2024-08-20 2 1 0 Senate 0 0

Tuesday, 20 August 2024

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

DOCUMENTS 3225 DOCUMENTS Tabling 3225 COMMITTEES 3225 COMMITTEES Meeting 3225 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 3225 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 3225

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

In Committee 3225 12:02 The CHAIR 287062 The committee is considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 and amendment (1) on sheet 2649 as moved by Senator Hughes. 12:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia My question to the minister goes to the amendments around needs assessments as included in revised sheet PA112. In response to calls for needs assessments to consider the whole of person, the requirement that needs assessments look only at impairments relating to disability requirements or early intervention requirements has been removed. This is a positive change, but there are concerns that this doesn't translate to the plan budget. I want to take you to the amendments, specifically. There has also been a requirement added that any method for working out a budget must take into account a variety of factors that may affect a participant's need for NDIS supports, which is also a welcome improvement, yet the method can only consider the impacts of other impairments as far as they impact the impairments that meet access requirements. This appears to be a roundabout way of retaining the primary disability effect when considering a participant's need for supports. Minister, how can this method, as described in the bill, for determining a budget based on a needs assessment take account of all factors that affect a participant's need for supports when it's still explicitly required to effectively chop a participant's disability into discrete parts? 12:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Given the complexity of this stuff, I may need to get some advice from time to time. The bill draws a link between impairments that meet the disability and early intervention criteria—that is, the disability criteria in accordance with section 24 and the section 25 early intervention criteria—and the supports that are provided to a participant under the NDIS, which are the supports provided in relation to section 24 and/or section 25 criteria. That link between impairments and what is funded under a participant's plan is necessary to ensure that the scheme operates as it was originally and always intended to operate. The scheme wasn't intended to fund all of the costs associated with a person's life because they have a disability. Rather, it is intended to fund the cost of disability supports that a person requires as a result of a significant or permanent disability. That is the nub of the issue. I'm happy to be taken to it more broadly, but that's essentially the purpose of those amendments. 12:07 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thanks, Minister. I might take you to the specific clauses of the amendment that we are referring to here. There were many proposed amendment changes circulated, so maybe we can begin by confirming that the language, as I have it here and as was circulated, is still the current language. If we go to page 2 of sheet PA112, we've got: (6) Schedule 1, item 36, page 26 (lines 9 and 10) … The effect of that item is to: … omit "relating to the participant's need for NDIS supports", substitute ", in so far as the report relates to the participant's need for NDIS supports arising from impairments in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements,". Is that still the current wording as proposed by the government? 12:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I just want to clarify: were you just reading from the amendment sheet? 12:09 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia As I understand it to be. 12:09 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The approach in the legislation, supported by the amendments that the government is supporting here, is that a participant's reasonable and necessary budget is calculated on the basis of their needs assessment, having regard to the impairments that meet the disability and/or early intervention requirements. It doesn't deviate from that central proposition, and that is the effect of the scheme of the legislation. 12:09 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thanks, Minister. I understand, and I hear what you're saying. I'm trying to clarify for the Senate: you've moved a series of amendments to the needs assessment process and to what a needs assessment is required to capture. You've purposely inserted, in various sections, the statement 'participant's needs for NDIS supports arising from impairments in relation to which the participant meets the requirements'. The key thing that has been altered by the government is the insertion of the idea of 'arising from', whereas the previous language very tightly stuck to a concept of needs that are the direct result of the particular impairment for which the participant gained access to the scheme. That modification that you've made in the requirement around needs assessment is partially in response to the feedback the government received from the community during the inquiry—that the language in relation to the assessment did not enable the assessment to capture the whole-of-person impact of a disability. That has been modified. What remains the same, however, is the subsequent clauses of the bill, which then determine the way in which the needs assessment is translated into a budget. Because there have been no amendments from the government in relation to the budget method also taking account of the various impacts that arise from a participant's impairments, the concern from the community is that, while the assessment may be whole-of-person, the method created and then implemented to translate that into a quanta of funding or a statement of supports remains tied to the specific individual impairment for which the participant gained access. 12:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales That is correct. That language, 'arising from', is a consequence of the government listening to some of the consultation in relation to these questions. It is a broad legal construct that enables a whole-of-person assessment but stays true to the NDIS review recommendation 3.4, which said: The National Disability Insurance Agency should introduce new needs assessment processes to more consistently determine the level of need for each participant and set budgets on this basis. It was always the intention for the needs assessment to examine all of a participant's needs arising as a result of their disability. Further amendments, the ones that you've taken me to, clarify that that is the purpose of the holistic assessment of need resulting from impairments which meet the disability or early intervention requirements. But, as you say, participant plans are funded in relation to the relationship of relevant impairments in either section 24 or section 25. 12:13 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The amendments allow the minister to make a legislative instrument that assesses whether a participant's disability support needs result from impairments that meet the access requirements. Considering that there is no requirement for co-design to be undertaken when developing legislative instruments such as these, how does the minister plan to design a method which will effectively translate the assessment into a plan amount that bundles disability support needs into a clear, neat package? 12:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think we traversed some of this material last week—it seems like a long time ago, but it was only last week—in relation to the process that the minister intends to undertake and the co-design principles that I reported to the chamber. While the term 'co-design' is well understood in the Public Service, in the agency and amongst many of the representative organisations around the NDIS, it is not a well-understood legal term, and, to assist the minister and the agency, the department have provided a set of words on their website. 12:16 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The central piece of information that I'm trying to extract from the government in this moment is in relation to this—and I think this is feasibly directly drawn from your legislation. It is, in fact, a direct quote: The following amounts specified in the reasonable and necessary budget must be worked out by applying the information in the needs assessment report for the plan— with the substitute words from the government's amendment on the revised sheet PA112— … in so far as the report relates to the participant's need for NDIS supports arising from impairments in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements— followed by, from the legislation— … in accordance with the method determined under subsection (2) … That is the result of the amendments that you have brought forward today. You've created that set of requirements around the needs assessment process. However, for 'in accordance with the method determined under subsection (2)', the government has made no amendments to this point in relation to that method which require the method to take account of impairments arising from more than one impairment. You have retained the language in the bill to this point that ties the determination of the budget to the specific impairment for which the participant gained access to the scheme. So the concern is, while the needs assessment is now slightly more whole of person, the budget method remains tied to the explicit individual impairment. If that is not the government's understanding, I welcome the opportunity for you to clarify that, but that is the concern that is in the community right now. 12:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I've a couple of points in response. Firstly, as I reported last time to the chamber, upon passage of this bill—should it receive support here—it is envisaged that that process of developing the needs assessment tool will take 12 to 18 months and that current participants will be transitioned across to the new needs assessment tool over the course of a period of around five years. The provisions that we're discussing—in essence, you are right that one of the outcomes of this legislation is that participants' plans may only be funded in relation to impairments that are consistent with, or have been assessed to, arise from sections 24 and 25. But, conceptually, this idea of a participant's holistic circumstances, the broader assessment, which includes all of their impairments, will be considered for the purpose of their plan regardless of when they first arose. That is a significant shift from the way the scheme currently operates, where participants are not necessarily informed about the basis upon which they entered the scheme, and planning decisions can be based on information that's outdated or not aligned with their disability support needs. That assessment is taken on a holistic basis. It recognises that needs may also be impacted by factors such as where a person lives or impairments that do not meet the relevant criteria but do impact on a person's overall support needs. That assessment, in the new assessment tool developed over that period, will be applied to each individual, but, as you correctly say, the funding that forms their budget must be linked to impairments that arise under sections 24 or 25. 12:21 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Can I just ask you to clarify? I do hear what you're saying around the fact that the methods that we're discussing haven't been developed. There is a desire from the community, though, to understand, at least in principle, how the government intends to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant impairments, given the amendments that you have now put to the chamber. The language that you have used in item 11 schedule 1, for instance, where, at item 36 on page 29, line 18 after subsection (1), you have inserted, 'including for the purposes of assessing whether a participant's disability support needs arise from impairments in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or early intervention requirements'. The effect of adding the words 'arise from' is to create two types of impairments. You've got the types that arise from and then you've got the types for which they met the access criteria in the first place. The small amount of flexibility introduced by the words 'arise from' is welcomed by the community. However, there remains no clarity as to how you will differentiate between 'arise from' and the impairment for which you gained access—irrelevant and irrelevant, for the purposes of the budgetary method. 12:24 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm going to try and answer this carefully, Senator, and ask my team to correct me if I'm wrong—and then I'll come back to you precisely. Subject to the needs assessment tool, which can only be developed upon passage of this bill, it will be the role of the needs assessor to determine what is funded in relation to sections 24 and 25, the impairments that a person is assessed as having, but they will be required to have regard to the holistic assessment of all a person's impairments. So it is possible and, indeed, likely that a person who might, for example, have a set of impairments that directly relate to section 24 or 25—they might have a diagnosis of autism. They may also have some ADHD impairments that sit outside of that, arguably, depending upon the person's individual circumstances. And the needs assessor will have regard to the whole of the person's impairments when determining the budget and the plan for that individual. But what is funded arises from the impairments that are assessed by the needs assessor to be consistent with section 24 or 25. The only additional point I'd make is that it's important to say that the role of the needs assessor is not to determine the diagnosis or to do that work; their job is to apply the needs assessment tool and that framework to assessing the impairments of a person that arise from the application of section 24 or 25 and to have regard to the holistic assessment of how they impact upon the person. 12:28 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia How will you ensure, in that case—and I do appreciate your answer there—that needs assessors are properly trained and have an understanding of how multiple disabilities intersect? 12:28 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Consistent with what I indicated the last time we met in the Senate in the committee stage, the questions about who provides the needs assessments, who the needs assessors are and the framework that they will apply are all questions that are not determined in the legislation. They must be determined consistent with the process of developing the needs assessment tool, which is work that can only be undertaken upon passage of the bill and that work will be done in a way that is transparent and consultative and engages all of the elements of the community who must be engaged in that work. When it's concluded, it will make its way back here as well as a disallowable instrument. 12:29 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. I'll move now to the question of NDIS supports and the definition of an NDIS support. There is currently a draft list of NDIS supports available for public consultation. Will that list be the only opportunity for the public to comment? 12:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales That list, which was, again, the subject of some discussion in the last committee stage, is out there for consultation at the moment. I understand that that consultation period has been extended somewhat. It will need to be agreed. The minister will determine the final list that will determine what is an eligible support. It will also, after that process, come back here as a disallowable instrument. So there's not an endless process, but there is some way to go in resolving that final schedule. 12:32 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'll just indicate to the chamber that I'll finish my line of questioning on this topic and then be happy to cede to other senators. Just to confirm, Minister: the question was: as to the consultation that is running at the moment. Will this be the only opportunity that the community gets to feed back on the content of the transitional list? 12:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There is—I hear the baby in the gallery, and I should say: you're always welcome to keep kids in here, even if they are a bit noisy. It always worries me when people take kids out because they make a little bit of noise. You're very welcome to stay, I say on behalf of the Temporary Chair. Senator Hughes 273828 Someone should be entertaining! Senator AYRES 16913 That's right! I'm doing my best, Senator Hughes, to not be entertaining, and I trust that I'm succeeding! Senator, there is that process of consultation, as I say, that has been extended somewhat. There will also be some targeted consultation, at the conclusion of that, with disability organisations. I can come back to you in due course, if I have any further information about how that will proceed, but there will be engagement directly with disability organisations, and of course there will be consultation with the states and territories in relation to that. 12:34 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I have a couple more questions and then I'll pass the call around. Just to confirm, Minister: the consultation we're currently undergoing commenced on 4 August—correct? 12:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. 12:34 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia And it is going to conclude on 25 August at 5 pm—is that correct? 12:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. 12:34 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia At precisely what point in the 21-day period—we're not quite at 21 days yet, but between 4 August and where we sit today—was an easy-read version of the consultation paper made available to the public? 12:35 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales On 12 August. 12:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Who developed the easy-read guide? 12:35 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm advised that the department engaged easy-read writers. 12:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia From within the department or externally? 12:35 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'll examine that. I don't know the answer to that, nor do my colleagues from the department here today. If there's additional information, we will provide it. 12:35 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I'll cede my time at this point, but if you could try to get an answer to that and come back to the chamber that would be useful. 12:36 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Certainly. 12:36 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I will stick with needs assessments. Following on from Senator Steele-John, I want to clarify some points. Let's start with needs assessments versus functional assessments. I don't know if anyone really understands the difference, but, for the sake of argument, Senator Steele-John and I have been working on needs assessments being more around accessing the scheme and functional assessments being once you are in the scheme. I'm looking at the advisers as well. Maybe it is the other way around? Okay, so there is a functional assessment to get access to the scheme and a needs assessment once you're in the scheme. You would think that functional assessments would be undertaken in the majority of instances by people with younger children who have been born with a disability. They would be a majority over those who have acquired disabilities later in life. So, when it comes to functional assessments, I guess the first question to clarify is whether there has been any progression on who is going to fund functional assessments, because throughout the inquiry process that we had—all 5½ days of inquiries that we had on this significant piece of legislation—it was never mentioned that participants or aspiring participants would be paying for these assessments. It was actually put to us by the agency, by the department and by many people who appeared before us that the whole idea behind them was equity of access so that people would not be required to obtain significant numbers of reports—not only paediatric reports but psychology reports, OT reports, speech reports et cetera. Access to the scheme would be around functionality and needs. Is there scope, when it comes to the needs assessments of people who are in the scheme, for that to be covered by part of their NDIS plan, since these people would already have NDIS plans? That's part 1. When it comes to the functional assessments, if that cost is to be borne by the aspiring participant or their family, is there any modelling or anything being done to ascertain what the cost of those assessments would be? The ABC is not a big fan of mine and normally doesn't say nice things about me, so it's exciting when the ABC writes something positive about me. I take a bit of notice. They have spoken to a number of disability groups who are calling for a pause on this legislation because not once were they advised about the costs possibly being passed on to participants or aspiring participants. So my questions are: Are those who are already participants and are receiving needs assessments able to have their needs assessments covered as part of their plan and their ongoing plan? For aspiring participants and their families, what sorts of costs are they expected to have to pay in a bid to apply to access the scheme? 12:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Currently, the way that the scheme works is that people—as you say, often parents—pay for the functional assessment as they enter the scheme. Those assessments are often then used in the needs assessment process, which I know you're going to take me to. The government has had a very good look at the recommendations in relation to how those are funded, but, as I indicated the last time we discussed these issues in here, the government's approach to this will be to wait until that consultation process has concluded, in order to determine how funding is allocated. As you correctly say, once a person enters the scheme at the moment, additional assessments may well be funded from within their NDIS allocation. The government is having a close look at that whole picture, subject to the consultation process, which will determine the scope and the way that people enter the scheme and the way that those assessments are conducted both for functional and needs assessment purposes. So I'm going to be very clear: it is not appropriate for the government to determine that question until we have on the table a clear understanding that can be taken through the normal processes that government would go through in terms of its normal budget processes. 12:42 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, just to get some more clarity around this, you made reference then to functional assessments to access the scheme and that parents currently pay for that. Parents don't currently pay for a functional assessment. They pay for paediatric appointments, sessions with the occupational therapist and sessions with a psychologist, and they pay for reports from allied health or medical providers to then access the scheme. If there is a move to a functional assessment, we don't know what it's going to look like and we don't know who's going to deliver that. For example, are they disability specific or are they age specific? We don't know what those functional assessments will look like. Will the scheme only be accessible by a functional assessment? I ask that because what I'm concerned about is what happens when parents are trying to ascertain what is going on with their child. We're not talking about kids who are born vision impaired or hearing impaired or have Down Syndrome whose disability is quite easily defined from birth. We are talking about kids that are diagnosed with profound autism—and even the kids that are diagnosed with a global developmental delay that is not a permanent and lifelong disability—and intellectual disability. Those things don't tend to be able to be diagnosed, in many cases, particularly for those at the more profound and severe end of the spectrum, at around 1½ or two years, at the very early mark. Up until around three years of age is when you're sort of capping it off—kids that are at that very profound end usually have a diagnosis. But, to get to that diagnosis, there are appointments with GPs, there are appointments maybe with maternal nurses, and there are appointments with paediatricians to try to work out what's going on. A lot of parents, first-time parents—my son was my second born, and I was just told, 'Don't worry; he's not speaking because he has got a sister who talks for him.' I think it took us four or five paediatric and psychology visits to do the assessments that were global best-practice assessments—not determined by government; determined by international bodies—to review his cognitive impairments or cognitive capabilities and his autistic traits and to look at and monitor his behaviour. So there was a significant cost outlay to get to the point of diagnosis that said he had classic autism, intellectual disability, global developmental delay—hello, hello, hello! But we had already spent thousands and thousands of dollars in travel costs—because we were based in regional New South Wales—to Sydney to see a specialist. There were multiple specialists that were required to be seen—all of those things. After a family spends thousands and thousands of dollars in trying to ascertain what is going on with their child, diagnosed with these sorts of disabilities, is it then going to be the case that the NDIS says: 'That's great; you've been diagnosed with level 3 autism, intellectual disability, blah, blah, blah. Now, here you go—go and find someone who provides functional assessments. Go do that, pay for that, and then we'll decide whether we let you into the scheme'? Are we, in effect, in some ways, doubling the cost of what families are going to pay to access the scheme? 12:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you. That is actually very helpful—the way that you described that—because it does lead us to more clarity around these questions, I think. I want to come back to the original point that you made about who does the assessments. It certainly is the case that, right now, there is some ambiguity about that question as people—parents or disabled people themselves—go through the journey that they go through of reaching that diagnosis. It is one of the recommendations of the review—and it's anticipated for one of the outcomes of this process—that there not be a requirement for doubling up on the functional assessment process. Indeed—I'll just check with the team—that flows through to the needs assessment process as well. After that work that has been largely privately funded, people won't be asked to shell out again for an additional process to satisfy the functional assessment in order to enter the scheme. I'll just add the qualification, though, that there may be a requirement for additional information that may arise in individual circumstances. But the principle is the one that I think you have alluded to in your question. In terms of who does the assessments and how that tool is applied, there are questions about that that we cannot answer because the purpose of this act is, as we went backwards and forwards about a bit last week, to enable a process to be undertaken that will determine all of that. There are proper consultation processes and safeguards for the parliament in that process too, and it needs to come back here. But it commences that process, with the authority of legislation, to determine the framework that is applied. You are correct: the aspiration of the government here is to reduce costs in those kinds of undertakings, and that should have the benefit of having a positive impact not only for people who are paying for assessments now but also by not adding additional cost and duplication to the scheme. 12:50 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales For those from the department and the minister's office who are here now and anyone listening, I would implore you to, please, when looking at functional assessments, look at using tests that are already widely used by a lot of these diagnosticians. For example, do vinyl and/or a Griffiths or whatever the tests are form part of a functional assessment? Because you may actually be ticking two boxes by using the one assessment tool, rather than creating some new bespoke product, which—I'd just promise you right now; take my word for it—will be a complete disaster, because it will be some vested interest pushing a particular part of an assessment, with providers having to learn a whole new tool versus tools that they already use and apply regularly which are very consistent across the board. This may be apparent, but I just want to get some clarity. I think we've lost the purpose of the scheme. It was designed for permanent and lifelong disability. We have seen conditions added, particularly in the early childhood stream. We have other conditions that are now part of the NDIS that are not permanent nor lifelong that are being pushed in, and that is in part because the states have vacated the field; quite often the NDIS is the only lifeboat in the ocean. I want clarity on this. Functional assessment can show if there are developmental delays, if there is an inability to perform certain tasks. Some of those inabilities are not necessarily due to a lifelong and permanent disability. Parents out there, especially some of the mums, I know they absolutely loathe going to mothers groups and playgroups at the park. It is an overwhelming thing to hear about how all these women's children are gifted. Everyone's child is gifted. They are all so special, and, when you have a kid with special needs, it is a particularly galling place to be, when you are hearing about everyone's gifted children and there is barely a parent out there who can openly admit—you know what—that they are a great kid but they are just not the sharpest tool in the shed. There is a great spectrum of people in the world. Some are really good at something; some are really good at something else. Not everyone is a natural-born genius. You wouldn't know that at mothers groups, but, in reality, not every child is a genius. I guess one of my concerns is that, if you end up with a functional assessment, is it going to be linked to a diagnosis? Is there still going to be a list of diagnoses that the NDIS covers? Or is it going to be more based on a skill set you have or don't have, or what you can do versus what you can't do? Will it open the door again to people who can pay for lots of expensive reports but not necessarily have a permanent and lifelong disability? 12:55 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's the intention here, subject to the exigencies of the consultation process that will commence should the legislation clear the parliament, that there be a commonsense approach to these questions, which is what I think people in the community would broadly expect. Underneath the functional assessment process, it is not automatic that a person with a diagnosis inevitably becomes part of the scheme, because they may have a diagnosis but a functional assessment determines that it is not the kind of lifelong disability that makes one eligible for section 24 or section 25 impairments and that whole process. It is also possible that the functional assessment may proceed absent somebody turning up with a diagnosis from a specialist or from whatever the proper diagnostic process is. A person may present with autism, for example, but it's not necessary for the functional assessment process to wait for the substantial period that may be required to determine that a particular diagnosis was made, and a functional assessment may determine that the person is eligible absent that diagnosis. So there would be a process in parallel that would occur there, but it is very much, in the spirit of your question, that a commonsense approach be applied here and that the parameters of that approach be the subject of the consultation process with the community more broadly and, as you say, with the states and territories, who have much of the responsibility here as well. 12:57 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Just to clarify again, with someone having a functional assessment or prelude to a diagnosis, would there be some determining factor there? Again, take someone who has gone through paediatric psychology—blah, blah, blah—forms of assessments and they are diagnosed with level 3 autism or an intellectual disability et cetera—something that is clearly going to be permanent and lifelong—versus someone who probably would have been given, in the old days, a diagnosis of a global developmental delay and who should be level 1 autism under this new DSM-5 but to whom the paediatrician said: 'You know what? Let me just give you level 2, because otherwise you're not going to get access to the scheme.' However, this functional assessment has shown that their diagnosis is at the much lower end or the diagnosis or the functional capabilities are shown to be different. Would that then be used to determine whether someone goes into the early childhood stream, which would mean that, from my read of it, they would either age out of it or be required to reprove a disability? Is that person with level 3 intellectual disability able to go straight onto the disability stream so as to not have to reprove their diagnosis when they age out of early intervention? 12:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Without committing to the precise circumstances that you set out in the question, because people may be listening and thinking about their own circumstances and applying that to their expectations about how this might operate, that kind of commonsense approach is exactly what is envisaged to be the subject of that consultation process and that outcome. It is the kind of approach that is driving the minister's and the government's thinking about how people are able to use the functional assessment process to access the scheme; how they'll be treated and, as you say, Senator Hughes, allocated under sections 24 and 25; and what the meaning of that might be. 13:00 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I'm happy to pass the call after this. Senator Steele-John, I'm sure you're sitting there with bated breath. I want to touch on the needs assessment before we move on. There are plenty of adults with permanent and lifelong disabilities that aren't going to change. There aren't going to be significant changes in their needs or their impairment if they're quadriplegic or they've got an intellectual disability—whatever it might be. Their needs are not going to change year to year, unless there's a significant change of circumstances, which is, of course, a different way of looking for a plan review. But what's the assumption for how often participants on the scheme will need to undertake a needs assessment? Is there a timeframe for how long the needs assessment is relevant? Is it that your plan's for five years and your needs assessment covers you for five years? Or your plan was for five years, but your disability hasn't changed, so, when your plan review's up, you don't have to undergo another needs assessment; it's just a continuation. 13:02 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It will be based on individuals. As you say, Senator Hughes, for a participant who's a child and whose needs are changing, their needs assessment process may be more continuous. That will be determined by the needs assessor. For the other group that you described, if we can characterise them as an adult with paraplegia or a similar condition where their circumstances aren't going to change, their plans will go for the full five years. You would expect, within the commonsense framework, that the plan going on to the next five years would be a relatively straightforward approach for people in that category. But there is, as you've indicated, Senator Hughes, a more intensive process for people whose needs are changing. 13:03 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, what is a commonsense framework? You stated to the committee that it will be defined 'within the commonsense framework'. What were you referring to there? 13:03 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator. A 'commonsense framework' is not a term that is used in the act, and it is not a term that has been applied in terms of the specific set of questions that Senator Hughes put to me. It is the intention, for example, with the consultation process that determines the needs assessment framework, for a co-design process, for a broad consultation to be undertaken and so when there are issues like, 'Is there an opportunity to reduce duplication and to reduce costs for either participants and their parents or for the scheme, or for both,' then it seems to me to be a commonsense approach and consistent with the government's objectives here to try to reduce that burden. It is a cost burden but goes beyond being a cost burden for participants and their families and the scheme. 13:05 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thank you for clarifying that, Minister. I just wanted to check you weren't referring to a new term within the bill. 13:05 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales As I indicated before, I'm not a lawyer—not even really a bush lawyer—and it can be taken as a given that when I introduce a term like 'commonsense approach' it is not designed to have a legal meaning. 13:05 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Thanks, Minister. Returning to the process of developing the transitional rules and definitions of 'an NDIS support', after the public consultation period concludes on 25 August will there be another opportunity for the community to give further feedback on the revised lists? 13:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales On the 25th, or following the 25th, the government will consider the feedback it's received. There will be further targeted consultation, as I indicated. It will be consistent with the operation of the scheme and with peak bodies and disability organisations, and the government will determine its approach at that point as to whether or not further consultation is required. 13:07 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia What is the intended date for the list of NDIS supports to come into force post the passage of the legislation? 13:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It's envisaged that it would commence upon passage of the bill and 28 days after royal assent of the bill. 13:08 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Just be very clear: given the placement of the relevant section of the legislation that creates the ability to determine an NDIS support, which is section 10 of the legislation, that comes into effect on the 29th day after the passage of the legislation—correct? 13:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Not after passage; after royal assent. 13:08 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia So in your previous answer when you say 'it is envisaged' that it will come into effect at that time, in fact what you intended to communicate was that 28 days after royal assent it will come into effect? 13:09 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. 13:09 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Is it correct that participants will only be able to purchase NDIS supports after the instrument commences? 13:10 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales If there is a participant who has something in their current plan that is outside the list, there are transitional arrangements to ensure that they continue to access that payment or support for the duration of the plan. 13:11 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia So that is the case if somebody has something funded within their plan which is not determined to be an NDIS support: that's one-half of people. But, for those who are engaging in new plans or plan renewals, is it correct that participants will only be able to purchase NDIS supports after the instrument commences? 13:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The answer to that is, essentially, yes. If a person is currently engaging with the agency, the answer to your question is yes. There is, of course, an amendment that has been proposed that does provide for the CEO to be able to make a decision to substitute upon application. So, where there is some uncertainty, there is some room for a decision to be made by the CEO if—I just want to get the precise words here. That amendment creates a substitutions process that allows a participant to seek to substitute a support that has been declared not to be an NDIS support for one that is. That amendment responds to community feedback and concerns about the supports that will be prescribed in rules made under section 10(4) not to be NDIS supports. In practice, if a participant considers an item that is excluded from being an NDIS support will be more beneficial for them than an alternative support that is not excluded, then the participant may make an application to substitute that support. 13:14 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Can you clarify, in the time between the 29th day passing upon which the transitional rules come into effect and the passage of the instrument that will define what an NDIS support is, what is the intent of the government in terms of defining in that interim period what an NDIS support is? It would appear to me that there is a likelihood that there would be a gap between the 29th day and the introduction and acceptance of an instrument. During that period of time, participants who are coming into the scheme and not transitioning are under an obligation to use their funds only for an NDIS support for which there may not yet be an actual definition. 13:15 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think I can see the group that you're talking about. That is a narrow group of participants or potential participants who are engaging with the scheme about their plans. Those requirements would only have effect after that 28-day period has concluded. We don't anticipate that that's going to provide for any delay for participants who are engaging with the scheme today. 13:16 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia You referred in your previous contribution to a substitution amendment. I just want to confirm that you are referring to amendment (1) on sheet SK118—is that correct? 13:16 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. 13:17 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia You are referring to that as a potential pathway through which a participant may be able to gain access to a support which is not listed as an approved NDIS support. Is that correct? 13:17 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. The effect of that amendment will be that, if a participant considers that an item which is excluded from being an NDIS support would be more beneficial for them than an alternative support which is not excluded, the participant may make an application to substitute that support. The substituted support must replace one or more supports that are NDIS supports. The substituted support must also be something that still falls within the broader definition of an NDIS support and is appropriately funded by the NDIS. That is a response to feedback. It will ensure that, while meeting the objectives, there is some flexibility for participants who have unique disability support needs while maintaining the original intention of section 10, which is to provide clear boundaries for supports that the NDIS can and cannot fund. 13:18 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The reading of this proposed amendment suggests an application pathway, which I think you've just referenced. Is it the government's understanding that the CEO has the power to both approve and decline the application under this amendment? 13:19 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes. It certainly means that the CEO will be able to determine those specified supports or substitutes for specific participants and in limited and specific circumstances and that a participant will only be able to request a substitution if it's replacing a support that is more cost effective. In addition to that, the definition of NDIS support does make clear the constitutional basis for the new budget-setting framework recommended by the NDIS review and helps to clarify and identify the constitutional basis for the NDIS as a whole, which assists having a proper basis for decision-making and also assists participants and providers to understand what is and, we would say, always has been capable of being funded by the NDIS, having regard to the intergovernmental agreements and constitutional considerations. So, yes, you're correct. It gives the CEO the capacity to make, in those limited circumstances, appropriate arrangements, but it also clarifies and supports the decision-making and the constitutional basis for the NDIS as a whole. 13:21 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia There is an application pathway, where the CEO is empowered to either accept or decline the application. There are a number of criteria your amendment sets out for the consideration of that application. The final criteria that you have included is: (iv) any other conditions specified in the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this subparagraph are met in relation to the support, the participant, or both. So, in addition to the previous clauses, which you've referenced, that talk to the replacement of one or other supports, the cost of the support and whether the support would provide the same or better outcome for the participant, there is the requirement for the application to satisfy any other conditions or rules under the NDIS—correct? 13:22 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Yes, it must do. As rules are made from time to time, the CEO must have regard to the rules that are contained in the scheme, yes. 13:22 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Is the decision of the CEO—in relation to the application and its compliance or otherwise with rules or those other criteria—a reviewable decision for the purpose of section 99 of the act? 13:23 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales No. 13:23 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia To confirm: the application pathway exists. You will be required to satisfy those specific criteria, as well as any other rules the NDIS may seek to make—or the government may desire the NDIS to make—and, if your application is denied, you are not able to either request a review or appeal the decision. 13:23 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales To outline the circumstances that will apply here: in the event that a determination were made about what supports are provided within a participant's plan, the application, if you will, to the CEO would indeed be a form of review. It is a request to take an alternative approach to the supports that are funded within the participant's plan. It's not within the scheme of either the legislation or this amendment that that be subject to further review. It is the case that, if the CEO determines not to provide that support that is not on the prescribed list as a substitute support, of course funding is available for the original supports that were to be the subject of that substitution, and, in light of all of that, it is not, either in the legislation or the amendment, capable of further review. 13:25 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia So it is not capable of further review. That is the source, I would put to you, and also to the broader Senate and anybody else watching this debate, of some of the significant concerns the community have around the powers granted to the government under this legislation, to the minister of the day, in the case of the transitional arrangements, and to the minister and disability ministers, in relation to the category A determinations. The concern is that politicians do not have the expertise, or the lived experience, often, to be able to determine what is a needed and necessary support for a disabled person, because our needs are unique and determined by a combination of our impairments, the environment in which we live or the environment in which we may seek to live, or our medical or psychological experiences and conditions. The government offers to the Senate a substitution pathway. An amendment that it proposes creates a level of flexibility for supports that are prohibited under their legislation but that nevertheless may, in an individual circumstance, be considered appropriate or needed; yet, as we have just seen in the exchange, while you may apply and while you may be guided in that application by a certain series of criteria set out in the legislation, the agency of the day and the government of the day are empowered, by even the amendment the government offers as a solution to some of these concerns, to develop and define additional rules in order to create additional criteria and barriers. When the CEO rules or makes a determination, remember: it won't be the CEO; it will be a delegate of the CEO; it will be a planner. If anybody out there is listening and watching and thinking, 'Oh, well, at least the CEO will know what they're doing,' remember: it will be a delegate of the CEO; they're a planner; they're under KPIs; they're under pressure; they're human beings. We have all experienced the challenges of making sure that those people, who are under pressure, read the documents that are put before them in relation to determining our support needs and giving us a changed series of funding or supports. If that person considering that application for that otherwise prohibited support, which is not listed because it hasn't been captured, gets that wrong, then there is no recourse—there's not a review process. This, I would submit to the Senate, is a basic absence of procedural justice. This is basic stuff. A citizen who is a taxpayer, contributing to public programs, and a recipient of the supports of those public programs, should have the right, if they feel like a government bureaucrat has got it wrong, to request a review and to, ultimately, if they so wish, take it to appeal. We've heard, in that exchange, that that is not an avenue granted under this legislation. I find that alarming, and so does the disability community, and that's why we're seeing an increasing number of disability organisations come forward and say, 'Whoa, hang on'— The CHAIR 287062 As it is now 1.30, the committee will report to the Senate. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 3235 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Labor Government 3235 13:30 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Under this weak Labor Prime Minister, Australians are hurting more than ever, yet our weak Prime Minister refuses to acknowledge how tough things really are. We've got a prime minister with the backbone of a semi-comatose jellyfish, a prime minister who refuses to accept his government's economywide attack on Australia is hurting our standards of living and that inflation is homegrown and Labor grown. The price of electricity is up 22 per cent. The country has endured 12 mortgage rate rises. The cost of food is up 11 per cent. Rent is up 15 per cent. Insurance is up 17 per cent. It's a cost-of-living crisis, but we've got a prime minister who is missing in action. We have a weak Labor government who have been more focused on protecting their own jobs rather than on actually working towards reducing the rise of inflation and reducing the stress on Australian families. We have a weak Labor government that have been more focused on spending half a billion dollars on a failed referendum and selling their own confused idea of makarrata rather than on tackling issues front-on in Indigenous communities. We have a weak Labor government who has been more focused on blaming the courts rather than on actually taking accountability, responsibility and actions to deal with the abhorrent release of 83 convicted criminals into our community. This needs to stop. Australians are crying out for a leader and a government that will tackle inflation head on and will keep us safe. Only Peter Dutton and the coalition will get back to basics and get Australia back on track. Only Peter Dutton and David Littleproud will fix the economy and protect our borders. And—with 10 seconds left—only David Crisafulli will get Queensland back on track, in 50 or so days time. Vote LNP. South Australia 3235 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise today to speak about the great state of South Australia, and I'll give you my top 3 for the week in SA. We are kicking goals all across the field right now. On Saturday, the mighty Port Adelaide Football Club cemented its place in the top 4, heading towards the finals in September. The Adelaide Crows tried their best to win the coveted showdown crown, but ultimately they were no match for the crowd of Alberton. I give a big shout-out to Willie Rioli for another amazing performance, kicking three of the 11 goals. I look forward to the Crows setting aside their grief and joining us in cheering on a South Australian team in the final. But, if they can't get on board with cheering for that, I know that they can absolutely, alongside all other South Australians, get on board with cheering for the high-quality, world-class broadband internet that the Albanese Labor government is funding across our state. The investment of $2.4 billion, as an equity injection for the NBN, is helping fibre upgrade programs across South Australia make a difference. It's a game changer—a game changer for regional business, a game changer for people on the ground across those communities. Finally, there was a big goal for SA, thanks to the amazing South Australian education minister and good friend of mine, Blair Boyer, who has invested $18.4 million to strengthen civics and citizenship education in SA public high schools. I know, from the inquiry that we've been conducting into civics, that there is so much drive for this, so much support for building civics into our schools, building our democracy and strengthening that engagement of our South Australians. (Time expired) Housing 3236 13:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I'm from Queensland, which last week earned the title of the homelessness capital of Australia. Two in three Queenslanders are struggling to pay their rent or meet their mortgage repayments, according to polling released earlier this year. But it's not just my state. The Greens today published independent analysis that shows that across Australia no-one in the 10 most common jobs can afford to buy a house and avoid housing stress. A full-time early childhood educator would take 31 years to save for a home deposit, and then the repayments on that mortgage would be 92 per cent of their salary. And that's after the government just gave them a 15 per cent pay rise—even though it should have been 25 per cent, like they asked for. A nurse would take 11 years to save for a deposit, and then half their salary would go to mortgage repayments. This is the devastating reality. Homeownership is completely unattainable for most of the country's essential professions. Every community needs early childhood educators, needs nurses, needs teachers, yet none of these people can afford to make repayments on a home loan without going into housing stress. And how can you save for a home deposit while you're paying soaring rents? That's the reality for millions of renters, now caught in this cruel trap, stuck paying massive rents, decades away from saving for a home, where, even if they can get a mortgage, the repayments are completely unaffordable. If Labor really wanted to tackle the housing crisis, they would implement a two-year rent freeze. They would wind back negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions for property investors that are denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home. The Greens remain ready to negotiate a plan that actually helps the millions of teachers, nurses and early childhood educators who just want an affordable home. E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products 3236 13:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales In just under six weeks the legislation that we passed in here that will mean vapes will be sold by pharmacies and pharmacies alone comes into effect. Before we get to that six weeks, there will be 100 fire bombings of tobacconists or vape stores reached, as organised crime fills the gap in the market. When I spoke on the bill, as a nonsmoker or vaper, I was able to go to a place in Canberra and buy a vape for $25 across the counter, even when they were illegal. The legislation we've got has changed, and, if props were allowed, I would reach through this green box on my desk and I would pick up a single-use HQD vape that I was able to purchase in Canberra. We haven't stopped it; we've raised the price. It is now $60. Others in this chamber have told me you can buy them for $50 in Sydney or two for $90. All this legislation has done is increase the profit margin of organised crime. It has driven people who are trying to get off smoking and take up vaping to become criminals, to drive their money to criminals, and that is not what we should be doing. They are getting around the single-use ban. This box that I won't put up in front of me because it would be a prop contains a HQD spicy mint vape. They get around the single-use ban by putting a battery charger on it. You can't refill it; you can't use it again, but, because it's got a battery charger, it's no longer single use. The crime and the violence and the profits in serious organised crime—we heard the evidence. This is driving money to criminals and driving people who want to get off smoking, people who want to harm minimise, to put their money in the hands of criminals. It is poor legislation. It is clearly not working, not when I can buy it. If you want to stop vapes getting into the hands of kids—it's right there. I bought it. It's illegal. It's wrong. Stop celebrating this failure. Road Safety 3236 13:38 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia In June last year I spoke about the enforcement anomalies that face our hardworking truck drivers every day in Queensland, New South Wales, ACT, Victoria and South Australia—but not in my great state of WA and the Territory. More than a year has passed and still the situation persists. Truckies are still pursued, fined and prosecuted for simple spelling mistakes in their log books, while motorists who break the law and endanger lives face lesser fines. Fining truck drivers for spelling mistakes does nothing for fatigue management nor does it drive down the number of accidents and fatalities on our roads, but it does contribute to state and territory revenues. It is a national tragedy that states and territories continue to use minor errors made by our hardworking truckies to raise revenue while there is carnage on our roads. Road safety must be a national priority, and we need urgent action from all levels of government. Issues like training, licensing, enforcement of safety laws must be priorities. Nationally, we have a shortage of 26,000 transport workers. The shortage is particularly difficult to address, considering these enormous safety challenges alongside the petty and vindictive targeting of truckies for minor errors in their logbooks. In New South Wales, drivers who are caught using a mobile phone while driving are fined $362. In South Australia, driving up to 20 kilometres over the speed limit attracts a fine of $455. In Queensland, if a driver fails to give way while doing a U-turn, they face a fine of $483. Truckies who have minor spelling mistakes in their logbook—where they slept last night, for crying out loud—are fined $780. I've written to all of the state ministers for police, road safety and transport in this nation for a second time, hoping that some common sense will prevail. Enforce the law. Make our roads safe, and stop pinging truck drivers for a damned spelling mistake. Tasmania: Economy 3237 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Saul Eslake has delivered his report on the state of Tasmania's books, and it's not pretty. We are broke. According to Mr Eslake, Tasmania's financial position will become worse than that of any other state or territory, including Victoria and the Northern Territory, over the next three years. Drawing on publicly available information, the review also found that the deterioration in the financial position of Tasmania's general government sector is entirely attributable to poor public policy decisions by the government. So, when the Tasmanian Liberals signed off on an uncapped budget for an AFL stadium at Macquarie Point, they knew what a shocking state our books were in, and they still signed off on uncapped funding for a new AFL stadium at Macquarie Point. They knew we were broke. The Tasmanian Liberals also knew what a dire state our health, education and housing sectors were in. Tasmanians are selling their cars to buy private health insurance because the 12-month wait for the policy to kick in is quicker than being on the elective surgery list, public school teachers are posting on Facebook begging for relief teachers, and a quarter of all Tasmanian young people aged between 12 and 24 are homeless. But, instead of looking after our most vulnerable people and spending a relatively small amount of money on the UTAS Stadium in Launceston to make it bigger and better, the Tasmanian Liberals have committed Tasmanians to a stadium the cost of which most respected experts say will blow out to over a billion dollars, a stadium which will destroy sightlines to the cenotaph and which, just as importantly, will leave our kids with a debt they will never, ever be able to repay. That is what the state Liberal Party of Tasmania is doing to the people of Tasmania. Western Australia: Health Care 3237 13:42 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In July this year, paramedics across Western Australia spent more than 6½ thousand hours waiting outside our hospitals in a queue—waiting to ensure that their patients got the hospital care they need. This was the worst result since COVID in Western Australia. In fact, it is five times more than when the Liberal Party was last in government in Western Australia. Our health system in Western Australia is in complete crisis, which is unnecessary. It is being mismanaged by both Roger Cook and Anthony Albanese. In Western Australia's northern coastal suburbs, pressure continues to mount on the Joondalup Health Campus, which itself has recorded over 1,400 ambulance ramping hours over the last two months alone. What is the response from Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Cook? Crickets. Nothing. Do you know where the money has gone? Metronet. The state Labor government, aided and abetted by Anthony Albanese, have spent an extra $10 billion in Western Australia to try and get this lemon going. People say, 'We'll get the rail eventually,' but the opportunity cost is this: $10 billion could have, and should have, been used for five new hospitals across Western Australia. That is the opportunity cost of the Labor government, federal and state, in their incompetence. The member for Pearce, Tracey Roberts, and Labor have recently re-announced $10.5 billion that Christian Porter got for the electors of Pearce for a health campus in Yanchep. Labor have just re-announced it, but they haven't announced a hospital. (Time expired) Ukraine 3237 13:44 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania This Saturday marks Ukraine's Independence Day, which celebrates the country's declaration of independence on 24 August 1991. Although this war appears to no longer be newsworthy in light of other events, the sad reality is that Ukraine has been fighting a war since Russia's full-scale invasion 2½ years ago. It's incredible to realise that the war in Ukraine has dragged on for this long, but ever since Ukraine declared independence they have been attacked by Russia against their sovereignty and territorial integrity. These include the installation of a Russian puppet president followed by a violent crackdown on protesters during the Maidan Revolution, the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and Russia's backing of separatist militia in Donbas. For decades, Russia has refused to accept Ukraine's independence despite Ukraine having its own unique identity, language and culture and a desire for democracy and self-determination. While Independence Day should be a cause for celebration, I remind people there will be Ukrainians hiding in basements from Russian missile attacks, Ukrainian soldiers fighting on the front lines and displaced Ukrainians in Australia and throughout the world who simply want to return to their homeland and live in peace. Australia has provided more than $1.3 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including more than $1.1 billion in military assistance, and has imposed targeted sanctions on more than 1,200 individuals and entities supporting Russia's illegal invasion. It is in Australia's national interest to continue to support Ukraine until they can end the war on their own terms. Ukraine is half a world away, but the brave men and women on the front line of the war with Russia are not just fighting for Ukraine; they are fighting for a global rules based order on behalf of all free, democratic countries. We have not forgotten Ukraine. Slava Ukraini— (Time expired) Albanese Government 3238 13:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania If Prime Minister Albanese isn't careful, he is going to sleepwalk Australia into a government led by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. Mr Albanese, acting like a diet version of Mr Dutton, will not defeat the Liberals. You cannot outflank Mr Dutton to the right, and you cannot appease Mr Dutton, nor can you appease the right-wing media that cheers him on. The only way to stop a Mr Dutton-led Liberal Party is with principles and values and the courage to confront the truth and the great challenges our country is facing head on. Labor's refusal to tackle the real issues with the urgency they demand is effectively telling Australians everything is fine, when we all know everything is not fine in Australia. Labor's arrogance and its detachment from the lived struggles of ordinary Australians are creating the perfect storm for Mr Dutton to step into. By pretending everything is under control and tinkering around the edges when what is needed is strong intervention, Labor is betraying the people who need it the most, and Mr Dutton knows this. He offers people an enemy, someone to falsely blame for their hardships, and so migrants again become the scapegoat, the distraction, while the real issues are ignored. It's a cynical, nasty ploy that only works when government fails to address the pain and the fears that fuel insecurities. But we don't have to accept this path. The Greens are here to stand with people, to call out the establishment parties, to recognise people's struggles and to offer real solutions. We won't let fear and division rule our future. (Time expired) Donations to Political Parties 3238 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Yesterday, we heard a lot about political donations and the CFMEU—the coalition bashing the government, the government bashing the Greens, the Greens then trying to bash the government, and round and round and round. Eventually, the Senate passed a bill—a bill that was pulled together quickly to deal with a pressing issue. But one bill we haven't seen yet, which deals with an increasingly pressing issue, is on electoral and donation reform. This morning, across the country, many Australians bought a coffee. They tapped their phone or card and, within seconds, likely received an alert on their phone saying, 'You've just paid your local cafe for a coffee.' But, if we want to know whether any political party—the Greens, the government or even the coalition—have received money from the CFMEU in the past days and weeks, no chance.The transparency and timeliness in our electoral laws are an absolute joke. It will be six months before we find out whether the CFMEU has transferred large sums of cash to political parties—nearly six months!—and yet, in six seconds, you can know when you've transferred money. It's not good enough; it's not up to scratch. Australians deserve to know who is spending money on politicians and when the money is spent. The government must bring forward electoral reforms that bring transparency, in real time, to donations. Vietnam Veterans' Day 3238 13:50 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise today to commemorate and to add to the many remarks that have been made over the weekend just past to honour Vietnam Veterans' Day. It was 1962 when the first Australian servicemen arrived in Saigon, comprising 30 members of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam. These men were strategists, tasked with providing non-combat military advisory support to the South Vietnamese army—a careful and strategic beginning to Australia's involvement in what was then an emerging conflict. Over a decade later, 60,000 Australians, many young and experiencing their first venture abroad, would serve in the Vietnam War. Three thousand would return home wounded; 523 would make the ultimate sacrifice in service of their nation and in defiance of an authoritarian regime. All are considered heroes. Today, the Vietnam conflict remains Australia's largest force contribution to a foreign conflict since the end of the Second World War in 1945. Like so many other children of Vietnam veterans, I am greatly encouraged and heartened by the images and experiences that were shared just last Sunday on 18 August. It remains a very deep wound for the families of Vietnam veterans that for too many and for too long our Vietnam veterans were denied the welcome home they deserved decades ago. For many Vietnam veterans, the honour afforded to them has been a long and tortured wait, but, just this week, 51 years since Australia's withdrawal, I was honoured to organise and host a visit to this parliament by the leadership of the Vietnamese community of Australia. It was a wonderful opportunity to hear the tales of the life they've created for themselves and the care and concern they have for the next generation of community leaders. (Time expired) Rinehart, Mrs Georgina, AO 3239 13:52 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The 2024 Paris Summer Olympic Games will go down in history as Australia's most successful in terms of gold medals—all 18 of them! Olympic success at such an unprecedented scale requires dedication, commitment, supreme skills and fitness and a lot of support. Gina Rinehart, the executive chair of Hancock Prospecting, is a patron of four Olympic sports: artistic swimming, rowing, volleyball and our most successful Olympic sport by far, swimming. Mrs Rinehart stepped in to assist Australian swimming after the disappointing results in the pool in London 2012. Since then, she's poured about $80 million into the sport and aided almost 150 athletes every year. Mrs Rinehart began sponsoring rowing in 2015 and, in this, helped Australia to win two gold and two bronze medals at Rio in 2016. She's been sponsoring Volleyball Australia since 2013. The current agreement is worth $500,000 a year. She's also assisted artistic swimming, directly supporting athletes as well as coaching, competitions, training and health experts. Finally, Mrs Rinehart is directly supporting the Australian Olympic Committee in a five-year agreement worth $7.5 million. Gina Rinehart stepped in where governments have failed to step in, and I am aware the athletes are very grateful. She started from virtually nothing to become the wealthy individual she is today thanks to her keen business acumen. She has shared the fruits of her success right across the Australian community in many areas as a proud Australian. For this, she deserves our thanks. It's an honour to commend Mrs Rinehart for her contributions to Australia. Environment 3239 13:54 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I speak today on WA's Scott Reef. The Environmental Protection Authority of WA has recently ruled that Woodside's plan to drill for oil and gas in the Scott Reef would cause unacceptable impacts on the surrounding ecosystem. The EPA's decision is a huge moment of victory for WA environmentalists and nature lovers all across the country. The EPA has clearly stated that Woodside's project would be an unacceptable threat to the endangered blue whales, to the endangered green turtles, and to the reef itself, placing it at risk from oil spills and pollution. Woodside's plan must not go ahead. The Labor government have the power to block this project, and they must use it. However, we know the Labor government have consistently failed to deliver meaningful climate action in their term of government. We know that they have continued to approve new coalmines and they are keeping others going, like Whitehaven's Narrabri underground coal project, which will see extraction of coal for another decade. We are in the grips of a climate crisis, and Labor is still failing to take any decisive action to move Australia away from coal and gas, which are the key contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The government has a duty to protect the future of Western Australia, the future of our planet and the future of young people. Only by having more Greens in this place will we see the necessary investment in renewable energy, the end of new coal and gas and the end of the billions of dollars donated to these parties that keep this crisis going. Low-Carbon Liquid Fuels 3239 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Australia's overreliance on imported liquid fuels threatens our energy security and therefore is a great threat to our national security. The aviation industry, one of the hardest to decarbonise, currently imports over 90 per cent of its fuel. This is an unsustainable risk. We have the opportunity to turn this risk into a national strength by developing a robust sustainable aviation fuel, SAF, industry. SAF can cut life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 90 per cent, a critical tool in our climate strategy. Blended with existing fuels, SAF allows for a smooth transition that leverages current infrastructure. Economically, a domestic SAF industry could generate around 18,000 jobs and contribute $13 billion to GDP every year. It would benefit rural communities, which are often left behind in the low-carbon transition unless someone wants to run a transmission line through their farm. The Future Made in Australia plan has, as one of its priority areas, low-carbon liquid fuels. This will assist in the development of SAF as a new industry. It will drive local production and reduce our dependence on imports. But that doesn't go far enough. Ideally, the industry needs offtake agreements, and we have the ideal foundation customer in the Australian Defence Force, which could support the industry through the growth phase by entering into offtake agreements at an early juncture in order to underpin the bankability of these early projects. This, more than anything else, would increase our national security. (Time expired) Australian Greens 3240 13:58 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Yesterday, here in the Senate, a lot happened. But I'm not sure if everyone noticed that a Queensland Greens senator stood up and said that the only way to get real change is to vote for the Greens, so I need to call this out. We have seen in this place that a vote for the Greens is not a vote that will accomplish anything for Queenslanders. In fact, what voters in Brisbane have been getting from their Greens MPs is nothing but complaining, delaying and blocking. Unless the Greens party have come up with it themselves and unless they can claim some kind of win on social media, all they do is complain, delay and block. They say they want more housing but they're blocking the build to rent bill and the Help to Buy Bill. They say they support workers but they're blocking the net zero economy bill. They say they want stronger environment laws but they're blocking legislation to create an environmental protection agency. Just yesterday in this place they voted to keep John Setka and organised crime in control of the CFMEU. This is not what people in Griffith, Ryan and Brisbane voted for. They didn't vote for MPs to block reform just so they can harvest votes, not actually get anything done. They weren't promised and they didn't vote for MPs who would support John Setka but not support more housing. While the Greens are sitting in here complaining, and delaying and blocking progress on any reform, our government is getting on with the job. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! It being 2 pm, the time allotted for senators' statements has expired and we will move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3240 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Energy 3240 14:00 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. In dollar terms, how much has the average electricity bill gone up since Labor was elected in May 2022? 14:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question. I think Australians understand how very difficult things have been in recent times in terms of their cost of living. There have been a range of factors globally which have put enormous pressure into energy markets. When Labor came to government, we were faced with a very difficult situation indeed. It happens that the previous government knew about the pressures in the energy system, and what did they do? Did they take action to fix it? No, they didn't. Their decision was, in fact, to hide it, to actually make a regulation to defer the publication of the energy prices so that— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, on a point of order? Senator McGrath 217241 On relevance, my question was very tightly written in terms of how much the average electricity bill has gone up since May 2022. The minister, sadly, is nowhere near that question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will remind the minister of your question. Minister McAllister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Energy prices are a serious issue. They are a serious issue for households and for businesses. The Albanese government's reliable renewables plan means that wholesale energy prices are now lower than when the coalition left office. What is required is a plan to help ease cost-of-living pressures, and we are doing that. In the last budget, we took a decision to provide every household with $300 off their energy bills, meanwhile the coalition has no plan, no plan at all, to bring electricity prices down now or in the future. Their plan for risky renewable— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, on a point of order? Senator McGrath 217241 I am reluctant to do this but the minister is nowhere near the question. I would ask you to perhaps ask the minister to come back to the question, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have directed the minister to the question and I believe the minister has gone to your question. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The senator asks about pricing and, of course, what I can inform the senator is that in the June quarter of 2022, the wholesale electricity price was $264 a megawatt hour. In the June quarter of 2024, the wholesale electricity price is $133 a megawatt hour. Our will plan to get reliable renewables into— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Minister, in your previous answer you indicated that wholesale power prices have reduced. When can Australians expect to see a reduction in the energy bills below May 2022 levels? 14:03 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales What I can inform the senator is that, under Labor, prices will certainly be lower than anything that could be delivered by anyone on that side of the chamber. Because we need only look at the record of all of you in government to understand the approach that you took to the energy market. During your period of government, four gigawatts of dispatchable generation left the grid and only one gigawatt came on. Power station after power station announced their closure dates, and what steps were taken to replace the capacity that was exiting the grid? Zero. We will remember the Underwriting New Generation Investments initiative proudly propagated by Minister Taylor. How many gigawatts were delivered by the underwriting new generation initiative? Absolutely none. Our government is taking the necessary steps to restore stability to the national electricity market and deliver the reliable renewables that Australians require. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland From May 2022 to May 2024, electricity prices rose 21.5 per cent and gas rose 22.2 per cent. How does this translate to a $275 reduction in power bills that each and every household was promised before Labor was elected over 2½ years ago? Will Labor take the same promise to the next election? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister, I am going to ask for order across the chamber. Senator Wong 00AOU It would be much higher under you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham! I remind all senators that you are to listen in respectful silence. I did caution you about not breaking out after I'd called the minister, and you immediately ignored me. That is disrespectful. Minister McAllister. 14:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I've indicated, we are taking $300 off the power bills of every household. Your plan is to, in two decades, serve up the most expensive form of generation that there is. This is a serious issue for Australians. It's a serious issue for households and for their businesses. But the approach that you suggest is one which is a guarantee of increased prices and poorer reliability. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Minister McAllister. Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath 217241 On a point of order of relevance, the question was quite tight in terms of whether Labor will take the same promise to the next election. The minister is currently commenting on the coalition's policies, and I would ask you to ask the minister to address the question, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, there were a few sentences before that question where you talked about prices between May 2022 and 2024. You referenced gas and you referenced electricity. I think that the minister is being relevant. Minister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The coalition are, of course, always keen to talk about anything but their record. There's a reason for that. Their record in government on energy was so very, very bad, and there was so much work to do when Labor came to government. I can inform the senator that, indeed, households have been under pressure in terms of their electricity bills. It's a consequence of the war in Ukraine that introduced enormous instability into Australian markets and energy markets worldwide, and we are taking action to support households through this transition. Economy 3241 14:07 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question this afternoon is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, you report regularly to the Senate on the Albanese Labor government's work to put downward pressure on inflation while supporting Australians with cost-of-living pressures. There is more work to do, and I'm proud to be part of a government that is working every day to deliver for all Australians. We know that the RBA governor has spoken directly and recently about the dual responsibilities of government to reduce inflation while providing services. To that end, can the minister now please explain to the Senate how the government is delivering on these two key objectives? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question. It's great to get a question from the good senator from WA. The Labor government remains focused on dealing with the challenge of inflation, but, against that, we're also delivering important services to the Australian community and, indeed, assisting where we can with cost-of-living pressures. We take our job very seriously about how we got our budget back into shape, how we've got wages moving again and how we could deliver tax cuts in a better and fairer way that ensured everybody who pays tax got a tax cut. Of course, most importantly in terms of the challenge of dealing with inflation, we turned Liberal debt—hundreds of billions of dollars of Liberal debt—into Labor surpluses. We've had two Labor surpluses, and we know that they find it very hard to deal with that. Our strong economic management and our back-to-back surpluses have been helpful in dealing with the inflation challenge. This demonstrates those dual responsibilities which the governor talked about in her press conference following the RBA board meeting in terms of making sure that we are not only dealing with inflation but also, importantly, providing the services to the Australian people that they expect. We've got a list of achievements over the last two years that we've delivered in relation to the economy and cost of living and in our housing agenda. We are delivering on the promises we took to the last election. There is more work to do, but we know that fake outrage over there. The only people unhappy that there wasn't an interest rate increase last week were the federal opposition. They were praying, 'Please, can we have one because nothing would give us greater pleasure?', while we are focused on the real issues. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, a first supplementary? 14:10 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I thank the minister. Providing support for Australians requires a government that prioritises strong economic management. The government has recently achieved a second budget surplus, which the RBA governor has noted contributes in the nation's fight against inflation. Can the minister please outline the approach she and the Treasurer have taken when it comes to economic and budget management? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question. As members and senators would know, we have been focusing on making sure we're getting the budget in better shape. At the same time we've halved inflation and delivered tax cuts. We've got record jobs growth with over 930,000 new jobs created since this government was elected—record levels of jobs growth and more than any other government in history. We've got lower gross debt: 9.7 per cent lower. We're paying $80 billion less in interest costs on that Liberal debt, We've turned that Liberal debt into Labor surpluses, and we've done it at the same time— Senator GALLAGHER ING That's right, Senator Polley: two Labor surpluses. We've done it whilst also providing important cost-of-living relief that those opposite have argued against in this chamber—real policies that make a difference to the lives of Australian people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, a second supplementary? 14:12 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia As a member of a government that's focused on delivering cost-of-living relief, I'm frankly shocked by the refusal of the opposition to support cost-of-living relief for Australians at every turn. How is cost-of-living relief helping? What is the impact of the slash-and-burn approach that those opposite have taken? What is the consequence of what they are advocating? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Those opposite have no economic credibility. We know that. They want all the bad economic news they can get their hands on because they want to shift the blame. They don't care, and they don't focus on cost of living and the things that matter to the Australian people. They want to come in here, have a fight and play that divisive role that their leader champions, whilst we are working every single day on how we can help households with the cost-of-living pressures that they're experiencing, how we can get the budget in better shape so it can deal with the pressures that are coming its way and how we can make sure that we're not adding to the inflation challenge but are putting downward pressure on it. All of those steps are working. And, at the same time, we hear nothing from those opposite but 'no, no, no'—negative, divisive responses. Health Care: Intravenous Fluid Products 3242 14:13 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Australia is facing a dangerous shortage of saline IV fluids, which is forcing doctors to ration supplies in every hospital across the country. Despite having been worried about it last year, your government did nothing. This is a national crisis of your government's own making, but, in question time yesterday, you again continued to pass the buck to the states and territories. Will the government finally take responsibility and show some leadership by using the National Medical Stockpile to secure our supply of saline fluids? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, here we have it. I don't agree with the question that has been put. I agree there's a shortage of IV fluids, but it is being managed appropriately. I don't agree with the negative slant from those opposite. All they know is how to be negative, how to divide, how to raise fear, how to raise concern and how to raise the temperature. That's all you know. I was just reading a statement from the AMA, which has had to respond because of the level of concern that has been raised in the media. People think that they are not going to be able to access IV fluids. That is not the case. I listen to the AMA before I listen to the opposition when it comes to health matters—that's for sure. They have said the coordinated response— Senator Cash I0M What do the doctors say? Senator ING They are the doctors, Senator Cash. The AMA is the peak doctors body, and it has acknowledged the coordination efforts on the IV fluid shortages to ensure that patients don't miss out. Some of the stirring and the raising of fear that you have been doing has raised concerns in the community, as it always does in the health area. The AMA has made a statement to reassure the Australian people that the fluid shortages are being handled appropriately, that governments are working together to make sure that no patient is impacted and that, at the same time, all efforts are being used to make sure that if there are ways to alleviate the shortage, it can be done. This was discussed by health ministers on Friday. The matter is in hand. There are processes established across the health system to deal with shortages, and they are being followed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Askew, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Minister, this crisis has now exposed major supply shortages in other critical areas such as oral liquid morphine, as reported in the Australian today. What action has the government taken to address this reported shortage of morphine which is causing distress amongst patients? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, the word 'crisis' being used for this is not right. There is a shortage of IV fluids that is being managed appropriately so that patients don't miss out. Using language like that creates concern, which the AMA is now trying to deal with. It wants people to be reassured that the IV fluid shortage is being handled. In relation to morphine, a similar process is being handled. This is what health systems deal with all the time. It would have dealt with it when you were in government. The Medicine Shortages Action Group— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING From time to time there are shortages, and they get dealt with properly by health professionals who understand the health system, not by people sitting in here and using the word 'crisis'. It is irresponsible, it damages confidence, and it worries people. It's being managed properly across all governments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Askew, second supplementary? 14:18 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania It has also been reported that patients are waiting on average nearly 600 days to access medicines that have been approved by the TGA through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Will the Albanese government apologise to the Australian public for failing to safeguard their access to essential medicines? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I completely disagree with that question. It's just wrong. We are adding medicines to the PBS all the time. In every budget, the most significant investments are going in to listing new medications. There is a process where it comes from the approval committee to be listed. We have a fund that we use to fund those arrangements. There is pressure on it, as there is in every area of government, because there are new medications coming all the time that people would like listed. They need to go through the process that was in operation when you were in government. It is being managed properly. Not only are we listing new medicines; we've made medicines cheaper. Do you remember who voted against that? On 60-day prescriptions they said the sky would fall in. People are saving a lot of money. We've put the freeze on scripts, in this budget, and we've lowered the price of scripts overall. We're doing everything we can to support people with medicines. Environment 3244 14:19 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. Firstly, as it's my first question to the new minister, congratulations. I look forward to asking many more questions. Last night's Four Corners broadcast revealed the true cost of environmental mismanagement in the Northern Territory, with the NT government choosing to ignore the science, experts and Territorian community in favour of vested interests and corporate greed. The cotton and fracking industries are being handed huge overallocations of precious water at great cost to the Territory's most crucial rivers, including the Daly, the Katherine and the Roper rivers. There are serious allegations of conflicts of interest, water theft and illegal land clearing. When will the government take federal action and establish a federal inquiry? 14:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks very much, Senator Hanson-Young, for the question. I think the most important thing to understand here is that the federal government will continue to exercise its powers under the EPBC Act as they relate to land management activities and water activities. The observation I would make is that the Northern Territory government has primary responsibility for land management activities, including land clearing, so approval under national environmental law is only required for actions that will or are likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. You'll understand that we are seeking to reform the EPBC Act. That is a reform process that has been underway for some time. There are laws before the Senate at the moment that include the establishment of a national environment protection agency that would have strong new powers and strong new penalties, and we are hopeful that senators in this place will provide support for that legislation because we think it is past time that we started to act on the reforms that were proposed by Mr Samuel and have been so widely consulted upon with stakeholders. Environment Protection Australia will be a tough cop on the beat, and it will have strong powers and penalties, and it will be able to crack down on illegal land clearing. It will also be able to issue stop-work orders to prevent serious environmental damage and proactively audit businesses to ensure that they're doing the right thing. My appeal to senators, including Greens senators, is to back these laws. They are before the Senate. We could debate them; we could get moving on them. It is a big process of reform. It's a process that business thinks is overdue and that the environment movement seeks to have come about, and we are looking for partners to pursue that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia These serious allegations of water theft, of illegal land clearing and of conflicts of interest are happening right now. When will your government take some action on this? Your minister has been aware of it for months. Will you inquire into these damning allegations? 14:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator, for the question. Water in this continent is precious and it is limited. You will know, Senator Hanson-Young, that, around the country, it's something that animates significant discussion within communities, including within First Nations communities, but the truth is that states and territories are responsible for managing water in their jurisdictions. The arrangements in the Murray-Darling Basin are an exception to that and were put in place after significant negotiations and discussions between the Commonwealth and the states and the territories. However, it is the case that national coordination and leadership matters. Back in 2004, the government of the day established the National Water Initiative. That initiative is now 20 years old. That plan, the National Water Initiative, needs to be updated. We need to think about issues like climate change. We need to properly recognise the role of First Nations people. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia One of the powers the minister does have is a power that this chamber granted the minister with the water trigger. In relation to Tamboran and Empire Energy's fracking wells, when will this minister use her powers, call in these projects and pull the trigger? 14:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, you will know, and you will have heard the minister say on many occasions, that her obligation under the EPBC Act is to assess information that is before her when certain thresholds are triggered. She has also indicated, as have plenty of environment ministers before her, that speculating about the way that she will use her powers is not a helpful thing to do. The minister has repeatedly made it clear that all projects must comply with national environmental law. All projects need to comply with the expanded water trigger that was introduced by this government, and, in the case of the company that you reference, they have been reminded of this on multiple occasions. It is the case that any breach of national environmental law will be treated extremely seriously. (Time expired) Health Care 3245 14:26 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On 7 August 1974, the Whitlam Labor government passed laws to establish universal health care in Australia. Fifty years on, can the minister please tell the Senate: how is the Albanese government continuing Labor's proud tradition of fair and affordable health care for all Australians, and, in particular, how is the government helping Australians access cheaper medicines and more bulk-billing as Australians deal with cost-of-living challenges? 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Smith, who, like all Labor people, understands that making health care affordable— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! Senator WONG 00AOU is central to cost-of-living relief, and of course making health care affordable is in Labor's DNA. So we are delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians who are doing it tough: tax cuts, getting wages moving, $300 in energy bill relief for every household. We are working to ensure that all Australians have access to affordable, quality health care; reducing the price of PBS medicines; adding hundreds of medicines to that list; introducing 60-day prescriptions, to help save patients time and money. But of course we know, on the other side, what their attitude is, and that is demonstrated by Mr Dutton's record and by their record. When they were voted out of office, bulk-billing was falling off a cliff, and the rot began when Mr Dutton was health minister. He tried to do away with bulk-billing by introducing a fee on every single visit to the GP, and then he started a six-year freeze on Medicare rebates. Well, our government, the Albanese government, has made the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare in 40 years, tripling the bulk-billing incentive from 1 November. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Canavan! Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I can see the interjections. They really hate Medicare, don't they! They really hate a government that invests in Medicare. They really hate the fact that we have millions more Australians seeing a doctor, bulk-billed: three million free visits more, to the doctor—increasing in your state of South Australia by 4.6 per cent. This is because we care about bulk-billing and we care about Medicare, unlike those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator 281603 South Australia MARIELLE SMITH () (): Can the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, resume your seat. Senator Canavan, I've called you a number of times. I expect you to listen in silence. Senator Smith. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 Can the minister please outline to the Senate some of the recent announcements from the health portfolio that will make a practical difference to the lives of people in my home state of South Australia and right around Australia? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, you have may have noticed I'm waiting for silence before I call the minister. Minister Wong. 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese Labor government, supported by all of the caucus, is working to ease the cost-of-living pressures, including by adding more medicines to the PBS and making medicines cheaper. The most recent budget froze the price of PBS medicines, and it will stay that way until the end of 2025 for general patients, and for concession patients that price freeze is locked in until the end of 2029. This is on top of our 60-day prescriptions which, as I said, are saving Australians time and money. Don't we remember, colleagues, how many times they voted against cheaper medicines? Was it six times? It was six times! So, when they come in here and talk about health, when they come in here and pretend to care so much about public health, let's all remember that six times they voted to ensure Australians had more expensive prescriptions. You're very quiet now, aren't you? Because this is your record, and this is what you really stand for. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:30 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, after a decade of waste, mismanagement, cuts and neglect under the Liberals and Nationals, how is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The fact is those opposite left Australia's healthcare system in a mess. In just two budgets, the Albanese Labor government has delivered a bigger increase to Medicare than those opposite managed in nine budgets. In two budgets, we have invested more in Medicare than you did in nine budgets. Of course, we all know why that is. You only have to look at Mr Dutton's record to know how risky he really is. Do you know what he actually said? He said, 'There are too many free Medicare services.' He tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether, and he cut $50 billion from Australia's hospitals. No wonder he was voted the worst health minister in the history of Medicare—by who? By Australia's doctors—the ones you want us to listen to, Senator Cash! They voted him the worst health minister in Australian history. (Time expired) Banking and Financial Services 3246 14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, Minster Gallagher. ASIC today released a new report examining the scam prevention, detection and responses of 15 banks outside of the big four. The results were alarming. ASIC found those 15 banks detected and stopped just 19 per cent of scam transactions by value. More than 20,000 of their customers footed the bill for 96 per cent of the money scammers stole last financial year. Only one-third of these banks had organisation-wide scam strategies. Many do not have an organisation-wide policy for reimbursement. Given that the ACCC has found that Australians lost $2.74 billion to scams last year alone, why are we yet to see legislation introduced to crackdown on this behaviour and compel a better response from the banks? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I must say I haven't seen the report from ASIC today, but I know that this has been a real priority for the Assistant Treasurer, even before he had the job, when in opposition. We could see what scams were doing across the community, in particular where they affected a lot of elderly Australians. The Assistant Treasurer has had a number of forums, going around the country. The audience is always packed, and it's always an older crowd, hungry for information about how to manage scams. I'm not sure I'm in the position to give you information specifically in response to the ASIC report, but I can say we have been increasing our investment in addressing the scams, including in the recent budget where we put in over $60 million to combat scams and online fraud through the introduction of new codes which spell out the responsibility of the private sector. The industry codes, of course, start with banks, telcos and digital platforms and will require them to have measures in place to prevent, detect, disrupt, stop and report scams. This will be complemented by regulatory enforcement action and penalties for noncompliance. The codes also provide a pathway for consumers to be compensated if a bank, telco or digital platform has done the wrong thing. The scam's code framework has been consulted on across Minister Rowland's and Minister Jones's portfolio, and we'll bring legislation to the parliament this year. I'll just provide a bit of extra information in the time I have left. The money that we put in this year's budget builds on the $86.5 million we put in last year's budget to invest in scam prevention across ASIC, ACCC and the ACMA. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, I note that the government put out a consultation paper in November and then did consultation in January. That's more than six months ago now. We haven't seen an exposure draft. We haven't seen any consultation on the detail of any potential legislation, just reports that it has been delayed. I'm glad to hear it's this year, but what I'm hearing is that the banks are winning in this and putting pressure on Minister Jones to delay it. Is that true? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, that isn't true, and I don't think there's anyone in this parliament who has done more to prevent scams and to raise awareness about scams and to educate consumers about scams than Minister Jones. In all seriousness, he has done more than every other member of this place put together. The community is— Senator Henderson ZN4 That's a shocking indictment on Minister Rowland. Senator GALLAGHER ING It is not, Senator Henderson. Honestly, you're always looking to find some nasty angle. It does nothing. It's always—it's the way you approach everything. You wake up and you think, 'What nasty interjection can I place on that?' The issue is scams. As I said earlier, Minister Rowland and Minister Jones worked together on this. Minister Jones has been leading on scams as Assistant Treasurer, as you would expect, but he works in partnership with everybody. There will be legislation because this government takes scams and scam prevention seriously. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. Again, it's great to hear that it will be by the end of the year. Given that it has been six months of radio silence, will you commit to consulting openly on any proposed legislation without the use of NDAs, as we've seen has become a habit of the Albanese Labor government? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I appreciate the opportunity to address that point, because I notice there has been some commentary on that. The government consults widely and openly and transparently on a number of issues. NDAs are used from time to time where there are commercial consequences from other information being available. They are usually the commercial consequences of other businesses who want to engage with government, and I think that's reasonable in those circumstances. On the scam front, I would imagine there will be further consultation. Obviously, the legislation coming in allows for further consultation, including with members of parliament. And I would just say, in closing, the work that Minister Jones and Minister Rowland have put into addressing scams is already showing benefits. It's estimated that in 2023 scams cost Australians $2.7 billion, which was down from $3.2 billion in 2022. Future Made in Australia 3247 14:38 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. My question goes to the definition and application of 'comparative advantage' within the Future Made in Australia Bill. Could the minister elaborate on how 'comparative advantage' will be interpreted in the context of this legislation, and outline the criteria and metrics that were used to measure and assess it across priority sectors? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Van for the interest in the Future Made in Australia legislation. It is important legislation and I'm hopeful that, when it comes to the Senate, we'll be able to convince senators to vote for it. I understand those opposite are not going to support it, but we can add that to the long list of issues that the opposition don't support. The legislation will be guided by principles. I don't have the legislation in front of me, but it will set out the guidelines, it will build on the advice that the Treasurer has developed—that is on the Treasury website—and look at opportunities where we do have comparative advantage. I think there's been a long discussion about trying to be good at everything and whether that's really an approach we should take, or whether we should assess support and areas for government and private sector investment to be based on the advantages available to Australia—in particular, Australian industries where we have a comparative advantage. It's not about backing every opportunity but about making sure we are using our strengths and the natural resources we have to make sure that we are maximising those opportunities. That's why it is focused on production tax credits in green hydrogen and critical minerals and some of those other areas that you've seen for investment that are being led by the climate change minister—also, an innovation fund so that we can look at how we can support innovation. That's a big area of interest, I know, for the private sector. There is also the mapping of and understanding the reach of our natural resources, which was also funded in this budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, a first supplementary? 14:40 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Can the minister clarify how the government intends to prioritise Australian IP, manufacturing capability and workforce skills against the challenges of lower labour costs in the enormous economies scale of our foreign competitors? 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Yes. Senator Van, in that question, summed up a number of the issues that the government is currently considering around how you link up skills, industry policy and investment policy to make sure that we are maximising the opportunity for Australia. There is obviously the national interest approach and the national security assessment—all of those things that we are looking at to make sure that, where government is going to lean in, there are principles that underpin that and they're clear not only to all of us here but to the investor community as well. This is a challenge—I accept that, Senator Van—but it's an important one. We think that the act, itself, will provide transparency and information about how we will make decisions, and further assessments are being done that sit underneath that legislation. Yes, it is an issue and we recognise that. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, a second supplementary? 14:42 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Should Australia need to depend on foreign controlled IP, skills or manufacturing capabilities in the sectors identified under the bill, how will the government ensure that our national interests and economic sovereignty are not compromised? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Obviously, our national interest is at the forefront of every decision that we take. I think every government would take that approach. All of the decisions that are made under the Future Made in Australia will first and foremost have our national interest taken into consideration. But this really is about supporting the private sector and leaning in where we can—particularly in the early stages, where other support might not be available—to give the private sector a crack at what they're saying they can do. This comes with some risk to government. We acknowledge that, but we are absolutely focused on attracting investment into Australia, the renewable energy superpower work that Minister Bowen is leading, strengthening and adding value to our resources work that Minister King's doing, innovation in industry that Minister Husic is doing— (Time expired) Health Care 3248 14:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Gallagher. We have had more than 265 cases of mpox, or monkeypox, since the start of the year. Scientists are also worried about avian flu coming from birds in Antarctica and spreading to wildlife and, potentially, to humans. We were caught short by the last government's response to COVID-19, even though experts had warned that a pandemic was a case of 'when, not if'. Out of the 19 recommendations from the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, how many recommendations has your government put in full? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Lambie for the question. We did provide a response to that select committee some months ago. I can't tell you the number specifically, Senator Lambie. I just can't recall it. But you raise an important question around mpox. The National Incident Centre has been activated to monitor that situation and coordinate the Australian government response. Australia has not recorded any cases of the new strain of mpox virus circulating in Africa. But, obviously, the systems that are in place—and we have learned from the pandemic, I think, about our emergency health response—have been activated, and it is being actively monitored. But that National Incident Centre will allow a scalable and consistent approach to governance and the coordination of operations across government and departments. I should say the advice is that the current risk to the Australian public from mpox transmission is low to moderate. The public health risk to Australians will continue to be monitored and inform any adjustments to current activities. There are two vaccines available for use in Australia, and both are currently held by the National Medical Stockpile in case of a surge in cases within Australia. The department is reviewing the vaccine stock in light of the African outbreak. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Out of the 19 recommendations, so far your government's had the ability to put in three recommendations in full. For the final report of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, which was handed down in April 2022, after more than two years, the government has not released its response to the report. Minister, do you understand that the next pandemic might be just around the corner and will not wait for you to implement the recommendations before it starts infecting people? When is your government actually going to get around to releasing a response? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I understood that we had responded to the select committee report, but I will check that. There is another piece of work underway that is reviewing the pandemic response, and I believe that will be finalised shortly. But I would also say that the systems and processes put in place and the learnings that were experienced during the pandemic have helped shape the response now. So things like the mpox— An honourable senator: The CDC. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes—and that. The work that's been done on the CDC has been informed by the pandemic response and, indeed, the National Incident Centre, which is operating now in light of the mpox outbreak in Africa. So I would say that the learnings have already been implemented, but I will check and see whether there's anything further I can provide about the select committee report, if that's the report you're after. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The first key recommendation from the COVID-19 committee was setting up a centre for disease control. In 2023, your government allocated $91.1 million to be spent over two years. Can the minister tell me how much money has been spent so far? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not in a position to specifically answer how much money has been spent so far, but that is work that the health minister has been progressing in discussions with state and territory counterparts. I might just have some extra information to provide on that. The independent panel that will report soon is looking at this, and it's expected that findings from the inquiry will inform the final design and scope of the CDC. So that work is underway and is being led, and hopefully we will have that report soon. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 3249 14:48 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. I note recent concerning reports of corruption, criminality, violence and bikies in Australia's construction union. After these allegations came to light, the Albanese Labor government promised swift action to stamp out criminality and thuggery in the construction industry. What action has the Albanese Labor government taken to keep John Setka and organised crime out of the CFMEU? And congratulations on your new ministry. 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Polley. As we've seen this week, the Albanese government is taking swift, meaningful action to clean up the construction industry so workers have strong representation and safe workplaces free of corruption, criminality and violence. Last night the Senate passed Labor's bill to begin a process to put the construction division of the CFMEU into administration. I think all Australians, including construction workers, have been very disturbed by the allegations we've seen of late of organised crime and bikies infiltrating the construction division of the CFMEU and the wider construction industry. The passage of this legislation means that the days of organised crime and bikie influence in the CFMEU construction division and the wider industry are coming to an end. This is a very positive step forward for construction workers and Australians generally. Over the last few weeks we've seen unions and employer groups calling on the coalition and the Greens to support the legislation so we can begin working on cleaning up the CFMEU. But last night, the Greens decided it was more important to keep John Setka happy and voted against our legislation. Let's be very clear, what we saw in the chamber last night was the Greens voting to keep John Setka and bikies in control of the CFMEU. The Greens voted to allow violence across construction sites go on, putting workers at risk. Look at them burying their heads now because they know they are ashamed. They are ashamed because the Greens voted last night to allow bullying, thuggery, corruption and violence to continue in the construction union. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It is brave unions and their members who stood up and stressed the need for intervention that the Greens let down last night. It is all the staff, members and leaders of the rest of the union movement who run decent unions and who serve their members' interests that the Greens party let down by pursuing their own narrow political interests. You should be ashamed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Shoebridge and Senator McKim, I have called order a number of times. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong! Senator Shoebridge! Senator Shoebridge, I remind you of standing order 203. I have called your name repeatedly and you kept yelling out and disrespecting my order. Senator Watt, I do remind you to make your comments to the chair. Senator Polley, a first supplementary? 14:52 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I believe they should be ashamed, but, quite frankly, they are not. For weeks both employer groups and unions have been stressing the importance of taking urgent and strong action to put the CFMEU into— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, resume your seat. Senator Wong 00AOU I can't hear Senator Polley and neither can Senator Duniam. I understand that you are very, very sensitive about this, but he's still doing it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, please resume your seat. I have called order a number of times. I have reminded Shoebridge in particular about standing order 203, and I would expect all senators to listen in respectful silence. Senator Polley, if you would start the question again, and please reset the clock. Senator POLLEY e5x For weeks, both employer groups and unions have been stressing the importance of taking action, and strong action, in fact, in an urgent manner to put the CFMEU into administration. Minister, what risks were created by the Australian Greens political party protecting John Setka and blocking the Albanese Labor government's important legislation. And I repeat: they should be ashamed of themselves, but I fear they are not. 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland (—) (): Thank you, Senator Polley. I fear you might be right because, last night, the Greens had a choice to clean up corruption and violence, but they chose to protect John Setka and his mates. Last night, the Greens political party decided to side with John Setka, bikies, corruption, thuggery, bullying and lawlessness rather than vote with Labor to get organised crime out of the union. Last week, the administrator was ready and waiting to get started, and, last week, union groups and employer groups were calling on the coalition and the Greens to support the legislation so we could begin the work of cleaning up the CFMEU. Every day, the Greens dragged our action out so they could get a run on the news. What that meant was another day of uncertainty for workers and employers in the construction industry, another day of protecting John Setka and his allies, another day of the CFMEU hiding and moving assets, another day of bullying, thuggery, corruption and violence in the construction union. Working in construction is hard and dangerous, and the workers in that industry deserve a strong, effective and clean union. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:55 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I note that over the past fortnight we've seen the Australian Greens political party repeatedly block action against corruption in the construction division of the CFMEU. Last night, we saw the Australian Greens vote against this important legislation here in the Senate. Minister, what is the impact of the delay tactics of the Greens political party on the delivery of the Albanese Labor government's reforms, and why are they so important? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As we've all seen over the last few days, the Greens party have been running round parliament, meeting with the CFMEU and boasting about the donations and support they will get by voting against our strong laws. It's no surprise, though, that the Greens have strongly supported the thugs in the construction union, because the truth is that the Greens have been courting the CFMEU for years. In fact, in a sweaty 35-minute rambling video on YouTube entitled 'The 18 year plan for a Greens government', the member for Griffith, Max Chandler-Mather, said, 'If we're going to win government, we need to develop strong relationships with the construction union, and this has already started happening.' So last night's dirty work from the Greens is another investment from them in their strong relationship with the CFMEU. I invite Senator Shoebridge to tell us: Which is his favourite Greenfield? Is it Darren or is it Michael Greenfield? We know your relationship is strong. We know that's why you voted to protect John Setka and the people facing criminal charges in the CFMEU rather than to protect the interests of their members. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKim. Senator McKim JKM It's a point of order on a personal reflection on another senator and also, for that matter, a personal reflection on a member of the other place. We've had two now in the last 15 seconds, and I ask that you require Senator Watt to withdraw and apologise. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Watt 245759 Was it 'sweaty'? You didn't like it being called 'sweaty'? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU If the point of order relates to the discussion of Senator Shoebridge's relationship with the two men facing charges, he's very welcome to make a personal explanation at the conclusion of question time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt, I'm responding to the point of order raised by Senator McKim. I did think your response went to motive, and I would ask you to withdraw. Senator Watt 245759 I withdraw. Economy 3251 14:58 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. We've seen the price of iron ore drop to US$81.80 per tonne, the lowest since November 2022. This is said to have massive impacts on Australia's finances, with your government making massive spending commitments well into the future. With every $10 drop in iron ore prices equalling $10 billion in lost national income and a potential $3 billion in lost company tax over the next three years, will you curtail unnecessary spending to protect the budget or order the approval of new mines to boost the bottom line? 14:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I have said publicly and as the Treasurer has said, we've taken a conservative estimate in terms of the iron ore price and how it feeds into the budget, and we do that for good reason. We are seeing a decline in the iron ore price at the moment. It's tracking, I think, slightly ahead of what the Treasury forecasts are. But the work we've done on the budget is broader than just the iron ore price. The fact that, with our budget, we've turned Liberal debts into Labor surpluses has been because we have gone through and found what we considered wasteful spending and returned that to the budget. It has been because of the resilience of the labour market. The fact that more people are working and working more hours has been good for the budget as well, and, of course, it's good for those individuals. The fact that people are earning more is also good for the budget. We wanted wages to move again; they're moving again. Not everything is determined by the iron ore price. Obviously, it's a significant contributor to the budget, and we are able to deliver a lot of services because of revenue to the budget. But we will manage the budget in a responsible and methodical way as we have been—finding savings where we can; prioritising services and cost-of-living programs where we can, where it doesn't add to inflation; and providing tax cuts to every taxpayer in Australia. They have been able to be found within the space in the budget. We will continue to do so. As I just said in my previous answer, we have turned hundreds of billions of dollars of Liberal debt into Labor surpluses—two Labor surpluses. Gross debt will peak 9.7 per cent lower than was expected when you were in government, and we are paying $80 billion less on our interest bill because of the steps that we've taken to address the budget. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Your environment minister has ignored Indigenous Australians in Orange to block a $1 billion gold mine that had cleared all of its approvals. It was set to generate almost 1,000 jobs and millions in company taxes and royalty payments. What is the lost economic opportunity for Orange, for the local Indigenous population and the impact on the federal budget from that decision? 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept the question. The question is inaccurate. The minister for the environment has responded to this today in the media. I think consultation with local traditional owners is an important part of the environment minister's decision. We are richer as a country because of the tens of thousands of years of First Nations culture. It is right, and the laws of this country actually set out the process for consideration of those matters. No-one wanted to see a repeat of the Juukan Gorge. No-one in this chamber wanted to. It was a very similar decision to the one the deputy opposition leader in the other place made—some 50 kilometres from the decision, and I hope that the company involved will consider another place for the tailings dam. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Minister, considering the looming budget black hole thanks to massive new Labor spending, plummeting iron ore prices under your watch and your government's continued vetos on new mining projects, how will you recoup the lost revenue, royalties and taxes from mining? Where will the money come from? 15:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'd like to know where the money will come from for nuclear power plants all over the country that haven't been costed yet. You've been very quiet about those, haven't you? You launched a big policy, and then everyone scurried away from it because you can't explain how you'll do it. On what those opposite call wasteful spending, included in the amount that's used publicly—the $315 billion figure—is indexation of the aged-care pension, women's safety initiatives, energy bill relief, pay for aged-care and childcare workers, funding for new medicines on the PBS, cheaper child care and rent assistance. All of those things are what you, over there, consider to be wasteful spending. We don't. We think it's necessary spending, an investment in our community and in our country, and I think it gives just a little snapshot of what Australia would be like should you ever be in government again. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 3252 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 3252 15:04 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked today. In particular, I'd like to talk about electricity prices. As we just heard Senator McGrath point out, electricity prices have risen 21½ per cent since the Albanese government came to office and gas prices have risen by 22 per cent. Of course, this is just one of many broken promises made by the Albanese Labor government at the last election. They said that they would lower energy prices by $275. The Labor government is unable to explain how they are going to lower energy prices. There's a very simple reason why they can't lower energy prices, and that is because they are obsessed with this renewable energy target of getting renewables to power 82 per cent of the grid by 2030. Anyone who understands anything about reliable energy, baseload energy and the ability to have energy on call—let's call it dispatchable energy—knows that you cannot build transmission lines and batteries, recycle all of this stuff, buy all the land where you're going to have to put these smaller generation plants, such as solar farms, wind farms et cetera, and then expect to manage it all. Thirty years ago, we effectively had 30 coal-fired power stations on the eastern seaboard of Australia that provided about 90 per cent of the energy. Those power stations could run at any time during the day, and they weren't subject to market manipulation because they also happened to be publicly owned. They would just run on demand as the demand was required at a small profit to make sure that those profits could then go back into keeping the power stations going. I'm pleased to say that Queensland was one of the few states—if not the only state—that didn't actually sell their coal-fired power stations. I have to admit that that was very lucky. I well remember under the Bligh-Beattie government that Anna Bligh, when she was the Treasurer and then Premier, went on an infrastructure privatisation spree the likes of which we have never seen and the likes of which Queensland has never recovered from. I am pleased to say that we didn't sell the coal-fired power stations, because today they provide billions of dollars in revenue to the Queensland government. When things go awry with renewable energy—and they will eventually—at least we know that we've got our power stations to keep us going in Queensland. Of course, that's notwithstanding the fact that Callide C blew up a couple of years ago because of the lack of maintenance and repairs on that power station. The Queensland Labor government have done everything they can to avoid taking responsibility for that. In the short time I have left, let me give a bit of gratuitous advice to the Labor Party on how to deal with lowering power costs immediately. I call on you to abolish this fantasy of yours that you are going to have 80 per cent of renewable energy in the grid by 2030. You're not going to do it. You can't even get the Snowy Hydro project built, and that's a big part. Even though I say it's a big part, it's a big part of a very small part to reach that target. What you need to do is to go out to near my home town and build yourselves two power stations at the Kogan Creek Power Station. There's 400 million tonnes of coal out there that belongs to the Queensland people. That won't cost anything to buy. It's a very shallow coalmine that has a very low stripping ratio. You can get out there, dig up the coal and put it straight into the coal-fired power plants. I'll acknowledge that that was the last public coal-fired power station that was built by a Queensland government, under Peter Beattie. I'll call on that former Queensland MP sitting there very quietly, Senator Watt. Senator Watt 245759 I was there. I was working in the government. Senator RENNICK 283596 Yes, I'll take that on notice. Get out there and build yourself another couple of coal-fired power stations out there immediately, because you're not going to reach your renewable energy target, and the longer you continue with this fantasy, the more you're going to drive up power prices. That is not dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. If you're serious about dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, you need, first and foremost, to deal with the cost of energy in this country. 15:09 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Look, it makes me laugh—I mean, I come from a state of almost 100 per cent renewable energy, and I hear stories like that: 'It'll never work'! It's ridiculous! Energy prices are a serious issue for households and businesses. The Albanese government's reliable renewable energy plan means that wholesale energy prices are now lower than when the coalition left office. Maybe they forget about that. They look at the numbers and they try and twist them around. We are helping to ease the cost-of-living pressures. We're doing that by giving every household relief, as Senator Gallagher said in her answer, of $300 from their energy bills. Meanwhile, over on that side, what have the coalition got? No plans to bring electricity prices down. They voted against the legislation, time and time again. And what have they put into the future? A risky nuclear reactor. It's an idea—a thought bubble. It would add a thousand dollars to energy bills and would supply less than four per cent of the energy that households and businesses will need. And it's way off in the future—years and decades into the future. The Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, who run our electricity grid, have said: We are increasingly seeing renewable energy records being set which is a good thing for Australian consumers as it is key in driving prices down … Now, I don't know what's wrong with those on that side, as to why they don't listen to the Energy Market Operator. In AEMO, they have all the information at their fingertips. That reduction is applied to electricity bills, our previous gas price cap and gas code, and it goes to reducing the price of gas for Australian households and industry. The independent office of impact assessments analysed our CIS and conducted that with the CIS, and they say, 'consumers are expected to face lower retail electricity prices on average, and a reduction in reliability risks'. Those opposite, by contrast, have voted against the $3 billion in energy relief, as I said earlier, for millions of Australians, including pensioners. They voted against energy relief for pensioners, for low-income families, for veterans and for other people out in our community. They voted against it, time and time again. They've given up on cheaper energy for Australians. They voted against it every time. They changed the law to hide electricity price rises from the Australian people. Now they are advocating for nuclear energy, which is set to add thousands of dollars to energy bills and supply less than four per cent of the energy households and businesses need. The coalition promised at the 2019 election to get energy prices to $70 a megawatt hour, the average at the election. Over the medium and long term, the Albanese government's reliable renewables plan is the only one supported by experts to deliver a clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy system. As I said, I come from a state that has, I think, 98 per cent—nearly 100 per cent—renewable energy. So I'm not sure why those over on the other side are so opposed to it. The plan that the Albanese government have in relation to renewables is supported by independent advice from the CSIRO, a very trusted organisation, and the Australian Energy Market Operator. The lowest cost plan for a reliable energy grid is Australia's world-leading renewables, like solar and wind—firmed up, of course, with batteries, pumped hydro, flexible gas and transmission. So a whole range of initiatives that the Albanese Labor government are introducing will lower the cost of energy into the future. The government will continue to help people with the cost of living, because we know that the cost of living is of concern. That's why we supported and brought in a $300 help with the cost of electricity bills, for everyone around the country, to help ease their cost-of-living burdens and to help them with their budgets. That's what those over on that side voted against, time and time again. They don't support helping Australians. 15:14 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Over the last 2½ years, this government has spent almost all its time on being the best government for vested interests that it could be. I mean that in terms of shovelling money out the door to its mates but also calibrating the policies and laws of the nation to suit the narrow, vested interests of the union movement, the super funds and a few other gilded fellow travellers. The problem with this agenda, of course, is that the people that miss out here are the Australian people. They pay the price for this approach because, when the government is so focused on what's important to the unions, the CFMEU and co, then it runs out of time to solve the great problems of today like inflation and housing. Just when you think that this government for vested interests couldn't get any better at being the government for vested interests, it cooks up this plan called a future made in Australia, which should be called 'the future of rent-seeking and bloodsucking in Australia'. There will be a cavalcade of lobbyists coming down here, on the road from Sydney, with their hands out to take taxpayer funds to use in their businesses which are already profitable and are in no need of a handout. If the government were serious about trying to improve the competitive dynamics of this economy it would be cutting taxes, deregulating and looking to provide policies like accelerated depreciation. That is the way to improve the competitive dynamics of the economy. But, instead of doing that, all it has done is increase the regulatory burden and increase taxes. It is no wonder that small business is dying under this government. Yet it's come up with the policy of the ultimate cronyism: the Future Made in Australia, with $23 billion of taxpayers' funds to be given to their mates and other various fellow travellers. The Productivity Commission chair, Danielle Wood, has said: We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on … subsidies … That also means we're going to give taxpayer funds to these bloodsuckers, and they don't need it. The prior chair of the PC, the Productivity Commission, has lectured the Treasurer and told him that he is engaging in rent-seeking. Dr Chalmers has had a good run. He's been attacked by his hand-picked chairs of the Productivity Commission and the Reserve Bank in the last couple of weeks, so it is going well for Dr Chalmers! He's a genius! Of course, with this policy of institutionalised rent-seeking and bloodsucking, we will see, as we've already seen through the Senate committee submissions, every single organisation in the country come to Canberra with its hand out. We've seen, through the submissions, the gas companies, the caravan companies, chocolate companies—seriously! This is not a country where the government pays you to do business. This is an economy where you are supposed to be able to stand on your own two feet, and that is what millions of Australian small businesses do every single day. They hate the idea of corporate largesse being given out to Labor's mates in the unions and to other fellow travellers. This idea of a future made in Australia is very dangerous. I would have thought that the government would have learnt from their boondoggle disasters like the Reconstruction Fund. I'm still not sure what we're actually reconstructing from, but we've got a massive reconstruction fund which spends money on nothing other than its own board members. Then of course we've got the mother of them all: the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is about to try and partner with the Cbus Super fund, which has got three CFMEU trustees on its board. The Labor Party says it's desperate to put the CFMEU into administration, but it couldn't give a rat's about the Cbus fund working with the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is going to receive taxpayers' funds. This is a bizarre situation that we are in, where the government for vested interests runs the policy and the money for their mates. This is institutionalising cronyism. I am not surprised at how angry small-business people in our country are about how bad this government is with its priorities. It is disgusting. That is why we are against the Future Made in Australia. 15:19 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Our government is supporting Australians with bread-and-butter cost-of-living pressures, making life easier for families and supporting the economy to grow. We know Australians are doing it tough. The Albanese Labor government are focused on actually delivering for Australians. We are not being demure about our plans to provide cost-of-living relief for all Australians. We are being mindful in how we manage the economy. There's no quick fix for the high global cost-of-living, but the Albanese Labor government's No. 1 priority is helping take some of the pressure off you and your family. We're delivering energy bill relief. While the opposition continue whiteboarding their economic plan and playing games, the Albanese Labor government is providing $300 in energy bill relief to every household and transforming Australia into a renewable energy superpower. We're continuing to deliver on Labor's energy bill relief plan, with $3½ billion in relief, for every household, including those in the Mallee, in the Goulburn Valley, in Hume and in Melbourne's east. All households will see a $300 credit automatically applied to their electricity bills in this financial year, and around one million small businesses will receive $325 off their bills over 2024 and 2025. We are delivering a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, including a whopping 3½ million taxpayers in Victoria. We are delivering a wage increase for early-years childcare workers. The opposition argue that they are the champions of higher wages for all Australians; however, on 8 August on ABC RN Breakfast, shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor stopped short of supporting the Labor's government's 15 per cent wage increase for early-years childcare workers. Since those opposite were unable to do the maths or explain their rationale, let me do it for you. The rate of inflation is 3.8 per cent. The wage increase is 15 per cent. The result is the Albanese Labor government delivering real, higher wages for early-years workers. We're also building more homes for Australians, with more social and affordable housing, more infrastructure, increased removal of red tape, better transport for more accessible cities and increased housing for students. This $6.2 billion boost in the budget takes the Albanese government's total housing investment to a whopping $32 billion. We are cutting student debt for more than three million students and wiping around $3 billion in student debt. To do this, we're introducing HELP loan credits for people impacted by the recent inflation spike. We're making sure that, in the future, student debt never grows faster than someone's ability to pay it off. This means we're improving the way indexation is calculated and making sure last year's indexation spike cannot happen again. We're also establishing a Commonwealth Prac Payment to support around 68,000 eligible higher education students and over 5,000 VET students each year when they undertake mandatory work placements required for their course. This payment will provide $319.50 per week to students in teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work during their clinical and professional placement periods, with the majority of students and workers in these critical fields being women. As someone who has worked in the social services sector, I know how much heart and compassion comes from the people who work in this sector, and I'm sure they will be absolutely stoked that they are being paid on their placements. The Albanese Labor government is investing in new jobs and opportunities in every part of our country, including communities in Victoria. Making our future here in Australia is about making the most of our nation's potential and making sure everyone shares in the benefits. Our Future Made in Australia plan will maximise the economic and industrial benefits of the international move to net zero and secure Australia's place in the changing global economic and strategic landscape. The 2024-25 budget will invest $22.7 billion over a decade to help Australia succeed and remain an indispensable part of the global economy. 15:24 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Queen Marie Antoinette of France, the Queen Consort of Louis XVI, when advised by royal advisers to have said that the peasants were rioting because they couldn't afford to buy bread, is rumoured to have said, 'Well, let them eat cake.' I think of that story when I listen to the answers from the government ministers in this chamber, and it is a let-them-eat-cake government. It is a government that is out of touch and a government that fails to understand that there is a cost-of-living crisis in Australia. This cost-of-living crisis did not emanate from some Labor focus group that the secretary of the Labor Party briefed the cabinet on; this cost-of-living crisis has been going on for the last couple of years. Funnily enough, it coincides with the election of a big-spending Labor government who are spending an extra $315 billion of taxpayers' money, and this money is driving up the cost of living. The question that I put to Senator McAllister, who is representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, was a very simple question. I asked the minister: in dollar terms, how much has the average electricity bill gone up since Labor was elected in May 2022? Now, you don't need to hold the front page to be told that the minister was unable to answer this question. The minister did not know how much the average electricity bill has gone up. So that should send a massive warning to every Australian about how out of touch this Labor government are when they don't know how much bills have gone up under their policies. We have a Labor Party who, before the last election, promised 97 times that they would cut power bills by $275. For those listening at home, please put your hands up or shout loudly at the TV or the radio if you think that your power bill has gone down by at least $275 since the Labor Party have come to power. Of course, no-one's power bills have gone down. In fact, everybody's power bills under the Labor Party, because of the policies of the Labor Party, have gone up. But it is not just the power bills that have gone up. Food has gone up by 11 per cent. Health has gone up by 11 per cent. Insurance has gone up by 17 per cent. We've had 12 mortgage rate rises. Rent has gone up 15 per cent yet we have a let-them-eat-cake government that is led by a weak Prime Minister. There are invertebrates at the bottom of the Mariana Trench that have stronger backbones than this Prime Minister. But he is not alone. If you look around the cabinet table, a cabinet table of union barons and former Labor Party advisers who do not understand how the economy operates or the importance of small business and the importance of employing people, the importance of the resource industry, the importance of just business generally to ensure that this economy can grow, we have a government who just like spending money. This goes to their inability to understand what is happening with people's power bills. One of the questions we put to the minister was: will the Labor Party take a commitment to the next election that they will cut people's power bills? Once again, you don't need to hold the front page or turn down the computer to understand that the Labor Party refused to make that commitment, because, in a rare moment of a minister telling the truth by not actually answering the question, the minister actually said they would not be able to do that. The minister instead tried to deflect and play, disappointingly, partisan politics in relation to this issue. This is a minister who fails to understand it is important that the Australian community understand that there are government decision-makers who sit around the cabinet table who understand the impact of a cost-of-living crisis in Australia. Sadly, we do not have that with the Labor Party here in Canberra. We have a Labor Party who instead just want to play their games, who want to effectively run a protection racket of the CFMEU, a union who, for the last decade upon decade, have brought thuggery to building sites around Australia and have also driven up the cost of living. It is a crisis, and the Prime Minister is to blame. Question agreed to. Environment 3255 15:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to water management in the Northern Territory. The answer was pretty disappointing. This is the federal parliament. I was asking questions of the federal government about what they will do now that they are well and truly aware of serious allegations of conflicts of interest, of water theft and of illegal land clearing in the Northern Territory. And do you know what we got from the minister? 'Well, it's up to the Territory government to run their own affairs. It's up to the states and territories. We can't do anything.' It's clear as day that the Northern Territory government are not fit to be able to manage their own water resources, to implement regulations that work and to keep their snouts out of the trough when it comes to vested interests and conflicts of interest. That's what these allegations are showing. Cowboys are running the show in the Northern Territory. It's the wild west up there, and it is at the cost of every single Australian because water resources are precious and our environment is under threat. We have big corporations down in the Murray-Darling Basin, the big cotton growers, who have stuffed the Murray-Darling Basin. They're now moving north to rip off water and steal water in the Northern Territory—at the cost of the local community, against the wishes of traditional owners and putting our environment and climate at further risk. And of course it's not just the big cotton growers, the big greedy cotton growers who haven't had enough of a fix in the Murray-Darling Basin so they have to move to the Northern Territory; of course, it's the cowboys in the gas and fracking industry too. They too are taking water they're not entitled to. Do you know how much the water licences in the Northern Territory cost? Zero. What an absolute crock! It is time for federal intervention in the management of water resources and the way the environment is managed in the Northern Territory. It doesn't matter whether it's the Labor Party or the Liberal Party in the Northern Territory; they are not fit. They cannot keep their hands clean. They cannot keep legislation and regulations fit for purpose. They bend over backwards for their mates in the industry. It really does get to a point where you have to wonder how deep is this level of corporate self-interest and where are the conflicts of interest. Are we looking at allegations of corruption here? Is that what's going on in the Northern Territory? It stinks, and the locals in that community know it. They're sick and tired of being ignored. This Saturday there is an election, and Territorians are looking at both the Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party and they know that they are not standing up for the interests of the community, the interests of traditional owners and the interests of the environment. If you care about the future of the Northern Territory; if you care about responsible spending; if you care about responsible, effective regulation, doing what is right in the interests of the community: the only option for people in the Northern Territory is to vote Green. That is the truth. It doesn't matter whether you're looking at the Labor Party or the Country Liberal Party, they're both up to their necks in self-interest, corporate interest and conflicts of interests—and you have to wonder just how deep this goes. There is corruption there and it needs to be exposed. Question agreed to. NOTICES 3256 NOTICES Presentation 3256 15:34 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice in general terms of my intention on the next day of sitting to move a motion relating to the routine of business: That on Thursday, 22 August 2024: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at the conclusion of formal motions: (i) National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, (ii) Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024, (iii) Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024, (iv) Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, and (v) Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded. Presentation 3256 BUSINESS 3258 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3258 15:34 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day no. 74 (COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024) be considered on Thursday, 22 August 2024 at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. NOTICES 3258 NOTICES Postponement 3258 BUSINESS 3258 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 3258 15:35 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a)   Senator Farrell from 19 to 22 August 2024, on account of ministerial business; and (b)   Senator Sheldon for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3258 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 3258 Reference 3258 15:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed works be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Defence—Facilities to support improved embarked logistics support helicopter. Department of Defence—Army aviation omnibus program of works. Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation—Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness—Electrical infrastructure replacement, Geelong, Victoria. I table statements in relation to the works. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 3258 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3258 15:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Darmanin to make her first speech (of approximately 20 minutes) without any question before the chair. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 3258 DOCUMENTS Treasury 3258 Order for the Production of Documents 3258 15:37 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on 10 September 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction since 1 January 2024 between: (a) the Australian Taxation Office and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury; (b) the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission; (c) the Treasurer and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury; and (d) the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury; in relation to: (e) the implementation by the Australian Taxation Office of the requirement that certain non-charitable not-for-profit entities self-assessing as income tax exempt must lodge an annual NFP self-review return to confirm their eligibility to self-assess as income tax exempt from 1 July 2023; and (f) the implications of this requirement for Australia's not-for-profit community and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. Question agreed to. National Indigenous Australians Agency 3259 Order for the Production of Documents 3259 15:38 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Monday, 9 September 2024, the full unredacted report commissioned by the National Indigenous Australians Agency into the Anindilyakwa Land Council being undertaken by Bellchambers Barrett, as referred to by the National Indigenous Australians Agency during the consideration of the 2024-25 Budget estimates by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on 7 June 2024. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3259 COMMITTEES Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Select Committee 3259 Appointment 3259 15:38 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, be established to inquire into and report on: (a) the merits and weaknesses of the scheme and whether it is currently fit for purpose; (b) whether the scheme has kept up with increasing costs over the past decade; (c) the cost and budget of the scheme; (d) shipping costs, competition and shipping industry competitive structures across Bass Strait, including alternative freight options; (e) eligibility criteria under the scheme; (f) the operation and administration of the scheme; (g) how the scheme impacts businesses on King Island and Flinders Island; and (h) any other related matters. (2) That the committee present its final report by 26 November 2024. (3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows: (a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; (c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and (d) Senator Tyrrell. (4) That: (a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; (b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and (c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if 3 members of the committee are not present. (5) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that one is a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one is nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one is an independent or Australian Greens senator. (6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (7) That the committee elect as chair Senator Tyrrell and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (8) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (9) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee. (10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (11) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (12) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (13) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President. (14) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. Question agreed to. Senator TYRRELL 300639 I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. DOCUMENTS 3260 DOCUMENTS Telecommunications: 3G Mobile Network Shutdown 3260 Order for the Production of Documents 3260 15:39 Senator 266524 Queensland ROBERTS () (): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 579, standing in my name for today, relating to an order for the production of documents and an attendance by a minister. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 14 August 2024, order for production of documents no. 567 was agreed to by the Senate, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to table the government response to the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the shutdown of the 3G mobile network by no later than midday on Monday, 19 August 2024, and (ii) the Government's response does not indicate any intention to impose a condition on the shutdown; (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to attend the Senate after motions to take note of answers on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of why the Government has failed to place a single condition on the 3G mobile network shutdown; (c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and (d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 15:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The motion in question was originally drafted on the premise that the response to the order for the production of documents number No. 567 was not compliant with the Senate's request. That is not correct. The order was complied with. The government response to the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry into the shutdown of 3G was tabled. Telstra and Optus plan to switch off their 3G networks from 31 August and 1 September, respectively, but have delayed their switch-offs to 28 October 2024, which is welcomed. The now amended motion is unnecessary, given the transparency afforded to the Senate through the interim response. Furthermore, any decision to take regulatory action in relation to the 3G shutdown is a matter of administrative law, and it is not appropriate to pre-empt it through a debate in the Senate. In addition, the 3G shutdown inquiry has already been debated through the Senate committee, and the recommendations are under active consideration by government. The government will not support this motion, on the basis of the above. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 579, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, as amended be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 3261 MATTERS OF URGENCY Termination of Pregnancy 3261 15:49 The PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 20 August, from Senator Babet: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to recognise that at least one baby is born alive every 7 days following a failed abortion and left to die, and that Australia's health care system is enabling these inhumane deaths; and for the Senate to condemn this practice, noting that babies born alive as a result of a failed abortion deserve care." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:49 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to recognise that at least one baby is born alive every 7 days following a failed abortion and left to die, and that Australia's health care system is enabling these inhumane deaths; and for the Senate to condemn this practice, noting that babies born alive as a result of a failed abortion deserve care. In this country, every single week, at least one baby is born alive after a failed abortion. In some states and territories, there is no legal requirement for that living human being to receive any medical care. The baby is often placed in a metal tray and left to die slowly. I cannot for the life of me understand how we can bang on every single day in this place about the importance of human rights while allowing the most vulnerable human beings to be treated like garbage. Whatever one's view is on the merits or otherwise of abortion, once there has been a birth, medical practitioners are dealing with a living human being, a person, an Australian, who should have the same rights under law as you or me. Senator Antic and Senator Canavan and I have a bill in front of the Senate right now called the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 that, if passed, would ensure care is provided to every child born alive after a failed abortion. This bill is also supported by Senator Roberts. This should not be a contentious or controversial concept. It is the very minimum of decency, the very least that we should do as people who like to think of ourselves as civilised. Imagine for a moment if the Senate rejected such a proposal. What would it say if you shrugged your shoulders and turned your back on a newborn baby, unmoved by his or her cry and unconvinced by his or her humanity? A society is ultimately judged not by its GDP but by the way it cares for its most vulnerable, and there is none more vulnerable than a newborn baby. A society that refuses to care about the suffering and death of babies is one which is destined to fall. To be unmoved by the plight of a helpless child, especially when it is within your power to render aid and assistance, is to lose your own humanity. It is evidence of a sickness at the very core of one's own being. What kind of darkness has overtaken the heart of people when they can march through city streets chanting for the right to kill a baby in the womb while remaining silent on the rights of babies born alive and left to die? I think abortion should be unthinkable. I want more than a change to the laws in this land; I want a change in the hearts of Australian people, where abortion disappears not because politicians made it illegal but because our consciences were reawakened and we agreed that it was abominable. Queensland midwife Louise Adsett gave evidence at a parliamentary inquiry in Queensland yesterday where she gave a distressing example of a mother who decided to abort her baby at more than 21 weeks. She said: The process took all day and the baby was only delivered during the early hours of the night shift … This baby moved vigorously, gasped for breath and had a palpable heart rate. To make it clear, this baby was alive … This baby boy fought for his life for five hours before taking his final breath. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Fighting back her tears, she added, 'These babies deserve better. They deserve to have the same rights that all of us human beings have'—unwanted, unacknowledged, unloved. To her credit, Louise is one of the few nurses who does whatever she can to provide some kind of dignity and comfort to these vulnerable babies. It should not be controversial to invite my fellow senators to join with me in affirming that a baby born alive after a failed abortion is at the very minimum given care and comfort. To do anything but less than this is to forsake our own humanity, even as we deny them theirs. I was going to conclude by saying God forgive us if we fail to do this, but I must say this: as much as I believe in God's mercy, I don't think that God himself could forgive us for getting this one wrong. I hope my fellow senators in this place stand with me to decry the practice of abortion, especially late-term abortion, where a baby could survive out of the womb if born. This is a tragic thing. This is a horrible thing. This is an evil thing. This is a disgusting thing, and it is something that I will never be okay with. 15:54 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise today to speak on the matter of urgency before this chamber. In doing so I'll look at both the issue of urgency and the issue itself, noting that it is my view that this particular urgency motion should not have been put forward in the manner that it has been. Standing order 75 provides for urgency motions to be put before the Senate as a question about whether a particular matter is urgent, not whether the Senate agrees with a particular position on a matter beyond its urgency. This motion attempts to do both, and, in my view, it can't. The issue with this motion in particular is that, if the premise of the motion is to be accepted, the Senate is also then accepting its urgency. The problem then turns to the acceptance of the premise. As I will go into further, the premise of the urgency motion cannot be taken at face value. We will now be asked to vote on this matter, which is really a position of the Senate on the substantive point, not the element of urgency. With only a few hours' notice—as opposed to if this were a debate, where it should be an item of general business—it is not right or reasonable to expect senators in this place to do so in a limited debate capped at 30 minutes without the opportunity for context, without the opportunity to question, without the opportunity to scrutinise the information before us. This matter has been subject to some examination in the Senate and its committees. In particular it was subject to an inquiry by the Community Affairs References Committee, which reported about a year ago. That was in relation to the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill. What is critically important in relation to this issue—and any other issues, for that matter, that this chamber addresses—is that we keep in mind the language that we use, the accuracy of the information that we share and the transparency for the reasons that we share them. This is not our playground. The things that we do here matter. There are also questions as to the accuracy of the information contained in this motion. This is a matter of great sensitivity. There is no question about that. The motion, as set out, is very black and white. The matters which it deals with are not. And also let me be clear that the Senate is not a forum for a pseudo-debate on the matter of abortion. That doesn't belong in here. In addition to this, our Constitution is very clear—this is not a matter for the Commonwealth; this is a matter for the states. Both my state of New South Wales and the state of South Australia have already dealt with it. More broadly, the complex issues that arise from the contents of this motion are challenging for most people but particularly for women, and they are deeply personal. They are not decisions that are made either lightly or flippantly and should not be open to judgement by others. In many cases these decisions are informed on the basis of medical necessity, and we should think very, very carefully as to the appropriateness of elected representatives making healthcare decisions for Australian women. That is not why any of us have been elected to serve here. The underlying nuance of this motion is a matter of conscience. I'm proud to belong to a party that not only recognises the rights of the individual but empowers those rights, not just in everyday life but also in our roles in the chambers of this place and of the other place. I would like to address the premise and go through some of the evidence that was tendered through the committee process on the corresponding bill to assist the Senate in forming a view on this matter of urgency. In one of the submissions received, evidence was provided that the premise of the corresponding bill relied on an inaccurate and misinformed understanding of the complexities of foetal gestation, survival, healthcare providers, professional roles and women's vulnerabilities. It is critical that, in discharging our duties, particularly in the Senate, we reflect on our obligations to appropriately scrutinise the matters that come before us, particularly complex matters, which this one is. We have to consider all information, whether we agree with it or not. We should be deeply concerned, when considering such matters, that we are allowing what are personal decisions on issues between an individual and their healthcare practitioners to become politicised and serve agendas that have very little to do with medical care. The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I come to you, Senator Waters, I do remind senators that, when there are not many senators in the chamber, in conversations had in this place, unless they're done quietly, certain words are audible. 15:59 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I am appalled that, once again, we're here debating women's choices over their own bodies—choices that are no-one else's to weigh in on. Senator Babet's claims are incorrect. Late-term abortions resulting in a live foetus are extremely rare, and they only occur in situations of lethal foetal abnormalities or where there are serious risks to the pregnant person. Medical practitioners are already subject to ethical responsibilities that manage those complex situations, and, moreover, the vast majority of terminations in Australia occur prior to 16 weeks, at which time a foetus would not survive outside the womb. If you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then support the calls by the Greens to make contraception free. But you just want to control women's bodies. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you don't get to tell other women what choices they should have. With this motion, Senator Babet is, once again, seeking to undermine women's rights and access to reproductive health care—rights that have been hard-won over decades. We know that abortion is finally legal across the country but is still not affordable or accessible to everyone who wants one. I started a Senate inquiry in 2022 into universal access to reproductive health care, which heard that it's a postcode lottery as to whether you have access to a safe abortion. Many women, particularly in regional Australia, are travelling hundreds of kilometres and paying hundreds of dollars to get a termination, and many can't afford that. We heard about the shortage of surgeons trained to provide abortion services and restrictions preventing GPs from prescribing medical abortion drugs. We heard that regional areas are often served by fly-in doctors rather than locals, meaning they might not be available when they're needed for this time-critical procedure. It should not be this difficult to access basic health care in a nation like ours. Allowing more medical practitioners and pharmacists to supply the abortion pill MS-2 Step was a welcome step forward following the inquiry recommending this. This decision was particularly important for improving access for women and pregnant people in regional and remote parts of the country, but financial barriers remain, and the Greens believe that abortion is basic health care that should be free and available through the public health system. This used to be Labor's policy too, back in 2019: hospitals receiving federal funding had to provide the full suite of reproductive health care. Unfortunately, that's not their policy anymore. The most I could get the Senate inquiry recommendations to say was that either public hospitals must provide terminations or they must provide a timely and affordable local pathway to an alternative provider, but those pathways have to be fully funded or access is not real. The Australian community is strongly pro choice and has been for decades. Thanks to the tireless efforts of so many advocates, lots of progress has been made. There's lots more to be done. Abortion is health care. It should be accessible, affordable, safe, legal, compassionate and free. (Time expired) 16:02 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I strongly support this motion from Senator Babet in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive. For six years, I've spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin which depicts an infant's feet at 10 weeks of age, just 70 days old. My opposition to abortion comes from my humanity and my role as a father and grandfather. Sadly, Queensland's Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 allows for unrestricted access to abortion up to 22 weeks. After that point, two doctors must be convinced the abortion is in the mother's best interest—doctors who make their living signing off on abortions. As Rhodes Scholar and leading researcher Professor Joanna Howe has found, between 2010 and 2020, 4,929 babies were killed between 20 weeks and birth. In Queensland, of these babies, 329 were born alive and left to die. This is an urgent matter. Last week, I was pleased to attend a protest on the federation lawn out the front of Parliament House that was a memorial to the 5,000 babies born alive when aborted around Australia. The memorial comprised 5,000 pairs of babies' booties in the shape of a cross—babies who were thrown aside and left on a cold stainless steel slab to die alone. Nearly 50 per cent of these babies were perfectly healthy with nothing wrong with them. Why were they induced and delivered stillborn instead of alive and then placed for adoption? Under the Queensland Criminal Code, the current law is clear: this is a crime. Section 292 provides that a child becomes a human being after being born and proceeds in a living state from the body of its mother, whether or not it has breathed and whether or not it has had independent circulation. Section 302 defines murder as done by someone who intends to cause death—which is the case with these 328 babies—or causes death by an act or omission made with reckless indifference to human life. Currently the penalty for murder in Queensland is life—how ironic! There are protections for medical practitioners who induce the stillbirth of a child. That protection stops when the child is born alive. Queensland MP Robbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive. Under the bill, the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination would be no different from their duty to anybody else. This means babies would be given care, allowing them to survive where possible, while babies unable to survive would instead be given palliative care. In yesterday's hearing into this bill, courageous maternity nurse Louise Adsett described in heartbreaking detail the fate that has awaited so many beautiful young Australians in Queensland maternity wards: babies left to cry themselves to death, alone. Louise described nurses holding babies that have been marked for death until they drew their last breath—a breath surrounded with love, not cold, hard, stainless steel. There's no legal grey area here. Allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder. To the Queensland police I have this simple message: do your bloody job! Failure to prosecute the first murder has led to 327 more human beings losing their lives, and that's on you. The preamble to the international Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 explicitly recognises the unborn's right to life. This is a matter that can be legislated federally, and, if the states will not police their own laws, then the federal government must intervene. I have yet to hear an abortionist successfully explain at what time in the development of a child it ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a baby. Until you can show a physiological point before which the child is just a bunch of cells and after which a child is a living human being, I will continue to defend every life and oppose abortion, except abortion when the mother's life is in danger. If these practitioners were proud of their actions, they would not be changing the name of their trade from 'abortion' to 'reproductive care'. There's no reproduction, and there's no care for the child. At least be honest with yourselves. This is not care. This is designed to dehumanise mothers and fathers, dehumanise society and harden the hearts of our community. Neither can this be described as women's health. The health of the mother is the same, no matter if the baby is put up for adoption or murdered. Women's health does not, apparently, include the health of the one half of these aborted babies who themselves would grow into women. My office has received over 1,000 emails and calls today from Queenslanders who are horrified at this practice—so much so I feel the need to remind everyone that, while God loves everyone, God punishes those who kill. These human babies deserve better. Babies deserve to have the same rights as have all human beings, and foremost among these is the right to life. (Time expired) 16:07 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I do thank Senator Ralph Babet for bringing this important issue to the chamber. It is something that is confronting to tackle and handle, but we should not shy from doing that, because it is by tackling confronting issues that we can improve the livelihoods and experiences of as many Australians as possible. As Senator Babet's motion says, at least one child every week is born alive following a termination procedure. That's based on state government health evidence from Queensland and Victoria. We don't really have evidence from other states. It's at least one a week. It obviously would likely to be more than that if we were to include other states and jurisdictions. In the opposition to any recognition of the debate, I often hear, 'This doesn't happen.' The data says otherwise. Even more so, the guidelines that do exist in this area say a completely different story. The Queensland government, for example, have guidelines associated with the termination of pregnancies, and they have an entire section of those guidelines devoted to what occurs if a live birth occurs during the process. The question to those saying this doesn't happen has to be: if it doesn't happen, why does the Queensland Department of Health have a whole section of its guidelines devoted to a circumstance where a live birth occurs? If a live birth does occur, that has to be a human being. There's a breathing person that has been born, a very vulnerable person, often in a situation where their life will not be long. All of us will eventually die, and I think all of us would expect to be provided a level of care whenever that event of death comes near. I and others in this chamber have tried to lead a process where we say very clearly that all Australian human beings deserve to have that standard of care, whatever their age and whatever the circumstances that led them to come into this world. It's a very, very simple proposition. I moved this bill with others, like Senator Babet and Senator Antic. Senator Roberts was involved, as well as lots of others. Senator Fawcett has provided support. In the bill we put forward, we recognise that in these circumstances, tragically, most babies will not be able to survive. They will have experienced shocking injuries that will not make them viable in the sense of a long-term life. What we just want—what we are asking for—is that, surely, in those circumstances, at the very least, palliative care should be provided. That means some level of pain relief, some level of basic humanity to a human being in that circumstance—just as we would with anybody towards the end of their life. Why isn't that provided? I thank the senators that have worked on this for some time. As I said, it is a confronting issue, but putting a spotlight on it has led to change. We have seen in New South Wales and South Australia protections for babies born alive. We've seen in Queensland that those guidelines I mentioned have been changed since our Senate inquiry. Previously, those guidelines, quite shockingly, told health officials in Queensland to explicitly not provide life-sustaining treatment to a baby born alive. That has been deleted now since our Senate inquiry exposed these issues, and, instead, the guidelines say that care appropriate to the individual clinical circumstances and in accordance with birth practice guidelines should be provided. So that is at least a positive step forward and gives at least the scope and right for health practitioners in Queensland to potentially provide a level of care to babies born alive. Even if they're not directed to do so, at the very least they have the flexibility to do so. As we just saw, and as others have mentioned, in Queensland it's the midwives themselves that are at the front line on this issue. They have to handle—we heard testimony in our inquiry—the heart-wrenching cries of babies at the end of their lives. While they were under these restrictive guidelines previously, they could do nothing in response. That is completely unfair on them and completely anathema to the profession they have chosen, to help human beings in distress—an admirable profession they are in. I think there is more work to be done here. I'm glad to see Mr Robbie Katter taking it forward in Queensland, doing that. The more we can put the spotlight on this the more we're going to get sensible change in this area. (Time expired) 16:13 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise today to speak on this very important matter, and I commend Senator Ralph Babet for bringing this before the Senate today. This ought to be a straightforward matter. It's not intended to create a barrier to abortion; rather it's focusing on the medical care that should be provided to a baby who is born alive. Though rare, it's not impossible for a child to survive an abortion. The numbers may seem small, but each case represents a vulnerable human life that deserves our compassion and care. Unfortunately, not even in my home state of Western Australia are we immune to this situation. It was reported that between 1999 and 2016 there were at least 27 infants born alive in Western Australia after failed abortion procedures. Some of these babies were surviving anywhere from nine minutes to over two hours according to the Western Australian health minister. Twenty-seven children—that's equivalent to a full classroom of students. Fifteen of these births were at the gestational age between 20 and 25 weeks, six were at 26 weeks or later and one was at 34 weeks. Due to the incredible advancement in medical technology, it's entirely possible for a premature baby, at 21 weeks, to survive and go on to live a viable and healthy life. By that measure, at least 22 of the 27 babies born alive in WA could have been supported by healthcare professionals. Last year, the Abortion Legislation Reform Bill 2023 was passed in Western Australia. My WA colleague the Hon. Nick Goiran MLC moved an amendment to make clear that babies born alive after an abortion should be entitled to the same standard of care as any other Western Australian baby. Now even if it was possible for a baby to survive, we should provide them with comfort and care to pass away with dignity, instead of leaving them to slowly die on a cold metal kidney dish. In the same way that we care for the terminally ill and the bedridden, we have an obligation to care for the child who has survived an abortion regardless of our views on their chances of survival. Unfortunately, many in this place will turn a blind eye to this situation. It's not our job in this place to create laws for only some Australians. We have to ensure that our most vulnerable are protected. This week we've heard from senators on both sides of the aisle advocating for the protection of every Australian, including funding certain industries and services like child care, aged care and, indeed, the NDIS. One senator yesterday stated that we should understand the value of life at every stage. Well, I could not agree more. If life at every stage matters then this should be a no-brainer. If a child survives an attempted abortion and is born alive then, like every Australian, that child deserves the medical treatment that is afforded to everybody else. We cannot pick and choose when this applies and who it applies to, because every life is worth protecting. 16:16 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to support this matter of urgency because it is a fact that transparency and the awareness of issues drives change. We've heard from a previous speaker, Senator Canavan, how an earlier inquiry here highlighting some of these issues has driven change in Queensland, and we have seen change in other states on this matter. Some other speakers are correct that the topic of abortion is not a topic for this Senate for the simple reason that constitutionally it is something that falls within the powers of our state and territory governments, and we see them making laws as they see fit as they have been elected by people in that state. But the bill that Senator Canavan referred to before, which has been subject to an inquiry through the Senate, sought to use the external affairs power under the Constitution to hold state governments and the actions of medical practitioners to account because of the international treaties that Australia has signed up to recognising the right to life for people and the rights of the child. So while I'm aware there are many people, many of whom who have emailed my office today, who are hopeful that a successful vote here today will immediately bring about change, that is not the case. That is not the wording of this motion. This motion just draws attention to a practice, as we saw from the inquiry in Queensland yesterday, in evidence which has been reported both in print media and on the radio, and highlights that despite the assurances of many—'This is very rare' and 'It doesn't happen in certain hospitals'—practitioners on the ground have said it does happen. And as Senator Canavan outlined, the consequence for the children, and I will call them that, the babies that are born is that they deserve care. I will just highlight that the change being sought is not something that is out of the ordinary. My home state of South Australia has the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021. I personally have problems with this act and spoke to the then premier to express my concerns about it. But what they have included in that act is that in part 2, division 1, section 7 it specifically talks about the care of a person born after termination. It says that nothing in the act prevents a medical practitioner to actually provide care to that person. It says: To avoid doubt, the duty owed by a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination is no different than the duty owed to provide medical care and treatment to a person born other than as a result of a termination. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Babet be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:24]
(The President—Senator Lines)

18 AYES Askew, W. Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Goldmining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project 3267 16:26 The PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 20 August 2024, from Senator Duniam: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain its disastrous decision to block the McPhillamys gold mine, despite it having all federal and state environmental approvals and having support of the local Land Council." Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain its disastrous decision to block the McPhillamys gold mine, despite it having all federal and state environmental approvals and having support of the local Land Council. President, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak about what is an exceptionally important motion before the Senate, and it's one that I know the government hopes would just go away, would just disappear, and that we wouldn't have to worry about it at all. Let me read it out so that those listening along at home or the solitary person in the gallery understands what it is we are talking about—that is: The need for the Albanese Labor Government to explain its disastrous decision to block the McPhillamys gold mine, despite it having all federal and state environmental approvals, and having support of the local Land Council. They're the facts, and so what has happened here is absolutely disturbing. Let's look at what the reality in Australia is: no project in this country of any significance is safe. It doesn't matter whether it's a mine, a forestry operation or a land development to build more houses that we so desperately need. It doesn't matter if it's a renewables project. They're all unsafe now as a result of what we're seeing with the application of these laws. As stated, this project, the goldmine in question—the one that would have generated a billion dollars of economic activity and 800 jobs for a regional community in Orange, New South Wales—had all of its state and environmental approvals. The Minns Labor government has criticised, quite heavily, the Albanese Labor government's decision to block this project despite it having all state and federal environmental approvals. That is not a low bar; that is an extremely high bar. This project has been killed. This project is dead. This project can't go ahead, if you listen to the people backing it—like the CEO of the company, Regis Resources, who contradicted the minister who reckoned it could go ahead still. Investor certainty is rocked, and people looking to make decisions about whether they invest here in Australia or elsewhere in the world will be looking at decisions like this. As I say, it took four years of engaging with the governments, state and federal, to get these environmental approvals across the line. That was done; the boxes were ticked. They'd engaged with the traditional owners, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. That was done. But now here we are: at the 11th hour, the project having made it across all of these hurdles, the Minister for the Environment and Water, under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, decided to knock this project on the head. We believe this is the wrong decision and it should be overturned. There is no excuse for this, because it comes back to balance. It comes back to the need to ensure that, while we protect our cultural heritage and we don't repeat things like Juukan Gorge and the disaster that occurred there, we allow for economic activity. This decision is not balanced. We don't have a new, standalone cultural heritage act. This government promised it, but here we are, two-and-a-bit years into their term, and there's no such legislation on the horizon. It will not be happening; it will not be going ahead. This government, rather than dealing with the substance of the problem—forget about the fact that it has knocked dead a project which would generate nearly a thousand jobs and a billion dollars worth of economic activity and, every year, hundreds of millions of dollars of royalties revenue for state and territory governments—wants to play politics with it. The minister says: 'We didn't oppose the mine. We just opposed the tailings dam.' While that's strictly true, of course, a tailings dam, for those in the know, is necessary for a mine to operate in an effective and safe way. It's like saying: 'I didn't kill them. I just severed their legs and let them bleed to death.' That's the equivalent of what has happened here, and this is the appalling part of it. What's more is that the people who opposed this project, under the act I referenced before, are supported by the Environmental Defenders Office—that organisation we all know so well—funded by the same government that has knocked this project on the head. Whichever way you're going to try and get projects up in this country, you are going to find obstacles and reasons not to do it. Investment is going offshore, and so are the jobs that go with it, particularly in regional communities. For government ministers to come into this place, or anywhere else for that matter, and say, 'The former coalition environment minister Sussan Ley, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, made a decision like this'—do you know what she blocked? It was a go-kart track—not a gold mine. It was a go-kart track on top of Mount Panorama, not a gold mine generating economic activity and providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs. There is no equivalence between the decisions that minister made at that time and this disastrous decision, which, as I say, must be overturned, or else this government does not have this country's interests at heart. 16:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This is a stunt from the opposition. It is calling on the government to explain a decision, but the minister has in fact clearly outlined the reasons for the decision that she made, and the Labor Party is happy to defend that because everyone in this room knows that both Liberal and Labor governments have previously made decisions along these lines, consistent with the law. This decision does not mean that the gold mine can't go ahead. It just means that an Aboriginal heritage site can't be destroyed to build a waste dump for the mine. Genuine partnership with First Nations peoples is essential for the Australian mining sector to reach its full potential, and the Australian government is committed to this goal. Our government has been unequivocal in our support for mining, which employs 300,000 Australians, and that's a good thing. We've announced the most significant resources measures in a budget for a generation. There's $3.4 billion over 35 years for Geoscience Australia to find new deposits of minerals and sources of energy to help build a future made in Australia. The critical minerals production tax incentive provides a 10 per cent refundable tax offset for the processing costs of eligible facilities that process critical minerals in Australia. The production tax credit will incentivise the refining and processing of critical minerals and will create more jobs here in Australia as we become a renewable energy superpower. But let's be clear. Building a waste dump on this particular site would have destroyed the headwaters of the Belubula River, a place of particular significance for local Aboriginal people going back thousands of years. I hope the company can find an alternative site for its tailings and waste dam. I understand that there were more than four sites investigated with 30 options in the mix. It is interesting that the opposition is choosing to raise this because there are actually striking similarities between the decision made by the former minister for the environment Ms Ley, who is now of course the deputy Liberal leader. Back in 2021, the deputy Liberal leader made a similar decision, just down the road from the gold mine, in that situation. She made that decision after listening to the views of the same local traditional owner group: the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. She said at the time that she protected the site under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—I remind senators that that act has been in place since the 1980s—because of its cultural significance to the Wiradjuri people, on the basis of 'local Aboriginal narratives, songlines, ceremonies and cultural heritage'. Unsurprisingly, we see another member from the Liberals and Nationals undermining their deputy leader here in this place, and, just yesterday, we had members from the opposition in the other place bagging out her previous environment decisions as well. But, after the Juukan Gorge tragedy, we all said, both Labor and Liberal, that we'd never let something like that happen again. If we really mean that, we have to apply the law. Following Juukan Gorge, the then minister, now deputy Liberal leader, said: Juukan Gorge was indeed a call to action. She said that in November 2021. Later in November, she said: This is about the Government working with Indigenous Australians and recognising their right to determine what is important to them. She also said: 'It is a high priority to me that we look at better ways of protecting Indigenous cultural heritage.' Well, either that's your view as a political party or it's not. All of the indications here suggest to us that the coalition are not serious about this, that they are seeking to undermine the commitments that Ms Ley has made and that they don't actually believe the things that she has said on their behalf about the significance of culture. It's a sad thing because the truth is that a healthy mining industry and, indeed, a healthy business environment is intimately connected to us working out how to work effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to protect their culture and grow our economy, and that is entirely possible. If the Liberals have changed their mind on that, they should come out, fess up and inform the chamber. 16:36 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise in response to Senator Duniam's urgency motion regarding the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. Firstly, I want to be clear that this urgency motion, in the way that it's written, is exceptionally misleading. In fact, it's absolutely wrong. I think Minister McAllister has highlighted that. The motion say it's a 'disastrous decision' to block a goldmine—no, that is not true. If they read the detail in the press release from Minister Plibersek, they'd realise that it's about the tailings dam. Across this country, there are many, many mines that are open. There's a lot of destruction that has happened, and no-one hands those areas back in a pristine condition, as they were before. But the tailings dam for this mine was going to be put in a sacred place, and the Wiradjuri people, the traditional owners of that area, used their voices and told the federal Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, that they didn't want the dam there. The urgency motion says that the mine has the support of the local land council. We have members of the opposition who come into this place and say things about the local land councils—in fact, I have suggested terms of reference for an inquiry that we should look into these land councils. People say: 'They're corrupt. They don't know what they're doing, and their governance is so bad.' At every Senate estimates, I sit in the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, listening, during the cross-portfolio discussion, as senators grill the land councils. But people in this place are now turning over a new leaf, by the look of it, in supporting a statement by a local land council. I actually feel like they don't know what they're doing. To write a motion that says a mine has 'support of the local land council', while you're sitting on the other side of the desk absolutely grilling them, is rubbish. It's ridiculous. This motion is a joke. When sections of the community say, 'We want to use section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to protect our country, and we have the right to,' we should be listening to that. The minister has listened on this occasion, but there are many, many instances where she hasn't. Murujuga is one of them. We are waiting for Aboriginal cultural heritage protection laws to be fixed in this country on the back of Juukan George and what happened there with the destruction of their country. 16:39 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland This urgency motion could not be more urgent, because we stand at a precipice of decision-making in this country. We are a country that is completely reliant on the income from mining. The Albanese Labor government's failure to understand the urgency of continuing to bring new mining projects online, and instead to delay, to obfuscate and—I am concerned—to kill mining by stealth, is incredibly concerning not just to us today but to future generations of Australians who will be denied income streams from royalties, from well-paid jobs in the regions, where Indigenous families live and where other families live, who all want well-paid jobs and access to services. All this is denied to them when we lose projects like this one. Regis Resources is just the latest casualty in sovereign risk that is being imposed on investment in this country. There are investors, both Australian and from overseas, who are now rating Australia as more risky than Indonesia, Africa and South America, where they see more stable decision-making processes. We should be exceptionally worried about this, because Regis Resources spent four years assessing the mine proposals, going through state approval processes, going through the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act approvals, which included an assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage. This was a mine that had been assessed under all of those avenues, and yet, at the eleventh hour, thanks to the Environmental Defenders Office funding legal advice, we have seen this company—another in a long list of companies—have their approvals delayed or denied. Critical minerals, rare earths and other important commodities like gold are important to Australia. They're important financially, they're important for the jobs and they're important for regional services. But guess what? They're also important for the modern, increasingly electrified, world that we are going to live in. These make up the componentry parts of every modern element that we use, and we require five times as much copper as we have mined to date. We require more gas, more metallurgical coal, more of every commodity you can think of, including a range of new ones in rare earths that we're not familiar with. These are important, and the rest of the world is looking for supply chains to supply them. Australia needs to get with it and manage supplying these commodities as well as managing the environment and cultural heritage. We can do these things. We are one of the most-experienced modern mining nations in the world, and yet, under Labor, we will stop that happening and we will be the poorer for it. We will be pious and we will feel incredibly proud, but we will be poor—and that will be cold comfort, because we have enjoyed a first-world lifestyle based on the revenues from mining and well-paid jobs. This would have provided 580 jobs in construction and 290 full-time jobs based around Orange—that is, jobs where the construction workers, the mine workers, wouldn't have to leave the region, wouldn't have to fly away from their families, wouldn't have the associated workplace health and safety mental health issues and disconnection from their families. It's in the region—hooray! But it will not be, under this government. Under this government, that project will never go ahead because they want to call a tailings dam—an integral part of the mine plan—some sort of waste dump. What a complete lack of understanding of mining. This is a government that seeks to deliver for the Greens. They don't want to deliver for regional people. They certainly don't want to deliver for Australians. We should feel incredibly worried about the economic failure of this government and the failure for regional people. 16:45 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Here we go again—the same radical inequality I've been speaking against for almost 30 years. The $1 billion McPhillamys Gold Project in New South Wales had all the environmental approvals it required and no objection from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council on cultural heritage grounds; then along came Tanya Plibersek to effectively shut it down on the mere claim of another Aboriginal corporation about cultural connections to a local river. The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council has criticised what it calls 'unsubstantiated' cultural heritage claims made by people unqualified to make them. It says: We question the motives of people and organisations who participate in promoting unsubstantiated claims and seek to hijack Aboriginal Cultural Heritage … to push other agendas. Give me a break!Aboriginal corporations and individuals use cultural heritage as well. So many of these groups do it all on their own, citing mythical beliefs like rainbow serpents, or citing secret women's business and men's health. Green extremists have been caught several times deceiving traditional owners and confecting spiritual and cultural connections that never existed in order to stop developments. Let's also not forget the approved Bowdens Silver mine in New South Wales that Minister Plibersek had shut down over the supposed environment impact of a 13-kilometre transmission line. Labor's happy to lay thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to connect its wind turbines and solar panels to the grid without caring about the impact on farmers, but it will stop development of a world-leading silver deposit—a critical mineral in those very same solar panels—over a mere 13 kilometres. You can't make this stuff up. The future of Australia is being held hostage by confected radical division and green extremists. Enough is enough. The goldmine would have created more than 800 jobs and have generated $200 billion in royalties for the people of New South Wales. (Time expired) 16:47 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak against Labor's decision to stop the development of the McPhillamys goldmine out near Orange. First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the people of Orange in the Central West of New South Wales. It's a beautiful city and it's a city that's very close to my heart. It's where my parents got married and where my grandmother and aunt are buried. I spent my childhood travelling up and down the Newell Highway from Chinchilla, spending many holidays in that beautiful town of Orange—so a big shout-out there. I want to clarify that my support for this mine will only ever be there provided it has met all environmental approvals for the mine, because Orange sits at the headwaters of the Lachlan River. I know one of my cousins would have my guts for garters—he loves fishing over there around Orange; he's a big fisherman—so by all means let the mine go ahead, but we definitely don't want to destroy any of the environment around that beautiful part of the world in the Central West. It's fantastic. I also acknowledge the gold industry. It is one of the forgotten minerals of Australia's massive export sector, when it comes to minerals. Of course, iron ore and coal are the top two minerals, but the next mineral after that is gold. Three or four years ago, gold exports were valued at about $22 billion and that was when gold was about $2,000 an ounce; it's now worth about $3,700 an ounce, so I'd expect it to be heading above $30 billion anytime soon. If iron ore comes off—and far be it from me to start predicting the price of metals—we do need other metals out there and other ways to make sure we keep generating export income. Gold is certainly one of those metals, especially given the value of the US debt, at something like $35 trillion and rising by a trillion dollars every quarter. People are suddenly starting to see the value in the world's oldest currency, gold, itself. It has always acted as a hedge against the irresponsible behaviour of central banks, who are used as a means for governments to act responsibly. Instead of going out to the market and issuing bonds, they just rely on their central bank to buy their bonds—and we have seen the consequences of that over the last two decades, ever since the GFC. Anyway, I digress. I'll come back to the MPI. My issue with this particular decision is that it doesn't seem to express the opinions of all Aboriginals in the area. Indeed, in the local Orange area—according to reports; I haven't spoken to these people myself—there seems to be some disagreement amongst the Aboriginals themselves, amongst the Aboriginal communities themselves, as to who is responsible for making those decisions. I guess this is the problem with cultural heritage when you don't have clear title: Who gets to make the decisions? Is it this Aboriginal group or that Aboriginal group? As Senator McDonald mentioned before, the EDO, the Environmental Defenders Office, was funding the group that opposes the mine. So are these people genuine locals, or are they activists from the city pretending to be locals? One of the reasons why this mine has been stopped is cultural practices. However, these cultural practices have to remain commercial; they're not confidential. I always get a little bit cynical when I hear about people talking about commercial-in-confidence and how it has to stay confidential. I'm not quite sure what cultural practice you would have that has to be confidential. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. As much as I love the great city of Orange, I know jobs are important out there, and jobs don't come by every day. If towns like Orange don't get these opportunities—albeit it is close to Sydney, so a lot of retirees like to move out there. They have to find ways to keep their local population employed, or people move out of the town, and we don't want to see that happen out there in the central west. So we've got to consider the jobs that this will provide—as well as to the New South Wales government. I've read that it's going to provide $200 million just in royalties. There is a fair bet that, if it's going to provide $200 million dollars, there will be another $200 million in payroll tax delivered to the state government. There will be hundreds of millions in corporate tax. There will be more money in the PAYG that the workers will pay back to the federal government. So we've got to make the best of these opportunities, especially in an area like this. Just down the road, Bathurst was the site of one of Australia's first gold discoveries. It's an industry that's been with us for almost 200 years, and we need to protect it and our regions. 16:52 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to support Senator Duniam's motion with regard to the atrocious decision made by Minister Plibersek to put an end to the McPhillamys goldmine project going forward, which would have brought about prosperity to the Orange and Bathurst region, providing well over 870 jobs and bringing in billions of dollars to support the local economy. I've heard a lot of rhetoric, a lot of grandstanding and a lot of sanctimonious talk with regard to this being about cultural sensitivities and supporting Indigenous Australians. It is evident that, like other projects that have been blocked by the EDO, there is no interest to support Indigenous Australians to move forward in terms of economic prosperity in this country. It's certainly in the government's favour and the Greens' favour to keep Aboriginal people diminished and dependent on welfare, dependent on government handouts, constantly, as opposed to economic empowerment and economic independence. We've heard from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who had determined they were quite happy, and they were within their own rights to manage this situation going forward. And, of course, this project had met approval from the New South Wales state government to go ahead. Then, all of a sudden, the EDO—woah! They found some supposed Wiradjuri individuals who don't want this project to go ahead. I'm having deja vu. Obviously, it wasn't enough for this government to see what happened in the Northern Territory with the Barossa project and when the EDO go about using and exploiting Indigenous people, dragging in those who don't belong to the region to claim that they do belong to the region, to put an end to economic prosperity for Aboriginal people. This is nothing new, and it has occurred again on this government's watch. It is absolutely appalling that this has in fact happened. It has been suggested that the EDO had gone out to South East Archaeology to make their opinion clear on behalf of a Wiradjuri elder known as Ms Nyree Reynolds. I am told by some Wiradjuri that they do not actually recognise her as being Wiradjuri. In fact, if you go to the Indigenous Law Centre on the UNSW's website, Ms Nyree Reynolds claims to be Gamilaraay. So what is it? Is she Wiradjuri or is she Gamilaraay? This is the issue when you want to play around and act like you're the hero for First Nations, as you call us—for Aboriginal people in this country. This is what happens when you exploit Aboriginal people for your own benefit as opposed to doing the right thing and allowing economic prosperity to occur. The legislated body is stating that this is what is needed in the region. They are actually suggesting that there are some discrepancies here. But, no, you go with the EDO's recommendation once more, and let's see if this decision will end up in the High Court. It will be back on you, the government—which doesn't listen—even though you ran a referendum claiming to listen to Indigenous Australians and to give them a voice. Because they don't have a voice, you're completely ignoring them now and listening to those who like to fabricate cultural sensitivity. You can't explain what the cultural sensitivities are, because they are more than likely fabricated. Let's face it: there was no cultural sensitivity prior to the EDO getting involved. Now, all of a sudden, there is cultural sensitivity. It was already passed by the New South Wales government, and it had the nod of approval by the Orange Aboriginal Land Council. Now you're just saying: 'No, we've got our experts. This is who we're listening to.' It's utterly disgraceful. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 28 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 3273 DOCUMENTS Consideration 3273 COMMITTEES 3273 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 3273 Additional Information 3273 17:05 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia At the request of the Chair of the Economics References Committee, Senator Bragg, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Legislation Committees 3273 Report 3273 17:06 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2024. Public Works Joint Committee 3273 Report 3273 17:06 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's sixth report of 2024. 17:06 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak on this report because the works to be done in Western Australia to facilitate the rotational force there are important. Because of the way these things are tabled, in my not being a member of the committee, I've only just received the report. But what it highlights is that Defence is proceeding with what they're calling their optimal pathway towards developing our capabilities to support SSN submarines, both those that are rotating through from the US and UK down the track within the decade—the, hopefully, three SSN that will be sold to Australia by the United States—and eventually the SSN-AUKUS, which is the submarine built with the UK. At the moment, that optimal pathway is based on the assumption that the best way to get additional capability for the US forces in the Pacific to provide the deterrent factor which people are looking for is to build new submarines, hence the investment in US boat yards, both HII and EB, electric boat, to build new Virginia class submarines. That's good; I support that. But the target of getting to 2.33 submarines out of those yards in what the Americans are now calling 'the speed of relevance'—that is, before the peak threat of the conflict in our region, which is late this decade—will make it very difficult to get the sort of numbers that they need to provide that deterrent factor and that we expect the US to need in order for a future president to sign off on the sale. I'm still optimistic that that will occur. As a former experimental test pilot, as I've often said before, I'm an optimist by nature, almost by definition, but we could make that job easier if we looked at the Congressional Research Service report which was provided to the US Congress as part of their preparatory works for debating the AUKUS legislation. What that highlights is that the new build of submarines is a pathway that they support, but it also highlights that there are 18 Virginia SSN which are in a backlog of maintenance. They're in a backlog of maintenance because there are insufficient shipyard facilities to do the work, there are insufficient workers, and there's insufficient capacity within their supply chain. If you look back through history, Australia, during World War II, actually provided one of the largest operating and maintenance bases in the world for UK and US submarines. We have the capacity in Australia, as we have demonstrated through joint maintenance of things like the mark 48 ADCAP torpedo and as we demonstrate through our maintenance for the Collins Class submarine, to do the work that is required for complex working systems. There is a solution that has not been widely discussed, but it is a viable solution worthy of consideration. This report endorses having an optimal pathway as the preparatory works that will help get us the workforce and the infrastructure, in particular, by the mid-2030s. This report goes to the infrastructure to do deep level maintenance—what we would call a full-cycle docking on the Collins; the Americans have a different term, but it's that deep maintenance—rather than investing slowly in this cruel walk/run process that gets us there by 2030. If that were compressed, such that we could assist the US to remediate those 18 boats, or some of those 18 boats, ahead of the end of this decade, what that then does is two things. In the US interest, it means that they get to the commander of the Pacific fleet more SSN Virginias to increase the deterrent effect that the USINDOPACOM force have in our region, which decreases the likelihood of conflict. That's a win for them and it's a win for the region, including us. The win for us is that we can actually invest now in building the capability and workforce within our industry to do the work that we need to get done by the early 2030s anyway, and so we actually incentivise, through contracts, companies to start employing people for this work. We could bring them in, for example, from the offshore patrol vessel with the contract being halved. In my discussions with industry there is workforce there from the TransCap program on the Anzac. There are some of the new joint ventures that are being stood up, including British firms such as Babcock, who already work in the US. There are opportunities there for workforces to be focused on this task. There is also spare capacity in many elements of Australian industry. For example, in South Australia we have MacTaggart Scott, which, as you could probably guess, is a company that has its origins in Scotland. MacTaggart Scott UK not only supports the British submarines; it also supports the US. MacTaggart Scott Australia has spare capacity, from its work on our submarines, and could support the US. I've spoken to many companies who indicate the same thing: given a contract and a task, they could step up to support the supply chain for the US. What are some missing pieces if that were to happen in a meaningful way? There are two. The first is that the US would have to change their legislation. At the moment their legislation requires that deep maintenance is done in a US port. I understand their reasons for that—sovereign capability and workflow—but at the moment it's actually harming their national interest, not helping. They have 18 boats in the backlog. They should only have 10 or fewer at any given time, according to their strategic planning, but this congressional research report indicates that they have got 18, and that's harming their ability to get deterrent capability. It's harming our prospects of a future US President saying: 'I'm comfortable to sign off. Sell the three SSN Virginias to Australia.' There's an interest for them in making something like this work, and there's an interest for us in doing it. So the legislation is one thing, and given the interest to them I don't see a problem with them dealing with that—at least in the short order—to allow this remediation to occur. The second is the facilities to do this work. On a nuclear boat where the reactor has to keep running, the potential for where we're going to end up by the mid-2030s of having a land-based graving dock are not achievable. Even looking back to the Captain Cook dock in Sydney, the fact is that it was built under wartime conditions but still took over five years. My discussions with industry indicate it would take at least five to six years now. So the only solution that is viable is a floating dock, and there are floating docks that have been certified to lift Virginia SSN out of the water and keep the reactors running. Industry tells me that could be built in under two years. Just as we have contributed funding to US shipyards for the building of new boats, were the US to say, 'Yes, this would be in our benefit because we could get more boats more quickly to our war fighters in the Pacific,' an investment by them in a floating dock to operate off Henderson would be the starting point to focus our industry, our workforce and our productive capacity to remediate some, even one or two, of those 18 boats, which would help deter conflict and help improve the chances of making sure that we also get those Virginia SSN down the track. The other benefit for us long term has to do with the fact that the graving dock in Sydney is badly in need of an upgrade. But it's the only one we have for vessels that size, so we can't take it out of service at the moment. Were this floating dock to be in place, they could build the graving dock in the west, on the original timeline into the 2030s, and then relocate the floating dock to a facility on the east coast, while the Captain Cook dock had the remediation work done. Whilst I support the PWC's report because it approves investment in the current plan, I would argue that we need to think outside the box. If we accept the strategic imperative of both the 2020 Defence strategic update and the Defence strategic review 2023, then we need to take steps that are not our normal way of doing business in order to deter conflict and make sure we have the industrial resilience and military capability to win if we have to, in the end, defend Australia and our interests. 17:16 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak on this Public Works Joint Committee report on the Submarine Rotational Force-West priority works on HMAS Stirling, which is just off the coast of Fremantle, in WA. I'll start by noting the comments from Senator Fawcett, and I note the extraordinary optimism that Senator Fawcett has that, under any part of AUKUS, the United States would not pay for anything in Australia. In his position, I think it's an incredibly optimistic suggestion that the United States might actually pay anything at all to Australia for AUKUS, not least because the most recent AUKUS 2.0 agreement doesn't actually have a facilitation provision that would permit any money to come from the United States to Australia. It only permits and envisages payments from Australia to the United States. I think the likelihood of the United States paying a red cent for any facility in Australia is, at least if you take them at their word from their most recent AUKUS 2.0 agreement, very modest. I wish to both speak from my perspective as the defence spokesperson for the Greens and acknowledge the work of so many people in civil society who have been opposed to the nuclear waste facility that is proposed to be constructed at HMAS Stirling, on Garden Island, just a few kilometres off the coast from Fremantle. The report makes it clear that the government is proposing to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars in building a nuclear waste facility on Garden Island. It's not entirely clear from the report what the government intends to do with that nuclear waste facility. It's not entirely clear from the report—in fact, the report is silent on it—what the next stage of nuclear waste handling and storage at HMAS Stirling will be. But we do know, from other commentary, that the government has something like a $7 billion to $8 billion plan for the expansion of HMAS Stirling so that it can accommodate some five US or UK nuclear submarines on a rotational basis in an Australian port. We do know that it's their ambition to turn what is currently an Australian military facility largely into a US military facility for the forward deployment of US attack class, Virginia class, nuclear submarines. It's notionally also for UK submarines, but the UK submarines can barely get out of the dock or port. It's highly unlikely there will be any UK nuclear submarines, and, if they are there, it will be once in a blue moon. It's largely to turn HMAS Stirling into a very significant US nuclear submarine base for the forward deployment of US nuclear submarines largely so that they can head towards the Malacca straits and seek to be part of the US's containment strategy against China. That's what we're spending three-quarters of a billion dollars for under these public works. It's part of a $7 billion to $8 billion spend from the Australian taxpayer to facilitate a US submarine base. Obviously, the Greens have significant issues with such a huge amount of public money being spent to create a US nuclear submarine base on our territory. Some might say it's a criminal surrender of our sovereignty as a nation. Indeed, it's also an incredibly dangerous further deployment of US military force in the region. As many even US defence hawks have made clear, if it gets to the point in 2027 or 2028 where there are five nuclear attack class submarines of the US based out of HMAS Stirling, it will make Perth a high-priority target if there is even a limited nuclear exchange involving the United States. It's an incredibly reckless decision by the Australian government without any strategic plan behind it that's public and without any consultation with the people of Perth and Fremantle on whether they want to become a nuclear target to satisfy both Labor's and the coalition's plans to embed ourselves with the US military. I haven't heard that said. Maybe there has been consultation. Maybe the people of Perth have said they're quite happy to become a nuclear target, but I kind of think not. When you read this report, it's also remarkable that, despite the committee being told that the waste facility is for low-level nuclear waste, the ARPANSA licence that has been granted for the facility also, indeed, permits intermediate-level waste—intermediate-level waste is extremely harmful for human health. It has to be buried metres and metres below the ground and kept away from any interaction with humans for decades and decades. It is remarkable that, although the committee was told that both Defence and ARPANSA have acknowledged that the licence for the facility will permit the storage—perhaps for a short period or perhaps for a long period; we don't know—of intermediate-level nuclear waste, there's no mention in the report about that. The committee were taken to the evidence that Defence and ARPANSA gave in budget estimates about this facility and the licence permitting intermediate-level nuclear waste, and for some reason they don't mention it. The committee notes in its report the significant community unrest about this facility and the concerns about the storage of nuclear waste on First Nations land and on a facility that is so close to Fremantle, in the beautiful Cockburn Sound, but there's no mention of it. I can't comprehend how the committee failed to reference one of the most significant concerns that came from the community—a concern that is grounded in the evidence given by ARPANSA and Defence. How is it not mentioned? This facility costing three-quarters of a billion dollars is only going to handle nuclear waste coming from UK and US nuclear submarines—it's only going to handle nuclear waste generated by foreign nations' nuclear submarines; that's its only purpose. The committee were told that Defence had acknowledged that, if there was some intermediate, significant servicing required to be done of UK and US submarines, it may entail intermediate-level nuclear waste—things like shielding and other material that's close to the reactor. They were told that, and yet they didn't mention it. Is it because it's embarrassing to the government that it wasn't mentioned in the public communication that came from ARPANSA when they consulted with the community on the licence? Is it because Defence has failed to mention that in any of its publications? Is it because of this committee, which is dominated by Labor and the coalition, being a part of that collective silence about the real cost and the real risks of AUKUS? Well, I think it is. It's awkward, isn't it? It's awkward pointing out that actually this facility costing Australian taxpayers three-quarters of a billion dollars is only designed to service US and UK nuclear submarines. It's part of a plan to build a substantial US and UK—largely US—nuclear submarine base on Australian soil. It's part of a $7 billion plan to expand that base on Australian soil. It will be part of making Perth a nuclear target. And, in the meantime, it will also be storing intermediate-level nuclear waste, which has a wholly different risk profile to the low-level nuclear waste. All of that is inconvenient, and that's probably why none of it was mentioned in this report. So we have very real concerns with the recommendations. We have incredible concerns with the decision by the Albanese Labor government, backed in by the coalition, to spend public money to make us less safe. To be quite honest, we're astounded that none of these critical features, none of these critical facts, were included in this committee report. Question agreed to. Government Response to Report 3276 17:26 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I present the government response to the 87th annual report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, and I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE EIGHTY SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS Committee Recommendations Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the government conduct a thorough and consultative review of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, with a view to repealing and replacing the legislation. The review should consider the issues raised in this report. Response: Agreed, in-principle The Australian Government notes that the Public Works Committee Act 1969 has been in operation for over 50 years without substantive review, and has asked the Department of Finance to develop options for a review, to be considered by Government. The timing of any review would be determined by the Government with consideration given to the Government's other policy priorities. Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) Select Committee, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Cost of Living Select Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Select Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 3276 Membership 3276 17:27 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:27 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Adopting Artificial Intelligence — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Cost of Living — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Economics Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Education and Employment Legislation Committee — Discharged—Senator Walsh Appointed— Senator Brown Participating member: Senator Walsh Education and Employment References Committee — Discharged—Senator Walsh Appointed— Senator Grogan Participating member: Senators Brown and Walsh Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brown Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees — Discharged—Senator Darmanin Appointed— Senator Brown Participating member: Senator Darmanin. Question agreed to. BILLS 3277 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 3277

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

In Committee 3277 17:31 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 The committee is considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024 and amendment (1) on sheet 2649 moved by Senator Hughes. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Hughes be agreed to. 17:31 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The agency mentioned during our last hearing with them that there will be an educational approach to ensuring compliance with the new NDIS supports. What will this educational approach entail? 17:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales While I am just waiting for some notes in relation to that, I might respond to your previous contribution, just prior to senators' statements. It's important to characterise these positions correctly. We had just had a discussion about what would happen in the very narrow set of circumstances where a participant in the scheme sought agreement to have, under the new provisions, a support that's on the prescribed list replaced with an alternative support and sought agreement from the CEO. It was a very narrow set of circumstances that are not available to participants now. What is being proposed is a better system that is more flexible, that has more clarity and transparency, not just for participants and their families, carers and their communities but also for the community at large; therefore, it means a more sustainable scheme with a deeper reservoir of community support. In the narrow circumstances where a person makes an application for a support that is not on the list to be substituted for a support that they have been given access to, there is now an additional process that allows for the CEO or, as you say, their delegate to consider that request and make a decision. I don't think, while we were heading towards senators' statements and people were making statements, that your characterisation of that as a somehow worse situation than what is occurring now is fair. That doesn't mean to say it's not above criticism, and I certainly don't want to convey that. We are open for business in terms of criticism and debate here, but I don't think that's a fair characterisation. In terms of the education questions—I just wanted to be certain about this point. As I am briefed, the act doesn't refer to an 'educative approach' or whatever the phrase was that you used. The agency have said the way they operationally deliver compliance—I don't have anything additional to say to you on this beyond that it will be their responsibility to provide participants in the scheme and service providers in the scheme with as much education material as is judged appropriate to make their responsibilities, particularly for service providers, as clear as they possibly can be. I think that's a proper approach to compliance, and, in terms of what the agency has said, it's obviously mobilised by a view that that will assist a deeper understanding of the obligations and will assist with better compliance. 17:36 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Maybe we'll just try again with that one so that we're absolutely on the same page. During the inquiry hearing into this piece of legislation, the agency gave evidence that there will be an educational approach to ensure compliance with the new NDIS supports. I didn't make any reference to the act in my previous question, and I'm not referencing it now. I'm referencing what the agency stated to us would be their approach. What will this educational approach entail? 17:37 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think it's an operational question for the agency. I understand, as you've indicated in your question, that the agency has said that in response to questions, no doubt from senators in one of the inquiry processes. It is an operational question for the agency. It sounds to me to be consistent with the kind of approach that you would anticipate would happen in these circumstances, but I'm not able to provide you with any more information about that. It seems to me to be a question that the agency is very likely to be happy to directly engage with you about, but, certainly during the estimates processes, that kind of operational question is likely to get officials at the table who can answer those kinds of questions. 17:38 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Will there be any grace period after the list of NDIS supports has been implemented where participants cannot be penalised for noncompliance? 17:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think we touched on this slightly with Senator Hughes. If a participant has, written into their plan, a support or a service that is not on the list and is prescribed 28 days after royal assent, that support will continue to be provided for the duration of their plan. There is a transition period, if you like, depending upon the duration of their plan and if it's written into their current plan. 17:39 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, as I'm sure you are aware, the bill makes clear that those individuals who are presented with new plans, who move within, or are placed upon, new framework plans, must expend their funds in line with requirements—principally, that they expend them on an NDIS support. It's one of the main parts of the bill. My question to you is: will there be a kind of grace period, after the list is created, when people are on new framework plans as part of the 12-month transition, and also for new participants entering the scheme, where, if they inadvertently claim, or make a claim, for something that is not an NDIS support, they will not be penalised? That's the fundamental question. 17:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There are two approaches here. Again, in this very narrow set of circumstances where a person either enters the scheme or—more likely, I think, given your question—is on a plan now that includes reference to a support that is not on the list— 17:42 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia No. Let me clarify. I don't want to get too bogged down here. What I'm trying to identify is: say a participant comes into the scheme in such a way that they are placed on a new framework plan, which creates the requirement for them to spend in line with the requirements of a new framework plan—specifically, the requirement to expend their funds on, to make purchases of, things listed as NDIS supports. Given that you have, in your previous answer, not been able to outline to the Senate what the educational approach is, around what is and is not an NDIS support—you've referred to it as an 'operational matter'—and given that there will be a process of education that the agency has identified during the course of the inquiry, I want to know: will there be any grace period given to those on new framework plans who will be required to spend, in accordance with those plans, only upon NDIS supports, to ensure that they are not penalised while that educational process is occurring? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 283585 While we're waiting for the minister to return, Senator Steele-John: I am going to stick with you, but I just want to get an indication of how much longer you want to go with this line of questioning, so others— Senator Steele-John 250156 I've one question after this and then I will happily cede to the opposition. 17:44 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think that we were talking past each other a little bit there. Your previous question, in relation to an educative approach, I had taken to mean how the agency approaches participants at large. Your question really is about what the approach of the agency is going to be in relation to 'legitimate and reasonable'—whether it is by error or whatever—during the period between 28 days after royal assent, when the act is in operation, and when the new framework applies, 12 to18 months after that. The evidence that the agency gave, as I understand it, is consistent with how the government understands that it will operate, which is that the educative approach—that is, not a punitive approach—is the approach that the agency intends to take. I hope that assists. 17:45 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I have one final question. What will be the penalty for purchasing non-NDIS supports? 17:45 Senator 16913 New South Wales AYRES (—) (): There is not a penalty other than that the participant may incur a debt if the money is not properly expended consistent with the list of supports that are in their plan and consistent with the prescribed list. However, where that is unintentional the intention of the agency is—as you said in your question, and I've tried to respond—to take an educative approach. That will, of course, be a question of practice and operational judgement, but that is the intention of the agency in terms of how it will achieve these outcomes—not to take a punitive approach. Beyond that, there is not a civil penalty or whatever in relation to that. 17:47 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Good evening, Minister. I will come to a series of questions on the actuarial data that underpins this legislation, so I hope you have the right officials there. Just as a bit of a heads-up, I have a series of questions on the numbers that underpin this legislation and some of the assumptions that underpin that. Is that no problem? Have you got the right officials here? 17:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Whether or not that is a problem I will leave for others to judge. 17:47 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I wanted to give you the courtesy of making sure you have the right officials here. First of all, can you describe the trajectory that underpins this legislation. As we discussed before, this year's budget mentions this legislation at least 18 times and says that this legislation is going to deliver $60 billion worth of savings over the next 10 years. I'd like to go to that aspect, particularly the numbers that underpin the savings in the number of people on the scheme and those who are projected to come off the scheme. Can the minister please describe the current trajectory of expenditure on the scheme. We have just had the fourth quarter figures drop and, on my calculations, it has gone from quarter to quarter. Last quarter it was just over 20 per cent year on year. From the fourth quarter, from memory, it was about 18½ per cent growth based on the quarter-to-quarter figures. I'm just wondering if the minister can confirm that and then explain, year by year, how that growth trajectory is to come down to the projected eight per cent, which is where the budget has been cut to. 17:49 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think questions in relation to the quarterly report really are questions for estimates. Officials will be available, as they are in the normal course of events, to answer questions about the veracity. Senator Reynolds, I've listened to you and your colleagues asking questions about the assumptions that underpin those reports and the impact of the government's objectives in terms of what you would say is the credibility of the claims that the government is making in relation to moderating the growth of the scheme. I can say that this bill is part of a process of reform that the government is undertaking that is designed to achieve a moderation in growth. I understand that, in the context of the partisan conflict around the NDIS, there are participants in that argument who want to characterise that as a cut to the NDIS. I don't think any sensible construction of a rate of growth that is at eight per cent could be characterised as a cut. I don't think it's possible to do that in a credible way. It does mean that less will be spent by the scheme if the reforms are undertaken. That is certainly true, and that eight per cent target of moderated growth is designed to apply from 1 July 2026, consistent with what the minister has said. 17:52 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. I almost don't know where to start, apart from admiring your ability to try and say that is not a $60 billion cut. In your own budget papers, it's mentioned 18 times that $60 billion is being cut out of the budget, through some heroic but as yet undefined method, by this government. Minister, would it help if I go and get your own budget papers and actually bring you the 18 sections of your budget that demonstrate that you are cutting the scheme? Your budget papers say specifically that you will be realising $60 billion worth of savings. You might call it 'Shorten-omics' or whatever, in terms of $60 billion coming out of a budget not being a cut, but I think the NDIS participants, who know that that cut will come from their plans, are not fooled by this. If I can get it correct, you are saying that, by 1 July 2026, somehow this year-on-year, quarter-on-quarter growth—as in, comparable growth—which was 20 per cent last quarter and 18½ per cent this quarter, is going to magically dip down to eight per cent in two years, with no information, data or actuarial evidence. Clearly, as to these numbers, to make these budget savings which your budget says are coming from this bill, it's not part of a process; your own budget says it is this bill that is going to make the $60 billion worth of savings by reducing the scheme. There are only two ways to reduce the scheme. You either cut participant numbers or cut the average value of participant plans. Those are the only ways to realise $60 billion worth of savings out of your own budget. You say, somewhat disingenuously, in my mind, that the Q4 report is not an issue for this place. Of course it is. The Q4 report dropped late, after our last hearing into this bill, and we did not have the opportunity to inquire of any NDIS official or the actuary about the figures behind this. In fact we have spent probably 18 months to two years doing a very unseemly lack-of-transparency dance with this government to get any information out of it—out of Minister Shorten, in particular—about this scheme. So here we are in committee stage on this bill. The government is still saying that a $60 billion cut to the NDIS budget is not a cut. Well, that is simply not good enough. We have thousands and thousands of people on the NDIS who are scared out of their minds because, unlike your attempt to convey 'Shorten-omics', people understand that the only way you can realise these savings is by cutting the scheme. If anyone looks at this legislation, it is all about giving Minister Shorten godlike powers to unilaterally cut people's plans, and the states and territories hate and do not agree with that. To do that, you must have actuarial data available to tell us how many people will be impacted, whose plans will be impacted and how much they will be impacted by. That is what 660-odd thousand Australians are worried to death about today. You're making cuts with this legislation, but you are not being in any way transparent with participants. Minister, I'd like to ask you this, if you can answer this question. We'll take the $60 billion bit by bit. The legislation and the budget confirm that the intraplan inflation in this scheme will be cut and that you will cut it down to four or five per cent per annum. How much does that work out to over the forward estimates, Minister? 17:57 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales It is true, Senator, that there may be participants who are apprehensive about what the impacts are of these reforms, but that's because you are running a disgraceful scare campaign, because you are out there making claims about the impact— Senator Reynolds 250216 There are 660,000 of them. It is in your budget document. I'll ask my office to bring down the document. Senator AYRES 16913 I don't think that'll help you. That is the impact of your scare campaign. When you make the claim, less than honestly, that there are going to be cuts of $60 billion, that claim makes ordinary people in the street think that there is an amount that is allocated to the NDIS and that $60 billion will come out of it. Well, that is utterly disingenuous—utterly. What the government is saying here, and what has been worked through with the states and territories in the National Cabinet process, is that over time—and I think we would all agree—the growth in this scheme, in order to make it sustainable, must be managed. If we are to provide this incredible service for families, for our kids and our grandkids, for future generations of Australians, the scheme must be made to work. There is not an inherent clash between fairness and equity and operational efficiency and meeting a target of moderated growth. Eight per cent growth is a higher level of growth than could be attached to almost any other scheme that the government operates. It is a moderation in growth. The numbers, every year that the Commonwealth spends on the NDIS and the NDIA, will continue to increase. Under this government, they will continue to increase. Year on year, the amount will increase. The objective of the government is that the amount that it increases by is around eight per cent. That is well and truly above any other index. The approach that you have taken to this reform in particular lacks moral seriousness. There is not, in any piece of policymaking, the relationship that you say is there. The only things that can make a difference in terms of the amount that the Commonwealth expends on the NDIS, you say, can be reducing the number of participants or reducing the amount that each participant is expending on their plan. Making sure that the participants in the scheme are consistent with the original intent of the scheme and the stated purpose of the legislation here is a completely appropriate public policy objective. Making sure that every service that is provided by the scheme is consistent with the proper purpose and with the needs assessment process that is designed to simultaneously make sure not only that the services provided are on the list but also that they are founded in either sections 24 or 25 and that they are granted to a participant on the basis of a holistic assessment of the whole person. These approaches are not narrow and are not about cuts. They are about ensuring the scheme is sustainable for future generations of services. Identifying where fraud might be undertaken, where there might be duplication or where there might be inefficiency, and making sure that people are provided with good-quality services, all go towards a better outcome for participants and a more sustainable scheme. Of course, the government, in the normal budget processes, is supported by all of the kinds of actuarial or other data that you might refer to in the normal way that it is provided to government, consistent with the budget processes. Senator Reynolds 250216 That is simply not true. Senator AYRES 16913 The government has reached— Senator Reynolds 250216 We have always provided the actuarial data. We provided it. You have not. Senator AYRES 16913 The government has reached an agreement with the states to set an objective—because we're serious about reform, Senator Reynolds. We're not sitting on our hands like the previous government did, just watching this all go past us. We are determined to seize the nettle of reform here and do what it is in the public interest and in the interest of the scheme operating, in the coming decades, for Australians who are participating in the scheme and for the Australians who haven't come along yet. That is what we are determined to do, and I think characterising it as cuts at the very best lacks a sense of seriousness about the task that is in front of us. 18:04 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I think we're going to be here for days, in committee. If we can't get one simple actuarial question answered, we are going to be here for a very, very long time. Minister, I commend you. You've obviously read all four editions of the RedBridge research, because almost everything that came out of your mouth then was from the talking points provided by RedBridge to Minister Shorten and the NDIA. There was not a single fact about this legislation, about the impact of this legislation on 660,000 NDIS participants, but you managed to capture just about all the buzzwords out of this RedBridge research. I tell you what: NDIS participants and their families deserve so much better. You might call $60 billion of money that has been cut out of the budget a 'moderated growth', but NDIS participants and senators in this place are not stupid, Minister. We understand that when the budget says it is a cut, it is a cut. Everybody in here, and certainly everybody on the NDIS and their families and carers, understand that in an insurance scheme, which this is, there are two drivers of cost, and they are the number of participants and the average cost per participant. There are things around the sides that you can improve to decrease fraud and improve administration, but the only way to realise $60 billion of cuts is through cutting participant numbers or the average cost per plan. You know that. Minister Shorten knows that. Every single state and territory minister knows that. Anybody who has ever had anything to do with an insurance scheme understands that principle. Minister, over the next four years how much will intraplan inflation be reduced to and over how many years? My recollection is that it was about $8.5 billion. Could you please explain what data that is based on? So that $8.5 billion of intraplan inflation savings, where is that going to be coming from in terms of participants and plans? 18:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Whether or not something that somebody says is consistent with a bit of research that you claim to have read—I have never read any of this research. I don't know what you're talking about. Senator AYRES 16913 I don't know what you're talking about. I've heard your questions. I have never seen this. I occasionally read a bit of research, I occasionally do, but I have never seen this. What I'm telling you is what— Senator Reynolds 250216 Ask Mr Shorten's staff for your talking points. Senator AYRES 16913 Senator, I listened to what you said and your mischaracterisations of the government's approach, your narrow appreciation of what is actually possible in terms of reform here—a position that you want to convey to families and participants that your party, the party of cuts to services, can only imagine one way through making a scheme of such public importance sustainable, and that is to cut it. I understand that the narrow field of vision from which you view these things means you see that there is only one approach, but the government's approach here is to moderate growth. That means that every year of the scheme's operation, while this government is the government, the amount of expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme will increase every single year over the forwards and beyond the forwards. The objective is to try to moderate that growth to a level where it is around eight per cent. The impact of the spending provisions in this bill have been estimated to reduce scheme expenditure over the forward estimates. In relation to intraplan inflation, this component is responsible for about half of the moderation in growth. The legislative reforms will support participants to spend in accordance with their plans, which is not a very difficult concept for people in the street to understand or for participants and their families. We will develop an approach that means that there is a common understanding for participants in the scheme of what is available for them to spend, rather than exhausting their funding for reasonable and necessary supports and then needing to be topped up with additional funding for supports. This is achieved through amendments to section 33 and 46 of the act, which will provide the agency with the power to set a total planned funding amount and then require a participant or nominee to spend within that funding amount. I think that that is an approach that fair-minded Australians would say is consistent with the good management of the scheme. A legislative instrument will set out the method by which the total funding amount is calculated. That will be available for you to scrutinise and, no doubt, ask questions about in future estimates. 18:10 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The last time I asked questions we were talking about the co-design and the two-week period that people had to look at the draft list and provide feedback. After questioning from Senator Steele-John, I understand that the consultation has been extended by a week, which is very welcome. But I wanted to raise the issue of period products being excluded as a 'lifestyle related product' alongside vapes, gambling and sports tickets. I understand it does provide a carve-out if the costs incurred are 'solely and directly as a result of a person's disability'. My first question is: are period products a lifestyle choice like vapes, gambling and sports tickets? 18:12 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales In the government's view, where those products appeared on the list was the wrong place for them to appear on the list. Period products are not a lifestyle product. I think what is intended to be conveyed, though, is this principle: payments for supports must have a connection to the impairment as it arises under either section 24 or section 25 of the act—that is, period products are not used arising from the disability. I think everyone in the government would concede it is not appropriate to describe them in the way that you have just described them—as you sought for me to clarify—and that it is simply as a result of them being put in that category. The principle, though, is that, if support is required because it arises from a disability that comes out of sections 24 and 25, and if it's on the list, then that will happen. That is not the case for those products. The alternative language that the department intends to provide says that menstrual products are a 'daily living item'. That must be a category that was set out in the thing. I think 'lifestyle' is a very unhelpful place for those products to have been ascribed to. They are a daily living item. 18:14 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory You can see why there's angst amongst the community when your government puts them on a list that also includes things like vapes, gambling and sports tickets. Thank you for the clarification, but I just want to dig into what it might be that the NDIA are going to have to test when they have to determine whether someone's access to period products is 'solely and directly' related to their disability. Before I do that, I want to recognise the work of Women With Disabilities Australia, who've been surveying their members on the potential impact of this change as quickly as they can so they can respond to the consultation in the small time that has been given to them by the government that talks a lot about co-design. I've heard stories of people with connective tissue disorders who cannot change their own tampons without assistance. It's not safe for them to wait with a tampon in, potentially for hours, for a support worker to assist, so they may need to use period underwear, which they likely can only obtain, at the moment, with the assistance of the NDIS. Let's not forget that period poverty is a very real thing in Australia. Minister, under the test of solely and directly, would those participants be able to access period underwear? 18:16 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I'm reluctant to make a declaration about a specific proposition, but what you just put to me then sounds like something that is related to the disability that a person experiences that would be found in an assessment to be grounded in either section 24 or section 25. Certainly, it is the intention that those kinds of products would be supported. In terms of the normal daily living of participants, it is not the intention to provide support for those products, but I'm sure you could take me to a range of other circumstances where it clearly would fall within the ambit of the scheme. 18:17 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, I'm really concerned about what sort of evidence the NDIA is going to require of participants to show that they need access to period products. We have a recent survey conducted by Share the Dignity that found that one in three people struggle to afford menstrual products. They found that it's particularly acute for people with disability. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents with disability said that they struggled to afford this basic dignity; 78 per cent of people with a disability said that they struggle to afford period products in Australia. How much of a saving is the Commonwealth actually expecting to make from making it harder for NDIS participants to obtain period products? Honestly, to go to some of the questions earlier, surely this is something that Australians would be happy to fork out for—to allow women to have the dignity of being able to afford period products for people who may need period underwear, which are more expensive. 18:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I have two responses. One is that I've just had some response from the agency. It is their intention to align their approach to this with incontinence products. This is why a list is provided. It's not anticipated that the list that is provided will get it all right. It is an effort to engage with the community, and then we get feedback. When we've got it wrong, we pay attention to the feedback and make changes. In relation to this issue, feedback from the community has been very helpful. Those products have never been on the list, but we've heard the community in this case and we'll respond, as part of the consultation, to pick up on the issues that you have highlighted here and that have already been highlighted by the consultation process that the government, department and agency have undertaken in relation to the list. I think the second proposition in your question goes to the dignity of individuals who are going through the needs assessment process, so the act comes into play. We have a 12- to 18-month process of designing that needs assessment tool and framework. As you've indicated, those co-design principles mean that questions like this will have to be deliberated upon carefully. Yes, participants will need to engage with a needs assessor about their requirements, but, in terms of those questions of the dignity of participants in the process, they are absolutely capable of a co-design process that improves that process and the experience of participants as they engage with the needs assessment tool for the future. 18:21 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. From what I've heard—and you can maybe clarify in your answer—it sounds like it was on the list for consultation and, based on feedback, it's going to be removed from the not-funded list. It seems to me that secure access to period products can only be a good thing, particularly for a population of people who consistently report difficulty in obtaining them. I'd like to read you a few quotes from women about how appropriate period support has increased their independence. One woman said, 'I'm actually able to leave the house during my period.' Another woman said: 'It is challenging for my daughter to manage the use of traditional period products. Using period underwear has given her the independence to manage her periods every month, maintaining her privacy and dignity.' Another person said: 'I'm in my 30s and living a fulfilling life with a career and a family. Period undies are one useful support that help me sustain this. I think the NDIS might suggest that having a support worker or setting reminders on my phone would be a replacement, but they are not appropriate. These supports were embarrassing and unreliable when I was a kid. At this stage of my life they would be humiliating and degrading. I would like to be able to get on with my life when I have my period.' Minister, I think these quotes speak volumes. Period products are not a lifestyle choice; they are a necessity for full, independent social and economic participation. That's what the NDIS is all about. Minister, just finally, can the government assure the disability community and all Australians that menstrual products will be scrapped from the draft list and will continue to be available for people with disability who need them? 18:23 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales This is the first time that we, as a government, have gone through an assessment of what should be on the list. I think I've indicated in my earlier responses to questions that period products certainly weren't in the right place on the list; that's for sure. The department and agency have already responded to feedback in relation to that question, and I understand why people would have been concerned, to say the least, about where that was allocated and how that was described. We will listen and we are listening to feedback on this question, and the government will make decisions in relation to that, consistent with the approach that I've outlined. Without providing some sort of adjudication on this question while on my feet, it would be, I think, quite straightforward to make the case that the kinds of circumstances that you describe attach themselves to the kind of disability that arises from sections 24 and 25. I understand your complaint on this goes slightly broader than that. The government is listening carefully to that feedback. 18:24 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Minister, you've just said that period products were on the list in the wrong place. Are there any other items listed on that consultation paper that you gave out to the community—they have spent so many hours giving feedback using that framework. Are there any other items on those proposed lists that were placed in the wrong place? 18:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The reason that you go out with the list to consult is not so that you insist before or during or after the consultation process that the list can't be changed. The reason that you consult is in order to listen carefully to feedback and to make changes. In relation to that item that the government has already—I think I've made clear mid-step that, as that consultation process is going on, the government will make changes in relation to that issue. There may well be other changes. That is the point of open government here. The list is not predetermined. It is not that people sent a letter and said: 'This is the list. We are not going to change our position.' The list is provided there for public commentary, and we're not sensitive; we don't have a glass jaw about these things. Where we need to make changes, the minister, the department and the agency, in exercising their proper functions, will make changes. That's inherent in the consultation process. Even outside of the ideas of co-design and all of that sort of stuff, the very idea of consultation does connote that changes will be made. 18:27 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, I just wanted to come back to when you were answering the question from Senator Reynolds regarding the number of people on the scheme. I don't think it's any secret—I've been quite open and honest—that I think there are too many people on the scheme. I think there are too many people that are looking to the NDIS as the only lifeboat—that there are people who are going onto the scheme who do not have permanent and lifelong disabilities. We do know, in a demand-driven scheme, that the only way that you can get the cost down or you can cap the growth—whatever way you want to refer to it—is by cutting the number of participants or cutting the value of their plans. We're just trying to find the exact words, but, during your answer, you said, 'If the people who are on the scheme after this bill is passed are those who the scheme was intended for,' which I don't have a problem with. I was just wondering if you could perhaps offer us some clarity on who the government thinks are the people on the scheme at the moment that shouldn't be and, in the future, who are the people who will perhaps no longer qualify for the scheme. 18:28 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think there are a number of competing concepts in all of this. The first is that people's eligibility for the scheme is founded, as we traversed earlier in sections 24 and 25, in one or both of those schemes. There will be, as a consequence of the act, a co-design process that determines rule making in relation to that, but eligibility and access to the scheme is not of itself changed. The provisions of the act in sections 24 and 25 do not change. If you were eligible under section 24 or section 25 last year, you would be eligible under sections 24 and 25 next year. There will be a process in the assessments under the scheme to ensure that people are in fact receiving supports that are consistent with 24 and 25—or 25, I should say. It is also the case that, within the growth of the scheme that the government has targeted, it is not the intention of the government to reduce the number of people in the scheme. The number of people who are in the scheme will presumably, if we are properly applying 24 and 25, increase over time as the population grows. I think any construction of that will mean that the number of people involved in the scheme will not fall away. But the assessment of whether you are eligible for supports in the scheme will be properly founded in 24 and 25, and the kinds of supports that participants receive will be clearly understood and also founded in 24 and 25. At the very least, because of the list that has been developed, there is some more clarity about what kinds of supports will be available under the scheme. 18:31 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I am sorry, but I am less clear than I was before. That Minister Shorten has referred to the NDIS as 'the only lifeboat in the ocean' is indicative of the fact that a whole lot of kids are going onto this scheme who should not be on the scheme. In fact, we know that we have around 11 per cent of boys aged between five and seven currently receiving NDIS plans. There is no way on God's green earth that 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-old boys in this country have a permanent and lifelong disability. If that were the case, we would be in for a world of pain in the next 20 or 30 years, if 11 per cent of boys currently aged from five to seven have significant, permanent, lifelong impairments. That is impossible to be the case. There is no way, under this legislation—and from Minister Shorten's own words around the importance of foundational supports, around the importance of bringing the states and territories back to the table. People who do not have significant impairments, who do not have permanent and lifelong disability, are not on the scheme. For that to be the case, there has to be some concept of who the next lifeboat, the second lifeboat in the ocean, is for. We have the NDIS as the only lifeboat in the ocean at the moment, according to Minister Shorten. So who is going from this lifeboat into the foundational support lifeboat? Who is going into the other lifeboat? What are the disabilities or conditions? What are the temporary impairments? We know they will not be lifelong and permanent disability. And I'm not having a go at you here. There are too many people on it. There is no way that 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-old boys have a disability. It is not possible. But I think the Australian people deserve to know, and parents in this country—parents of that 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-old boys—have a right to know which one of the conditions that their children have stays on the NDIS lifeboat or moves over to the foundational support lifeboat. I am less clear. I don't think the intent of this bill is for the scheme to grow in numbers, because there is no way you are capping growth if that is the case. So I think that—whoever is saying that—it is a myth, or it is certainly misleading. There is no way that we want to keep this level, this volume, of children being pushed through to the NDIS. I think it is just fair—it is not attacking; it is not having a go—because this is the reform we're talking about. If we're doing reform, we've got to put our big boy pants on and have some tough discussions. If your child has a global developmental delay, some fine motor skill issues or even some gross motor skill issues, a sensory processing disorder or oppositional defiant disorder—there are a lot of disorders going around these days. To have made the modelling, the figures and the assessments for how much this is going to save—and I'm sure Senator Reynolds will take us through some of those numbers. If these saves are going to be made and the growth is going to be capped, which of these disorders or conditions are going to move from the NDIS lifeboat to the foundational supports lifeboat? 18:35 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The bill does not make changes to who can access the NDIS. It makes it clear that, when a person meets the access criteria to become a participant in the scheme, the agency must advise on whether they meet the disability requirements under either of the two sections that we've referred to: the disability requirements under section 24 and the early intervention requirements—or both. That is the first step in establishing a new early intervention pathway, which will be developed over time using the appropriate rules. Until that has occurred, the only difference for participants will be the information included in their access decision. The bill will also clarify and expand the power to make NDIS rules relating to access provisions, including the methods or criteria to be applied when making decisions about the disability and early intervention criteria and the matters which must or must not be taken into account. As you would know, rules already exist under section 27 as it is currently in force. New rules will be developed in that 12- to 18-month co-design process that we've canvassed a bit in committee and will provide some clarity and detail about the application and meaning of key concepts in the act. You are right that the second set of concepts here is in relation to the foundational supports that have been agreed to be provided fundamentally by the states and territories. I won't go to each of the kinds of disabilities or disorders—or whatever the proper language is to describe those diagnoses—but the intention is that they will either fall into a disability that is properly founded in either section 24 or 25 or be supported in terms of foundational support. No person should receive less support as a result of that process being engaged in over time. But, for participants in the scheme now or applicants for the scheme, the provisions for access do not change as a result of this. What is being sought here—big pants or not—is long-term reform that is designed to achieve moderation in growth from 2026 onwards. But, of course, we'll engage an enormous amount of cooperative work and reform, including the foundational supports work that you've alluded to, in cooperation with the states and territories. 18:39 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I will hand over after this. I'm trying to understand the big selling point behind foundational supports—why they need to be implemented by bringing the states back to the table and making sure not only that there is community health, with OTs, speechies and psychs available for families who don't need ongoing and lifelong support to access but also that the departments of education will provide those supports to children who need a little bit of structure and scaffolding around them in the classroom situation. Maybe I've just completely missed the point, but my understanding was that a lot of these kids that are going to access some of this stuff won't actually be NDIS participants. They're not going to need an NDIS plan because they're accessing foundational supports. That's what I'm trying to understand. We've got 11 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds currently with an NDIS plan. A big chunk of them should be accessing what would be these new foundational supports, not having an NDIS plan. Just take that 11 per cent cohort of five- to seven-year-old boys. Let's be generous and say six per cent of the 11 per cent shouldn't be on the NDIS. Who are that six per cent? What are we looking at to move them off? There will be families at home listening to this thinking: 'My son doesn't have autism level 3. My son doesn't have an intellectual disability. My son doesn't have cerebral palsy. My son doesn't have Down syndrome. But he's got a sensory processing disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. Does this mean he will no longer have an NDIS plan and will be shifted over the foundational supports?' I think it is time for some clarity with the Australian public, particularly the parents of children on this scheme. Who are these kids that are going to move to foundational supports and who will no longer have an NDIS plan so that it is a scheme for those it was intended for? I appreciate the minister referring to 24 and 25 as access criteria, but the reality is that they've been blown out. They're not being adhered to. I am not coming here negative about it. There are too many people. These people should be coming off it. It is too lax with regard to the people gaining accessibility, but I think we need to be honest with the Australian people, with the community and particularly the parents of kids currently with an NDIS plan: What are the conditions? What sort of things are going to be put into place—maybe define 24 and 25 a little bit more clearly—for the kids that will no longer have an NDIS plan? Obviously, under what you're proposing—if the states come to the table and fairyland ensues—they will be well supported still in foundational supports, but I think we need to get some clarity on that. We should not have—at any stage in the future once this, or any other reform, is rolled out—11 per cent of five- to seven-year-olds considered to have a permanent and lifelong disability and on the NDIS. 18:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I can only reiterate that the bill does not make changes to who can access the NDIS. It is absolutely the case, for parents of kids who are experiencing those kinds of challenges, that they will do anything to look after their kid. At the moment for many of them, the only pathway they see to supporting their kid at that crucial stage of development is through access to the NDIS. The minister, as you say, has used the phrase, 'It is the only lifeboat in the ocean for families who are in that position.' That is not the intention. It will not be the effect of this set of reforms that people who are accessing the scheme today will no longer be able to access the scheme. I don't want to overwork the analogy, but the foundational supports are intended to be not just another lifeboat but a better kind of support outside of the scheme that means that participants' eligibility is founded in 24 or 25, and that goes to properly understood construction of what the NDIS is aiming to achieve. That is a good outcome for the scheme and a good outcome over time for participants because the supports will be getting better and more agile. And as you say, perhaps not lifelong supports, whether it is an education system or through community health or—that is the intention. It is not the case that a world in which the states and territories engage in this is not credible. National Cabinet, which is a serious decision-making body of the Commonwealth, has agreed to the design of foundational supports that will be engaged by the Commonwealth and the states and territories. They will create more pathways outside of the NDIS, particularly for young children and young people and for people accessing the scheme. They will incorporate better access to mainstream services. There is more work to do as we engage with the states and territories to make sure that as this process unfolds, consistent with the agreement in the National Cabinet, that work is done in a substantial way that means that families in the future—families who will have kids who haven't come along yet—know that they will be supported. The way that you've characterised the situation now for families is correct. We all know we'd do anything for our kids in this situation and that the NDIS is there as a beacon for those families now. We want to improve the NDIS. We want to make sure we get the foundational support stream right over time. But access for participants now—I want to be really clear to participants and their families—does not change as a result of the passage of this legislation. 18:47 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Could I pick up where we left off, Minister? You were trying to explain how the $60 billion that has come out of your last budget is actually not a cut. I have gone back to the budget papers. Just to see whether you're familiar with what your own budget papers say, I refer you to page 7 of Budget Paper No. 1. Under 'Responsible economic management', it says: These reforms are expected to— realise— $14.4 billion over four years— of savings— based on the NDIS Actuary's revised projections without further action. It would be great if this place and other people could actually see the NDIS actuary's projections, because they've disappeared from the AFSR. Page 7 of the budget paper says that these are going to be savings just over the forward estimates. Then in Budget Paper No. 1—again—on pages 96 and 97 it talks about how these savings are going to be 'realised by the government in the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Getting the NDIS Back on Track measures', which is this bill here today. For the absence of doubt that this is actually money coming out of the federal budget, we turn to Budget Paper No. 2 and to table 2, 'Payment measures', on page 35. Minister, if you don't know, in budget papers when it's positive it just has a number; when it's actually money added into the budget it is a number. However, when it is a cut to the budget it has got a negative on it. In table 2 on page 35 it clearly says over the next four years, in the forward estimates, there's going to be $15½ billion worth of savings, which the actuary has confirmed is $60 billion coming out of the budget. Minister, please do not try and play these ridiculous games. There is no sealed section in this budget for Minister Shorten and his 'Shortenomics' and the Redbridge spin. It is a cut. And if you're cutting an insurance scheme, it has to come from one of two places, or both—the number of participants in the scheme and the average cost per participant. So, Minister, I take from your obfuscation, yet again, that you are not going to answer any of these actuarial questions about this legislation, on the numbers that underpin these savings—is that correct? I don't want to waste the Senate's time if you are going to go into a mouthful of Redbridge verbiage for the next five minutes rather than providing the numbers. I asked you the question before, and you didn't provide a number. Maybe you will if I ask it again. If we're not going to get numbers, I'll move on to a different line of questioning, because it's clear that you're not going to provide the data. Minister, can you give us the number of people who are currently waiting for a review of their NDIS plan? The last number we had was that somewhere over 50,000 participants are waiting on an indefinite holding plan to get their budget reviewed. The vast majority of those, probably somewhere over 95 per cent, will be plan increases. Can you provide that number first. Then can you advise how many—and I know it's in the actuarial data—of the people who have been put on a holding plan and are waiting desperately to get an increase or a change to their plan will not get their request for a plan increase. You have the number there. 18:51 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales There were a couple of questions in there, I suppose. I might take you to your claim that my disagreement with you about the claims the government makes about these issues is obfuscation. Obfuscation, of course, is the action of making something obscure or unclear or unintelligible. One, when confronted with sharp questions, engages in verbiage, I suppose, to divert the questioner from their original purpose. That is what I am doing now, Senator. That is what I am doing now by explaining obfuscation to you. The problem is I disagree with you; the government disagrees with you. We don't agree—and we don't think anybody could sensibly agree, unless they were the most partisan of observers—that a reduction in growth over the forward estimates is a cut. You could quibble. If there were a scheme—another scheme—that was indexed by inflation, for example, and you decreased the growth of the scheme by less than inflation, you could argue that that was a real cut, but that is not what is happening here. I know that there is a sense of entitlement on the Liberal side that says no other party could govern the place properly. I know you lot don't think that it's conceivable. That's how you end up with the sort of complacency that characterised the last nine years of government. We are taking this approach seriously. If the reform is delivered consistent with the approach that the government has set out here, growth in the scheme will be around eight per cent per annum from 1 July 2026. Senator Reynolds 250216 How many people are waiting for their plans to be reviewed? Senator AYRES 16913 We'll come to your second question. I'm answering the first of what sounded like several. That means that the growth of the scheme will be faster than inflation. I think most Australians—whether they are participants in the scheme, whether they are applying to be participants in the scheme or whether they have no relationship to the scheme but are supportive of the scheme—would say that eight per cent per annum growth is not a cut. It is not a cut. The budget allocations for the scheme will not get smaller each year. They will continue to increase. They will just increase by less than they would if the government were to take its hands off the wheel, which is what characterised the last nine years of government. I know that there were attempts by the government to make changes that were not agreed by the parliament, and that is a great source of frustration for ministers; I accept that that is deeply felt. We are trying to do reform now. We have worked hard with the states and territories. We are working hard across the parliament, we are working hard with the public servants and the people who are delivering this work, and we are working hard with the disability community to make the scheme sustainable for future generations. In terms of the number of people who are currently in the pipeline making applications for the scheme, I do not have that material at hand, and it would not normally be provided as part of this process. I look forward, very much, to Senate estimates in September— Senator Reynolds 250216 November. Senator AYRES 16913 November—that's a small relief, Senator—where we can traverse all of those issues with all of the proper officials who would normally be available to answer those kinds of questions. I'd be delighted to engage more about whether the proper construction of 'obfuscation' is being used; we just disagree on this question. 18:57 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Minister, again I applaud your ability to filibuster. I was just waiting for a definition of 'filibuster' to come into your filibustering. That's all that would have been needed. Minister, this is not a question that is inappropriate for this debate on this bill tonight. This bill, as the budget papers say, is all about realising savings to the scheme by moderating growth—yes—and by cutting money out of this bill. There is a record number of people currently waiting in the queue. We were told last time that there were over 50,000; the question is appropriate. This government has deliberately slowed down the processing of those plans until after this legislation so that you can cut the plans and not increase the intraplan inflation so you could make the $4.5 billion of savings. That is very clear to the people who are currently desperately waiting for a review of their plan because the cost of living and the cost of services have gone up so much. Minister, the first question is: how many are in the queue? The officials next to you absolutely have that number in hand; they have used it before. The second question is: how many people are waiting—again, in a different queue—for access to the scheme and then waiting to have their plans approved? It is very clear to us and, I am sure, to the Greens that, again, the government has been artificially turning the tap down to try and desperately moderate, unsuccessfully. At the moment, we've got two lots of participants who have told us they are desperate. There are those who have no money left in their plan, for a variety of reasons, and can no longer get services. There are around 50,000 of them. What will happen to them, and how many of them are there? The second question is: how many people have put applications in and currently have plans waiting? That information used to be provided. It used to be available. But for some reason now it is unavailable, again, like every other bit of information, including the sustainability framework and actuarial data—data that underpins these budget savings and this bill itself. Those are two very basic questions. By my calculation, there are around 100,000 people desperate to know what their fate will be if your legislation gets through. How many are waiting in both of those queues? 19:00 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales 'Filibustering' is acting in an obstructive manner by speaking for an inordinate amount of time. All the references in my notes refer to Liberals filibustering. It could be the kind of process that is engaged by asking inordinately long— Senator Hughes 273828 Would you like to table them? Senator AYRES 16913 It's on the internet, Senator Hughes. I'm not sure I can assist you with that. The screen lock has happened; it's gone! I just say this in relation to your claim about obstruction. This bill has been here for quite some time. The government needs to get on with the job here. I am not in a position to provide you with—nor could I reasonably be expected to provide you with—numbers to either sustain or contradict your claim about the number of people. I am advised that, since late 2023, the volume of requests from participants asking for a change to their NDIS plan has significantly increased. That significant increase has occurred all the way up to recently. But it's suspicious timing that the increase in requests from participants matches exactly the commencement of the Liberal Party's scare campaign about what the government's reforms to the scheme would mean. Reform, as Senator Hughes said, does involves putting on, as she said 'big boy pants'—they're big pants, anyway—and tackling tough issues. Senator AYRES 16913 I was trying to provide a gender-neutral pants option there, Senator Allman-Payne. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 I was trying to work with Senator Hughes's expression. I think that embarking on a scare campaign and trying to claim that the sky is going to fall in for participants does have an impact on ordinary people— Senator Reynolds 250216 I have a point of order. The minister has made a very, very serious allegation about the coalition—and presumably the Greens senators, as well—that somehow we have conspired with over 50,000 NDIS participants to rort the system and put in extra claims. That is outrageous. I'd like the minister to withdraw that and actually provide answers to the two questions I asked on figures. First of all, can I ask that he withdraw that imputation. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Minister, to assist the smooth running of this chamber, you could— Senator AYRES 16913 I certainly did not make that imputation, if that assists. I'm not going to withdraw an imputation that I did not make. What I did say is that a lack of a sense of moral seriousness and responsibility about the claims that are made about the impact of legislation has an impact in households. A scare campaign creates fear. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Minister. Senator Reynolds, on a point of order? Senator Reynolds 250216 Could I ask, perhaps, that you take it away and ask the President to review what the minister actually said, because to my mind it was very clear that he was saying that there was a conspiracy in the timing of over 50,000 people putting reviews in. To assist the chamber, I ask that the tape be reviewed. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I will refer it to the President for review. Minister. Senator AYRES 16913 We can go backwards and forwards about this question, but I am not in a position to provide numbers on behalf of the department or the agency in terms of the number of applications for eligibility to the scheme or the number of applications for changes to plans. I have been briefed, in response to your question, that there is anecdotal evidence that the volume of applications for changes to NDIS plans has increased substantially since late last year. If there's information that can properly be provided in estimates or in the normal course of events, I'm sure we'd be delighted to assist. 19:06 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I'm not going to even bother asking all the rest of the questions at this point in time because it's clear that the minister is not going to answer any of them. I would note that the minister has just misled the Senate, because these figures are available. They are available to Minister Shorten's office. They are available to the NDIA. They are available to the DSS. They are all readily available. In estimates and in the committee inquiry hearings, they are choosing not to release this information anymore. That is a very different issue, and I believe it's misleading the Senate. 19:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I do not have the material to provide to you. It is not necessary to provide it in this process; it is not appropriate to provide it. The kind of claim that you have just made, asserting that somebody is misleading the Senate because they don't agree with you, is the kind of partisan nonsense that diminishes the debate, in truth, and lacks seriousness about the approach to the debate. 19:08 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I have just learnt that a deal between the government and the opposition has been circulated in this chamber that would see this bill rammed through on Thursday. This deal means that this last 20 minutes of debate is very likely to be the last time any member of this Senate is given the opportunity to speak with substance to this bill. So, in the nine minutes left to me and on behalf of the Australian disability community, there are a few things that must be recorded here in this moment. Never in the history of the Australian disability rights movement has a government so profoundly betrayed the trust placed in it by the community. The families and the disabled people who suffered so significantly under the 10 years of Liberal government placed their trust in the Australian Labor Party at the election that the party and the government elected would collaborate, co-design and restore dignity in the scheme. At every opportunity since coming to power, you have calibrated and carefully built a bill which now sits before this parliament with a single purpose—to cut as much from the supports we need to survive as quickly as possible to enable the redirection of those public funds towards the priorities set by and for your donors and those who offer you jobs when you leave this place. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, founded because of disabled people and our community's collective power and advocacy, was brought into the world founded on two transformational principles: firstly, the idea of an individualised support and the end of 'yes-no' lists, template planning and the list of wheelchairs you can or can't have boiled up by a bureaucrat somewhere; and, secondly, the idea that the supports you may receive will be the result of an authentic negotiation between a disabled person and the government as to what they need. These principles transferred the power over the lives of disabled people, which was vested in the hands of government, back to disabled people. At every single moment since the passage of that legislation 10 years ago, people in positions of power, politicians and bureaucrats, have fought to get that power back. That transfer, that stripping of power from the community back into the hands of government, is the effect of this bill. Choice, control, reasonable and necessary supports are stripped from disabled people and our families with an almost surgical precision, leaving us to once again live with the fear and the horror of having our lives shaped about us without us. During the course of this parliamentary debate, the government has sought again and again to dismiss, to gaslight and to attempt to frame disabled people and our concerns as being driven by needless fear. Tonight, if you take the opportunity to look into your inboxes and check back with your teams, you will discover that every single one of Australia's disability representative organisations have said clearly over the last 48 hours that this bill must not pass. The network for First Nations people who are disabled has said in the starkest terms that this bill is bad for First Nations people who are disabled. Advocates around the country have hit the phones, sent emails and begged and pleaded with you to listen and to see sense. The minister comes into the chamber this evening and says in response to questions, 'Oh, period products were put on the wrong part of the list; the government no longer believes that they should be categorised as a lifestyle product,' without apparently being able to conceive of that mistake as being an example of why there should not be lists and why, in fact, somebody's individualised support should be the result of their individualised circumstances. This government, which makes such a song and dance about any tiny thing that it believes may help a person or a community in a cost-of-living crisis, brings a bill before this chamber and seeks to ram it through which would see the Australian disability community subjected to mandatory government assessments that we neither want nor need but it is going to make us pay for. And yet this is the bill that will be passed through this place on Thursday. It's almost as though you're running a bit scared, almost as though you feel that a bit more time left to look into this thing might actually reveal a couple more things you haven't thought through. I wonder how many amendments you might introduce if we gave this bill another couple of weeks. We'd come back, and there'd be 90, 100. You discovered a new agency function you had never at all, in any way, during the course of this debate considered or flagged, and you inserted it during the last week of debate. In my entire seven years here, I have never seen anything like it. We were engaging in a good-faith committee-stage process, with the government seeking to identify answers to the actual questions that remain before the community, and you move this deal, you ram it through, because you don't like being under pressure or under scrutiny. The disability community is left now to simply sit and wait for the inevitable deal to take effect. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Minister. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 No. I haven't finished my bloody— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Steele-John. I apologise. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 If I could sit down to indicate, you would know that I hadn't finished. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I apologise. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 With the passage of this bill, the Australian disability community will enter a period of shadow, harm, difficulty and, yes, death. A type of life we thought we had escaped will return for many of us. The solidarity that we have built as a community in the fight against this legislation, however, will remain and it will grow. And, as we move together into this period of trial, we shall do so together. We shall not be alone. We shall struggle together. We shall cry together. We shall speak up together. We will protest together. And we will see a parliament elected that will restore our rights and protections together. And there will come a day when these supports are returned, when the government apologises for what it didn't know it was doing, and we will look upon that government and we will state clearly that it did know and that we do in fact hold it fully responsible. 19:18 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I just say this in response to that contribution. A scare campaign has to have some foundation in the truth, no matter how much hyperbole— Senator Steele-John 250156 Oh, shut up, Tim! The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 Order! Senator Steele-John 250156 You disgrace this chamber with your nonsense! You've no idea what— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Steele-John! Order, please. You were heard with respect, and I would ask that you please accord the same courtesy to the minister. Senator AYRES 16913 It has to have a relationship with the truth. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Allman-Payne. Senator Allman-Payne 298839 The minister is impugning the motivations of Senator Steele-John, saying that this is about a scare campaign. That is a reflection on his motivation, and I ask it to be withdrawn. Senator AYRES 16913 I'll withdraw it if it assists. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Senator AYRES 16913 I would just say this. We just listened— Senator Cox 296215 You're going to withdraw it or debate it? Senator AYRES 16913 I've withdrawn it— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! The minister did withdraw, and I would ask that the minister please be heard with the same respect that others have been heard. Senator AYRES 16913 but what I just heard was a set of imputations about the motivations of the government in delivering this set of reforms. The problem with this debate, and some other debates that I've observed over the last little while, is that there's a group of people in here who think it's alright to make imputations, but, the moment that they are called on it, it's a big problem. The result of the passage of this bill will be that the government will co-design, with participants and with the states and territories, a set of reforms. They will deliver better plans. They will deliver clearer expectations amongst participants. They will deliver on the expectations and spirit of the NDIS review. There will be good outcomes for participants. There will be a sustainable scheme—a sustainable scheme that will support participants for generations and generations to come. The access to the scheme as a result of the passage of this legislation will not change. It will not change. The kinds of services that participants will access will, within the scope of the budget that is defined for them, be flexible—more flexible than they currently are. The scheme will deliver real improvements, over time, and it will be co-designed with the community. The scheme enables that process to begin. That means that the proper foundations of the scheme will be protected. I think that is a proper purpose for government. To say that it is motivated by anything other than making the scheme robust and improved, and to try and set up an argument that reforms and improvements to the efficiency of the scheme that will eliminate duplication and support participants in their engagement with the agency are somehow bad things, I just don't think that's right. This scheme will continue to grow, if the government achieves its objectives, by eight per cent every year. To characterise that as 'cuts' is just not right. It's just not fair. We are not immune to criticism. We understand that the role of government is to listen to criticism and listen to feedback and to sometimes be criticised and sometimes be criticised unfairly—that's alright. But to make unfounded claims that create great anxiety is not a good idea. It may play politically, but it does not assist. This is not a process where the government has arrived with a piece of legislation and pushed it through this parliament in five minutes. The government has signalled its intent here ever since it was elected. It's a National Cabinet decision that has been very widely canvassed and well understood. There is legislation here that has been in the parliament for quite some time. There will need to be a process of dealing with it in the parliament, and we will see how the parliament deals with it over the coming days. But it should not be held up. I understand that the position of one group in here is to oppose the legislation. Well, oppose the legislation. But the parliament should not hold this reform up. 19:25 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia One day, Minister—and it won't be very long—you will regret every single thing that you have said to Senator Steele-John. Everything he said is absolutely true. And the fact that you would say that he was scaremongering is not only a stain on this place but a stain on this government. We might not agree on many issues, but Senator Steele-John is one of the most compassionate and passionate disability advocates in our nation. And, if you did not recognise the genuineness in what he was saying to this chamber—what he said to this chamber is exactly what we have heard for months from the disability sector. It takes a singularly determined minister to turn every state and territory against him and turn every single disability organisation against him. They are saying the same thing because they know that what Senator Steele-John has said is true. Minister, if you do not hear those voices, I can assure you: we do hear the voices. What Senator Steele-John said was not a scare campaign; it was absolutely what we are all hearing, and it is the genuine fear of people with disabilities right across this nation. One day, when you play back and you hear those words that you have just said in this chamber, you will hang your head in shame. I hope you'll have enough humanity to do that, because what this senator has just said is the truth. It is not only his truth; it is the truth of thousands and thousands of people with disability today, who are terrified by what you are about to do with this legislation—your lack of consultation with the sector, your tin ear, your coming into this chamber and refusing time and time again to provide transparency. So please, Minister, don't you dare ever say anything like that again to Senator Steele-John or anybody else in this chamber, because it is a stain on you and a stain on this place. Senator Steele-John, I would like to apologise for what has just been said to you. It was not justified, in my view. If you, Minister—and the Labor government and Minister Shorten—had any decency, you would stand up right now and you would apologise to our colleague here, who has just given the most heartfelt speech he will probably ever give. You delivered the slick RedBridge-Labor lines again and again. Senator Steele-John, I am sorry for that, and I could not agree more with every single thing you have said. It absolutely represents the concerns of tens if not hundreds of thousands of our most vulnerable Australians, and their voice, through you, has been heard here this evening. So bravo, you. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 217241 There is about a minute left. 19:29 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Let's do the final minute. This legislation should be the subject of vigorous debate. But claims should not be made that aren't correct. Senator Reynolds, the claims that you have made about cuts are not correct. They are partisan claims. This scheme is designed, whether it's in relation to claims being made by the Greens party— Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 3292 ADJOURNMENT Spirit of Tasmania 3292 19:30 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Spirit of Tasmaniaferries are a necessary evil. I have nothing against these ferries; we have to get across Bass Strait. But the Spirit ferries are one of the few options Tasmanians have if they want to leave the state. If you travel on the Spiritsat the right time, your fare can be affordable. Travel at the wrong time, peak season, and the prices can be astronomical. Those prices and what it costs to fly out of state are the reason why a lot of people don't leave Tasmania. Before I turned 18, many moons ago, I had only left the state twice, once to come here to Canberra for a primary school trip and the second time to go to Queensland for a high school trip. Now I get to leave lots and lots to come here, but that is a different matter. Back to the cost of the ferries: the devil is in the detail. The existing Spirits—Spirit of Tasmania I and Spirit of Tasmania II—have been around since 2002. They were refurbished in 2015 but, after more than 20 years sailing between Devonport, Port Melbourne and, now, Geelong, they have got a bit tired. TT Line agreed and commissioned a Finnish company to build two new purpose-built ferries—Nos IV and V. They will replace the two ships operating now. TT-Line is a Tasmanian government owned business, so it is the Tasmanian taxpayers who are making the investment in these new ships. But tired ships and higher demand mean two new ferries are a good idea and, like anyone else, I love a good idea. It sounds like commonsense business in theory but, in practice, that is something new altogether. These new ships might be able to carry 40 per cent more freight, passengers and vehicles but they have a mixed history. We haven't even seen the boats yet. They are already overdue. The costs have already blown out by millions of taxpayer dollars and this is passed on to regular Aussies who use the line and even to those who don't use TT-Line. Last week we found out we will have to wait even longer to see the benefits of these larger ferries. The port at Devonport is not fit for purpose. You see, the Finnish shipbuilder commissioned to build the new Spirits almost went under late last year, so the Tasmanian government made a deal with the Finnish company at a cost of an extra, you know, $81 million—just say it quick. They kept this deal secret because they wanted to make sure the Finns didn't pull out of the deal and the Spirits actually arrived in Tasmania. It is interesting that this mess of money comes after the German company, which was one of the original frontrunners in the mix to build the Spirits, went under in 2020. So the ships are costing millions more than budgeted and now the port at Devonport is costing more than planned too. Spirits IV and V are bigger than the ships usually berthed at Devonport, so the port needs to be upgraded. These upgrades were valued at $90 million in 2020 but, in December last year, TT-Line said the amount had blown out by a massive amount, a whopping $375 million, due to rising civil construction costs, project staging and TasPorts delaying access to the site. The money needed to prop up the Finnish shipbuilder so we can get our ferries and cover the extra costs for the port meant that the Tasmanian government had to extend TT-Line's borrowing capacity with TASCORP, the Tasmanian finance corporation. What a mess and what a huge pile of money! Don't get me wrong; this is not a speech about Spirits being bad. They are an important link between Tasmania and mainland Australia, not just for travel and vehicle movement between the states but also for freight and for Tassie people to get to the mainland. Tasmanian farmers and businesses rely on the Spirits as one of the freight options to get their fresh produce to the mainland so they can get top dollar. There used to be a catamaran passenger service that ran between Tasmania and Melbourne in the 1990s. It was called the Devil Cat, but there were other names like the 'Vomit Cat' or the 'Spew Cat'—I think you get my drift. Senator Scarr 282997 No. Senator TYRRELL 300639 No? Spew Cat—it says it all. Anyway, I don't want to spew on, but the Devil Cat is no longer because it had issues sailing through rough weather. I think you've probably guessed that already, right? We can't do anything about the cost of flights because subsidising flights is a financial commitment beyond what we can afford. So where does all this leave us? We're waiting for two new ferries that won't be able to take their full capacity until sometime in 2026 because of the port issues. That's what we have to do—keep waiting. The combination of ferries and planes is what works for us. If you have a vehicle and you want to make it to the mainland, the Spirits are your best option. Queensland: St George Willawong Football Club 3292 19:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to make this adjournment contribution on my birthday. Senator McAllister 121628 Would you like a song? Senator SCARR 282997 Always! I rise to pay tribute to the St George Willawong Football Club, which is a wonderful sporting community organisation in my home state of Queensland. I especially want to congratulate them this evening upon their promotion to the National Premier League. This constitutes their sixth promotion in nine seasons. This club has been immensely successful and now it has graduated to the National Premier League, which is the top tier in Queensland football, by winning the FQPL1 competition. They defeated Eastern Suburbs 2-1. As I said, six promotions in nine seasons—just fantastic. I'd like to congratulate the committee members who have overseen the club during its last nine years of success: Zac Popov, the president, Igor Djurdevic, the vice-president and Nik Bojic, the secretary. Congratulations to all of the community members for your fabulous work. I would also like to congratulate the following players, who've been part of this success: Ashton Bonsall, Rian Kim, Ben Barratt, Umaru Sheriff, Fredi Bahombwa, Loughlin Sharma, Josh Wilson, Ethan Smith, Fiston Chungu, Seb Corta, Jordan Davie, Dilan Popov, Deng Deng, Mitchell Herrmann, Jacon Fulluck, Danilo Kovacevic, Mawien Nielo and Stegan Dmitrovic. Excuse me for the pronunciation. We will make sure your names are correctly recorded in Hansard to celebrate this wonderful, wonderful success you've had. As I said, six promotions over the last nine seasons—just extraordinary. Lastly, I want to pay tribute to all of the club members, the volunteers and everyone involved in the St George Willawong Football Club. Congratulations. I wish you every success in the next season in the National Premier League. Tasmania: Gunns Plains 3293 19:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On the north-west coast of Tasmania, located 20 kilometres inland of Ulverstone and nestled in a beautiful valley, is the small town of Gunns Plains. The town was named after Ronald Campbell Gunn, a prolific and renowned botanist, who described the native plants of Tasmania in the 1800s. The 2021 census recorded a population of 195 in Gunns Plains. It's post office opened on 3 April 1900 and closed in 1974. It has a fabulous country hall where I have, over many years, enjoyed a game of badminton followed by the usual country supper. The Leven River winds slowly through its pastures, which support a variety of grazing stock. Agricultural endeavours are also very successful, benefiting from rich, red volcanic soil. The community was involved in a significant number of men going to the First World War. One of the attractions in the area is Wing's Wildlife Park, which has local animals such as Tasmanian devils, quolls, koalas, wombats, echidnas, bandicoots, possums, squirrel gliders and many macropods, as well as animals from overseas including bison, water buffalo, camels, donkeys, deer, capybaras, meerkats—which are particularly cute—and macaque and marmoset monkeys—which are really the cutest. Additionally, there are a number of other animals, including birds and reptiles, such as ostriches, emus, eagles, falcons, owls, cockatoos, snakes and lizards. Wing's Wildlife Park has a history over seven generations of the Wing family living and farming within the Gunns Plains community. Colin and Megan Wing are the fifth generation, founding the park in 1986. They offer the largest wildlife park with onsite accommodation and display the largest collection of Tasmanian wildlife in Australia where you can explore and get up close with the wildlife. Wing's Wildlife Park is the only park to have imported American bison into Tasmania. In October 2022, a devastating flood swept through the park, wreaking havoc, knocking down fences, wiping sides out of animal enclosures and wrecking the animal hospital that sat on the site. The force of the water was so severe that it ripped the hospital from its foundations. This was the third flood that was suffered by the park since 1986. A few days after the flood swept through, when it was safe to do so, I visited the park not only to assess the damage but to lend my support to Colin, Megan, the many employees of the park and the community as a whole. It was devastating to see what had been built up over many years destroyed so quickly. There were Tasmanian devils just wandering around the park. Their fences had been washed away. Marmoset monkeys remained in their enclosure for three days with the side ripped out, and the employees stayed on the site to ensure that the animals were fed and looked after. At this time, Colin and Megan were questioning whether they would rebuild or just simply close the park. The third flood had just been too much. The community came out in full force with assistance of every type to help clean up, rebuild and provide support to the Wings. The decision at that stage was taken away from Colin and Megan. The community not only from the surrounding district but from across Tasmania had spoken. They said, 'We are here to help and get you reopened.' The next step was the rebuilding, or not, of the wildlife hospital. Of course, it had to be done, and it was done. This is the only wildlife hospital in the north of the state. In the words of Ian Waller, who is an icon from the park: We have begged, borrowed, bought new, second hand and received free equipment for the Vet Space. We received $428,000 from the Government to build this facility and were over the moon—that amount alone is barely enough to fit out a vet space we did not know this at the time—but we do now. What we have achieved is truly incredible with the resources we have had at our disposal. I spoke with a lady only last night who is doing what we have done—and she and her husband are vets and when I told her about the Xray machine we have she almost cried asking how we could have afforded that highlighting that they have decided that they simply will not be able to get one at all. Ian says: I am well known online—there are veterinary equipment sites and people contact me directly now when they have gear to sell (or more specifically to give away) because they know of our position. The community wildlife hospital building is now functional. They have licences, including an X-ray licence, and they now have a vet who is licensed to use the equipment. It is a large structure which is now used for food preparation for the animals in the park. For 18 months, the staff prepared food for the animals in an open carport, and it does get pretty chilly down there in the winter. It is used for storage and staff facilities—all the things that were lost in the floods—and one third of it is a nearly fully equipped veterinary space. For the continued success of the hospital into the future, we'll need support in the way of donations and volunteers. But I know the fantastic community of Braddon and hopefully those much further afield will come to their assistance to ensure the ongoing viability of the hospital. As Ian said, with the help of federal and state funding, it was rebuilt, and, on 25 July, I had the pleasure, alongside the Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff, and Megan and Colin Wing, of officially opening the community wildlife hospital. The community turned out in droves. There were just rows on rows of people from everywhere, including the local mayors from right across the neighbouring councils. A lot of them had provided help to get the park up to scratch. It was a fantastic day. I want to congratulate Colin, Megan, their family, Ian Waller and all the employees of the park, as well as the fabulous community who pulled together at that time to ensure that this icon continued for the enjoyment of locals and tourists not only from Tassie but from the big island over here and from around the globe. World Health Organization 3294 19:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The UN's World Health Organization, the WHO, has declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern. This triggers WHO emergency powers to drive vaccine sales to financially benefit big pharmaceutical companies that donate to the WHO through their other commercial and ownership interests. The first thing a house of review like our Senate should do is ask, 'Is this a legitimate decision?' The answer is it is not, no. The UN WHO has succumbed to regulatory capture—a troubling development in governance. That may plunge Western society into serfdom under large corporations. Regulatory capture occurs where a regulatory agency mandated to oversee and enforce rules to protect the public interest ends up under undue influence from companies with vested interests such as the entities it's meant to regulate or special interest groups. This can result in the agency making decisions that prioritise the interests of these parties over the broader public interest. The New South Wales government lists six areas for regulatory capture: adherence to public interest principles; organisational culture; structure; processes; transparency; and staff experience. The WHO fails all six. I've often spoken about the corruption, cronyism and illegal behaviour of the World Health Organization; some of my WHO speeches are on my website. The WHO fails to hold staff accountable for misbehaviour, including rape and sexual assault. Its own investigators conclude the WHO is 'rotten with rapists'—their words. It is a failure of organisational culture and of staffing quality. The WHO is a corrupt organisation whose decisions benefit its billionaire sponsors with substantial health interests. The scam is simple: take a disease that's around for generations—firstly the flu, and more recently bird flu and now monkeypox; plant scary stories in a media desperate for clickbait articles; use the media driven fear to declare a pandemic; and then—payday!—mandate vaccines financially benefiting the billionaires that funded the media scare. This betrays the public interest. The WHO is a con, a fraud and a criminal enterprise designed to transfer wealth from taxpayers into the pockets of their billionaire donors and owners. It is an organisation to which Australian taxpayers gave $30 million last year despite it having $8 billion in financial assets; that donation was likely more about fealty than financing. Identifying the WHO's donors is difficult since its annual accounts show 32 per cent of donations as 'other'—another failure of transparency. One of the WHO's major donors is Gavi, the globalist vaccine alliance of international academics, bureaucrats and pharmaceutical companies funded through corporate donations from companies whose share registers feature investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard. They feature on big pharma share registries; they own big pharma. If Australia had racketeering laws this arrangement would be illegal. This is a failure in structure. The monkeypox declaration came from the WHO director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, acting alone. The process for making such an important decision is not meaningfully regulated and gives Ghebreyesus too much power to direct a worldwide health response. This is a failure of process, and it's deliberate. The proclamation is designed to create an international market for new monkeypox vaccines. The WHO already have four approved vaccines for monkeypox: cidofovir, distributed through Pfizer; brincidofovir, manufactured and distributed through Chimerix, whose controlling shareholders include Vanguard and predatory wealth fund cronies; TPOXX, from Siga Pharmaceuticals, with shareholders BlackRock and Vanguard; and ACAM2000, from Emergent Biosolutions, whose largest shareholders are—wait for it—BlackRock and Vanguard. With these drugs the world's predatory billionaires have decided it's time for another fundraiser. All four drugs are off-label use, so, any day now, expect a killer new vaccine for monkeypox to be given the hosanna palm frond parade through our disgraced regulators like Canberra's Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. The WHO tested this scam a few years ago with a minor media fear campaign that discovered the public didn't take something called monkeypox seriously. So they rebranded it as mpox. Amusingly, they claimed the name monkeypox was insulting to monkeys; monkeys have feelings too, you know! So mpox is monkeypox rebranded to sell more vaccines from vaccine companies who funnel the profits to the world's predatory billionaires—those same billionaires who own the corporations that donate to Gavi and the WHO as well as fill the coffers of political parties around the world, including massive donations to both cheeks of the Liberal-Labor uniparty in this country. Last Tuesday, American congressional investigators revealed that, for nearly nine years, Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a pandemic-capable mpox virus with high transmissibility and a case fatality rate of up to 15 per cent. That's homicide. The gain-of-function project proposed through NIAID in America from virologist Bernard Moss was to splice genes conferring high pathogenicity from the clade I virus into the more transmissible clade II virus. The new chimeric virus or combined virus could have retained up to a 15 per cent fatality rate and a 2.4 reproductive rate—a measure of transmissibility—meaning, on average, every sick person could infect up to 2.4 other people, giving it pandemic potential. It's marvellous, what it's designed to do! We know gain-of-function research produced the COVID-19 virus. Is this monkeypox outbreak also man-made? Gain-of-function research serves no useful purpose and should be terminated immediately. It's deeply troubling that Australia's CSIRO admitted and bragged about its involvement in gain-of-function research that produced COVID-19. And now an online meme simply says: 'They're doing it again because you didn't punish them last time.' That's truth indeed. The WHO fails all six elements of regulatory capture and so does Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. The TGA is not acting in public interest, which former New South Wales deputy ombudsman Chris Wheeler considers fundamental to representative democratic government. The TGA may claim that, during COVID, it was caught between the parliament, its direct employer, and the wider public. It chose to serve the government's need for air cover for controls decided on political, not medical, grounds. The TGA should have read the findings of the 1990 WA Inc royal commission, which found: The institutions of government and the officials and agencies of government exist for the public, to serve the interests of the public. That's clear. Yet, during COVID, the TGA chose a different path: to support their own agency, to the detriment of the public. What will the TGA do this time, with monkeypox? Monkeypox is transmitted through direct contact from sexual activity or intravenous drug use. A Philpot scientific study found 98.7 per cent of infections resulted from gay male sexual transmission. Transmission can occur through direct personal contact of the infected site. Infected animals can spread the disease. Asymptomatic spread, though, is, like COVID, an assertion with no evidence. The clade Ia variant of monkeypox can affect children. The clades currently circulating, though, clade Ib and II, have not been proven to infect children. Australia has two monkeypox vaccines approved for over-18s. Both are off-label repurposed drugs approved for smallpox. JYNNEOS from Bavarian Nordic uses cidofovir, which I mentioned earlier, as the active ingredient. Bavarian Nordic have an application in to America's Food and Drug Administration to give this vaccine to children aged 12 to 18 and are in early testing to support their application to extend use to children aged two and above—two and above! Why does a child need a vaccine against a disease that's predominately only transmitted through sexual contact or intravenous drug use? The case for a monkeypox vaccination program must be a very high bar for any person who does not engage in risky sexual activity. TGA's website data from the 2022 monkeypox round of vaccinations in Australia shows 3,163 adverse events per 100,000 vaccinations—a staggeringly high three per cent. I note a study published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine, with authors from the University of New South Wales, entitled 'Autoimmune blistering skin diseases triggered by COVID-19 vaccinations: an Australian case series'. This report found that COVID-19 vaccination either caused the recipient to develop autoimmune blistering disease or made the recipient's existing condition worse. The cases are extremely rare, and, for once, I can agree with the TGA. I alert Australia to the chance that these outbreaks of a related disease could be mistaken for monkeypox. I note that autoimmune diseases and shingles—that is, herpes zoster—can intersect, and both are side effects of the COVID vaccines. If the Senate is going to be called on to support a monkeypox response, then it's essential every case is verified through publicly disclosed laboratory testing. Page after page of redacted data was used to support COVID measures and the damage to public health is undeniable. It's homicide. 'Safe and effective' was not one lie; it was two. People are not believing the UN World Health Organization mpox narrative. The time for blind trust is over. We're now in the age of 'prove it'. Australian Defence Force 3296 19:54 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania From October 1942 to October 1943, the Japanese army forced around 60,000 prisoners of war, including 13,000 Australians and roughly 200,000 civilians, mostly Burmese and Malayan, to build a railway linking Thailand and Burma. One of those 13,000 Australians was my father. I have spoken many times in this place about the Second World War and what influence this has had on my life and my family's life—the influence of leadership and mateship in war. The 2/40th Infantry Battalion was the only battalion in the Australian Imperial Force recruited almost entirely from Tasmania. The 2/40th prisoners spent the first seven months of their captivity interned in a camp at Usapa Besar. A small party of senior officers were shipped to Java on 26 July, and the rest of the prisoners on Timor followed in September. From Java, the 2/40th prisoners were dispersed throughout Japan's conquered territories. They were liberated in late August and early September 1945 and repatriated to Australia almost immediately. The sacrifices my father made for his country during his service and after have stayed with me and always will. I often think of all those who have served and who will serve this country. Their stories will be remembered, and they deserve to be told to all so that we can learn from their experiences. The fact that my father served in the ADF has shaped my life in so many different ways. If it wasn't for his service to his country, I might not be standing before you in this place in my capacity as a senator for Tasmania. I encouraged and supported my nephew Steven to take up the opportunity of service within the ADF, and I must say he has served the ADF well and the ADF have served him well. He has now served more than 25 years in the Royal Australian Navy. My youngest daughter also had experience in the Navy as a younger woman. So my family's had a long tradition of serving in the ADF. I have another nephew who served in the Australian Army. It is for these reasons and many other reasons that I recently jumped at the opportunity to join the wonderful men and women of our ADF and sail aboard the HMAS Canberra as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. This brief but extraordinary experience is one I will cherish for the rest of my life. I want to pay homage to the wonderful men and women of HMAS Canberra this evening. I was provided with an overarching experience while on the ship, but I believe I only touched the surface in terms of what the great sailors aboard the HMAS Canberra actually do on a daily basis. These are men and women who work exceptionally hard every day, 12 to 14 hours a day, when they are at sea on operations. And you never really are off duty when you are aboard the ship. These young men and women have such immense responsibility but operate at full capacity each and every day. At a micro level, the Royal Australian Navy provides maritime forces that contribute to the Australian Defence Force's capability to defend Australia. The Navy contributes to regional security, supports global interests, shapes the strategic environment and protects national interest. It is a significant task. But, at all times on board, I could see how important the men and women saw their duty to defend our country and our interests in the Pacific and beyond. I was fortunate enough to spend six nights on board the HMAS Canberra. We have to also remember that, as an island nation, the sea is Australia's lifeblood. Australians are dependent upon it. Trade travels by sea, and therefore Australia's economy, prosperity and way of life count on the sea. The logistics alone are amazing to see in action, like bringing food services together. It's proven that good food boosts the crew's morale, and the chefs aboard the HMAS Canberra did a marvellous job—which is why they are some of the most popular crew on board. It was wonderful to see equality with regard to the food being served. All on board, regardless of their rank, received the same food, from the junior mess right up to the commander. It was a pleasure to meet with the engineering department, the doctor and the medical officers on board and to hear about their work. I also had the opportunity to participate in and observe the assessment of the crew's CPR certification, which they must do on an annual basis. The longer I spent aboard the more I understood the mentality of the crew, the more I felt part of their family. The selflessness of their character is ingrained, and their strength of character was on show at all times. I think the thing that impacted me the most was the respect that they had for each other and for their commanding officers as well as the way they respected me for being on board and being open to having conversations around what is important to them and why they serve our country. They serve to secure our democracy. It was wonderful to spend time with engineers when they had one of the many exercises. There was engine failure, there was flooding, there were people injured and there was a fire. To see that crew working together was simply amazing. One of their very highly qualified engineers, who is better known as 'Speedy', took the time to explain to me and Luke, who accompanied me on board, the importance of these drills and exercises to ensure that the crew are ready to serve this country. At the end of the day, we know that they can be required to serve this country at very short notice, so the skills of the crew are so essential. The commitment of the crew was highly professional. They personally strove to do the best they could each and every single day. I had the opportunity to meet 50 of the ADF gap-year students. That was another amazing opportunity for me to hear why these young people have chosen to do their gap year with the Royal Australian Navy. I heard that so many of them, already, after their initial training, are determined to serve our country and sign up to the Navy. Recruitment is an ongoing challenge for the ADF and generally for the Navy. The dialogue with officers and crew members throughout the time that I spent aboard discussing recruitment and retention gave me a far better insight into those challenges. Since COVID, the Navy has not had the opportunity to travel as much offshore as it normally did in the past. Let's be frank: most people join the Navy so they can see the world. What I found was quite extraordinary—being part of that crew, living, eating and working alongside them. I had the good fortune of dining with the commander of the vessel, Captain Brendan O'Hara. I heard how excited he was to talk about his Kingswood. He was also very proud that his wife was still driving a Datsun 120Y. The officers made me feel very welcome. One of the things that impacted me greatly was seeing the impact the late senator Kimberley Kitching, when she went through that program, had on that crew. It was absolutely amazing and really reinforced not only what a bright light she was in this place but that she touched people wherever she went. I heard how shocked they were, when they were watching the news, to hear that she had passed away just nine months after being on their vessel. I'd also like to give a shout-out to Lieutenant Commander Jen Neuhaus, who made sure that I had the opportunity to meet all the staff and visit every single part of that ship—going up and down 51 ladders in one day and 44 on another. So I got to really experience what it is like. (Time expired) Central Land Council, Northern Territory Election 3297 20:04 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to speak about some deeply troubling issues that have come to light with regard to the Northern Territory's land councils. Very possibly these troubling issues may well extend across the country more broadly, but we don't know without an inquiry to understand better. The land councils in the Northern Territory were created by the Northern Territory Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 legislation. Their purpose was to represent traditional owners, to advocate on their behalf and ensure that their views as to what was done on their land were heard and acted on accordingly. However, the current situation is something that is much different, particularly the behaviour becoming apparent within the Central Land Council. The council, which operates in my home town and throughout Central Australia, is disturbing at best. It is the behaviour of those at the executive level who have a lot of power in the council that seems to be the most problematic. I doubt that these issues are isolated to this particular land council. However, it is the situation that is most familiar to me. With respect to the Central Land Council, I personally wrote to Minister McCarthy last week to notify her that, at a meeting of the council on 18 July 2024, a no-confidence motion was moved by the chair of the council against its CEO. As far as the chair is concerned, it was successfully passed. The fact that there was a no-confidence motion of this nature in the first place is a red flag in itself. I might add that the CEOs of land councils are paid quite a significant salary in order to conduct their job and to see to the needs of traditional owners who, at the best of times, would struggle to earn a six-figure salary of their own. This red flag should indicate that things are wrong at the Central Land Council and are not as they should be. In addition to the movement and what the chair thought was the passing of the motion, I've been told that, in fact, no record of the resolution was recorded in the minutes of the meeting nor have minutes been produced or seem to exist. Why? It is because of allegations of bullying and intimidation. To add insult to injury, the council then held another meeting without the chair present at which they reportedly decided on the version of events that they prefer to have occurred at the full meeting held on 18 July 2024 and to reprimand the chair. The chair was not afforded the opportunity to defend himself against allegations of breaches of code of conduct, nor was it highlighted to the chair what elements of the code were in fact breached or the supposed breaches of the act. The possibility that minutes of the first meeting were not taken and the possibility that there is intimidation and behaviour such as this is completely and utterly unacceptable. This is not the way that land councils should be operating. I remind this chamber of what I said at the start: these councils were set up for the very purpose of their members. Section 23 of the Land Rights Act, the act which established these councils in the NT, specifically states, that these councils are 'to express the wishes and the opinion of Indigenous people living in the area and to protect their interests.' The act itself is clear. These are bodies which are meant to represent them, protect them and be on their side, not attack, bully and intimidate them. Let me be clear, land councils are not inherently evil as some would like to suggest that I suggest. Functioning well, they could be a helpful part of the economic advancement of Indigenous Australians, but in their current state, if the Central Land Council is anything to go by, they are doing far more harm than good for their members. It's all very well to try to address Indigenous disadvantage and encourage, from the outside, the economic development of Indigenous Australians, but, if these allegations are true, we have a much bigger problem on the inside that must be addressed. We must fix the functioning of our land councils if we have any hope of giving Indigenous Australians, particularly our most marginalised, who don't speak the language as well as their CEOs do, a chance to progress and become economically independent on their own land so they too can perhaps earn themselves six-figure salaries. The other issue which needs to be raised in this chamber and is also deeply, deeply troubling is the treatment, by the Left, of conservative Aboriginal women running in politics. For all their talk of championing Aboriginal people and their interests, the Left have absolutely no regard for Aboriginal people, particularly women, who are conservatively aligned. Yanja Thompson is a young woman living in the Northern Territory, a hardworking woman who is raising her children as a single mother and wanting to contribute to her community and to society at large, and she's trying to do so by standing as a candidate in the bush. You'd think that this would be a characterisation that Labor would be delighted with, but no—not when she is a conservative, not when she is a woman who has seen through the empty words of the Labor government and who dares to stand for something different. I say 'dares' because she is a perfect example of what happens to you if you refuse to subscribe to Labor's ideology—in that case, like in Yanja's case, you deserve to be attacked and brought down. It's ironic that the very vulnerabilities that would otherwise make her a hero if she was aligned with Labor are used to destroy her and reduce her chances of success in the Territory election. She's endured bullying, false accusations, damage to her personal property and threats—even threats of violence—in the course of her campaign. An attack has been actively launched against Yanja, and it must be called out. Just to bring things full circle, back to the start of this address, what entity has found itself linked to this unjustifiable attack on Yanja's character? It's a senior member of the relevant land council who is doing Labor's bidding. All of this is typical of Labor when they are feeling threatened. They have nothing to resort to other than playing dirty games, but, in the event that they didn't want to get their own hands dirty, they've used people in land councils, pitting Indigenous people against one another. I'd like to know what Labor's definition of 'reconciliation' really is. Is it reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous? Do they care about ensuring the unity of Indigenous people amongst ourselves? This kind of behaviour suggests that they don't. On the contrary, situations like this demonstrate that they feed into the disunity and they feed into the violence in communities when families are pitted against each other. It's abhorrent behaviour. It's abuse of power, and it requires condemnation in the strongest terms. This is a vigilante type approach to politics. It is not appropriate no matter where you are, but it is certainly inappropriate for a democratic country like Australia. If we let behaviour like this fly under the radar, we allow the slow and steady degradation of our democratic process. Standing in this chamber reminds me of how privileged we are to live in a place like Australia that is built on values of democracy and, of course, the rule of law. It's my respect for those foundational values that drives me to speak up for those people like Yanja, people like the chair of the Central Land Council, people whose first language is not English, people who don't have resources behind them like these organisations have, people who are not treated the same as how those on the Left are treated. This is the reason why I have spoken on this in this chamber today. Middle East, Albanese Government 3298 20:14 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Twice previously in this chamber I have read out the names of hostages held by the terrorist organisation Hamas. Still, Hamas continues to hold 116 hostages after they began an unprovoked and very nasty conflict to eradicate Jewish people and to dismantle the State of Israel. The Hamas murder and mass kidnapping on 7 October was not simply an attack against the State of Israel; it was an attack on the core values of freedom, democracy and liberty. Australia as a free and democratic nation must wholeheartedly support Israel's defence of these indispensable values and the right of Israel to exist. It is the hostages who have suffered in the fight for our values of freedom and democracy and for the right of Israel to exist. The story of those kidnapped must not be relegated to the footnotes of history. It is the hostages who have been forced to the front line of Hamas' war. They have witnessed the very worst aspects of war, murder and violence, and the memories will sentence them to a lifetime of torture. The stories that have emerged from the hostage crisis have been nothing short of harrowing. Jewish men, women and children have been beaten with electric cables and have had vital medications, food and clean water withheld. The barbaric killings and persecution of the Jewish people have been a source of pride for the terrorists, leaving many Israelis bereaved and in mourning. There is a growing international movement calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. But there is only one realistic road for long-term peace and security, because there will be no peace for Israel or Gaza or the West Bank or for a two-state solution as long as the terrorist organisation Hamas continues to exist and rule over Gaza and while it continues to imprison innocent Israelis. Hamas must be eradicated, the hostages must be released and we must bring them all home. Last week, I alluded to the fact that we live in the greatest country on earth, notwithstanding the weak Prime Minister and the hapless Labor government we have. I think perhaps I was too passive in my analysis of the failures of our weak Prime Minister and this hapless, woeful Labor government. Because it is pretty clear upon reflection that this Labor government is the worst in history, if not the worst in the history of really bad Labor governments. There are many reasons to support my proposition, but I thought I would just highlight the top three. No. 1 is the cost-of-living crisis, which has been taken to new heights as a result of the reckless government spending leading to 'Labor-flation', 'Albo-flation', 'Jim-flation'—take your pick. Whichever one it is, it will hurt you, because, since Labor has come to power, food is up 11 per cent; the cost of health is also up 11 per cent—remember their promise about cheaper medicines; education is up 11 per cent; housing is up 15 per cent; and rent is up 15 per cent. Who can remember the promise, or who can forget the promise, they made 97 times before the last election to cut your power bills by $275? Power bills are up by 22 per cent, only superseded by the cost of gas, which is up by almost 25 per cent. Yet Labor continue to push their reckless and immature renewables as the only answer to Australia's energy needs, when we on this side believe we should use all forms of energy. We have talked about the cost-of-living, and now let's get to the No. 2 reason why this is the worst Labor government in history—that is, because they are weak on union thugs—the mishandling and the Oscar-nominated performance of the Labor CFMEU saga. Let's take it back to the start. As a thank you for the CFMEU bankrolling Labor's 2022 election campaign—and this bankrolling was worth something along the lines of $6.2 million—one of Labor's first acts in government was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is not the first time they've done it; this is the second time they have done it, because the Labor Party is beholden to the union thugs in the CFMEU—you just have to follow the money trail. By abolishing the ABCC, Labor took away the cop on the beat and the oversight of the CFMEU, giving them a free pass to double down on their criminal behaviour, abuse and thuggery. Since then, as this crisis began to evolve, Labor acted surprised, mortified and in denial about the CFMEU and its well-reported thuggish behaviour. Labor ministers and Labor members have all come in like a bunch of stunned mullets, surprised about the allegations concerning the CFMEU, and, in a rush of activity, brought some legislation to this parliament that clearly had been written by the CFMEU. It has taken Labor weeks, if not years, if not decades, to stand up and protect the 92 per cent of workers who are not members of a union but also the other 7½ per cent of the workforce who are members of unions, obey the law and get on and do the right thing. The No. 3 reason this is the worst Labor government ever: Labor are weak on borders and weak on immigration—because, as you guessed it, we've got a weak Prime Minister. This government has continued to duck any accountability for keeping Australians safe in the wake of 83 detainees being released into the community without visas. These included murderers, sex offenders and violent offenders. Instead of learning from these mistakes, I won't say they sacked the minister—they promoted the two ministers sideways and then replaced the immigration minister with the only other person in the Labor Party with a worse history. Under Tony Burke, since 7 October, Australia has recorded the greatest number of visas granted amongst our allies, following the Middle East war. The US has granted 17 visas; the UK, 168 visitors; New Zealand, 153 visas; and Australia, 2,922 visas. Aside from the astronomical security risk that this presents to our country and its people, there is a growing Labor caused housing crisis and we've got the cost-of-living crisis—I refer you to reason No. 1—and we've got the rise of antisemitic behaviour across this country, which has Australians living in fear and struggling to make ends meet. To top it all off, the Prime Minister, with his back against the wall, has decided to play around with the words of the head of our security service. Mr Albanese selectively quoted the ASIO boss to imply that ASIO has been vetting all of these applicants, when it has not. This is the same Prime Minister who urged that the language of leaders should change immediately, and yet he has failed to change his own and act on others. It is a classic case of, 'Do as I say, not as I do,' and another example of weak leadership. This is the worst Labor government in the history of terrible Labor governments. When Gough Whitlam is starting to look sensible, you're either drunk or you're comparing him to Prime Minister Albanese. In 2024, let's show Labor the door. S enate adjourned at 20:23