seat. That is not a point of order. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU This is just so pathetic. Everybody knows. Everybody saw what you just did. Everybody knows and everybody saw what you just did—that the Australian Greens and the Liberal and National parties voted to protect Mr Setka and the corrupt elements of the CFMEU against the legislation that the government is putting forward. That is what occurred. You come in here and you might ask, 'Who did you talk to?' and 'How many years?' But the fundamental truth is Mr Setka did not want this legislation passed, and you voted to ensure it did not pass. Mr Setka and those who support him did not want this legislation passed, and you voted to make sure it did not pass. That is what you have done, and you need to live with that responsibility. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 15:39 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, why are you and the Albanese government holding up your own CFMEU legislation by refusing to put into law a coalition amendment that would ensure union donations are banned during the period of administration? Is it really the case that Mr Albanese, the Labor Party and the Greens are so addicted to union money that you are willing to refuse that amendment to ban those donations? (Time expired) 15:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, the government has indicated we would ban donations to political parties. That's the first point. The second point is this. Everyone in this country saw the vote which just occurred. The vote that just occurred was one that Mr Setka would have been very pleased with, and what that vote will show is the Liberal and National parties and the Greens political party voting to stop legislation that Mr Setka and those who support him oppose. That is what you have done in the interests of having a political fight. So whatever Senator Birmingham tries to push on this issue does not detract from the single truth that we all saw with our own eyes: the Greens and the Liberal Party voting to protect John— (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 3097 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 3097 15:42 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. Day by day, month by month, Australian families and businesses are feeling the real pain of Labor's poor economic management, but there are 25 people who do not believe that Australians are feeling the pain and that businesses are having to close their doors. Those 25 people are the 25 Labor Party senators that sit in this Senate chamber—because today we heard from the government that their economic plan is working. Well, Australian families and Australian businesses don't think the economic plan is working. In fact, we heard Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, say that the cost-of-living crisis in our country is manufactured, meaning that it's not real, meaning that it's made up. The data does not lie, and today we've had it confirmed by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia that Australians are now spending 20 per cent or more of their pretax income to pay their mortgages—a figure that we have not seen since the GFC and double what Australians were forced to pay in the 1990s. The CEO of the CBA, the Commonwealth Bank, went on to say: 'We expect to see further increases in arrears in the months ahead, given continued pressure on real household disposable incomes.' The CEO of the Commonwealth Bank is saying to Australian mortgage holders that it's going to get worse. The government, on the other hand, are saying that their economic plan is working, and the finance minister is saying that the cost-of-living crisis is manufactured. But there's more bad news in the figures. The value of past-due home loans has increased from $14.8 billion to $17.6 billion, an increase of $2.8 billion—money that people can no longer afford to find to meet their mortgage repayments. The data gets worse. Personal loan arrears of more than 90 days have climbed to 1.5 per cent, which is higher than the 1.25 per cent that has been the average for the past 15 years. Australian businesses, including in my home state of Western Australia, are being forced to close their doors. Insolvency rates are rising. ASIC tells us there have been 11,000 insolvencies in the last months. In the June quarter alone in Western Australia there were 379 insolvencies—one every seven hours. And the government says the cost-of-living crisis is manufactured and that their economic plan is working. Australians want to know why it is that, in just two years, they are feeling significantly poorer as a result of the economic management of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Prior to the election in May 2022, the Prime Minister made the big, bold claim in my home town of Perth, Western Australia, that Labor would make life better and Labor would make life easier for people with mortgages. That's not true. Australians have gotten poorer, living standards are falling and people are finding it harder and harder to call this country the lucky country. I suspect that many Australians feel that their luck has now run out. And this government says they've got nothing to worry about because the economic plan is working—apparently—and the cost-of-living crisis is manufactured and make-believe. That's not what people are feeling. I challenge Anthony Albanese, when he comes to Western Australia, to walk the streets of Perth and see it for himself. People are hurting and are poorer thanks to him and his Labor government. 15:47 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Of course it's right that, in taking note of answers given after question time every day, we should debate the pressures of the cost of living on so many Australians right now. Our No. 1 priority as a government is delivering cost-of-living relief. But it is completely disingenuous the way the opposition seeks to debate this issue day after day after question time. Why? Because Australians, had a coalition government continued, would have been demonstrably worse off. So let's take a look at the facts. Under the coalition government, we had a set of income tax thresholds that would have kicked off a month ago with just the very highest of Australian income earners getting a tax cut. They backflipped on that. They never really said that our change was a good idea; they essentially said, 'Look, we can't stand in the way of a big tax cut for Australians just to give it to the very highest income earners.' At that point in time, they didn't oppose the desperate need to change that very malapportioned tax cut legislated by the previous government; they just kind of waved it through. But make no mistake: had the coalition been in government, would they have sought to reset our tax thresholds to make them more fair and equitable for the cost-of-living crisis faced by so many Australians? There is no sign or evidence that they would have. Every Australian household is getting $300 in energy bill relief. In states like WA, that adds up to about $700 in energy bill relief. But do you know what? Not only did those opposite oppose that but the very fundamentals of power increases in Australia over a long time now have been very much driven by the lack of an energy policy and energy framework under the last government. For a long time now it has been self-evident through economic modelling and through pricing in the market right now and over the last decade or so that renewable energy is cheaper than coal and that renewable energy will continue to be cheaper than nuclear. But, of course, those opposite, who are so motivated by denying climate change that they also want to deny the most efficient forms of energy provision in our country, went on to continue to completely destabilise Australia's electricity market year after year. It was the kind of instability that absolutely deprived it of investment in new generation—that being generation which would have, with more supply, pulled down electricity prices. Under our government we see 2.6 million low-paid workers getting their third consecutive pay rise. These are pay rises they were deprived of under the last government. We've also delivered stronger Medicare and cheaper medicines in every community around Australia. 15:52 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The thing I like about this government is it's consistent. It is consistently focused on being the best government for vested interests it can be. What it has done over the last two years is shovel policy and money to its favoured vested interests—the people that run the organisation of the Labor Party, the union movement, which runs preselections and supports the Labor Party at polling places and is the campaign force behind the labour movement. This government has spent two years of public office working for these narrow vested interests, and it appears the nation's economic problems will never be solved under it—which is hugely regrettable for the Australian people, who are stuck with this government in the immediate term. It means people have to pay more for things like rent and mortgages. The questions I asked Senator Farrell today about the probity and governance standards that I thought the government would be interested in applying to the Housing Australia Future Fund, which the minister didn't appear to be across the detail on, are just another example of the government being totally relaxed about rent seekers being part of public policy formulation. What is most surprising is that the government seems entirely relaxed about this shocking conflict which threatens the integrity of the Housing Australia Future Fund; we have the president of the Labor Party also being the chairman of the Cbus fund, which has three CFMEU trustees on its board, and the government seems totally disinterested in these issues. I would have thought that the government, if it wanted to protect the public interest, taxpayer funds and its own reputation, would be interested in these issues because it would see the obvious conflict. It is a howling conflict of interest for the government to be running a housing slush fund where it wants to co-invest and give taxpayer funds to the Cbus fund, which has three CFMEU trustees on its board and has the president of the Labor Party as the chairman of the fund. I would have thought that it would be in the interests of the Labor Party, let alone the interests of the public and the taxpayer, that these things be taken seriously. But what do we hear from the good minister Farrell today? Crickets. Absolute crickets—very disappointing answers. Frankly, I expected better. The minister says the Prudential Regulation Authority needs to do its job. Now, the Prudential Regulation Authority is not in charge of the Housing Australia Future Fund, its probity and its governance. Nor is the Prudential Regulation Authority in charge of superannuation laws and board composition rules. Those are matters for this government, for this parliament, to turn its mind to. So that is hugely regrettable. The government has huffed and puffed about how bad the CFMEU is. A couple of years ago the CFMEU were at polling places, helping the Labor Party win office, funding its campaigns. The first thing the government does when it wins office is abolish the Building and Construction Commission. But today apparently the government says the CFMEU are our mates; that is not the case. The government talks tough on the CFMEU in relation to its status as a registered organisation and its status as a union, but what does the government do when it comes to protecting compulsory savings in a superannuation scheme? Nothing. And Minister Farrell's answer today is revealing. The government plans to do nothing to protect taxpayer funds invested in the HAFF which could be threatened by corruption in the CFMEU, through the Cbus fund seeking to invest in the Housing Australia Future Fund. Then, more broadly, Minister Watt today commits the government to making no changes to superannuation boards. Minister Watt is committing to the 1970s model of equal representation, where employee groups and unions run the superannuation funds in the interests of the IR club, not in the interests of workers and certainly not in the interests of employers. This is a corruption at the heart of this government. It is hugely regrettable that the government has taken no steps to clean the Housing Australia Future Fund and clear away the CFMEU and all its corrupt constituents. 15:57 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I also rise to contribute to this debate relating to questions asked by coalition senators in question time. In my home state of South Australia, my community are absolutely telling me that they are doing it tough. That is absolutely what we're hearing from people in South Australia. We have had a problem with inflation in this country, and, whilst I'm pleased that inflation is moderating, rising cost-of-living pressures are hurting families in South Australia. As a government we have heard that message loudly and clearly, and that's why our No. 1 focus in government has been to do everything we can to take action to put downward pressure on inflation, because that has an impact ultimately on the cost-of-living pressures that South Australians are feeling every day. There is no more significant plank to that work than the two surpluses we've delivered—back-to-back surpluses—which have the impact of applying downward pressure on inflation. We're combining that with targeted cost-of-living relief because it's that targeted relief which can provide support for families in my home state of South Australia without adding further to those inflationary pressures, many of which are external to the Australian economy. But, in terms of the things that we can control, the things that we can influence, getting on top of inflation, applying that downward pressure on inflation, is at the top of our priority list. Those cost-of-living measures have been very targeted. The measures include tax relief for every single worker in Australia, not just some—not just those at the top end of the tax bracket. It's tax relief applied to those in our community who feel inflationary pressures the hardest—who feel cost-of-living pressures the hardest. We've frozen the cost of common medicines because we know that is a significant pressure for Australians in our community. Particularly for those Australians who rely on repeat medicines and repeat prescriptions, that measure will make a real difference. Of course the cost of housing is a significant pressure, and we are working overtime to get reforms through this place, which are opposed time after time, to influence supply. That's because we know that if we increase supply in the housing market we will have an impact on house prices. We're also doing our darnedest to increase rental supply in this country, not to mention supporting Commonwealth rent assistance recipients with significant and substantial increases to rent assistance, which will benefit one million households. We've waived $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians, and for those students in our community who are undertaking courses which require them to do prac placements we're providing payment for those placements. That's so that cost-of-living pressures, the cost of rent and the cost of bills doesn't stop students in our community from undertaking qualifications in the skills which we know we need, particularly in the caring economy—in nursing, midwifery and other professions—which our economy desperately needs. We're providing more funding for emergency and food relief and financial support services, and we're extending the freeze on deeming rates for 876,000 income support recipients. On top of this we have $300 in energy bill relief for Australian households and $325 for one million small businesses. All of these measures are specifically targeted to provide relief but not add further inflationary pressure within our economy. We are doing this because we are hearing South Australians. I hear them. Families are telling me every day that they are struggling with the cost of living and that they are concerned about the price of housing and housing supply in our economy. I think they can see—I hope they can see—that as a government this is our No. 1 priority: applying downward pressure on inflation so we can provide relief for the cost-of-living pressures that we know they are feeling. Time after time when we've put up these measures that will make a difference in the lives of Australians doing it tough right now, those opposite have walked into this chamber and voted against them. I think that tells you that their claims on this are not sincere. If you were sincerely concerned about what I know your communities are telling you—just like they're telling me, they're feeling pressure at the moment—then you would be doing everything in your power to provide that targeted relief, to support budgets which deliver surplus after surplus. You too would be doing that in support of your community. 16:02 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to take note of answers to all questions asked by coalition senators. It's very sobering to keep talking about the cost-of-living crisis and the inflation crisis. It is fundamentally real to all Australians, particularly young Australians and particularly young women. There were a couple of things in the answers to questions today which really bothered me. In one of the answers, Senator Wong said she took issue with the assertion that inflation was persisting due to the actions of this government. That's a reality. This is homegrown inflation. The days of talking about what has happened globally are over. What we are dealing with today is without doubt and without question a direct result of the actions and inaction of this government. Australians are struggling and Australians are juggling, and they can't keep doing it. Australians are making decisions every day about how much to put in the trolley, whether to put in half a tank of petrol or three-quarters of a tank of petrol, and which of their children's activities to cut. But what they can't do is cut back on their mortgage or cut back on their rent. I was really disturbed by that answer to the question around why other central banks have been able to reduce their interest rates and ours hasn't. Rather than taking issue with that assertion, why not answer the question and explain what it is you're actually doing? I think that that would be a better result. Then, in relation to the question that Senator McDonald asked of Senator Gallagher, there were comments around inflation moderating. No, it's not. I note that there were quotes from the RBA governor, RBA statements and references to the release on 8 August, but I'd like to read one thing from the RBA post their meeting. It says: Headline inflation is expected to moderate temporarily in the near term— Temporarily. This is the RBA; this isn't the opposition— owing primarily to one-off measures including those providing cost-of-living support to households. However, headline inflation is then expected to increase as energy rebates end (as currently legislated), before moving in line with underlying inflation once these temporary effects have passed. What does that mean? That means, in the midst of all this hoopla, this energy bill relief is going to have a temporary impact on inflation, and then the inflation will go back up. It's an absolutely false hope. It's absolutely not a proper fix to the inflationary pressures that Australians are feeling. Let's be real about this: if your energy costs have gone up $1,000 a year, which is pretty much what it is, getting back $75 a quarter is really a bit insulting and a bit of a kick in the guts. It doesn't even begin to address all of the other challenges that we have spoken about, where, with the average Australian mortgage being $750,000, you're $35,000 worse off—'But's that's okay. We'll give you 75 bucks a quarter off your energy bill, and that means we actually still kind of delivered on our promise to make your energy cost $275 a year less.' I don't quite get that math, but we don't have time for that now. The point I am making is that, in the answers to the questions that were asked, there was no proper or meaningful response. They were going around in circles, around the edges, rather than acknowledging and admitting to the Australian people that this is a homegrown inflationary crisis, and actually getting to work to fix it. Instead, we had Senator Gallagher make the comment, 'Those opposite choose to talk about and manufacture this crisis.' This is not manufactured; this is real. If you go out there, out of this building, and talk to everyday Australians anywhere in this country, they will tell you this is not manufactured. Question agreed to. Universities 3100 16:07 Senator 250362 New South Wales FARUQI () (): 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 student debt. I rise to take note of the government's woeful response to my question on student debt, which proves beyond doubt that they simply do not care about the toll student debt or rising university fees is taking, especially on young people. Literally every day student debt is crushing dreams of study, locking people out of the housing market, forcing people to rethink starting a family and making the cost-of-living crisis worse. This week year 12 student Saria Ratnam wrote an article titled 'As a year 12 student, I dream of doing an arts degree. The price could be a lifetime of debt.' Things are only getting worse under Labor, who, against all evidence, logic and community sentiment, are stubbornly maintaining the disastrous, punitive Job-ready Graduates fee hikes. Next year, for the first time, arts degrees will cost more than $50,000—and we have Labor to thank for that. As ACU honours student Bridget said: It is morally reprehensible that the labour government is forcing people to choose between educational achievement and enjoyment over being able to live. They claim to be better than their predecessors and yet my HECS debt has nearly doubled. And don't let their gaslighting fool you. Labor say that they are wiping $3 billion of student debt, but all they are doing is shaving a tiny bit of indexation off the top of a giant, swelling pile of student debt. Three billion dollars off $78 billion is peanuts. Setting indexation to the lower of CPI or WPI is really akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. WPI is usually higher than CPI, so this change will make little difference. Labor's little tweaks to student debt won't provide an ounce of cost-of-living relief to the millions of people struggling under the weight of ballooning debts in a cost-of-living crisis, when student debt is still rising faster than people can pay it off and the root of the student debt crisis remains totally untouched. If those in this government are serious about easing the student debt crisis then they need to reckon with the reality that you can't fix a system that shouldn't exist. Student debt simply shouldn't exist. Students are graduating with bigger and bigger debts—in large part owing to the Morrison government's disgraceful fee hikes. Labor is backing those—against the advice of their own Universities Accord panel, which said the scheme needed urgent remediation. What makes this all so much more frustrating is that at the helm of this government that's shackling students with tens of thousands of dollars of debt is a prime minister who went to uni for free. As Harrison Brennan, President of the University of Sydney Students Representative Council, says: There's palpable anger among students who feel they've been cheated—forced to pay even more for an education that many in parliament received for free. Harrison is midway through a politics and philosophy degree and already owes $33,000 in student debt. It beggars belief that someone like the Prime Minister, who is literally a walking, talking example of the benefits of free higher education, is charging students $50,000 to get an arts degree. But I suppose this is also the same Prime Minister who owes so much to public housing but refuses to fund it properly. Talk about pulling up the ladder behind you! Student debt should be completely wiped. Young people shouldn't be starting their working lives with tens of thousands of dollars of debt that shackles them for a lifetime. The money taken out of people's pay cheques to pay down their student debt is money that is so often desperately needed to buy food and medicine or to pay rent and other bills. Wiping student debt would save a person earning an average wage and with the average student debt almost $6,000 a year—a massive amount that would make a tangible, real difference to people's lives. Higher education, like education at any level, is an essential public good. It should be free, it should be universal and it should be provided by the government. There is absolutely no doubt that we can afford to make university free for all and wipe all student debt. All we need is a better government. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3101 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 3101 Report 3101 16:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on Missing and murdered First Nations women and children, together with accompanying documents, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. At the outset, I note that this inquiry was established following a motion moved by Senator Cox. This motion was supported by both the government and the opposition. Hence, this issue has received the scrutiny it has only because of that initial motion moved by Senator Cox. Senator Cox's passionate advocacy in relation to this issue should be greatly respected and admired. At the conclusion of its two-year inquiry, the committee is humbled, and indebted to the families who relived their experiences and discussed the abuse, violence and trauma they have suffered, and the failure of institutions and systems tasked with protecting them. Their strength and resilience, as well as their fight for justice—in some cases, over decades—are inspiring. For many First Nations women and children who have been murdered or disappeared, there has been little, if any, justice. In too many instances, perpetrators have not been held to account for their shocking crimes. In the cases considered by the committee, what happened to these women and children was reprehensible. Often, it was predictable and preventable. The committee, following its deliberations, makes the following recommendations: Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that federal, state and territory governments codesign with First Nations families and communities, and on behalf of all Australians, a culturally appropriate and nationally significant way in which to recognise and remember the First Nations women and children who have been murdered or disappeared. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Attorney-General tasks the Police Ministers Council to review existing police practices in each jurisdiction, consider the learnings from each jurisdiction and aim to implement and harmonise best police practices across Australia by no later than 31 December 2025, with the goal of ensuring all interactions with First Nations people are consistent and of a high standard, including standards of cultural awareness and safety. The report lists particular matters which should be considered in this regard. For recommendation 3, the committee recommends that a parliamentary committee, 'or such other appropriate body, monitors progress in meeting recommendation 2 and the progress of measures' adopted by the government to address 'discernible data gaps' in this area. It continues: Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Australian government appoints a First Nations person with specific responsibility for advocating on behalf of and addressing violence against First Nations women and children within the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission. Detailed consideration should be given to the way in which the position is created within the … Commission … the powers of such position and the necessary funding for such position to maximise effectiveness. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the Australian government urgently gives effect to the relevant recommendations in the Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-2025 … and specifically addresses the need to increase the geographic spread and capacity of Family Violence Prevention Legal Services. For recommendation 6, the committee recommends that the government develop: … for implementation, a sustainable funding mechanism to provide ongoing support services for First Nations people, including women and children, experiencing domestic, family and sexual violence. This funding must prioritise service and program delivery by Aboriginal community-controlled organisations who demonstrate evidence-based primary prevention initiatives that are independently evaluated for efficacy, including for delivery in regional and remote areas. The report continues: Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that the Australian government empowers First Nations women to lead the design and implementation of services and supports that address violence in their communities … reflecting the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that: the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) gives serious consideration to auditing the Attorney-General's Department— the government— (noting the independence of the ANAO), as part of its Annual Audit Work Program 2025-2026, to assess whether the department is effectively delivering on the commitments agreed by the Australian government under the: National Agreement on Closing the Gap … National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan 2023-25; the First Nations National Plan … It also recommends 'not later than six months after the conclusion of any ANAO audit' that the Senate directs a parliamentary committee to consider the findings of such audit and assess the response to the audit. It continues: In the event that— given its independence— the ANAO declines to undertake the audit, then another independent body should be tasked with conducting the audit on the basis referred to above. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that the Australian Press Council considers and reflects on the evidence given in this inquiry, with regard to how the media portrays cases of murdered and disappeared First Nations women and children, and considers how the concerns of First Nations communities and families can be positively addressed, including through the introduction of additional Standards or Advisory Guidelines or amendment of the existing Standards and Advisory Guidelines. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that the Australian government systematically considers the many recommendations and suggestions made to this inquiry. This includes recommendations relating to: trauma informed healing, including the recommendations made by the Healing Foundation and White Ribbon Australia; implementation of a violence prevention framework for men and boys; development of Aboriginal community-based support programs for men; and initiatives which promote a sense of individual and community responsibility for the issue of male violence against Aboriginal women. In closing, I deeply acknowledge the work of all senators on the committee. I deeply acknowledge the contribution made by those persons who made submissions to the inquiry and those who appeared as witnesses. I also deeply acknowledge the contribution made by the secretariat and Broadcasting to the conduct of the inquiry. I'll be making a further contribution in this place to place on the record the names of those involved from both Broadcasting and Hansard. I commend the report to the Senate. 16:21 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Today the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report is being tabled here in the Senate, which is 2½ years in the making and the result of Australia's first federal inquiry that sought to address violence against First Nations women and children and to identify its systemic causes. My hope always in this process was that this report would honour the lives lost and those still missing or disappeared and, in particular, their loved ones and the communities impacted by the serious crimes due to the systematic failures. This report could elevate the solutions from the community level to the Senate—the place that reviews all the laws of this country—and finally expose to the Australian public the magnitude of this issue and understand the consequences of these lived experiences. We've heard from loved ones who felt silenced and forgotten and of the losses of dignity and humanity and, in too many cases, the loss of life. This report is about deliberate actions and failures of a system that has at its heart racially and gendered violence. It is in fact a form of genocide when the system doesn't properly respond to save the lives of First Nations people, and there must continue to be outrage about this happening in a modern-day country like Australia. In 1967, this nation voted for us to be counted, but as it stands, when we are murdered, missing or disappeared, we are not. People shared with us the most painful experiences of their lives with some hope that something could be done to prevent suffering in the future. I feel immense love and respect for the people who have spoken to us, and all I can do is thank you for giving us your time and your generosity in sharing your experiences. I talked about triggering this inquiry in the first speech that I made in this place, and, many months later, I want to thank Senator Anne Ruston and former minister Ken Wyatt who helped the Senate motion to be co-sponsored by me and my former colleague Senator Thorpe, which made way for this inquiry. I always believed that First Nations communities, loved ones and families needed a formal mechanism to share with the nation the loss, grief and suffering that needed to be told. I want to be very clear that this report does not, in fact, go far enough. I'll talk about that in a moment. I want to acknowledge all of the families that gave evidence to us and, in fact, all of the families of missing and murdered First Nations women and children across this country. We have an evolving pattern which now involves our men. The inquiry was conducted by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References group made up of three Liberal senators, two Labor senators and two Greens senators. Senator Paul Scarr, I'd like to thank you for your work as the chair. Senator Nita Green is the deputy chair, and, despite what's been said in the media, I did not chair or co-chair this inquiry. I'm not even a standing member of that committee. In fact, I was subbed into that committee for this inquiry. The standing member is my friend and colleague Senator David Shoebridge. I would like to acknowledge him for his unwavering support for me, both personally and professionally, and acknowledge many others who have provided individual support. I don't have enough time in this short 10 minutes to acknowledge and name all of them but I am grateful, because this time has been trying and, at moments, very painful. People were and are still suffering the losses of loved ones, without support from the institutions that are supposed to help people when they are in need. This situation must not be allowed to continue. There is a moral duty for people in this place who make the laws to make institutions work for everyone in the way that they're actually supposed to. I brought my own lived experience into this committee's process. In fact, I travelled to Canada and talked directly to the Native Women's Association, who triggered their own inquiry with nearly 500 media articles. I want to respectfully acknowledge their journey in this speech here today, within the Australian Senate. They are still working through some of those systemic challenges. I also shared, during my short speech on the motion that was moved to commence this inquiry, that my own cousin was murdered by a man in her home town in regional Western Australia. There was an atrocious response to her murder by the police. The department, the director of public prosecutions and the justice system had a profound impact on my life and also that of my family. I know many others within my communities, and across Australia more broadly, have had and continue to have a lack of response and worse experiences, which we heard as part of this inquiry and which brought me to tears and still stay with me. At the start of this process, the committee prepared for its work ahead by meeting with some of the Canadian commissioners from their inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous First Nations women and girls. We also met with many First Nations academics and subject matter experts, and I want to thank them for their guidance; they provided some vital information to us. Acknowledging the work that has been put into the committee's inquiry, it has to be said that the outcome in the majority report is not what I, my team and the Greens expected. We are extremely concerned that the report's recommendations are not reflective of the urgent change and investment that is actually required. Problems have, in fact, been identified, but the recommendations don't contain many solutions. Where solutions are presented, they are presented far too broadly and are open to interpretation. They are not connected to any outcomes. There are no performance indicators to make sure that progress can actually be measured. Speaking of measurement, the glaring omission is the targets for improving data gathering. Even though this Labor government had a budget allocation to do this, there is no direction provided in the recommendation to address this. We simply don't know how many First Nations women and children have been murdered and continue to be missing, because we don't capture any of that necessary data. The majority report does provide some suggestions, but there will be no targets and no performance indicators to hold anyone to account if this important data cannot be gathered, collated and shared across jurisdictions. I take this opportunity to thank a dear friend of mine, Paul Girrawah House, who provided ceremony for us here in the grounds of Parliament House. He gave me a very special word, dhulabin: to walk straight and talk straight. At this moment, I want to acknowledge the cultural load that was placed upon me as a committee member and on other First Nations people who have contributed to this process, which has been immense. There are no First Nations people on this committee apart from me, and this leaves us in a position of constantly having to explain the cultural factors that contribute to the institutional failure. It's possible that this has contributed to some of the omissions in the recommendations. In fact, today I met with the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Malarndirri McCarthy, and asked if she was provided any information or sought any advice. Her response was that she had no idea. That was an unacceptable and damn negligent response from this government. The committee received 87 submissions and conducted 10 public hearings over the 2½-year period. There was no shortage of people willing to contribute and tell their stories. In fact, people were aching to tell their stories because no-one wanted to listen, and we heard shocking stories of people being ignored, ridiculed, dismissed—all when they wanted some help and for someone to care about the fate of their family members. Much has been written about the harrowing nature of the stories heard during the inquiry. And it's important that we hear about the suffering. It's our job to stop the suffering. It won't happen until we get frontline government services to care, and sometimes the message we get is that some people don't care. I'd like to continue to point out that in my own jurisdiction the WA police did not even have the decency to turn up to the inquiry. Senator Shoebridge and I have added our own additional comments to the end of the report, and these comments contain some of the additional recommendations we'd like to put forward to flesh out what's actually required in the future. Put some real targets in place. Get some clear data so that we can actually hold people to account, particularly to do their job. We want to see Closing the Gap target 13 attached to this. Powerful people in this place do not want change, and I see this through this report. 16:31 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I also rise to speak to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report for the inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children. This inquiry was referred on 20 November 2021, and that means this report has been nearly three years in the making. Today is significant, and this report is significant. But, in terms of the real change that must come in the form of action, that has to come after this report is tabled. There are many in the community who have been waiting for this report, and I want to acknowledge all the people watching this who have been and will continue to protect First Nations women and children. I didn't come to this inquiry with lived experience, but I acknowledge those who did—and I thank you for sharing it with us. From observing the conduct of all committee members of this inquiry, I think it is clear that all of us came to this inquiry with a real desire to find real solutions to one of our country's most shameful problems. I want to take the opportunity to thank and acknowledge Senator Cox for her work and leadership. I want to thank the chair, who I think was entirely hardworking and decent in the way that he went about the conduct of this inquiry. Deputy President, I think you were also incredibly helpful. It wasn't an easy inquiry to conduct. The report that has been tabled today is a significant piece of work. This is reflected in 10 significant recommendations made by the committee to help governments make positive steps forward towards protecting First Nations women and children. I want to make clear that these are recommendations to the government, and yet Labor senators who are part of this committee support each of these recommendations. Key to these recommendations is the principle that we need to deeply involve those impacted by this violence in the work being done by governments to stop it. This report also recognises the need for and recommends continued scrutiny over governments to ensure that the implementation of their commitment to keep First Nations women and children safe are kept. Perhaps the most critical, for those on the front line, a number of recommendations deal with the need for greater support and funding for family violence prevention and support services. I'm from a regional area myself. I know how hard these services work. I thank them for coming and giving us evidence, and I know how difficult it is for them, given the areas they operate in. I am sure that they will see these recommendations, which call for sustainable funding mechanisms for support services for First Nations people experiencing domestic family and sexual violence, including those that operate in regional and remote areas. Similarly, I know the recommendation calling for the Australian government to increase geographic spread and capacity of family violence prevention legal services will be welcomed across regional and remote areas, where accessing these services is not just hard; it is impossible. I can't understate how important these frontline services are, and these recommendations recognise that they will be a key part of any solution that keeps First Nations women and children safe. These recommendations are important, and we owe it to the families of those who have loved ones who have been murdered or disappeared to deliver real change to protect First Nations women and children. We must ensure that the focus on the safety of First Nations women and children does not end with this committee report today; it should start. As many members of the committee have today, I acknowledge all those who provided evidence and testimony. We heard from families right across the country about the loved ones they have lost and the experience these families faced of unsurmountable, unbearable grief. Hearing directly from these families was a humbling and important reminder of the very real human pain that comes from losing a loved one. But that loss was made worse by the actions of our institutions and systems. No-one and no family should ever have to go through the loss that these families experienced, and no family should ever have to go through the double loss of experiencing loss in such an undignified way. It's even more distressing to know that in many cases witnesses felt silenced, ignored or even further traumatised after their experiences with government services. I can only imagine how hard it must have been to share your grief with committee members who were strangers, and I am profoundly grateful for the experience that you provided the committee to help us shape this report. The committee received 87 submissions in the course of this inquiry, with many more providing testimony directly to the committee during our numerous hearings. As a committee, we travelled across the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Western Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Victoria to hear firsthand at 10 public hearings the true scale and number of disappeared First Nations women and children, which is horrifying. Throughout this inquiry we were confronted with truly horrific information on the disappeared and murdered First Nations women and children across the country. The gross overrepresentation of First Nations women and children in the number of people who have disappeared or been murdered is an issue that no government can turn away from. The data already suggest that First Nations women are four times more likely than non-Indigenous women to be hospitalised due to violence, and they are six times more likely to die as a result of family violence. These are statistics we should be ashamed of. The picture painted by the data is even more scary when you consider inconsistencies in the collection and underreporting that may be masking just how bad the true statistics really are. These deeply disturbing statistics show exactly how dangerous it is in our country for First Nations women and children. Thankfully, there have been ongoing efforts to improve that collection, and I acknowledge some of the work that's being done now. We can't hide from this issue, nor from the issue of gendered violence. Problems like these don't not disappear if we keep them hidden in the shadows. If we don't talk about this, if we don't talk about disappeared First Nations women and children, then we give permission for those who have inflicted pain on them to do more harm. The only way that we can really stop this is by making sure that there is as much attention on this issue as possible. Governments, the media and the wider Australian community need to reckon with these statistics and what they mean in terms of actual human loss and suffering. That is exactly why the committee has its first recommendation focus on urging federal, state and territory governments to co-design a culturally appropriate and nationally significant way in which to recognise and remember the First Nations women and children who have been murdered or disappeared. All of the women and children whom we heard of through this inquiry were loved, and there are, sadly, countless more who are missing and disappeared who are being mourned and remembered by their loved ones. All of their loved ones deserve an opportunity to have their loss recognised and remembered. It is critical that we continue to push for real solutions to end the violence against women and children and in particular First Nations women and children. We need to make sure that this report is not the end of action on this issue but merely a step towards a future where women and children are not regularly subjected to violence, abuse and even death. Our work as a government and as a parliament is not over today. We have an obligation to the families who came forward and shared their trauma to ensure that this report is not the end of an important inquiry but the start of important work to make things better. We need to act on the significant recommendations in this report together. Above all, we need to stop the violence against First Nations women and children, who deserve better. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 3106 Additional Information 3106 16:40 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator Sterle, I present additional information received by the committee relating to estimates. Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Committee 3106 Report 3106 16:41 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, I present an interim report of the committee. Treaties Joint Committee 3106 Report 3106 16:41 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 218th report of that committee. DOCUMENTS 3106 DOCUMENTS Consideration 3106 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 3106 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 3106 COMMITTEES 3106 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 3106 Report 3106 16:44 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I rise to take note of the Environment and Communications References Committee report into Australian Antarctic Division funding. This was a great Senate inquiry. It was done with collegiality and respect across all political parties and Independents involved in this Senate inquiry. It started off as being expected to be a short inquiry in reaction to some leaked reports to the ABC about staff cuts and funding cuts to the Australian Antarctic Division's operational budget, particularly to their science budget. It became a lot more than that; it went for nearly 15 months in the end, with, I think, seven hearings in total. It was obvious to myself and other senators that the Australian Antarctic Division—and I acknowledge my Tasmanian colleagues, especially Senator Duniam and Senator Bilyk who attended all the hearings and took a very active part in the hearings—is such an important part of our community down in Hobart, not to mention the critical work it does down in the Antarctic. We didn't get a lot of time in recent years to question them through Senate estimates on so many important issues. There have been a number of very serious cultural questions raised at the AAD, and reports into culture and how that needs to be changed. The Australian Antarctic Division tends to come in at literally—and I mean literally—five minutes to 11 at nearly every estimates we have. This inquiry gave us a considerable amount time to prosecute the issues that were facing the division and how we might solve them. I commend this report, which makes a number of very constructive recommendations, to the Senate. I think they were very broadly supported. As chair of the committee I had very few amendments on this report; Senator Grogan would know that! Indeed, the ones that were made were very constructive. In fact, not long after the report was made public we had the budget for this year handed down, and it was very pleasing to see that one of the key recommendations in this report—to increase the science funding for the Nuyina icebreaker base out at Hobart—was honoured; in fact, it was a key budget item in this year's budget. I thank the government for that and for listening not to the Senate but to the scientists. For those who participated in the inquiry there were some heartbreaking stories especially from women at the AAD and early-career researchers about what they'd been through in recent years. I don't think I'm being controversial in saying there needs to be significant change at the division; it's already well underway and has been underway for years. There are a number of other very important recommendations in here. I don't have time to go through them all, but I am very keen to see a long-term integrated planning model at the AAD based on a decadal science plan. The one thing I can say is it was consistent across all the evidence provided to the committee that the Australian Antarctic Division, and in fact our endeavours as a country in the Antarctic, needs a long-term plan—and I know that is being taken very seriously. There was some disappointment we didn't have that by the time the inquiry wrapped up, but there was significant personnel change at the AAD; there has been new recruitment there. I'm pleased to say I am very optimistic about the future of AAD. I am very proud to say, as a Tasmanian and for all Tasmanians who participated and for all senators, that this was a great Senate inquiry. May there be more of them! I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 3107 Report 3107 16:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into the 3G mobile network shutdown can claim a small victory, yet there will be no champagne corks popped. Telstra and Optus announced they will delay their 3G shutdown for two months. I called for a delay in March. I called for the 3G shutdown to be delayed until Australia was ready for the transition. The committee has been running an inquiry into the Telstra and Optus proposal that was established on my motion here in the Senate. That inquiry has revealed Australia is nowhere near ready to flick the switch on 3G, and there's no hope that it can be fixed in just two months. It's ridiculous. This short delay is nowhere near good enough. Before we can even consider going ahead with the 3G shutdown, the Minister for Communications, Minister Rowland, must intervene and set guarantees of minimum service thresholds on the telcos. It's time to put Australian people above the telcos short-term company profits. The inquiry is ongoing, and, given the shutdown deadline was rapidly approaching, the committee commendably issued this interim report. This inquiry discovered a tidal wave of disaster coming for business and Australians. The shutdown won't just affect 3G mobiles, of which there are still hundreds of thousands in operation; it will affect 4G mobiles, even though many of those owners think they're safe. As the committee notes: Furthermore, there are close to half a million non-mobile devices that will not function once the 3G network is shutdown. As an example, these include water and electricity meters, farming monitoring and diagnostic equipment, medical devices, emergency phones in elevators, in addition to safety and asset tracking devices. It goes on to say there are: … serious, and in some cases life threatening, impacts on people and organisations if these devices do not work after the shutdown. Telstra and Optus were at pains to point out how much money and time they had put into making customers aware. Despite these apparently huge efforts—highly ineffective efforts—the total number of mobile and non-mobile devices that the shutdown will affect is close to one million. The telco companies say they're working on getting all of the 4G coverage up to the same level as 3G. They will not guarantee it will be done, as guaranteeing the coverage might cost them money. Once the 3G network is shut down, though, it will be too late. If the communications minister doesn't intervene, she'll be giving the telco companies free rein to screw over Australians for short-term profits. It's been clear since the inquiry's public hearings in July that this shutdown must be postponed indefinitely. The telco companies have made it clear they don't care about the consequences. Telstra and Optus have confirmed they'll charge ahead with the shutdown. The telcos are more interested in their short-term profits than the safety and lives of Australians. Let me be clear: this shutdown will put the lives of Australians at risk, and Telstra and Optus are going to do it anyway. The Minister for Communications must intervene, yet so far all we have heard is crickets. We still have no statement from the minister that she will impose even one condition on Telstra and Optus—not one. We haven't even seen a response from the minister to this interim report, despite the fact it was delivered nearly two weeks ago and the shutdown is due to happen just two weeks from now. I wish to thank the rural and regional affairs and transport committee for their fantastic work, especially the secretariat, in collating the numerous submissions and organising days of important public hearings, and Senator Canavan, the chair. The Senate successfully supported my motion yesterday ordering the government to respond to this inquiry, with Monday as the deadline. If the minister fails to respond or fails to provide a plan to intervene, we will be pushing this further. I take this opportunity to express appreciation for Mr James Parker's comprehensive and insightful submission to the 3G inquiry and his powerful and clear witness testimony. In particular, I note that he revealed arguably the inquiry's most significant discovery: the complete lack of compatibility of and standardisation across telco and phone manufacturers. It's time to put the Australian people above the short-term profits of Telstra and Optus. The communications minister must intervene and set minimum service thresholds and other guarantees for the telcos to fulfil before we can even consider shutting down the network. I want to point out that France has delayed their shutdown until at least 2028 because they found out about the problems with the lack of standardisation and the lack of compatibility amongst phones. Britain is still on 2G and 3G and has now delayed their shutdown until late this decade. The minister must address the compatibility and standardisation issues that are costing 4G users needless expense and denying market competition. The people who are suffering are Australian consumers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 3108 DOCUMENTS Independent Review of National Natural Disaster Governance Arrangements, Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 3108 Order for the Production of Documents 3108 16:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table documents related to orders for the production of documents concerning national disaster governance arrangements and funding and the Australian Defence Force 20-year review. Department of Health and Aged Care 3108 16:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I seek leave to make a short statement regarding the explanatory statement for the National Health (Chairperson of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Remuneration Tribunal) Appointment 2024. Leave granted. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The original explanatory statement, tabled on 14 May 2024, inadvertently contained personal information which is omitted in the replacement explanatory statement. I seek leave to table an explanatory statement which replaces the statement tabled on 14 May 2024. Leave granted. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I table the statement. MOTIONS 3109 MOTIONS Albanese Government 3109 16:57 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I move: That the Senate notes that the Albanese Labor Government has lost its way and Australians are paying the price because of the Prime Minister's inability to control rampant inflation, as well as his broken promises to cut electricity bills, to provide cheaper mortgages and that families will be better off. During the 2022 election, many in this place and the broader public will remember a catchy and maybe even sometimes a little bit annoying slogan used by the Liberal Party which said, 'It won't be easy under Albanese.' It's been 2½ years since that time, and I think almost every Australian family will agree: things are much, much harder under this Labor government, and there is absolutely no sign of relief. As this motion rightly points out, the Labor government have lost their way because, during their time in opposition, they were discussing ways in which they would make life easier for Australians, such as the elusive promise of a $275 reduction in energy prices. It's just interesting to note that now, in government, the only thing they want to talk about is the opposition and what the opposition did when they were in government. Perhaps there's a bit of irony: the only free rent available in Australia is for the space that the opposition takes up in the minds of government members and the Prime Minister. Talking to this $275 reduction in energy prices, it's elusive because, according to members of government and despite energy prices going up by more than $1,000 under Labor, they still claim they haven't broken this promise to the Australian people. In fact, they claim that they've kept this promise and even exceeded it with their $300 per household rebate over four quarters. That's a special kind of spin. You don't need to be a mathematician to figure out 1,000 minus 300 is 700, meaning that, even on these gross numbers, Australians are, despite the rebate and despite the promises and posturing from the government, still at least $700 a year worse off under this government when it simply comes to their energy bills—just that small part of their expenditure. Perhaps if this were the only broken promise and the only area of the household budget that had taken a hit under this government, then maybe it could be forgiven. However, energy prices are just one of the many areas breaking the budgets of so many Australian households. As a result of Labor's failure to get their homegrown and cultivated inflation under control, Australian mortgage holders have had to endure 12 interest rate rises, and there is no sign that the RBA will be bringing down rates any time soon. In fact, the RBA governor indicated that they did not even consider bringing rates down at their most recent meeting and that in fact it was a lineball call in terms of putting rates up again. While those opposite might claim that this is a global issue, we all know that it's not. In fact, as we heard at the cost-of-living inquiry in Sydney, the economy is running hot. These are not my words. These are the words from the RBA. It is Labor governments, state and federal, that are pumping billions of dollars of public money into the economy, pushing up the cost of everything and pulling down our standard of living. Labor promised us, as recently as the last budget, that inflation would come down faster and sooner and with it, interest rates. This has not happened. Here we are, only three months on, and the RBA has a very different view. The Treasurer wants Australians to trust his economics, but how can they when pretty much every single promise that has been made has been broken? As the government drags out its response to inflation, it deepens the financial suffering of millions of Australians. Whether mortgage holders or renters, each of these cohorts has to pay more for longer under this government—and a mortgage or rent is not something that people can cut back on. You can't reduce your spending on your mortgage. You can't ring up your bank and say: 'I'm really sorry. I'm having a really tough month, so I'm going to give you a little bit less this month.' It doesn't work like that. It's not discretionary. For so many people, they are one rate rise or one rent rise away from losing the roof over their head. That's the legacy of this government and this Treasurer—driving hardworking Australians into poverty. This Prime Minister has delivered 'brokenomics' to the Australian people, and that's pretty sad. They're feeling it. Australians are feeling broke. They are feeling poorer because they are poorer. Real wages for working households are down by 9.4 per cent since the election. So Australians are working harder for longer for less. That's what this government has delivered them. This doesn't just have financial impacts. This has impacts on wellbeing. This impacts families. This impacts people's mental health. This impacts the relationships in our broader community. I'd like to touch on the impact that this cacophony of economic mismanagement has also had on small businesses. This year, business closures have reached record highs. According to CreditorWatch data, 90 per cent of Australia will see an increase in business failures. There is virtually no part of our broad geography that won't be impacted by this, and one of the worst-hit areas is Western Sydney, in my home state of New South Wales. Many people from Western Sydney are migrants who came here with a dream, like my family—aspirational people who want to improve their own standard of living and to provide a better standard of living and a better life for their children. Yet they are now the ones being crushed the most by the Labor government's inability to get this homegrown inflation under control. This Australian dream is quickly turning into a nightmare, and we have a prime minister and government in absentia when it comes to dealing with inflation and cost of living. Perhaps they are unable, due to a lack of capability or a lack of proper attention, to deal with the economic crisis facing the people of this nation. They have decided to hide from it, to pretend that it doesn't exist and to pretend that the people on this side of the chamber have concocted it. Their heads are in the sand, and they're leaving it up to the RBA to solve, whose only lever is to hike interest rates. I've spoken about this over and over again, and this is not the action of a mature and responsible government. It is not fair to the RBA. It is not fair to everyday Australians, and it is an absolute breach of trust in those that have been charged to lead. You don't delegate running the economy to the RBA with the single lever of increasing interest rates. It is not right to leave that heavy lifting to unelected economists in the central bank. They should not have to carry this burden, nor should Australians have to take a constant beating when the RBA has no option but to increase rates. Let me make this clear: there is no more fat to cut from household budgets. People are stretched to their limits. There are no more items to put back on the shelves. Australians are going cold, literally, under this government. According to research from comparison site Finder, half a million Australians have chosen not to use heating this winter. That's extraordinary. Can they cut back on any more electricity if they're not using any heating? Australians are going cold because they're not using their heating. They're going hungry because they're putting less in their shopping trolley, and their homes are at risk. They have been failed by this government. What do Australians get from this Labor government and this Treasurer? They get a narrative about a quarterly energy bill cut but no mention of the impacts of 12 interest rate rises. Economics Professor Richard Holden wrote in the AFR recently about how prices are 15 per cent higher today than they were when the Albanese government was elected. We also have record low consumer confidence. In his article, he summarised a sense of emotion felt across Australia and especially felt on this side of the chamber. He said: People really hate inflation. More precisely, people really hate persistent inflation that leads to much higher price levels. Australians do hate inflation because it robs them and their children. It makes them poorer. It makes their work worth less. It limits their choices and it limits their opportunities. We only need to look through history to see inflation has taken powerhouse economies and crippled them. Some of these countries have never recovered. We on this side of the chamber know just how dangerous inflation is, and we know it must be tackled and that government spending must slow down. We know, if the economy doesn't cool down, we risk baking high inflation into it. The risk of continued and persistent inflation is a scary one. It means Australia could be on a path where the continued degradation of our standard of living becomes a built-in element of our economy. Yet I ask again: Where is the government? Where is the Treasurer? Where is the urgency to get this under control? We've all been asking. It's time to act. The time to act has actually passed. We've been saying that for months. Where are you? What are you doing? Australians are looking to government for a response to inflation and the cost of living, and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are hiding behind the RBA public servants in Martin Place. A government in absentia is not a government at all. It's a sad analogy, but, rather than, 'Where's Wally?' we have an absent Albo and a great deal of 'Jim-flation'. 17:09 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I often end up in this place, in this seat, while these debates are going on and I always resolve to myself: don't take the bait; just let it go; let other people make a contribution. As people may have noticed, I'm losing my voice this week. Probably I should just sit down but I cannot resist making a few gentle points in relation to the government's position on these questions. Senator Kovacic just did a very good job of outlining the Peter Dutton and David Littleproud response to any challenging set of circumstances. If there is national interest involved, you can rely upon them to mount the most hollow, artisan, shallow response. Peter Dutton has transformed from being what the Liberal Party had hoped would be a credible and potential leader of an alternative government to just a negative press release machine. All he does is shout 'no' into the void. If there is a national interest question, you can always rely upon them, like they did this week on Future Made in Australia, to mount the most negative hyper partisan oppositional approach, not in the national interest. Australians are doing it tough. What Peter Dutton, David Littleproud, Barnaby Joyce and all these characters do is say: 'If we could really mount the most negative proposition and hope for the worst. What we want is the worst thing to possibly happen. If Australians can lose, maybe we can see a narrow pathway to victory.' Maybe that is the political genius that sits behind this negative bottom-of-the-barrel, shallow hyper partisan set of propositions. Negativity defines the federal opposition these days. The Liberal and National parties are just roaming around the country shouting 'no' at every single constructive proposition. The problem with that position is that Australians don't buy that argument, because Australians every day, in their families, are getting on with it. More Australians are participating in work. In this quarter, while the unemployment rate notched up by a decimal point, more Australians are in work in communities—Australians working together. You have Barnaby Joyce down here talking about bullets and ballots to an ever-diminishing groups of maddies holding demonstrations against wind turbines or whatever other piece of modern technology he wants to campaign against. He will campaign against phones soon. He is out there talking about bullets and ballots and all the sort of cooker-weirdo stuff that he goes on with. But Australian communities want to see industrial development. They want to see investment. They want to see good jobs. They want to see the Australian government fighting for them and fighting for their communities. Communities are working together on these questions. Workers and businesses, trade unions and our research sector are working to build a stronger, better, more resilient and productive economy. The country has a government that, rather than complaining about the state of things, is acting on the state of things. This government introduced tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer—every single one. Those tax cuts deliver much bigger cuts for the majority of Australian taxpayers, particularly those at the middle and bottom end of the tax scales. For regional Australia, it means 90 per cent of Australian workers get a better deal from the Albanese government tax cuts than from the tax cuts Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton, Barnaby Joyce and David Littleproud supported. On energy bill relief, let's not forget, just before the election, Mr Taylor, the character in the lower house who wants to be the Treasurer, concealed from the Australian people upcoming energy price rises. It was an act of total deceit, total bad faith, by a guy who really wants to be the Leader of the Liberal Party. Ever since then, there hasn't been an energy bill price rise that hasn't been celebrated by the Liberal and National parties. They love energy bill price rises because they're an opportunity for them to campaign in here. What has the government done? Well, last budget year we provided energy caps—caps on the price of coal and caps on the price of gas. We used a sophisticated mechanism to deliver that, sometimes through the states and territories. This time round we've provided $300 in energy bill relief. On childcare costs, childcare workers got a 50 per cent wage increase, costs for parents have gone down by 11 per cent, and there's a cap on future price rises of just over four per cent. Rather than complaining about the cost of child care and positioning around the cost of child care, the government has simply done something about the cost of child care. On cheaper medicine—again, there's been a lot of complaining on the other side about the government's plans to reduce the cost of medicines for ordinary people, but we introduced cheaper medicine provisions. Wages have gone up for minimum wage earners and for earners across the system. There's a lot of funny behaviour about wage increases in the Liberal and National parties. They just can't help themselves. They pull out the graph and have a look at how wage increases are going up and whether inflation is going up. Every time the inflation line nudges above the wages line, it's another victory. They get to say, 'That's not a real wage increase.' But the point is: wages are going up. There's an alternative model. Just imagine if wages had continued on the Cormann-Morrison-Turnbull-Abbott trajectory, bumping along the bottom. Imagine, if that had continued to occur, how far behind ordinary Australian workers would be today. The show over there complaining about real wage growth is like Idi Amin complaining about human rights abuses. It is really not credible. On Medicare, there are Medicare urgent care clinics, dozens of the things, all around the country. On education costs, HECS bills have been reduced for ordinary students. There are a couple of things that unite all of these measures. Firstly, they are good and they help ordinary families with the cost of living, but, secondly, they have all been opposed—and bitterly—by the Liberal and National parties. Those opposite voted against all of these propositions. They care so much about rises in the cost of living that they are prepared to do every single thing they can to help ordinary Australians with them—except voting for them, except actually doing anything about it. That is the problem with the Liberal and National party position. It so transparently hyperpartisan, so transparently not in the interests of ordinary Australians, so transparently just for their own interests and their own party room dynamics. It plays well in the party room to be oppositional and negative. It doesn't play well to actually propose a constructive solution. That's why I think that ordinary Australians, working hard to get through what is a tough period, can see through the negativity of the coalition. As Senator Gallagher said today, we started government with an inflation rate with a '6' in front of it; it now has a '3' in front of it. There is more work to do. The other interesting thing about the coalition's position on this—and Senator Kovacic didn't really take us to this—is their complaints about government spending, their negativity about the government's role in the economy. This government delivered two back-to-back surpluses. We delivered those back-to-back surpluses because we have been a disciplined government that is focused on real cuts to spending where it is not in the national interest to continue spending and real cuts to programs where they haven't been in the national interest. In fact, we delivered two back-to-back surpluses, a surplus that the other side has never in living memory—16 or 17 years ago was the last time the government delivered a surplus. We have delivered it. But the implication that the Dutton-Littleproud show cannot avoid is that, if you really believe that what the government should do is cut spending, then what you have to do is accept that—I know this is a difficult proposition for some on the other side to believe—if you advocate cutting spending you have to find some spending cuts. That's the way it works. If you want to reduce spending, you have to identify spending reductions. We haven't heard very much about that. The bulk of increases in the government's share of the economy has of course been about indexation for various payments. The largest of those is the age pension. Do Peter Dutton and David Littleproud want to cut the age pension? Do they want to cut child care, Medicare, the ABC, regional road funding, defence spending? Which of these programs do Mr Dutton, Mr Littleproud and Mr Taylor—the boys club that runs the show over there—have as their target for spending cuts? Whenever you put this position, they set their hair on fire and say, 'That's a terrible thing to say; we would never do such a thing,' except they always do it. It's their track record. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Their track record of promising not to cut spending and then immediately doing it on upon being elected is a very, very strong track record indeed. What we should have been doing here this afternoon, instead of this juvenile, hyperpartisan motion about a misunderstanding of how the economy really works, is passing the government's legislation in relation to tidying up the construction and general branch of the CFMEU. That's what we should have been doing. We should have done it this week. We should have done it today. A deferral, not dealing with that legislation this afternoon—I know exactly who will be celebrating that outcome. There are three groups. Lawyers will spend a lot of taxpayers' money and a lot of CFMEU construction and general members' money trying to frustrate administration in the courts. It's good for the lawyers. It's good for those elements of the Liberal and National parties who have got control over the show over there, who love the negativity and who love the anti-union posturing. And it's good for Mr Setka and his friends. That's the truth. What the construction industry is crying out for is a parliament that doesn't see its role as a sort of debating society but sees its role as taking action in the national interest. The construction industry needs that reform. It is the strongest possible reform that any government could mount. Instead, what we can look forward to is some of the more self-referential garbage that we saw in the debate earlier today, defending their legacy of failure for reform in this area, rooted in their own incapacity to see the public interest instead of the partisan interest. We will have to come back to this issue next week. But it is a real sign of the diminishing of the political capacity and the capacity of the opposition to see the national interest. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, when a division is called on Thursdays after 4.30 pm, the matter before the Senate must be adjourned until the next day of sitting, at a time to be fixed by the Senate. The debate is adjourned accordingly. ADJOURNMENT 3112 ADJOURNMENT Member for Maribyrnong, Bangladesh 3112 17:25 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Minister 'Billboard' Shorten continuously hides behind the size of his department as to why he is unable to comply with orders for the production of documents. But that excuse is not good enough. Given the size of his department, surely there is someone able to do the work to properly comply with the many OPDs asked of his department? As we discovered, their comms team alone is some 180 FTE, which are in addition to his $300,000 per annum speechwriter. But, no, conveniently his large department is so large it's actually too big to comply with a simple order for the production of documents. It is fascinating that Minister 'Billboard' Shorten and his team have enough time to plaster the faces of senators on a billboard to drive around the parliament. He has enough time to launch a website dedicated to a false— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Kovacic, resume your seat. Minister? Senator Ayres 16913 I'm reluctant to interrupt Senator Kovacic's flow or to spend much time on the zinger that must have been drafted in her office, but, in the ordinary course of events in this place, she does have to refer to people by their proper name and title. I'd ask you to assist her with that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 It is the last few minutes of the sitting week, but, Senator Kovacic, I will ask you to withdraw or, if you don't, to refer to those in the other place by their proper title. Senator KOVACIC 306168 I will, thank you, and I'll reflect on that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Thank you, Senator Kovacic. Senator KOVACIC 306168 It's simply fascinating that there is time to plaster the faces of senators on a billboard to drive around the parliament, enough time to launch a website dedicated to a falsehood about the cost of the Senate doing its job and enough time to do press conferences about the same but not enough time to comply with an order for the production of documents. I understand that some people don't necessarily understand what goes on here, and it appears that Minister Shorten finds the Senate a confusing place, but we take our job of scrutiny and house of review very seriously. If he took time to consider the Constitution, he would see that we are one part of two equal chambers, and the work we do here is important. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! Senator Polley, we are going to play fair in the last 10 minutes of this week. Senator KOVACIC 306168 That means Minister Shorten can't ignore OPDs when they are passed by a majority in this place. It also means he can't hide behind the size of his department. He must comply, and failure to do so is a contempt of this chamber and its powers. Transparent government is what we were promised. If the arrangements behind the hiring of the speechwriter are all above board, if there is nothing to see here, then prove it. But suspicions are rightly raised when a minister finds every way possible to avoid transparency. It then begs the question of what is being hidden. I don't know why the orders haven't been complied with. They are a rather simple order for the production of documents. Government done differently is what was promised by the Prime Minister. I doubt that voters at the last election expected that what this really meant is a government that hides from accountability, a government that does not respect the powers of parliament and ministers who think they are above the basic principles of responsible government. Another matter that I would like to address before the Senate adjourns is the disturbing news emerging from Bangladesh, particularly the persecution of the Bangladeshi Hindu minority. I found the recent civil unrest to be very concerning, and I know this is particularly troubling for the Bangladeshi Australian community. I've been in contact with many members of this community and, quite rightly, they are incredibly worried to see the shocking scenes across the media and social media and hear reports from their family members in Bangladesh. We often take for granted here in Australia the fundamental rights that we all enjoy: the right to freedom of speech, the right to worship the god of your choice, the right to vote and to stand for election, and the right to live free from government overreach in our personal lives. The news from Bangladesh should serve as a reminder to all of us to cherish these rights and not take them for granted. In not taking them for granted we must seek to uphold the rights of others where we can and not sit back in comfort in our own situation in the knowledge that others are not afforded the same rights and freedoms we are. The Bangladeshi Australian community have contributed much to the success of our multicultural society, and we must stand with them and call out what is occurring in Bangladesh. The persecution of the Hindu minority must cease, and order must be restored for the benefit of all Bangladeshis. All efforts for peace and democracy must be supported. I thank the Senate. Cost of Living 3113 17:30 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak on an issue that's weighing on the hearts and minds of Australians right across the country, and that, of course, is the cost-of-living crisis. Since the Albanese government was elected, real wages have fallen by nine per cent and living standards have collapsed by almost eight per cent. There have been 12 mortgage interest rate hikes, and prices for food and groceries are up more than 11 per cent. If Australians are feeling poorer, there's good reason for that. They, in fact, are poorer. The cost-of-living crisis is not just a matter of numbers and not just a matter of statistics. It's also about real people who are struggling to make ends meet. As Chair of the Select Committee on the Cost of Living, I have been right around the country hearing directly from Australians about how this crisis is impacting them. Whether it be in Shepparton or Gladstone, Alice Springs or Port Augusta, Warwick Farm in Western Sydney or Pinjarra over in the west, the message is clear. Most recently I went to South-East Queensland and to regional Victoria to hear firsthand from businesses and support services about how inflation and rising costs are influencing their businesses and local communities. While at a cost-of-living forum in Shepparton with the member for Nicholls, Sam Birrell, I heard from Glenn, who was representing the local Foodshare. He said that the rise in demand for their services is unprecedented. Australians are turning to support services not because they want to but because they have no other choice. This is not just in Shepparton. The cost-of-living committee survey identified that food and grocery prices are in fact the No. 1 cause of cost-of-living pressures in households. Shepparton organisations are servicing an increasing number of employed locals, some of whom are working two jobs just to keep their heads above water but are still seeking help. And it's not just the people who are working multiple jobs who are struggling; it's also Australians with well-paying jobs. Quite shockingly, while I was in Queensland, I joined Henry Pike, the member for Bowman, to meet with Allison Wicks. She's the CEO of the Redlands Community Centre, a not-for-profit organisation which does extraordinarily good work. Allison spoke to me about the various ways in which this crisis is affecting her community and how they've had to tailor their services to meet the new demand. She mentioned one of the clients she's currently helping is a young family, a doctor and a nurse with a young child, who have had to use food relief services. This is extraordinary. This is unprecedented. As a result of the strain that local Redlands families are feeling, the Redlands Community Centre has had to expand the range of emergency assistance it provides to include babies' nappies and pet food. At the cost-of-living forum in Nambour hosted by the member for Fairfax, Ted O'Brien, we heard similar stories. Most troubling to hear was evidence provided by the local Meals on Wheels representatives. They're seeing clients cut back on the number of meals they order, making one meal last across two days or sharing one meal between couples, because they can't afford to buy more than one. Not only does this have an impact on health; we also know that Meals on Wheels, as their slogan says, is so much more than just a meal. Much of what they do is about having that extra social interaction, and it's so vitally important to ordinary Australians. Indeed, when I was with the member for Canning in Western Australia, in Pinjarra, some months ago, we met a man, an octogenarian, who said that he travelled from town to town to play cards once a week but that he stopped doing that because he could no longer afford the petrol. These stories are the ones that break my heart. It's not just about numbers on the page; it's not just about the lines on a budget paper. This is about the human cost. This growing demand for support services, such as those particularly provided by food relief services, is a stark indicator of the growing strain on households. It's a crisis that demands the government's immediate action. We cannot stand by while Australians are pushed further and further into hardship. We have to ensure that there are economic policies that address the root causes of the crisis, which of course are inflation, those skyrocketing energy costs and the burden of overheads on small businesses. Because of Labor's economic decisions, their policy choices and their mismanagement and ineffective policy responses over the last two years, Australia is now in a situation where inflation and interest rates are staying higher for longer. It simply isn't good enough, and Australians demand and, rightfully so, should expect more. Australians can't afford another three years of Labor. Dementia 3114 17:35 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I'd like to speak today about a disease that is greatly impacting our communities. Dementia is the silent killer responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Australians every year. In 2023, dementia was responsible for almost 250,000 deaths, and it's currently the second-highest cause of death for all people and the highest cause of death amongst Australian women. The predicted number of people living with dementia is over 400,000. That is how many people and families are struggling with this deadly disease. Dementia can often be hard to diagnose early, but intervention is critical. There are obviously studies, and research is happening into the development of treatments that will help to change the face of dementia in this country. A new study has been completed in my home state of Tasmania, conducted by researchers from the University of Tasmania's Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre—an amazing institution. These Tasmanian scientists are now one step closer to developing a computer program, TAS Test, that uses artificial intelligence, AI, to diagnose dementia earlier than ever before. In diagnosis, the symptoms vary and tracking is sometimes hard, but they believe that tracking hand movements, comparing cognitive ability and picking up changes in hand motion are able to predict dementia 10 to 20 years earlier. That is a significant breakthrough. The researchers say it's the largest study of this kind and the first to look at the correlation between hand motions and other cognitive aspects of memory, which will open up an entirely new way for scientists to research dementia. When this newly developed system is completed, it will allow people to be easily tested from home and accurately diagnosed decades earlier than in years gone by. This study is amazing and has the capacity to help not only Australians but eventually the entire world. We know there are some countries more prone to this disease than others. The most common form of dementia in Australia is Alzheimer's. Wouldn't it be great if Alzheimer's could be tested as early and easily as we can for cholesterol right now in primary care with our local doctors? This is the aim of the team of scientists at Sweden's Lund University. Their study took over 12,000 people with Alzheimer's and tested a new blood test that was designed to detect Alzheimer's. The study found a 90 per cent success rate when it came to diagnosing with a blood test. These two recent discoveries have opened up the opportunity for the world to advance its understanding and its ability to research dementia both quickly and accurately. Anyone who knows anything about dementia will tell you that early diagnosis is the key to conquering this disease and to allowing people diagnosed to lead a more full life. I would like to congratulate those at the Wicking institute, led by great people like Professor James Vickers and the head of research, Dr Jane Alty. To have this research being done in Hobart, in my home state of Tasmania, is fantastic. We have almost the oldest population in the country living in Tasmania, so it is the perfect place to do this research. But their tentacles reach right across the whole world with the programs they run to educate people around dementia, so a big shout-out to them. It is important that we take the message back to our community. Anything we can do to assist in this research is invaluable, and I thank you for taking this message to your community. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 17:41