2024-08-22 2 1 0 Senate 0 0

Thursday, 22 August 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 3415 DOCUMENTS Tabling 3415 COMMITTEES 3415 COMMITTEES Meeting 3415 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised. BILLS 3415 BILLS COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024 3415

COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024

Second Reading 3415 09:02 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise here today to speak on the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, a bill that I proudly co-sponsored with Senators Canavan, Antic, O'Sullivan, Rennick and Roberts. This bill would not have been necessary if this Labor government had just done the right thing. This Labor Party, this Albanese government, should have initiated a full royal commission to investigate the response of federal and state governments to the COVID-19 pandemic. I and many other Australians expected no less than that, but, instead, the Australian people got a narrowly scoped, watered-down 'wish.com' COVID-19 inquiry, which barely touches the big issues. It's August 2024, well after our health bureaucrats got together and decided it was time to call off the so-called pandemic, but we are still none the wiser about what really went on during those COVID years. The entire country was shut down, and we still can't really explain why. Nothing that was done made any sense. We threw out the pandemic handbook, and we made decisions that were frankly crazy. The government spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and the RBA did everything it could to flood the country with cheap cash. The banks loved it, obviously, but the Australian people continue to pay the price of high inflation and unaffordable housing to this day, with no-one taking real accountability or giving no real answers. People's civil liberties were restricted in a way that would have made a communist dictator blush, and yet I still, for the life of me, cannot pinpoint the exact reasons why. We have real-world evidence from countries like Sweden and from states like Florida, where the worst of the draconian restrictions were not implemented—like what we had in my home state of Victoria—or were quickly rolled back. They didn't have rings of steel. They didn't have full-on curfews, and their police officers definitely didn't shoot people in the back with rubber bullets. They arguably fared better than we did. Yet our government's response has been to shrug, sweep it under the carpet and just insist 'nothing to see here'. I am still waiting to find out why I was made to stand 1.5 metres from someone else. On whose advice was that? On what scientific basis was that decision made? On what scientific basis could I go to a restaurant and sit down and have dinner but not stand up? On whose advice and on what scientific basis? How was it that one hour of exercise outside was okay but not 1½ hours? On whose advice and on what scientific basis was I forced to keep within five kilometres of my house but not six kilometres? How did any of this keep me safe from a virus with a near 100 per cent survival rate for most healthy people. In New South Wales people were told, 'It's not safe to talk to your neighbour.' Can you believe that garbage? In South Australia, people were locked down without the right to exercise or even walk their dog. Whose idea was it to lock us down and on what scientific basis? We were like prisoners in maximum security. Playgrounds were closed. Sport was banned. Why were children kept from going to school when they had an almost zero per cent chance of dying from COVID and bounced right back? Most of the kids who caught COVID recovered very quickly or showed no symptoms at all. Who made that decision? What data was used to inform that decision? How was it that Victorian bureaucrats decided that it was too dangerous to play golf or that a curfew was the most effective way to fight COVID? Which health expert came up with the idea that I could have one friend come to my house and visit me but not four? I could go on and on, listing all the outrageous impositions that destroyed businesses and families and kept people from being by the bedside of their dying loved ones. The maddening thing is that we are still, for the most part, completely clueless as to who decided what and exactly how those decisions were made during that time. As for the cost of those decisions, we can only guess, but it is in the hundreds and hundreds of billions. The Albanese government won the last election, promising Australians answers. The Prime Minister stood up and he told Australians, 'If you put me in the Lodge, I'll hold a royal commission or some other form of similar inquiry.' Like I said before, I just didn't imagine that it would be the wish.com or Temu version of an inquiry. Australians trusted Mr Albanese, just as we trusted our state premiers and our health officers during the pandemic. Well, I didn't trust them, actually. I didn't trust them because I could see through their lies. But, sadly, most Australians did put their trust in these people, and they have been made to look like fools—like fools! The Prime Minister has announced, in my opinion, a sham inquiry that would address everything except the things Australians were demanding to know. Where were state premiers getting their advice from? Were decisions to lock down based on science or perhaps on polling? Were restrictions on people's movements based on data or focus groups? Were the public being protected or being played? What is in the vaccine contracts? Where did all the money go? Where did COVID come from? Was COVID a bioweapon? Was it a mistake? Was it bat soup? Was it released on purpose? Was it an accident? The Prime Minister promised responsibility, accountability and transparency. But no sooner had he unpacked his bags than he gave us a weak inquiry that will provide neither responsibility nor accountability nor transparency. Australians just want the truth. When will we get it? Australians want some accountability. So many lives were destroyed by the pandemic response. Will anyone admit fault? Will anyone put their hand up and just say they got it wrong? To simply move on, as if nothing ever happened, would be an outrage greater than the multiple outrages perpetrated during the pandemic itself. This commission of inquiry bill will finally give us the best chance to forensically examine how government and public institutions handled the COVID era. To deny Australians that opportunity would represent an epic failure of curiosity, a dereliction of public duty and heap insult upon injury onto the millions of Australians whose lives were devastated not by the virus but by the government's response to the virus. University of New South Wales professor of economics Gigi Foster analysed the economic, health and social impact of government imposed COVID lockdowns and estimated that the cost was 68 times greater than any benefit provided. If she's even half right, just half right, we need to investigate that. A panel chaired by former top bureaucrat Peter Shergold found that the government response to COVID smacked of overreach; lacked compassion, consistency and clarity; and actually worsened inequalities. If this is even partly true, then decency, let alone duty, demands a full and frank inquiry. I could stand here all day and give you examples of how state and federal governments, first driven by fear and then drunk on power, hurt and harmed citizens with their manic COVID response. All of this demands a full investigation, and that's to say nothing of vaccine mandates, which threatened free men and women with punitive measures, effectively turning them into second-class citizens by destroying their livelihoods and breaking up their families if they declined a drug that has since proven to be, shall I say, less safe and less effective than what was promised. Worse, there's now overwhelming evidence of vaccine injuries and deaths. Are we not the least bit curious? Do we not care even a bit? Are we really going to tell Australians that we're just disinterested? If there is any truth at all to these reports, should we not investigate to ensure that lessons are learned and mistakes are never again repeated? A once-in-100-year pandemic demands a once-in-a-lifetime commission of inquiry, and that is why the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024 is not something which we should merely consider; it is something that we should approve—and with haste. To the Liberal Party, you were in power for most of the pandemic, and, if you have nothing to hide, just support this bill. To Labor, you were not even in power for most of the pandemic and your Prime Minister didn't wear five ministry hats at that time. Crossbenchers, you've got nothing to lose by pushing for transparency and accountability. My Senate colleagues, support this bill. It is the least that we can do for those that we represent. 09:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland One Nation strongly supports the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, which I've proudly co-sponsored. To use the words of a former prime minister, 'It's time.' It's time to accept our duty is to the Australian people, not to ourselves and our colleagues. It's time for courage and for truth. My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on 23 March 2022; a second was held on 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and the relatives of people that the COVID vaccine injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia's COVID response were questioned. Several political parties participated, making it a truly non-partisan, cross-party inquiry. Because of the two full days of testimony at these hearings my decision-making has been better informed ever since. And that's what senators must do: inform ourselves. The increasing interest from mainstream media in reporting the harm our COVID measures have caused indicates time is running out for those engaging in a cover-up. The public remains deeply dissatisfied and gravely concerned about state and federal governments' COVID response. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, politicians, health departments and agencies, medical professionals, medical professions, the media and pharmaceutical companies. I find it surprising our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. After listening to their responses in Senate estimates hearings over the last four years, it's clear they do not want to admit to a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest they consider their performance exemplary, worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand every Thursday evening on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals. Can you believe that? The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a stage-managed standing ovation at Wimbledon. Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of our TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia, which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group—heady days, indeed. Those days are over. That's it! To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against the tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must now be clear to you that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; it's here to stay until you restore trust. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall, and I fear where that will lead if not corrected. Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to our people in Australia. Despite the statistical sleight of hand, excess deaths are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a novel vaccine that killed people is a crime—homicide. Banning existing products that had proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of the so-called vaccine is a crime. Finally, covering up this corrupt process is a crime. Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing. Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants, despite knowing the reverse to be true—that is, protection dropped quickly over time, and the vaccine did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective, despite its known risks, is a violation of consumer law in these five states. The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people criticising its safety and efficacy claims, proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022. The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others 'to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.' Under America's PREP Act, Pfizer has indemnity for injuries. That indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims. The reason this relates to Australia and to Australians is our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through Pfizer's misconduct, and misconduct there was, as I'm sure this commission of inquiry will discover. To taxpayers wondering why the expense of this inquiry is needed, here's a thought: if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. The guilty should pay; taxpayers should not pay. The grand jury evidence gathered to prepare the United States court case from the five states that I mentioned earlier applies to Australia as well. It makes for horrifying reading. First, Pfizer's chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla, a veterinarian, not a doctor, declined government funding in order to prevent the government's ability to oversee the vaccine development, testing and manufacture. That's not something one does with a safe and properly made product. Second, Pfizer's independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a 'tailor-made contract' that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers' interests. Third, the investigation found Pfizer wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and kept them hidden through confidentiality agreements. Fourth, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. I suspect the inquiry will find the same arrangement applied in Australia. In effect, Pfizer told our regulators what to say about their product. Fifth, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timeline was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. I'll say that again: they avoided revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. Sixth, instead, Pfizer submitted a Hollywood version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety that their real trials did not have—and our state and federal health authorities bought it. Seventh, we're three years into COVID and scientists still can't review Pfizer's COVID-19 raw trial data. Eighth, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates hearings that the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration—his Therapeutic Goods Administration—had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer's special data. Ninth, Pfizer kept its COVID-19 vaccine's true effects hidden through destroying the trial control group, invalidating the whole study. This was not gold standard research; this was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour. Tenth, Pfizer rigged the trial through excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, who were immunocompromised, pregnant or breastfeeding, or who were simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these very people when the vaccine was not tested on these people? Eleventh, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, and yet that lie was used to expand the market and make more money. Twelfth, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse events database, which was obtained in court process, and showed that, in the first three months of the rollout, 158,893 adverse events resulted, including 1,223 deaths. Thirteenth, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse event reports that it had to hire 600 additional, full-time staff. It hired 600 extra people to monitor the adverse event reports. And, finally, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Test rats produced foetuses with severe soft-tissue and skeletal malformations or failed to become pregnant and failed to implant embryos at more than double the control group rate. That's amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study's findings. And, when they were asked, they lied about the outcome. I can't help but think about women, humans, suffering as a result of this. We know that. The United States is achieving what Australia is not—rigorous inquiry and testing of the law. What are you afraid of? In Australia, this is behaviour which, under normal circumstances, would already have resulted in a commission of inquiry. Our delay in calling that inquiry damns us. Other nations are now ahead of us. South Korea has produced a study which analysed 4.3 million individuals—4.3 million!—comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups over three months. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer's disease, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 68 per cent rise in depression. In Australia, following my questions to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don't want to know the answer. They want to hide from the truth, hide from the homicide that's been caused in this country. I ask the Senate to pass this bill so we can get the answers ourselves, which is, as senators, our sworn duty. 09:25 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia COVID-19 was, and continues to be, deeply impactful for the community. Government decisions had deep and significant consequences on the lives of all people in Australia and, for many, including our disability community, the impact of those decisions continues today. We must ensure that governments are better prepared to respond in the future to pandemics and other health emergencies, and the only way to do this is to have a frank and transparent look at the decisions that led us here. Now, we acknowledge that there is currently an independent inquiry into the government response to COVID-19 that is being undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Greens are eagerly awaiting the recommendations of this inquiry. The Australian Greens have clearly expressed previously that we support the establishment of an inquiry into COVID-19 and that it has the powers of a royal commission. A royal commission would provide the powers to compel; it would ensure states' and territories' decision-making processes and the decisions that they made are reviewed and it would allow our community to share the impact that government decisions had on their lives. Lastly, the Australian Greens are calling once again for the Australian government to hurry up and meet their election obligation, their election promise, to fully fund the Centre for Disease Control. We need a coordinated and comprehensive approach to managing future pandemics, and a fully funded CDC is a key milestone in achieving that goal. 09:27 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government doesn't support this bill. There's already an inquiry into the COVID-19 response, and it's motivated very much by the public policy concerns that Senator Steele-John just alluded to. The Prime Minister announced the independent— Senator Canavan 245212 Where are the public hearings? None. Senator AYRES 16913 We'll get to you in a minute. In September, the Prime Minister announced the independent inquiry. Ms Robyn Kruk, Professor Catherine Bennett and Dr Angela Jackson were appointed as the inquiry's panel members, and the inquiry will go on. The panel members have heard from thousands of Australians in consultations and are due to report to the government shortly. It's reviewing what worked well and what we can do better to improve Australia preparedness for future pandemics. More than 2,000 people and organisations have taken the time to share their insights and experiences with the inquiry, ensuring that the inquiry will be informed by a substantial evidence base. It will consider the findings and work of other relevant inquiries and reviews and identify knowledge gaps for further investigation. It is founded in a proper public policy purpose: how is it that governments, the Australian government and the states and territories, and our public institutions respond in the event of future pandemics? That is a good motivation for a response. That is not what this proposal is founded in. There is a sort of fetid wellspring of COVID conspiracy theorists, and some of them inhabit the benches over there. We know that Senator Babet comes from the outer reaches of some of the more kooky conspiracy theorist views. It is obvious. The One Nation party have always sought to manipulate these kinds of conspiracy theories for their own purposes. That is well known. There is, of course, and always has been, a group of people in the community who are mobilised by concerns about chemtrails, lizard people or fluoride conspiracies. Some of these characters are also attracted to the fluoride conspiracy theory. They're on the pizzagate material. They're on all of these things and on the drip for every internet conspiracy theory that there is—the JFK stuff, the Roswell stuff. You're all into that stuff. I get it. Senator AYRES 16913 Senator Rennick thinks that the CSIRO is part of some global conspiracy. You don't have to reach too far from these— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 You sook! Senator Canavan 245212 Madam Acting Deputy President, I've a point of order on relevance and also on reflecting on senators. This bill is about establishing a commission inquiry into COVID-19. I would ask that the senator come back to the topic of the bill and also just keep in mind when reflecting on other senators. We're getting into some pretty ridiculous statements about other people in this chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Ayres, I've only just come into the chair. I will listen carefully to your contribution. Senator AYRES 16913 The truth is, in the history of these kinds of conspiracy theories in Australia, which are mobilising on the fringes, there's always an element of antisemitism that's not too far away. That's always been the truth. Senator Rennick 283596 On a point of order, I ask that that be retracted. That's an outrageous slur. Senator AYRES 16913 That was not a reflection— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. I don't believe that the senator was directly speaking about an individual senator in the chamber. I heard an assertion that was general in nature. I will continue to listen. Senator Canavan 245212 On a separate point of order, if I could, there seems to be something wrong with the clock. The minister's clearly been going for longer— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Thank you, Senator Canavan. Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 There are always grandiose claims being made by these people. At the heart of conspiracy theories, including the COVID conspiracy theories that mobilise this lot, there is an attempt to undermine confidence in science, rationalism and public institutions. It is a key tool of the far right. They're marshalled historically, as I've said, by people like the League of Rights, who used to hand out theories about antisemitism to dodgers at the country shows, but now these pseudoscientific claims are made about the COVID pandemic. There's always the pseudoscientific language. They always resort to things that sound important but aren't. There are always discussions about gene therapies and if something is really going on here, when something is different and new. They're always used. If you can encourage people to believe this set of conspiracy theories, they're part of the radicalisation pathway that is designed by people who sit at the heart of these, and sometimes people don't know that they've been engaged in a radicalisation pathway. If you can encourage people to believe this nonsense, to accept the set of premises that underline the fetid swamp of conspiracy theories that these come from, you can get them to believe anything. The radicalisation pathway that is engaged here by these propositions is a pathway to violence and social disharmony. It is a deliberate pathway engaged on sometimes knowingly, sometimes not, because the unwitting dupes of this kind of conspiracy theory often don't realise that they are on a conspiracy pathway. These are the kinds of ideas that mobilised the recent terrorist incident in Wieambilla. They were attracted to COVID conspiracy theories. It was a core part of what they believed. We need to be very careful indeed. Senator Henderson ZN4 On a point of order: the senator has drawn a very serious and disgusting imputation in relation to the most heinous crime in Queensland. I would ask him— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson, that's not a point of order. He was not impugning a senator. It's not a point of order. If you would like it referred to the President, we can do that, but I was listening and I don't believe it's a point of order. Senator Henderson ZN4 Yes, please. If you could, refer it to the president. Think about the words he was using— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 I didn't hear anything then that was impugning anyone in this place, but I will refer it to the President, and they can make an alternative ruling if they think that's what they should do. Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 That's my point exactly, Senator Henderson—people should think about the claims that are made and think about who else is making them and think about the motivation behind these claims that are being made. The truth is that this motion emerges from that same swamp. It emerges from that same swamp. What should be of more concern is not that the extremists are the only ones engaged in this; it's that they have support within the alternative party of government. The extremists are developing relationships and support amongst a party that tries to position itself as the alternative party of government. We know that Senator Antic and Senator Rennick and Senator Canavan are all on board for the conspiracy theory stuff. We know that they are. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Rennick, you have a point of order? Senator Rennick 283596 Imputation: he's named names there. By doing that, he has just imputed everything he had prior to that, and that is completely outrageous, and I call on this man to be censured. He is a disgrace to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Rennick, I think your point of order potentially crossed a line there. But, Senator Ayres, I do believe that was an imputation, and I am going to ask you to withdraw. Senator AYRES 16913 I withdraw. Senator Rennick is often in estimates and often in here repeating those same conspiracy theories. The other senators who I referred to do the same thing. Interestingly, this is not just— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Ayres, it might be helpful to the chamber if you direct your remarks through the chair. Senator AYRES 16913 The interesting thing about this is not that these senators are the only people within the Liberal and National parties who support these propositions; the interesting thing is it accretes its way across almost all of them. So few now are prepared to call this nonsense out for what it really is. So few are brave enough. So few have the moral character and moral fibre that is required to stand up to the far right and conspiracy theorists. So now what does the Liberal and National Party do? They accommodate it. Previous serious conservative leaders—Mr Howard, Mr Fisher, former senator Ron Boswell and others—understood the danger of far-right extremism, particularly in the bush. They took a hard line against the League of Rights characters and all of the other kooky conspiracy theorists, but no longer. It's part of the political strategy. Mr Dutton supported Senator Rennick's ill-fated bid for preselection, despite his obvious extremist tendencies and behaviour. Senator Henderson ZN4 On a point of order, we are continuing to hear the most outrageous imputations from this senator. If he cannot comply with the rules of the Senate and the standing orders, I would ask him to sit down. But could you please rule again that he cannot make imputations against any senator? What he is doing is just absolutely disgraceful. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Thank you, Senator Henderson. I don't believe that there have been continuous ones. However, I do believe that last comment did cross a line, and, Senator Ayres, I would ask you to withdraw. Senator AYRES 16913 I'm happy to withdraw. The problem here is that propagating these extremist views could lead one to think that the propagator of extremist views is indeed an extremist, and accommodating extreme views and conspiracy theories is a sign of the ill-health of the political institution that allows it to happen. It is a sign of their unfitness to govern. It is a sign that they don't take the relationship between public policy and their role seriously and that they engage the most loopy, far right, extremist and kooky views in order to suck up to an emerging and stronger group within their political party. I understand that is uncomfortable. I understand that people don't want to hear it, because they want the easy ride in politics. They don't want to have to call out extremism. They don't want to have to call out bad behaviour, because it is so much easier to do the back slapping, to say, 'She'll be right mate; don't worry about that,' and to surf in on the support of some of the nastiest, extreme and kooky elements in Australian politics. The problem is that it then infects other areas of public policy. You can see it in the way that not just the small group over here but almost all of them approach questions on climate and energy policy—the kind of grandiose claims and wild assertions made, for example, by Mr Joyce in his quixotic tilting-at-windmills campaign against sections of the energy industry. He engages in the same wild rhetoric and the same conspiracy theory behaviour. You talk about pandemics; this is a pandemic of kookiness that has taken over the thinking of Liberals and Nationals not just in Queensland but right around the country. If Mr Dutton is ever to be taken seriously as a leader of an alternative government, he needs to take seriously his responsibility as a political leader, and that is that you don't back the cranks. You don't back the conspiracy theorists. You draw a line. This political party should stand condemned for its incapacity for party discipline and a focus on the public interest and for instead engaging in some of the worst and nastiest elements of Australian politics. Their conduct makes them utterly unfit to stand in the mantle of what was a once proud set of conservative parties. Now it is a conspiracy theorist rump, and Mr Dutton stands condemned for his incapacity to lead. Senator Henderson ZN4 Again, I raise a point of order about the last few words of the senator's contribution on this bill and the imputation that he has made against Mr Dutton. He has tried to sneak that in at the last moment— Senator Watt 245759 And you'd never do that to the member for Corangamite, would you! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Watt, it would be very helpful if you could just hold fire. Senator Henderson ZN4 Senator Watt, would you mind? Show some respect. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Henderson, can you resume your seat please? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 I've heard your point of order. I'm not going to ask the senator to withdraw, because I don't believe that there was an imputation in that last sentence. Senator Rennick. 09:45 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak to the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, which simply recommends a COVID-19 royal commission. The 15 minutes of diatribe and vitriol from Senator Ayres there was one of the most disgusting speeches—actually, it is probably the most disgusting speech—I've ever heard in this chamber. This is a genuine attempt at dealing with and looking at the way the COVID pandemic was handled. All we're recommending here today and supporting is that we have a thorough inquiry to look at how the consequences of that pandemic can be dealt with—in particular, of course, the people who have been injured by the vaccine—and ways in which, going forward, we can also be better prepared for whatever may happen next. I just want to point out the sheer and utter hypocrisy of the Labor Party. Under the government led by former prime minister Scott Morrison, there was a select committee on COVID, and the recommendation of that select committee, led by none other than Senator Katy Gallagher and comprising Labor members Senators Murray Watt and Tony Sheldon, was that a royal commission into the handling of COVID be held. Yet, today, when we tried to move a bill that the Labor Party themselves supported—it was a recommendation by the Labor Party themselves when they were in opposition—we just copped some of the most outrageous accusations and slurs of antisemitism. Somehow we're tied up with the horrendous murders that occurred in Chinchilla. The Labor Party really needs to have a good look at the way it conducts itself in the chamber and in general. There has been an uplift in the last few weeks by the Labor Party members of calling anyone that disagrees with them 'cookers' and 'conspiracy theorists'. And you know what? The general public is waking up to this. The general public don't condone this sort of schoolyard bullying. That's what it is. It's a reflection of the low intelligence of the people that represent the Labor Party, who are incapable of actually (a) treating other people with respect, which is extremely important—we are serving the people here—and (b) being able to engage in a rational debate about the facts of the matter. That is what this chamber is about. It is about having rigorous debate, talking about different ideas and being able to find a middle ground, compromise or whatever. But, instead, what we have is just day after day of name-calling, deflection, censorship and propaganda. I admit, when I first became a Senate candidate, I was bullied relentlessly by the ABC for four days. It rattled me. I'll admit it rattled me. But I've grown a thicker skin. And Muz—I well remember my first TV interview with Senator Murray Watt and Tom Connell, where they had a go at me over my allegations about the Bureau of Meteorology homogenising data. I've gone back to Tom Connell many a time with the documentations. I'll quote the paper. It's Blair Trewin's paper of 2017, which shows that homogenisation has lifted the weather records by 0.6 degrees. It's all there, Senator Watt, so, if you ever want to debate me with Tom on Sky again, I've got the records to prove that what I said was exactly right. But, of course, they won't actually engage in debate. They would rather hide in the shadows or hide behind thugs like Senator Ayres. We've just spent— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Rennick, can you resume your seat. That was a personal reflection. I'm going to ask you to withdraw. Senator RENNICK 283596 Sure. That behaviour we saw by Senator Ayres is the behaviour that the CFMEU goes on with. In this chamber we've just spent most of the last two weeks calling out bullying behaviour. It doesn't matter whether you're in the workplace or on the building site or wherever—it also occurs in here. The fact that the Labor Party sit there and grin and smirk and Senator Ayres's colleagues think that this is all a big joke is an absolute insult to the people that had their lives destroyed throughout the COVID pandemic. For the Australian people, many are still suffering, and it's not just vaccine injuries. There are people that didn't get to see their loved ones. I've got a very good friend whose sister died in New South Wales—her younger sister, I might add—and she died prematurely. She died in her late 40s. My friend could not be there when her sister died. I copped heaps of stories, way before the vaccine injuries ever occurred, of people who were locked out of their homes, couldn't afford the hotel bill, were worried about losing their jobs, couldn't go to their loved ones' funerals and couldn't be there when their loved ones died. We know the story of the mother in New South Wales who wasn't allowed into Queensland to give birth. These things deserve a voice. These issues deserve a voice. We had thousands of Queenslanders locked out of Queensland, living in tents in Murwillumbah. Some of these people, ironically enough, were vaccinated and didn't have COVID, but the Queensland Premier wouldn't even let them back into the state. So these people were roughing it in the back of their cars or wherever they could find accommodation. Why does the Labor Party not take this seriously? Surely the biggest disruption to our lifestyle and country, outside of war, warrants a proper investigation. Look, I'll be honest here. I am not necessarily convinced we'll get that from a royal commission because I'm not convinced the judges necessarily have their head around the biochemistry of a virus and things like that, but I'll take it if I can get it. I'm also not convinced, if we were to get a royal commission up—we've just seen the motives and intentions of the Labor Party; they're clearly not interested in being completely open and transparent about this—that the terms of reference would actually go to the heart of the issue. The other thing that I think we really owe the Australian people is public hearings, the ability to hear from the people themselves who suffered as a result of government decisions. I get it; when COVID first came out, in March 2020, we didn't know what it was and people were understandably concerned and cautious. I didn't speak out in the first year at all. I was sceptical that it was being used for political purposes: 'There's COVID in the sewage. If you don't line up to get a vaccine, you're going to line up for a machine to help you breathe.' There were all of these ridiculous, outrageous statements being made by the state premiers. But I admit we had to display caution early on. But where I really want to start seeing accountability taken is for when it became apparent that those vaccines were causing injuries and when those people who were injured were being gaslighted—and the mandates as well. We were told for almost 18 months that you weren't going to be mandated to take it, and then, bang, we were. Those mandates were being implemented at the same time that people were becoming injured, and the government just turned—all governments. I've been very impartial about this, and I did lose my Senate pre-selection because I withheld my vote from a party because Greg Hunt didn't take my concerns about those vaccine injuries seriously. I'm happy to lose my position in this party over that because that's what representing the Australian people is all about: putting the people first. Listen out for that phrase in the future: putting the people first. I make no apologies for doing that. I come in here as a genuine, impartial person who cares deeply about the Australian people, and I would ask that the chamber support this, or some sort of Senate inquiry, so that we can give the people of Australia a chance to say how they suffered under COVID and the management of COVID and a say in how they want future pandemics—whatever they may be, government contrived or not—to be dealt with. 09:54 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024. Firstly, I want to thank Senator Canavan for putting this bill together and Senator Ralph Babet for bringing it before the Senate today. I do support this bill and I want to outline my reasons, and it's certainly not for the reasons that Senator Ayres, in his atrocious contribution, laid out. I'm rising and supporting this for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's for those people that, throughout the pandemic, contacted me—and I'm sure they were contacting everyone here, particularly those in Western Australia—those people that couldn't make a funeral and those people that couldn't go and see a loved one in hospital. I dealt with hundreds of people that were dealing with those situations. I know of one person that was not able to go and sit beside the bed of someone that they cared for because they were from interstate and they couldn't get into Western Australia. What we need is proper evidence. To date the Western Australian government has not revealed the medical advice that they were relying on. There were different decisions that were made across the country. We were seeing medical data here that prompted the federal government to make the decisions that it made, but then you would see different states and jurisdictions make completely different decisions with completely different advice. That sort of information should come out, and it's not about the conspiracy theories and the rubbish that Senator Ayres was talking about. This is about real people and the anxiety that was caused during that time, and many people are still living with it today. I would say that probably 99 per cent of the population just want us to move on. When you go to the barbeques and you sit around the pub and say, 'Remember those COVID years?' people laugh about it and say, 'How crazy was it that we had to do all those things.' Most people have moved on; that is true. I think most people do just want us to move on, but we owe it to the next generation—it could be 10, 20 or 50 years time when we face a similar situation—that we have the evidence of what went right. A lot went right. We did a lot right as a country. I think we fared better than most countries in the world, so we should be recording that. We should be looking at what went right, but there were some things—there are some questions over whether the decisions made were entirely correct, and I think there are many instances where they weren't. I will give you an example: in Western Australia, we had a vaccine mandate that applied essentially across the entire working population. Almost every occupation was in a category that required you to be vaccinated. There were people like farmers, for example, who were driving a tractor in the middle of a field on their own and who were in contact with nobody, who had to be vaccinated. There were people that didn't want to be vaccinated, and I believe that is their right, particularly when there was no evidence anywhere to say that the vaccine was going to reduce transmission. Their decision to not be vaccinated was simply just about themselves, because it wasn't about a community benefit. There was no community benefit to it because there was no evidence to show that it was reducing transmission, and, at that time, when the mandates were implemented in Western Australia, we had the omicron variant, which was a much less lethal and serious strain of the virus, so it wasn't clogging up our hospitals. It's not like there were a bunch of people that were getting sick that were clogging up our hospitals. There was no evidence to show that it was required then, but decisions were made, and those decisions were made on the eve of an election. The Premier was riding extremely high in the polls, so there are criticisms or suggestions that the decisions were made on a political basis. The point that I'm making here is that we should get the proper evidence. We should get the proper evidence in an independent way, have public inquiries and have public hearings so that that evidence can be heard to check whether or not there was undue political influence over decisions that were made. We owe it to the next generation to support this. We owe it to the next generation to ensure that we have a proper inquiry with public hearings, a commission of inquiry. That is essential to get to the bottom of what was happening at that time. 09:59 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading on the private senator's bill be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 10 AYES Babet, R. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Hanson, P. L. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MOTIONS 3424 MOTIONS Missing and Murdered First Nations Women and Children 3424 10:06 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to missing and murdered First Nations women and children, as circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. Senator COX 296215 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Waters moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to missing and murdered First Nations women and children. It is now time to declare that this is a national emergency, regarding not just missing but disappeared and abducted and murdered and slaughtered First Nations women and children in this country. Last week in this chamber, there was a report that was tabled by the opposition chair, Paul Scarr, on Thursday at four o'clock, when everybody was on a plane and everyone had decided to go home, and there was no media watching. That was systematically done to not bring attention to this issue, to not make it a priority for this government—after women and children and men in this country have marched for the last few months, with What Were You Wearing?, to bring attention to this national emergency. Off the back of this report, we see First Nations women and children still dying in this country; we see them still being overpoliced and undersupported; we see them still having systems weaponised against them and being wrongly identified as perpetrators in this country. They are left alone—alone—to fight a system. These women are terrified to ask for help in this country—with their kids in tow, sometimes—because of the violence they are being presented with. Yesterday, I sat at the National Press Club and listened to the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, with, apart for me and Senator Waters, absolute silence from other politicians in this place. We didn't even have the shadow minister for child protection and family violence turn up. It was Ms Ley and the assistant minister, Justine Elliot, who turned up. Commissioner Cronin talked about the human aspect of this—talked through why we should listen to people with lived experience. But, as the only black woman sitting on that committee, I was silenced. I was silenced in putting forward the 13 Greens recommendations that were ignored by this committee. Yesterday Commissioner Cronin drew my attention to the really important legacy of this. A really prominent advocate in Central Australia, Shirleen Campbell, said: 'Don't just think that we are a statistic—that we are a number. We are humans.' Guess what? In this report, they failed to even put a national dashboard in place. They are not even counting the dead black women and children in this country, and it's bloody disgraceful. You know what's worse? It's that the ministers responsible for this area didn't even put out a press release. They didn't even turn up and have been radio silent ever since this report came down. It is disgraceful. The magnitude of this problem is not just about that. It is the lack of attention to the systemic racism. We have people in this chamber going out and talking about cultural bias. Our people are experiencing systemic and structural racism, and this report details all of those harrowing cases. Every person on that committee said how they were affected and how they were moved. Guess what? You've got the power in this country to make change, and you're doing nothing about it. The outrage should be there, and it's not. There is none. No mainstream media outlet took the opportunity to report on this. Six outlets reported about this report, and most of them were the black women in the media. It is absolutely disgraceful, and it gets worse. In Victoria this fortnight, they are winding back the commitment that they had about raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14. We've got senior police in this country running around saying, 'We should lower the age of criminal responsibility to five.' They're talking about my future grandchildren and my nieces and my nephews, and if you can sit in this place and give power to people that think that five-year-olds are criminally responsible, we have serious problems. This government talks a big game about closing the gap. Target 13 doesn't even have any data attached to it. We don't even know the magnitude of the problem, but they want to stand back and hand out the money. Guess what? Your national dashboard is what we need in order to understand the magnitude of this problem. We cannot continue to sit by. We must do better in this place. We are demanding and we are calling on this government to not only urgently enact all of the recommendations that were put by the Greens but also to have no more excuses. It's time for action. 10:12 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I refer to the motion, which I've only just received, by Senator Cox. I certainly appreciate the incredible passion that Senator Cox brings to this debate and the fact that Senator Cox has championed this for three years, from the moment she entered the parliament. I have always had that admiration for Senator Cox in regard to that. There is no doubt, certainly from the government and from me in the role that I have as Minister for Indigenous Australians, that this is a critical report. I am very, very grateful to the parliament and for the work that has been done. I will look very closely at the recommendations, along with my colleagues, in terms of what we can do and the issues that Senator Cox has raised. There is no doubt, for First Nations people and families across this country, that this does hit home. The fact that we've had so many women and so many of our children who are continually removed, who are certainly missing and who have been murdered, and the impact that it has on each one of us as First Nations women—not only across the country but in this parliament—hit home. But I alert the Senate that there is also a process here. To bring this in during the last five minutes, knowing that there is an opportunity to actually achieve some really strong and good outcomes in terms of this report—I would just urge the Senate to vote no because we need the time. Senator Cox 296215 Really, Malarndirri? How embarrassing. Senator McCARTHY 122087 There's no embarrassment, Senator Cox. There is no embarrassment whatsoever. We want to do this properly, Senator Cox, and we want to make sure that we have the appropriate way of doing it through the funding that should be provided to our legal services, to our women's centres, to our family organisations. This report requires that. If it took three years to be able to listen to the stories of people, I'm sure more than a week is needed to have a look at this report and deal with it respectfully and thoroughly. Bringing your recommendations in here in the last five minutes— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator, could you resume your seat. I would just remind all senators that interjections are disorderly. Senator McCarthy. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I'm disappointed that this has been put before the Senate in a manner that I find is completely disrespectful for the process that we are trying to do in the right way. Sending a tone throughout this country that this parliament does not care is actually irresponsible and reprehensible. We will not support this motion as it currently stands at this particular point in time. Senator Cox 296215 How embarrassing for her. Senator McCARTHY 122087 And there is no embarrassment, just deep disappointment, Senator Cox. I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [10:20]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

22 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:23 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Cox be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [10:23]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 3427 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 3427

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

In Committee 3427 10:26 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 298839 The committee is considering amendment (1) on sheet 2649, moved by Senator Hughes. 10:26 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Unfortunately, we've now got almost half an hour less time to continue to review this legislation that is going to be guillotined. Between the efforts of both the Greens and the ALP, we now have significantly less time to debate and find out answers around this bill. There are still many, many issues that need to be reviewed and examined further and have clarity achieved. Unfortunately, I fear now, for some of those things, we're going to run out of time. So well done to those at that end of the chamber, who just made a hoo-ha out of not being able to read the Senate Order of Business and see when documents and reports are presented, every week in this place, of a Thursday afternoon. Anyway, never let the truth get in the way of a Greens suspension motion. Minister, I draw your attention to sheet SK118, on the list of government amendments that have been circulated. In amending item (4), the proposed section (3) says: A claim must: (a) be made in the approved form (if any); and (b) include any information, and be accompanied by any documents, required by the CEO. What sort of documentation could be requested by the CEO? There's no guidance here as to what that documentation or information may be. Again, I'm trying to seek some clarity here. Are there any limitations on what the CEO can require? What are the sorts of documents that are imagined to be required by the CEO in order for someone to be able to submit an invoice to be paid? 10:28 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Just while the team's grabbing me some material on that—I do think, yes, we're in a situation now where there are three-quarters of an hour or so of discussion. It has been a lengthy discussion, but I do accept that there are many issues about the legislation that the disability community, and others in the community, want to traverse. There has been, the government would say, an exhaustive consultation process in the community. But these are complex issues, Senator Hughes, and some of these questions can be answered in the context of the bill. Much rests, of course, upon not just the co-design issues in terms of the needs assessment framework but also the way that the department and the agency implement the new scheme. Much of it rests, as we go on, upon an ongoing reform journey in this area. I did want to take a moment just to reflect on some of the conduct of this discussion. I think somebody said earlier that words, in this context, do matter in terms of the way that we engage in this discussion. My role here is to answer questions that senators put to me, to represent the government in this legislation. I have been at pains to consider the impacts the discussion has, not just in here but on families and households around the country. I have pushed back consistently and constantly—perhaps the cause of some frustration—when I have seen claims made that create the impression that the government is motivated by bad motives here. It is not, though, immune from criticism; it shouldn't be. There should be a robust exchange in here, a complex exchange, around the bill because, as I say, the bill itself creates a framework and much of it is an enabling framework. There is a lot of work to do, and the Senate will play a role in this as well—in the implementation of the bill and the reforms that are developed over time. It is not immune from criticism, though. It is, from time to time, a highly charged debate and it should be, because some of the issues that sit underneath this piece of legislation and the National Disability Insurance Scheme are utterly vital not only for, today, 600,000 Australians, their families and their communities who participate in the scheme, for people who are applicants for the scheme now and for their families, but also for future generations. Vital issues are engaged. The government is motivated here by wanting to improve the scheme and improve the services that are offered under the scheme. We do say that that is consistent with establishing efficiencies and eliminating duplication in the scheme. These are contested issues, and they should be. We are motivated by protecting the scheme for future generations by putting the scheme on a sustainable footing and moderating the growth of the scheme. That is a good motivation, but these are contested issues, and they should be. It is, indeed, at the outset, a Labor scheme, but it has to be protected and sustainable for the generations ahead, when other governments in future generations—of course, I hope, many, many years away—will have to pick up and administer the scheme as well. But I am conscious that words do matter, and we ought to consider the implication of what we say in here on households around the country. I do say, while words matter, not just in here, it is clear that, when I sought to characterise Senator Steele-John's contribution, the words that I used wounded. That is for sure. I'm a plain-speaking kind of character and it gets under people's skin from time to time. I appreciate that, but it is never the intention. It should never be the intention of anybody in this place for their words to wound in a way that unnecessarily creates offence or distress. I apologise for that, Senator Steele-John. I don't resile from my effort to counter what I think are claims that are made that are not correct, but, of course, all of us should be open to criticism, including me. Having said that, I am hoping that my colleagues here have given me an actual answer to Senator Hughes's question. I did want to make those remarks. The act doesn't currently have a legislated claims and payments framework, which means it is unclear how people, including participants and providers, now make claims for NDIS amounts, and how and when the agency must pay the relevant amounts. The amendments insert new provisions into the act to establish a legislative claims and payment framework. The new provisions will provide a more streamlined process for participants and providers, with specific legislative requirements that will determine when a claim will or will not be paid. The agency processes approximately 400,000 claims every day. Many of these claims do not contain sufficient information to identify whether the claim is appropriate to be paid under the scheme. This causes delays. It is part of the normal business of claims being made but it does cause delays and additional burdens on participants in responding to requests for information. This measure will enable the CEO of the agency to adhere to obligations under the PGPA Act, including by enabling claims to be processed quickly, while balancing fraud and data quality risks. The amendments also impose a timeframe of two years in which claims must be made, which aligns broadly with Medicare's approach on these questions. The new section 45A outlines the mechanical requirements for a claim, including who can make a claim according to the funds management type of a participant's NDIS plan. For self-managed plans, it's a participant or their nominee. For plan-managed plans, a registered plan management provided or agency-managed plans, it's the registered provider who delivered the supports. It also outlines what information is required to support a claim and in what form it is to be provided. Information requirements for claiming are already available on the NDIS website. However, examples include invoices evidencing the supports delivered and receipts evidencing the supports received in the support of either a claim via the participant or provider portal or app or a participant or their nominee using the offline My Plan purchase form. I've already dealt with the timeframe. There will be a 12-month grace period following commencement of the bill during which no time limit on claims will apply as a transition measure. That allows participants and providers a period of 12 months to gather necessary information and submit any outstanding claims for supports obtained or provided more than two years in the past. In addition, section 25C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 makes it clear that substantial compliance with the form prescribed by an act is sufficient. So there's a substance issue in terms of complying with the forms. The government says that it is reasonable to require that minimum amount of information in forms that are submitted to the agency. Of course, the forms themselves will be developed over time during the codesign process that we've outlined more broadly, and that 12-month period should be amply sufficient to achieve those outcomes. 10:37 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I'm trying to get to some specifics here in the explanatory memorandum around this amendment. I understand that you need an invoice and a date of service and all of those sorts of things. I understand that on the invoice you are going to have ABNs or whether they are GST-registered—all of that sort of information—but it does also say 'require information such as data service invoices, and information about the provider'. So I'm trying to get an understanding. Are participants and/or providers going to be expected to be submitting with their claims, working with children checks, police checks, qualifications, business registration details? What is the information that could be required, because it's referred to twice with no definition or parameters or limitations at all? 10:38 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you for that. I just wanted to be confident about this answer, because I'm sure that it is right, and it is. That will form part of the registration and compliance requirements that providers will need to provide principally to the commission. It is not anticipated that it will be the job of participants, as you questioned, to provide support in compliance material in relation to the status of the provider. 10:39 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Perhaps you might be able to help me here in ruling something out. I will come back to the registration part because I'm glad you mentioned that. It will help me. I'll tell you what, when this is over, I'm going to look forward to getting rid of this folder, because I will be able to find something. One of the things that you might be able to clarify and confirm won't be required—there was an article in the Daily Telegraph yesterday with regard to dodgy NDIS providers ripping off workers and pocketing $9 an hour. That was a quote of the union, which was the—I can't even see which union it was. I assume it's the HSU. Senator Ayres 16913 It's the Australian Services Union. Senator HUGHES 273828 Thank you very much, Senator Ayres, who saw the article. The Australian Services Union. Thank you very much. The article in itself is a bit of a beat-up given the fact that providers charging something on top of the fees—how else are they going to make money? How are they going to exist as a business? They obviously have a service fee for booking the support worker. One of the concerns that I have is it's being pushed by a union and the language is that it's about wage theft for providers. Is the other information that would need to be provided to the CEO potentially inclusive of union membership of its workers? 10:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Do you mean information provided—sorry, I'll have to use it because I don't have the imagination to think my way through an alternative word—by the provider? 10:41 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales This would in some way enforce union membership on a provider as part of the information so that claims can be processed. This is not ruled out and so, like universities, we could have mandatory union membership if you wanted to be a registered provider in the NDIS. 10:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The short answer is no. In terms of the kind of information, it would have to be founded in the claim. I think everybody would accept that the margins that are made by providers need to be appropriate. They need to support the provider, but they also need to support good jobs for the workers who are delivering those services. I think that is what the ASU New South Wales branch in this case are properly concerned about, and they think it should be the subject of public debate. It will no doubt be the focus of government attention in this area because it is an opportunity to make sure that public moneys are being expended in the most effective way possible for participants and also make sure that the government's other objectives in bringing people into the scheme are being achieved. But in terms of the operation of the scheme, of this act, the short answer is no. 10:43 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales It's important that we have got that clarity on the record going forward. Obviously, if you want to be a member of a union, that's your prerogative; but to have that as a compulsory part of being able to put an invoice into the agency would be very concerning. I obviously have some reservations around the language that's used in that, the fact there is no definition. 'Any documents' is very broad, but that's obviously something that will continue to require more clarity and something that will be looked at and watched as this new reform is implemented. You mentioned the registration requirements. I know we haven't seen the government's response to either of the reviews that have been done, but it was very clearly stated that compulsory registration was not supported within the sector and was going to cause problems. This is my personal opinion: I have no problem with registration as long as it's scalable so that sole providers aren't pushed out of the market. I don't think there's anything wrong with a register of providers who have their working with children checks or their police checks or their qualifications and that's it—not requiring exhaustive and extensive audits that are required of the larger formally block-funded providers. The scale of the businesses is completely different, and quite often the services that are provided are completely different. I would like to reiterate that I do support what you just said with regard to providers, in terms of making sure that they aren't taking the scheme for a ride. I do worry that the language, even in this entire reform package, is still focused on participants. It's always about the participants. When issues of fraud and mismanagement are brought up, they're always brought up in the context of participants, whereas any participant will tell you that it's actually the provider side that needs to be examined much more closely and particularly the plan management side when we talk about intraplan inflation. It's quite often the case that people with significant impairments are utilising a plan manager who just spends more money than is in the plan as it's gone through. It's not the participant misusing the plan. It's the plan manager not doing their job effectively and thinking that they can just go back and get more money that is causing these problems for participants. So we would very much like to see a greater focus on providers when it comes to the sustainability of the scheme. I know we are going to run out of time soon. Can you talk a little bit about whether or not this legislative reform will push towards compulsory registration? What is the status of registration across the scheme? 10:46 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The short answer to that question—again being conscious of time—is that the act doesn't approach those issues in terms of compulsory registration. There are recommendations in the review which go to the kinds of issues that you're talking about, and the minister has established a taskforce—of providers and, I think, also participants, chaired by Ms Natalie Wade—that will do some further work on this set of issues. They do engage some of the challenges of scale. I think everyone would accept that it is a government scheme that must provide a quality set of services that underpin the objectives of the scheme, but wrestling with those issues will be informed by the work of the taskforce. 10:47 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales And obviously we need to keep in mind that there are businesses, like psychologists, whose entire business is not NDIS participants. They might just have two or three. So it may not be appropriate for that business to be a registered provider and go through the extensive costs and audit, but those businesses can be incredibly professional and be proper people to deliver services. I do want to hand over to Senator Steele-John, so I'll try and finish up. One of the things we've heard is that there are going to be efficiencies from the agency. I struggle to see where they're coming from, particularly with these new navigators being brought in, adding another layer of bureaucracy before you even see a support worker. What further work is going to be undertaken to monitor the agency in its efficiency models? I ask that because, only this morning I received an email—I had a look at who else got it, and I think Senator Ruston and Senator Steele-John received the email; it was sent to a few people—that said that someone who has been having a discussion with the agency about a plan got an email from someone at the agency, saying: 'Thanks for the discussion. We've had the discussion. We've added some money to this plan. Blah, blah, blah.' And the plan that was attached was for the wrong person. It includes all the private and personal contact details as well as details of the person's disability, what their challenges are—everything. It has been forwarded to us; I don't think it should have been. Someone has been sent the wrong information, and I would have thought the agency would have, as a priority, made sure that such personal details as these required a higher level of attention to detail. I do want to acknowledge you, Senator Ayres. In your comments that you made to Senator Steele-John, I think what you said was appropriate, and we certainly welcome the comments that you directed to Senator Steele-John, because I don't think he has undertaken a scare campaign. I'll finish up and use the last couple of minutes to just say a few things. The coalition, with our amendments being supported, will look to pass this bill, and I can't say I do it with a feeling of overwhelming joy. I do it with considerable despair, because, unlike the position held by those currently in government when they were in opposition and stood in the way of all the reforms that were suggested by us when we were in government—when we were referred to as pearl-clutching kabuki players because we mentioned sustainability issues and were trying to address them yet were blocked at every step, even though this had always been a bipartisan scheme—there does need to be reform. I'm not filled with confidence that this is the best first step or that this is an appropriate first step. I think there are elements of it that will be good. I am very keen. I've said to the minister and I have repeated ad nauseam for years that there are too many people on the scheme. There are kids that shouldn't be on the scheme—the kids that do not have permanent and lifelong conditions—and parents that are diagnosis shopping. Quite frankly, it's insulting to those of us with kids that genuinely need it. It's insulting for kids who have been to a number of paediatricians, who have a developmental delay, have an autism level 2 diagnosis and are given a package of, say, $25,000, to know that we now have kids with level 3 autism and intellectual disability currently—and it's being used by the agency; obviously we only get this anecdotally—where the agency staff are already telling them that, because of the new legislation, they are having have their plans cut. Kids with level 3 autism and kids with intellectual disability that are going to have serious and lifelong impairments are having their plans cut to exactly the same level as these other children with autism. Kids with autism are being absolutely used and abused through the press saying that there are too many of them, and there are, because not all of them have what would have been considered autism in the old days. The new DSM-5 has done more damage than I can even begin to imagine with its levels of autism and the removal of so many other diagnoses of disorders. For the families of children with severe and profound autism, you are the quiet voices here because you are just trying to make it through every day, and I'm sorry. I'm sorry that this scheme is letting you down, and I don't know if this is going to help. I'm not filled with confidence that this government is going to be able to deliver these reforms, but we will not stand in the way of them, and we hope that this is just the first tranche of what needs to be genuine reform, because this scheme is too important for the people that need it—for the people whose lives were changed when this scheme came into being, who live in fear every day that they will be forced back into block funded, group home accommodation and that their loved ones will not receive any care or quality of life. That's what used to happen, and our kids were treated like they were less than human, and it's starting to happen again. It's starting to happen again because providers are rorting the system because the agency is unable to determine differences between broad diagnosis. Co-design, which we consistently hear about so often, isn't coming from the voices that really need to be heard, because those people don't have the chance to speak up. Their parents are just trying to get through every day. Their parents are trying to do the best for their child, and there are voices that do not experience impairments at the same level. There are voices that have physical disabilities and can speak up while those with cognitive disorders and those with intellectual disabilities cannot, and sometimes co-design does more damage than good, because those voices are forgotten. So I would implore the government, when they talk about co-design, to talk to the people who genuinely need this scheme, to the people that need it for the rest of their lives and to the people who are struggling day by day and don't often have the platforms to be able to say what needs to be said. We will support this bill. Please get it right. Please do more. Please work constructively with us to do more to make sure that people aren't left behind and that this scheme is there for the people who really need it going forward, because it's too important. 10:55 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Hughes. That was, I think, a very well-weighted contribution that goes to the essence of the issues that the parliament must consider in terms of the scheme. It was very good to see you receiving the support of your colleagues while you gave that contribution. That is what this place should do. The passage of the legislation through the parliament is a very important step, and the minister recognises and the government recognises that there is much more important work to be done. That goes to making sure that this legislation is right, which is the work that we have tried to do here and that the minister, the department and the agency have done, but it also goes to implementing the legislation, it goes to future reform and it goes to the micro detail of every interaction that the staff of the agency have with participants and their families and that providers have with the participants and their families. This is work that, in my view, will never be done, properly, effectively; it is an endless reform process. The words 'continuous improvement' are often used in a pretty banal way around the place, but this is going to be an ever-evolving set of issues. I'm grateful for that contribution. I don't want to belabour any of the points, because I know that Senator Steele-John will have questions and contributions too. In relation to that specific instance that you raised at the outset, Senator Hughes, I'm very happy to undertake to receive that confidentially or for the minister's office to receive that confidentially, to make sure that it is conveyed to the satisfaction of the participant or their family who have raised it but also that the proper lessons are learnt from that. 10:57 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia This is a moment of pain, fear and fury for so many disabled people and our families across the country. This NDIS bill, developed by this Labor government for the purpose of cutting $14.4 billion from our NDIS, represents the greatest betrayal of our community ever perpetrated by a government. During the course of this debate, I have felt so many emotions. I have experienced within me, intensely, that same pain, fear and fury. This will be my last contribution to this debate. When I conclude, or shortly after, the bill will pass, and yet our disability rights movement will remain. The solidarity developed during the course of the fight against this bill will remain. Our connection to each other will remain. I cannot predict what the weeks and months ahead will mean for the 660,000 people who require these supports, who rely on the NDIS, but I can say with absolute certainty that we will face this together. It is from that certainty that today I draw the most tremendous pride in the disability community. There are so many across this country who, through the course of this campaign, attempted to persuade this Labor government to keep its commitments, to keep its promises, to listen to the voices of disabled people. There are so many organisations and individuals who have demonstrated and have reached into the most extraordinary courage—people who battle every day just to survive—who have taken up the cause together, have organised, demonstrated, protested, called their MPs, sent emails and spent hours and hours explaining to Senate committees and individual MPs precisely the dangers of this bill and precisely the kinds of harms that it will do to us as a community. There are so many organisations whose job it is to represent disabled people, whose job is to bring the voices of our communities into parliament, that have gone again and again into spaces where they were promised co-design and transparency and have instead been subjected to coercion, gaslighting, deception and deceit. In the face of this treatment by a government they trusted, they have nevertheless held fast. I am so proud of every single one of our disability representative organisations, who, guided by their membership and their board, when placed under incredible pressure by this Labor government, which sought at every turn to persuade and coerce them into celebrating this bill and backing this bill, decided to place themselves with their community and their community's needs in solidarity. They decided not to back down. So this bill passes today. This government hides there in the corner with the full knowledge that every single one of Australia's disability representative organisations either completely opposed this bill or had called for it not to pass today because of the rafts of new amounts of information that had been dropped by this government during the course of the debate. I want to thank and acknowledge the incredible work done by the advocates and the activists who worked so tirelessly to ensure that those organisations had the information they needed to take that position. I also want to acknowledge every single person who made a submission to the Senate inquiries into this bill and to the witnesses who gave evidence. During the course of those inquiries, we as disabled people were asked to disclose the most private, the most intimate and the most personal details of our lives. We had witnesses giving evidence to an inquiry share with us—I'm not going to sanitise it for the chamber—what it means for them to no longer be able to control their bladder and the way in which the ability to purchase cheaper products from a regular, mainstream space enabled them to live. We had somebody share with us that their ability to use their NDIS funds to have their hair washed by a hairdresser, in a way that will be prohibited under this bill, enabled them to not only live well and happily but avoid the unnecessarily humiliating experience of having to be showered by somebody they didn't know. We had people share with us that, if they were subjected to the policies intended to be enacted through this bill, they would have to leave their family home. They would face the horror of returning to the group home dynamics that they thought they'd never have to live in again. I must acknowledge in this moment that so many people right now are frightened. They are frightened because they understand this bill, because they've read this bill, because they know this system, because they know this scheme, because they know the state of the pre-NDIS system that we clawed our way out of. They know the features of those pre-NDIS schemes—government mandated lists, government mandated assessments, government mandated plans. That's what they lived with, so their fear is well grounded. It must be acknowledged, it must not be dismissed and it must not be framed as a scare campaign. We know, as a community, what we are about to be subjected to because we have lived it. We also know that the disability community now is stronger than we have ever been before. We know that disability pride lives in the heart of that movement. We know that mutual aid and community organisation are the tools that we will reach to now. This time of trial and shadow and grief is a time that we shall journey through together. We shall hold ourselves up, we shall grieve for those that we know we will lose, we will rage against the dying and we will remind both parties, who are about to pass this bill, that we are not only fearless advocates, we are not only community members but we are voters and, as voters, we will mark your card for this. We will remember it on election day. In the name of all we lose, and all those whom we lose, we shall go into the ballot box and deliver back to this place a parliament that will listen, a legislature that will restore our rights We will deliver a parliament willing to work with the disability community rather than against it, to correct this betrayal and to truly build a society for all. (Time expired) 11:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think we're very close to the time for the debate expiring. In closing, while I strongly disagree with many of the assertions in Senator Steele-John's closing speech, I do thank him for making a contribution to this debate. I think that it's very important that some of the injunctions in the last three contributions, taken together, are what we must focus on as this legislation passes the parliament and as we go on with the work of implementing this vital piece of work. I do say to Australians who are participants in the scheme and their families that what the passage of this legislation means is that participants, their families and future generations can have confidence that the government and this parliament are committed to making the scheme stronger, to making it sustainable and to improving the experience of Australians with a disability and their families and their communities, and that the government and, indeed, the parliament recognise how important this NDIS set of reforms have been for Australia as a country. It will be the work of this government and future generations to continue to focus on improvements and to continue to mobilise community support for the scheme. Every Australian, whether they participate in the scheme or are a family member of somebody who participates in the scheme or have no relationship with the scheme whatsoever, benefits from a strong, universal National Disability Insurance Scheme and from a government that continues to focus on improvements to the performance of the scheme, the sustainability of the scheme, the long-term viability of the scheme that is founded properly in its original purpose. These issues should be the subject of contest because they are vital for the interest of Australians, about whom we should care very deeply indeed. There will be amendments to the scheme, and I don't, in the short amount of time left, want to deal with those amendments in detail. Some of them here are matters that the government has determined, in response to discussions with the states and territories, will improve the governance and co-governance of the scheme. It is a good thing that the states and territories, as a response to those changes, have deepened their public commitment to the scheme. There are amendments there that are a response to the parliamentary debate and the inquiry's processes and also to representations made directly to the government by senators and also by community organisations that represent disabled people. They go to ensuring that foundational supports are comprehensively defined and implemented in states and territories. The government will deliver a formal response to the disability royal commission and the NDIS review. And some of those amendments do go—I've heard Senator Steele-John's final contribution in this debate—to some of the matters that Senator Steele-John raised. I respect the fact that he does not believe they go to them satisfactorily, but they do go, for example, to that precise issue of allowing for the kind of care, where it is appropriate, in terms of services like hair washing, and to a process that deals with that in an effective and dignified kind of way. It is important to make sure that that work with the states and territories and the disability community around the broader reforms that are required to support the effective operation of the scheme continues, including to develop foundational supports agreed by National Cabinet to commence from 1 July 2025. It's important to ensure that there is careful sequencing of the other key recommendations from the NDIS review and the disability royal commission, and the bill establishes the framework to allow the time that it will take to carefully co-design and develop the detail in subordinate legislation. We are not going backwards here on these questions. We are going forwards. We are not going backwards to the bad old days and the kinds of things that happened to disabled people in group homes or in any other context. There is nothing in this bill that does anything but aim forward at a scheme that offers decency and dignity and better services and at a more sustainable scheme that's in the interests of all Australians but particularly in the interests of disabled people and their families. While I recognise, and the minister recognises, that there should be contest over these questions, let's be very clear as a parliament that the message that we are sending today with the passage of this important piece of legislation, which does not cover the field of all the reforms that are required but enables progress, is pointing forward, making sure we turn our back on a very difficult past and protecting, building and strengthening this scheme for the future. Progress reported. NOTICES 3433 NOTICES Presentation 3433 COMMITTEES 3433 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 3433 Report 3433 11:15 Senator 231199 Tasmania URQUHART (—) (): I present the ninth report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 9 OF 2024 22 August 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacquie Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 9 OF 2024 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 at 7.10 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 October 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024 Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024 Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 22 August 2024 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Introduction of Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow the Committee to scrutinise this legislation and speak to stakeholders impacted. Possible submissions or evidence from: The construction sector, the housing sector, builders and Australians who are interested in this legislation. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): September Possible reporting date: 4 October 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add "but the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be deferred". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:22 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report, as amended, be agreed to. 11:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I want to draw to the attention of the chamber and anybody who's listening what actually just happened. We have a process in this place called selection of bills that occurs on a Wednesday night every week, where all parties have the opportunity to come in and put their position in relation to bills that are going to be debated. At the end of that process, we usually reach agreement or we don't reach agreement on particular bills. Last night, a very respectful selection of bills process saw the government, the opposition, the Greens and the crossbench all agree to the selection of bills report that was put forward this morning by Senator Urquhart. Approximately two minutes before the agreed selection of bills report was to be put before this chamber, the Greens, the Labor Party and, interestingly, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Pocock—I'm not sure they actually knew what they were doing, but, if they did, they could be included in my complaint—came into this place and changed an agreement of last night. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 Absolutely. Absolutely. I have no problem. We do not have to agree on everything, and we certainly do not. But what we've got here is a private senator's bill that was put forward by a senator—not by a government and not by the opposition but by an individual senator—who sought to have his bill referred to the committee. Last night, everybody agreed to that, but apparently today the Labor Party, the Greens, Senator Tyrrell and Senator Pocock have decided that they no longer support a private senator putting his bill to the committee. It would be really interesting to understand— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator RUSTON 243273 The first thing is that that senator has not had the opportunity to put his case forward as to why he wanted his bill to be referred—no opportunity to speak to the crossbench and no opportunity to put his case about why he wants to put that bill forward. The only thing I can suggest is that, after you actually agreed last night for a bill to be referred to a committee, somehow, someone from above on the other side has said, 'Actually, we don't like the content of that private senator's bill. We can't possibly have that sent to a committee,' because you're sensitive about the topic that is contained in the bill. All I can say is that the most egregious thing that's happened here is the complete disregard for the process. As I said, it would have been no problem whatsoever if last night you had not wanted to agree with the motion. We would have had the opportunity overnight to settle this the respectful way. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator RUSTON 243273 Can I just congratulate the staff—our staff and your staff—for the very respectful way that they manage this process of the selection of bills. It has worked forever in a respectful way. We don't always agree, but, apparently, those opposite have come in here this morning and decided to completely override that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator RUSTON 243273 This is not something that is new in here. This is a government that is quite happy to trash convention as long as it suits its political purposes for the moment. All I can say to you is— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator RUSTON 243273 if you trash convention and processes, when you want to use them in your favour, just remember that you've given us the green light to trash processes in a way that works in your favour. I just want everybody to understand what actually happened. A process was trashed. A convention was trashed. No respect or time was given to anybody to deal with the issue. It was not a process about the opposition; it was a process where a private senator simply wanted to refer their bill to a committee—a process that you had all agreed to last night. Somehow that has been overridden by somebody on the other side and now you've pulled your support. So all I can say is: have a very long think about it, because what you sow is what you reap. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator RUSTON 243273 It won't be long until we have an opportunity to pay you back for the complete disrespect that you have shown Senator Bragg by refusing to allow him to have his private senator's bill referred to committee. What are you hiding? What are you afraid of? Clearly, you do not like the idea that his bill— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator RUSTON 243273 is likely to shine sunlight on some of the terrible things that the people that support your party—and your party—have been doing. You made a mistake last night, and all this has just highlighted the fact that you are running an absolute protection racket for the unions. We've seen it play out this week with the CFMEU. What you say and what you do are two completely different things. You have no intention of bringing the sanctions that would force all this bad behaviour out; you just say you're going to. Here is another classic example of where you will do whatever you need to do to shut down debate about something that you don't like the subject of. The 10000 Order! Just before we go to you, Senator Bragg, I did call order at least six or seven times, and there was continued disorder right across the chamber. I remind senators we've just had a division. A number of you are incredibly disorderly because you're not even in your proper places. I remind you of that standing order. Senator Bragg. 11:28 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It is very curious, when you think about all the different issues and the difficult issues we debate in this parliament which are the subject of private senators' bills— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, please resume your seat. Senator Bilyk, I've just called the chamber to order. I'm not quite sure which part of that doesn't apply to you. You either sit in here in silence or you leave the chamber. Senator Bragg, please continue. Senator BRAGG 256063 When you think about all the diverse views in this chamber which are the subject of private senators' bills and are always afforded an inquiry, this is not a particularly controversial matter. This is purely a protection racket for an issue, the CFMEU, that the government wants to go away. The government has pretended to be shocked about corruption in the CFMEU, in the last few weeks. No-one else is surprised, in Australia, that the government has been concealing these issues as part of their alliance with the unions and the CFMEU. All this bill is looking to do is to remove the ability for the CFMEU and the Cbus super fund to access taxpayer funds, because it is an integrity and probity issue here that taxpayers should not be exposed to corruption and wrongdoing. I think, even if there are different views on the idea of having a fund like this—which we don't agree with—everyone would agree that taxpayers should not be exposed to the CFMEU. If it's good enough to put the organisation into administration, then surely it's good enough to protect taxpayer funds invested in this organisation from co-investing with an organisation that the parliament has sought to put into administration. The fact that there are three CFMEU trustees on the board of the fund and that significant transfers are made each and every year shows that these are linked organisations. The idea that the Cbus fund could co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund exposes the taxpayer directly to corrupt activities—and that is before you even look at the litany of examples where the Cbus-CFMEU cartel has sought to impose a significant tax and levy on construction sectors while it has not done so for its own organisations and its own investments. This is a bizarre turn of events for the government to agree, at selection of bills last night, that this fairly uncontroversial proposal would go to an inquiry, take submissions from interested parties and have a hearing. I would say the only reason the government has changed its mind is because it is fearful of further exposure and unpacking of these issues. The main objective of the government is to stop exposure of these issues. They want to move on. They want to say they've done the job by putting the organisation into administration. They don't want to look at this exposure through the Housing Australia Future Fund. They don't want to look at any of the governance issues in relation to any of the superannuation funds which are linked very closely to the CFMEU with the various trustees and the financial transfers. It's very clear what has happened here. The government has had a change of heart. It doesn't want to see any further discussion or exposure of these issues. But the Senate's job is to inquire; the Senate's role is to look at any matter—particularly where there have been significant allegations of wrongdoing. It is a very dangerous precedent for anyone to be voting against inquiry and investigation. That is a job that senators are here to do, and people would be rightly disgusted if they thought we were seeking to conceal wrongdoing and corruption. We're talking about taxpayer funds. We're not talking about private funds; we're talking about $10 billion of taxpayer funds. The only super fund that has sought to engage with the Housing Australia Future Fund is the Cbus fund, which is chaired by Mr Wayne Swan, who, last time I looked was not the chief investment officer of the fund. He was the chairman of the fund. He also happens to be the president of the Labor Party. He is going out there making commitments of $500 million and saying that he wants to commit to co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund. The parliament wants to inquire as to whether this is an appropriate party for the government to do business with, and the Senate is saying, 'We are not even going to have an inquiry into these issues or take submissions from the public.' I'm sure there are a lot of builders and developers who've got evidence about wrongdoing in these sectors that would like to engage with this inquiry and would like to avail themselves of parliamentary privilege because they are afraid to make statements in the public domain where they could be thumped by people who have no regard for the law. It is a very dangerous precedent for the government to be closing down an avenue to have an inquiry into a matter of great public interest where taxpayer funds are at stake. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 3438 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3438 11:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion No. 591 standing in the name of Senator Van, relating to emissions reduction, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 3438 NOTICES Postponement 3438 DOCUMENTS 3438 DOCUMENTS Services Australia 3438 Order for the Production of Documents 3438 11:34 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 538, agreed to by the Senate on 26 June 2024, relating to Services Australia and speechwriting services, has not been complied with, and (ii) the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services (the minister) stated in response to the order that it 'would be a significant undertaking to search, identify and compile the expansive material being requested'; (b) rejects the grounds that the minister has provided as to why the order cannot be complied with, noting that: (i) a 'significant undertaking to search' for the documents that are the subject of the order is not a recognised ground for a claim of public interest immunity, and (ii) the minister did not indicate a date by which the order could be complied with; and (c) requires the minister to comply with the order by no later than midday on 6 September 2024. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3439 COMMITTEES PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) Select Committee 3439 Appointment 3439 11:35 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), be established to inquire into the extent, regulation and management of PFAS, with particular reference to: (a) the extent of data collection on PFAS contamination of water, soil and other natural resources; (b) sources of exposure to PFAS, including through environmental contamination, food systems and consumer goods; (c) the health, environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of PFAS; (d) challenges around conducting and coordinating health and exposure research into PFAS, including the adequacy of funding arrangements and the influence of the chemicals industry over the evolving body of scientific evidence on the health effects of PFAS, including in respect to First Nations communities; (e) the effectiveness of current and proposed federal and state and territory regulatory frameworks, including the adequacy of health based guidance values, public sector resourcing and coordination amongst relevant agencies in preventing, controlling and managing the risks of PFAS to human health and the environment; (f) the role, liability and responsibility of government agencies and industry in the production, distribution, contamination and remediation of PFAS, including obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and other relevant principles and international conventions; (g) international best practices for the environmentally sound management and safe disposal of PFAS; (h) the adequacy and effectiveness of government engagement with and support for communities disproportionately affected by PFAS contamination, including fair and appropriate compensation schemes; (i) the effectiveness of remediation works on specific sites and international best practices for remediation and management of contaminated sites; (j) international best practices for environmental and health risk assessments, reduction and management of PFAS contamination and exposure; (k) areas for reform, including legislative, regulatory, public health and other policy measures to prevent, control and manage the risks of PFAS to human health and the environment, including the phasing out of these harmful substances; and (l) any other related matters. (2) That the committee present its final report on or before 5 August 2025. (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) Senator Thorpe; and (d) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. (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; and (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 in any meeting of the committee, the quorum shall include one member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate or Senator Thorpe. (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 Thorpe 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. DOCUMENTS 3440 DOCUMENTS Ilpeye Ilpeye Estate 3440 Order for the Production of Documents 3440 11:35 Senator 250026 Tasmania LAMBIE () (): At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by 5 pm on Wednesday, 11 September 2024: (a) the deed of trust for the Ilpeye Ilpeye Trust, which holds legal title to the property within the Ilpeye Ilpeye Estate, located in Alice Springs; and (b) any agreements involving Ilpeye Ilpeye residents under any formal registered entities, including but not limited to the Ilpeye Ilpeye Aboriginal Corporation, the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth Government. Question agreed to. BILLS 3440 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 3440

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

The Senate divided. [11:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 38 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [11:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [11:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:59]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [12:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. (Teller) McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

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

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

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [12:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [12:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

27 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 3471 12:25 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [12:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 3471

Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024

Second Reading 3471 12:27 The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 21 August, the time for the consideration of the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 has expired. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3471 12:28 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 3471

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

Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 3471 12:28 The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 21 August, the time for the consideration of the Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 has expired. The question is that these bills be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading 3472 12:28 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. MOTIONS 3472 MOTIONS Northern Territory Election 3472 12:29 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I seek leave to a move a motion, as circulated, relating to allegations involving the Chair of the Northern Land Council in the intimidation and bullying of an Indigenous female candidate in the Northern Territory election. Leave not granted. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McKenzie moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the Northern Territory to be moved and determined immediately. The government needs to investigate the possibility of the involvement of the Northern Land Council in the Northern Territory election. Yesterday we witnessed the Minister for Indigenous Australians' complete and utter disregard for an Indigenous woman who is running as a candidate in the Territory election. She failed to provide answers to the questions that were put to her; in fact, instead she chose to make light of those circumstances, of very serious allegations that are her responsibility to look further into. In fact, her performance, I might say, was reminiscent of—I would suggest she was probably the Raygun of the Senate yesterday. Elections are one of the most fundamental elements of our free and democratic societies. It's one of the reasons why Australia has become such a significant part of the free Western world, and this is why the reports in the Australian of intimidation, of bullying, of an Indigenous female candidate—this is misogyny. We hear from the government accusations of misogyny put towards this side of the chamber all the time, but when it comes to Aboriginal women this issue is not so important; we're told we can't call out misogyny when it relates to Indigenous men who are leaders in communities and chairs of land councils. Well, I'm calling out this misogyny, and the Minister for Indigenous Australians has a responsibility to launch an investigation into this misogyny. The Northern Land Council is a statutory authority brought into existence to serve its members who need someone to represent their interests. It's unacceptable that a body such as the Land Council would have even a remote part to play in undermining one of our most vital democratic processes like the Territory election. This matter requires that there be a suspension of standing orders because this is a matter of urgent necessity. We do not have any more time. The final day for Territorians to cast their vote is this Saturday, 24 August. If there is even a suggestion that there has been some involvement of the Northern Land Council in the campaign of a standing candidate, Territorians need to know about it. The minister proved during question time yesterday she doesn't take this matter seriously; she made a joke of it, and it was a farce—in fact, the whole government benches did. She was unable to deny any interference. It's there in plain sight, as was reported in the Australian. Nothing the minister has said alleviates my concern in any way. There is also a necessity because I tried to raise this issue in the chamber with the minister yesterday and got absolutely nothing of benefit in response. In fact I was appalled at the behaviour, the conduct, of the minister and the government over a matter as serious as interference in an Australian election by a land council—a body she directly oversees as the Minister for Indigenous Australians. It's ironic, really. It's just unbelievable. For all their talk about championing Aboriginal people, this Labor government is consistently demonstrating it has no regard for our most vulnerable people and communities. Yanja Thompson is a young woman living in the Northern Territory—a Yolngu woman, a hardworking woman, a single mother raising three of her children and wanting to contribute to her community and to society at large. She is trying to do so by standing as a bush candidate. Remember, it's in the bush that women experience the highest rates of domestic and family violence, where Indigenous women are most vulnerable. You would think this would be a characterisation Labor would be delighted about—that a woman under these circumstances, one of our most vulnerable members of society, is standing up in this way. But no, as she is a woman, seen through the empty words of the Labor government, 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 this case, like Yanja's case, you deserve to be attacked and brought down, it seems. So it's ironic that the very vulnerabilities that would otherwise make her a hero if she were aligned to Labor are being used to destroy her in this Northern Territory election. This is bullying. This is intimidation. It's a vigilante-type approach to politics, and we require an investigation. 12:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government does not support the suspension of standing orders, and I reject the slurs and imputations that have been put by Senator Nampijinpa Price against Labor members and the minister. There are many opportunities to have a five-minute speech—that's essentially what Senator Nampijinpa Price wanted—at other times of the program. I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion, as moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. 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. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:43 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension motion, as moved by Senator Nampijinpa Price, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 28 AYES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. 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. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 3474 BILLS Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 3474

Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024

Second Reading 3474 12:45 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I am delighted to be able to speak on the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, an important piece of legislation which we need to ensure we do absolutely get right. At the outset, I do want to thank the relevant minister, Minister Collins, for her willingness to engage on this issue and thank her predecessor, Minister Watt. It is, broadly speaking, an issue that we, the coalition and the Labor Party, can find a lot of common ground on when it comes to its management. There are a few issues we do diverge on, as you would expect, but I do want to put on the record at the outset my thanks to, in particular, Minister Collins, as a Tasmanian who understands these issues, for her willingness to cooperate and hear me out. Obviously, the coalition is a big supporter of the forestry industry in Australia. We have a very, very fine history when it comes to the processing of timber products here, harvesting and managing forests and ensuring we do it to the world's best standard. That is an industry that has been in existence now for the entirety of the history of Australia as we know it today in terms of productive forestry management. We learned a lot from First Nations traditional owners about forest management and things that have been picked up over time. But, in terms of our commercial forestry sector, the participants in that industry over time have improved their practices and are very proud—rightly so—of what they've been able to achieve. I challenge and continue to challenge my friends from across the chamber to identify a jurisdiction where they do it better and actually have a productive forestry sector. I'm sure we'll hear from other participants in this debate about jurisdictions that might, in their opinion, do it better. But I highly doubt it because, to this day, I have not been given a country that does it better than Australia. Whether it be native forestry or plantation, we do it to the world's best standard, we do it sustainably and we do it in a way we should be proud of. To that end, that's why dealing with illegal logging in overseas jurisdictions and in how we source our timber here is incredibly important. If we're going to hold ourselves to the highest standard possible and make our industry jump through the hoops that we do to attain certification, to be granted a forest practices plan, to go and harvest and to comply with all relevant laws—whatever they might be—in any state or territory jurisdiction, then we should be expecting that of jurisdictions we import timber from. Of course, as we know, demand for timber is increasing in broad terms over time. We have a massive housing shortage. We have public infrastructure that we're talking about building out of timber. We have a stadium in Hobart that we're looking at constructing out of timber too—hopefully beautiful Tasmanian hardwoods. The demand is going through the roof. Yet Australia's capacity to supply all of its demand is diminishing. Therefore, where do we get timber from? We import it, which is why this legislation is so incredibly important. Understanding what it is we are consuming by way of timber—where it's coming from, the species, how it's managed, if it is done to the world's best standard—is something that consumers are after. This legislation is what we have in the arsenal to be able to ensure consumers do have that sort of information at their disposal when they're making those choices. It is the responsible thing to do. If we're going to go down the path of making it difficult for industry to operate here, to comply with standards, then we don't want to just push off over the horizon the environmental responsibility of making sure that they do their forestry right when we do it well in our country. We don't know what they do in the Congo Basin. We don't know what they do in Borneo. I have a fair hunch, based on the information I've received, and it's not like we manage forests here. This is the problem. I know others have referred to it as the 'drug dealer argument': take our timber because ours is better managed than yours. The reality is that the demand for these beautiful products—necessary, great carbon sinks—is not going away, and we should do it in a way, as we do here in Australia, that is good for the environment. You can manage that industry well and ensure that there are good environmental outcomes and a beautiful product at the end—and jobs, to boot, in Australian timber mills, in harvesting operations and through contracting businesses that are part of this amazing industry. I do want to reflect on a time, in the last term of the previous federal government, off the back of some developments in Victoria, which led to, I believe, a regrettable decision by the Victorian government to bring in a phase-out of native forest harvesting in the state of Victoria, which then turned into an immediate ban not long after, despite promises from that government. It was interesting—and I don't want to hover on their decision because this bill doesn't go to that issue—at that time, a major retailer in Australia made a decision to no longer stock timber sourced from the Victorian state owned forestry corporation. It was not because there was any proof that there was wrongdoing, not because the regulator had found there were problems with forest management and not because of any facts stacking up but because claims were made. In response, a retailer became very nervous and made the decision not to stock those timbers. I then, as assistant forestry minister, asked the department to engage in some DNA testing across a range of retailers across the country to understand what was being sold in our timber retailing outlets, big and small, where it was coming from and could we validate what claims were being made about its source. It took a little while to get done. I think it might be the University of Adelaide that is the home, the repository, of the database against which all of this DNA information is measured, and I want to thank them for their good work. The data that came back was alarming. We had a retailer make a decision about not stocking timber from an Australian jurisdiction because of claims circulating that things weren't being done to a standard some would like, yet complying with the law, but they were happy to sell timbers purporting to be a particular species from a particular jurisdiction—some carrying the logos of certain certification schemes, backing in this claim that it came from a certain jurisdiction and was a certain species of timber—but, in fact, it was something completely different and, as far as the DNA evidence showed, came from a totally different jurisdiction. That concerned me greatly. We have Australians who want to do the best thing they can by the environment in sourcing materials, so they trust retailers—generally speaking—they trust certification schemes and they trust the products bearing the logos of these certification schemes. But on a very, very small sample and a very random approach taken to selecting samples to DNA test, there were quite a number of alarming inconsistencies between what was claimed to be the species and source of this particular timber product and what the facts were—where it came from. The jurisdictions from which this timber is sourced, according to the DNA evidence, are those jurisdictions where, of course, they don't have good environmental standards. They don't have laws and regulations that protect the environment. They came from jurisdictions where there are concerns around modern slavery attached to the sourcing of these timbers. That's why it's important that, when we are importing timber, which we are doing more and more of, particularly when we have less and less available here, we are going to see an increased need to ensure what we bring in meets our standards and meets what consumers are actually after in this country. I, still to this day, believe that timber is the best building product. Yes, there is a place for concrete and steel, but I can tell you that nothing beats the qualities of timber not only as a building material but also in an environmental sense. As I've already said, the carbon storage capacity of this material is absolutely incredible. In referring to our time in government, it was something that was very much on our radar. We were very concerned about making sure that timber processors here and retailers complied with our illegal-logging regime. The laws that were in effect, and the regulations attached to them, were reviewed on a relatively regular basis, which gave rise to the work that's been undertaken by both the last government and the current government, culminating in this legislation we have before us today. I should also foreshadow that the opposition does have a number of amendments that we have circulated. Some relate to what products require testing and those that don't, the application of certain provisions applying to imports only, the notices related to the import of timber products, the removal of certain strict liability offences in certain situations and the publication of details, amongst a range of other amendments we have here. Again, this is something I've been talking about with Minister Collins and, before her, with Minister Watt, and there is a genuine willingness to engage on this front. Before I go on with a little bit more of the history, there were further concerns raised with the coalition—outside of the Senate committee process into this legislation, which we were happy to initiate—around the regime that we have before us and what the new laws would do in terms of putting the onus on processors here, who have limited visibility about where timber comes from, particularly if it is imported. So, if a processor receives timbers from a particular importer, is the onus on them—a small- to medium-sized timber processor here in Australia who is creating furniture, perhaps, or building materials—to be able to indicate the veracity of the claims around the source of the timber or is it on the importer? It's about making sure that we have a clear delineation and that the onus is not on small- to medium-business operators who are in the business of not importing but processing. I think that's an important clarification. That is something we're working with the government on. We want to make sure that we don't have scope creep in terms of Commonwealth government legislation. We have states and territories, who have responsibilities for land management in this country. These provisions should relate to imports from overseas jurisdictions and of course to the processing, in this country, of timber that has been harvested here. When it comes to the harvesting of Australian domestic timber resources, all state and territory jurisdictions have their own forest practices management authority or equivalent entity that manages their forests. So I wanted to be absolutely sure that we are not seeing the Commonwealth step into a space where we already have entities that are managing this important issue. In Tasmania, I know that the Forest Practices Authority work exceptionally well and closely with land managers, along with other entities within the forestry space, to try and ensure: that we have appropriate mechanisms in place to manage timber harvesting; that it is done in accordance with the law, to the world's best standard; and that we don't have illegal harvesting of timbers. Of course we all know the flow-on impacts to both flora and fauna, waterways and the rest. It is important to ensure that we have a delineation between Commonwealth and state and territory responsibilities. At the last election, we did announce a dedicated commitment to assign $4½ million to strengthen our country's fight against illegal logging and to stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers, because that's what it does come down to. That, I'm pleased to say, was a commitment that, along with all of our forestry policies, was met by the now government, which I think is rather a vote of confidence. It's said that imitation is the best form of flattery, and, when the now government is working very hard to implement our policies, that is a good outcome for the Australian timber industry, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of that labour being borne soon. Of course, there were a couple of shortcomings, I hasten to add, that have been worked on with the minister and the government. I've referred to some of the amendments, and I'm sure the questions I've just asked will be interrogated in the committee stage perhaps in the next sitting week. Summing up the best part of them, some of the other issues that were referred to relate to the cost associated with the mass fibre testing; the requirement of importers to directly verify and validate legitimacy of their products; and the dangers of the strict liability regime. That is where the coalition is on this particular legislation. I thank the ministers I have worked with on this legislation. It is important to get this right, and I believe we can. I'm proud of this country's history as a timber processor and producer. I think we can do more of it and do it better; we do it better than anywhere else in the world. I commend this bill to the Senate. 13:01 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I will come to a couple of observations on Senator Duniam's contribution shortly, but I commence by pointing out that this bill, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, amends the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012. I reflect that the Australian Greens supported the passage of that act through this parliament but said at the time that it didn't go far enough. In a nutshell, that is our response to the current bill: we will support this legislation but it doesn't go far enough. That's why we've got some amendments that I will speak to a little bit later in my contribution that would go some way towards rectifying the more egregious failures in this bill. Basically, this bill will enable testing of timber products at the Australian border and beyond to ensure that non-compliant, illegally logged timber is not imported—or, at least, that's ostensibly what the bill would do—and there are a range of other matters this bill will cover. The Greens agree that the consideration of this bill would ideally be deferred until the finalisation of the accompanying new rules—which I note was a recommendation that the opposition made in the Senate inquiry into this legislation. However, here we find ourselves today thanks to this bill being placed on the agenda by the government. This bill purports to take steps to ensure that noncompliant, illegally logged timber is not imported into Australia. But surely, colleagues, a greater priority for us in this place should be the illegal logging that is going on in Australia, that we have seen over many decades in this country, under a regime that has just been described by Senator Duniam as world's best practice. Let's look at VicForests, for example—when it was still around, I might add. It was a rogue government agency. It conducted repeated illegal logging, repeatedly breached environmental protections, ran covert surveillance of scientists and environmentalists and faced multiple dozens of successful court challenges that demonstrated it was illegally logging. It was forced by the courts to pay compensation because it was so incompetent. Let's make no mistake: VicForests was an illegal logging agency. Its modus operandi was to trash Victoria's forests, home to beautiful species like the Leadbeater's possum, massively carbon rich forests, home to massive tall trees, and ancient majestic forests that were stolen from their original inhabitants by the colonisers in this country. Its modus operandi was to trash those forests illegally, and that was shown repeatedly and found repeatedly by the courts. Is that illegal behaviour endemic to Victoria? No, it's not. Let's have a look at New South Wales. The New South Wales EPA has successfully prosecuted the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales on multiple occasions for breaching forestry laws. In a recent case, Justice Pepper of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales found that the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales 'has a significant history of unlawfully carrying out forestry operations'. That's not me making that claim; that's Justice Pepper of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, putting their view on the record that the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales 'has a significant history of unlawfully carrying out forestry operations'. Then, of course, we get to my home state of Tasmania. I could stand in this Senate for hours and give you chapter and verse about Forestry Tasmania, the state government owned logging corporation. Just like the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales and VicForests, it has a modus operandi of illegally logging our forests. I'll give you one case that's become prominent recently, where forest defenders—and I absolutely want to shout out people right around this country who defend our forests from destruction—including former senator Dr Bob Brown, pointed out on site, in real time, to Forestry Tasmania officers that swift parrots were in a coop that was being logged. The relevant forest practices plan said that, if there was a credible sighting of swift parrots in a coop, the logging had to stop immediately. Did the logging stop immediately? No, it didn't, and that was illegal and unlawful by Forestry Tasmania. Of course what happens then is Dr Brown and his courageous fellow forest defenders get arrested and hauled up in front of the court system in Tasmania and found guilty, while the actual criminals who conducted that logging went free, and there's been no sanction applied to them. The forest defenders are being criminalised, whilst the illegal logging is given a great big green flag and allowed to continue. Let's not forget the swift parrot in Tasmania is being logged into extinction. This beautiful little bird, this amazing little creature, the fastest parrot in the world and one of the very, very few migratory species of parrots in the world, is being logged into extinction by a mendicant, illegal logging industry, an industry that is massively contributing to the ecological collapse that we are living through and to the breakdown of the planet's climate that we are living through. It could do neither of those things if it wasn't massively subsidised by the long-suffering Australian taxpayers. If you pull the subsidies out of the native forest logging industry, it is finished overnight. It cannot stand on its own two feet. It is a political make-work scheme that is supported by the establishment parties in this place, despite the damage it's doing to nature, despite the fact it is driving multiple species into extinction and despite the fact that logging practices are a mass emitter of carbon. They are contributing to the breakdown of our planet's climate, which, according to the United Nations, is rendering this planet incapable of sustaining human life. Courageous forest defenders are being thrown into prison for protesting against that abomination, while the people that are conducting the abomination are making off like bandits, pocketing obscene salaries and conducting illegal logging operations right around this country. So I won't hear a bar of arguments from forest industry sycophants like Senator Duniam, who is going to try to claim that we somehow have world's best practice forestry in this country. What we have is a mendicant industry with a business model of breaking the law. That's what our forest industry is in this country. One thing I can agree with Senator Duniam on is that our forests are great carbon sinks, and I'm pleased to hear Senator Duniam finally accept the obvious, which is of course that our forests are great carbon sinks. Where we in the Greens differ from Senator Duniam and his ilk is that as soon as those forests are logged the carbon in them—in their trees, in their shrubs, in the woody mass that is on their ground, and in the very soils that have been created over countless millennia by those forests—is released into the atmosphere. They are great climate sinks until Senator Duniam and his ilk get their hands on them, and those forests turn into gross carbon emitters. Now, as I said, we have some amendments to move to this bill, and I now move the second reading amendment that stands in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) each year around 300,000 hectares of Australia's native forests and woodlands are lost to logging and land clearing; (b) Australia's native forests are among the most carbon-dense in the world; (c) if Australia ceased all logging of native forests, the avoided emissions alone would be close to what is needed annually (15.5 Mt CO2) to achieve our national target of a 43% reduction on 2005 levels of emissions by 2030; and (d) the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, which will repeal the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 and amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove any and all exemptions they provide for native forest logging, should be brought on and passed". I don't have any certainty that this bill won't be subject to a guillotine at some stage in the future, given what we've witnessed over the last couple of weeks, so I want to quickly refer to some of our amendments so folks know how we are trying to make this bill fit for purpose and lacking in some of the flaws that it currently has. The Greens have an amendment to section 18B of this bill to require that import notices include at a minimum information on the species and country of harvest of imported timber that replicate the act's due diligence requirements in the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation 2012. I also want to say, in relation to our amendments on sheet 2626, that several witnesses to the Senate inquiry, particularly the Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Uniting Church Australia's Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, the Center for International Environmental Law and the Environmental Investigation Agency, are very concerned that the definition of 'illegal logging' provided by the bill could be too narrowly interpreted. We understand the definition in the bill is intended to capture any and all contravened laws in Australia's timber supply chains, both foreign and domestic, but we believe the bill needs to clearly articulate the breadth of laws that would engage the provisions of the bill. We believe the bill needs to make clear that it is in line with relevant legislation in other comparable countries combating importation of illegal timbers. We are concerned that a failure to do this would see Australia becoming a dumping ground for illegally logged timber. So we have an amendment on sheet 2626 to ensure that supply chain actors know that the laws cover not only the environment and human rights but also corruption-related offences such as bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and other financial crimes. I will make the obvious observation that offences like bribery, money laundering, tax evasion and fraud are rife in a number of logging jurisdictions around the world. Our amendment to give effect to that will do so while also maintaining the bill's definition for it to broadly apply to any law contravened in a supply chain. There are other amendments that time will preclude me from going into. But, just quickly, we are concerned that under its due diligence provisions the bill appears to use industry certification standards as a proxy for the lawful harvesting of timber. The Senate inquiry heard from Ms Margaret Blakers, an absolute icon of the Australian conservation movement. Ms Blakers submitted that the listing of industry certification standards as timber legality frameworks wrongfully suggests that meeting one of those standards equates to legal compliance. So we have an amendment to address that. We also have other amendments that I hope I will be able to detail when this bill enters into the committee stages. In the less than a minute that I have left to me in this contribution, I just want to go back to where I began. This bill, an amendment to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, will get the support of the Greens, but it doesn't go far enough. Just as we said that in regard to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act in 2012, we say it today. I confidently predict that, at some stage in the future, another amendment bill will be brought forward which acknowledges some of the concerns that the Greens have raised today and hopefully will plug some of the gaps that the Greens amendments that I have foreshadowed are intended to plug—even though I expect them to go down in a screaming heap because the establishment parties always vote together on logging matters in this country. 13:15 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also want to rise to make a contribution on the bill before us today, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. Before I go further, I want to acknowledge the work of the former minister with responsibility for forestry, Senator Watt, whose advocacy for forestry must be commended in this place. I also want to acknowledge my good friend Senator Chisholm on his elevation to the Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry here in the Senate. I have spoken many times in this place, as senators would be aware, about the significant contribution that is made by our sustainable forestry industry, given the important role that it has played in my home state of Victoria and obviously across the country in other states and the importance of being able to achieve emissions reduction targets. I think that's something that always gets forgotten in the debate or discourse around these issues when they do come up from time to time in this place. Forestry, forest management and the timber industry can actually play a positive role in helping governments across the world reduce our emissions. We know that trees absorb carbon. Using timber products stores that carbon. Then other trees are planted to replace the timber that was used for those products. So, by definition, as to what is being discussed here, they are very much sustainable, from when the trees are planted all the way to us using those products for whatever they might be used for. It is great to see the positive role that forestry plays in climate action being recognised and encouraged on the world stage, as new research does urge nations around the world—and this has been discussed many times at COP, as other world leaders around the world recognise the importance of the industry and that sustainable forestry plays a very positive role and thereby also addresses an emerging global timber and wood supply gap as the world pivots to climate-friendly fibre supplies. It is no wonder that demand for timber products is increasing, and, if we do not support a sustainable industry in forestry, this demand will be met either by unsustainably sourced timber or by other products that do not have the same climate benefits and may even contribute to higher emissions. That is something, sadly, that does not get acknowledged by some in this place. This is one of the great frustrations that I have with some senators who fail to understand that and the positive role that forestry plays. It is also the case that we have seen, time and time again, many activists, particularly those in my home state of Victoria, doing everything they can to disrupt the industry and ruin the lives of many people in regional communities where the sole employment, the sole source of income, the sole lifeblood of many regional towns, is timber and the forestry industry. We have one of the most sustainably managed forest industries in the world. That's something we should be very proud of. We have strict regulations. Yes, there are times when things need to be improved. There are times when we do need to make improvements such as those in the bill that is before us today. But we should not also rubbish an industry that supports tens of thousands of jobs, has a positive role to play in the environment and helps us get to our targets for reducing emissions by 2050. The amendments that the bill proposes aim to better protect the Australian market from illegally harvested timber and timber products and support legal and sustainable trade by improving regulatory tools and action for non-compliance. As we know, illegal logging has devastating consequences for our climate, the environment, people and the economy, and it is a driving force of various environmental issues around the world. As a member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, as well as being the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products with my good friend Senator Duniam, I have seen firsthand the major role that Australia's forest products play in promoting sustainable forest management. The Albanese Labor government understand the importance of combating illegal logging, and the department of agriculture is heavily involved in international efforts to promote sustainable forest management. It's an industry that we must preserve and protect, and this bill will keep Australia's logging laws at the forefront of international efforts to prevent illegal timber harvesting and associated trade. The bill will also enforce a new requirement on importers, and, as we heard earlier, it's important that the importers play a positive and significant role in how we manage and try to understand where timber is sourced from around the world. Sadly, I know Senator McKim mentioned the Greens saying the bill doesn't go far enough, but the only things that will satisfy the Greens are the shutdown of forestry in Australia and the complete shutdown of these jobs and these communities right across regional Australia. The irony is that they want to import timber from countries that don't have the same standards that Australia has. What we have heard, time and time again, from various inquiries and reports from right around the world and here in Australia is that there are some countries that we do import timber whose standards are, frankly, not up to scratch. Yes, they might have the official stamp that we all believe means that it is certified to acceptable standards—standards that we would hope, Senator McKim, would actually be the standards that you and I, and others in this place, would accept. But, unfortunately, we know that there are some countries where timber is sourced in which that it is not the case. They are not up to the standards that we, as Australians, should be accepting and should be importing into this country, hence why we are introducing this bill. There is also a requirement on the processors to give notice prior to importing all processing timber products, giving the government more information about what is entering the market. It will also allow for more flexible enforcement options, including expanded monitoring and investigation powers, strict liability offences, injunctions and enforceable undertakings under the act. It is also important to note that, before the current regulation, which was introduced back in 2012, around 10 per cent of timber imported to Australia each year was estimated to be illegally logged. What a disgrace! This undercut prices of sustainably grown timber by seven to 16 per cent. Therefore, the passage of this bill through this place will continue to make our country a less attractive destination for illegally sourced timber, and we will finally start to flush out the bad guys in the industry whose only want is to destroy the environment and provide Australians with a cheap source of timber in this country. It's important to make sure that Australia retains a reputation, on the global scale, as a responsible supplier of sustainable and legally sourced timber products. This week, our Acting Deputy President marked National Forestry Day, where we celebrated the enormous contribution of Australia's forest industries and what they do to our country. Recently, I was able to witness that firsthand, when I had the pleasure of touring a sawmill in my home state of Victoria, Powelltown Sawmills. Like in so many regional towns in Victoria, Powelltown Sawmills is a major employer in their community, providing lifelong employment to their workforce—in fact, there was one family who had three generations of employees at the one site—and over 80 per cent of whom live in the immediate area. Australia's forest industry employs around 80,000 people directly and another 100,000 indirectly across the supply chain, many in regional communities and many in the manufacturing sector. Our country's forest industry contributes around $24 billion to our economy every single year. During my visit to the Powelltown sawmill we also discussed how timber products support the sustainable management of our forests, which protects the environment, contributes to emissions reduction and mitigates the risk of bushfires. I am glad to see that the Victorian government has finally recognised that the industry is able to work in fire management, with the employment of harvesting crews by Forest Fire Management Victoria. When these bushfires occur—sadly, much more frequently—the very first people who go out to fight these bushfires are people in the industry. It's not necessarily the CFA, in my home state of Victoria, but the people in the industry, who have the equipment to go out and break up those fires before the CFA and other volunteers can actually go in and start to put the fires out. We saw the devastating impact that the Black Saturday bushfires had across the eastern states some years ago. So it's very important for these workers in the industry to be involved in what is very much a sustainable forest management practice. They're workers who bring valuable skills and experience and have encountered different scenarios. Forestry also plays a significant role in Australia's efforts to mitigate climate change. We know that, as trees grow, they absorb carbon, as I mentioned earlier— Senator CICCONE 281503 which then continues to be stored in the wood and in the soil—retaining carbon that would otherwise live in the atmosphere. That's just pure fact, Senator McKim. The Australian forest products sector is the world leader in sustainable forest management. But the value of our excellent environmental protection is greatly diminished if Australian timber is replaced by a supply that is illegally logged, devastating the environment overseas. By protecting our industry from illegal logging and rewarding leadership in sustainability, that is exactly the outcome that this bill is preventing. The Australian Forest Products Association, the peak body that represents the many fine men and women in the industry and forest wood and paper products, has thrown its support behind these strengthened reforms. As a result of the native forestry industry closures in WA and Victoria, sadly— Senator McKenzie 207825 So why does the government keep shutting them down? Senator CICCONE 281503 in our home state, Senator McKenzie; I know you and I have been one on this—the industry has seen an increase in the volume of imported hardwoods. That is telling. There is strong demand out there in the community for these products, and we should do everything we can to support our domestic industry in a sustainable way that also meets our strict regulations. It is unacceptable that, by shutting down our world-leading sustainable industry, we are importing products from places with less stringent environmental regulations than Australia. According to AFPA, Australia's importation of timber and timber products has increased from $4 billion to $6.87 billion over the decade to 2022-23. Illegal timber has severe impacts on our environment, and it has enormous ramifications for our domestic biosecurity protections. It creates an increased risk of pests and diseases, and this could have dire consequences for the local industry. While it is disappointing to see the Victorian government shut down the native timber industry, it is pleasing to see that the federal government is putting money into plantations and supporting forest and timber workers. I do know that that is something that both sides of the aisle here in Canberra are very proud to do. This week the Albanese Labor government also announced funding worth $5.6 million for eight new plantation projects through the Support Plantation Establishment program. The projects will create softwood plantations ranging from 40 to 1,671 hectares in size located in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania. The government has also invested $10 million to deliver the Forestry Workforce Training Program through ForestWorks over the next two years. This program will improve access to required qualifications and credentials for the forest and wood products sector. With the time that I have left: without a strong timber industry, we wouldn't be able to utilise the things that Australians love, such as house frames, cardboard boxes and paper products, just to name a few. Let's not forget that timber is the ultimate renewable and that demand for timber is only increasing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 3481 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Rural and Regional Health Services, Daffodil Day 3481 13:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Today I rise to shine a light on the incredible work and achievement of my local community in Renmark to improve women's health outcomes through a holistic approach to health care. The struggle to access health care, particularly women's health services, in rural, regional and remote Australia is not an uncommon experience. I acknowledge the health professionals in the Riverland community, who make it their mission to change the narrative for regional women's health, for ensuring that regional women have access to specialised healthcare services, and for establishing the holistic services so regional women don't feel alone in their healthcare journey. Health care should not be siloed, nor should outcomes be determined by somebody's postcode. So today I thank the health professionals who continue to drive change in my community and other communities, who deliver fit-for-purpose health care and who have bucked the one-size-fits-all approach of city-centric governments and bureaucrats. I hope that shining a light on the achievements of my local community is a reminder to government and decision-makers alike that rural, regional and remote health care needs flexibility because our challenges are often very different from those in the city. It's communities like mine which we must learn from so as to better understand locally led healthcare services because they inevitably deliver better needs and responses to community—way better than something that is being dictated to them by Adelaide or Canberra. Whilst I shine a light on Australia's health care, can I remind everybody that today is Daffodil Day. The daffodil represents hope for a cancer-free future. Daffodil Day is Cancer Australia's annual fundraising campaign for cancer research. We know that one in two people will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85. The more hope we give, the more lives we can save. If you can donate today, please do. Adult Age, Adult Wage 3481 13:32 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia This week I met with a delegation of young people from across Australia who travelled to Parliament House to advocate for the SDA's Adult Age, Adult Wage campaign. These young Australians came to share their stories with us. There were stories like Serena's, who, at 19 years old, is getting paid less than the people she manages, despite her having more experience and more responsibility. There were stories like Tyrone's, a 19-year-old supermarket worker living in regional South Australia who's been working since he was 14, been living out of home on his own since he was 17 and still at school but who is earning 20 per cent less than the adult wage at his workplace. That means about $5 less per hour. He's had to find a second job just to get by. The SDA is fighting alongside these young members to end junior rates for workers aged 18 in retail and fast food and to challenge the concept that workers aged 18, 19 or 20 should be paid less than their coworkers aged 21 and over to do the same job, and I reckon that's fair enough too. At 18 years old, many workers will have caring responsibilities, rent and bills to pay, or be providing for their families, yet they don't get paid the same as their peers working the same job who are only a couple of years older than them. To those who travelled to Canberra and to those back home campaigning for fairer rates for young retail workers: I want you to know that by raising your voice you can build better workplaces. You can do that for yourselves and for your peers. I am always proud to fight side by side with the SDA at home and in this place, the Senate, every day to support you. Middle East: Migration, McBride, Mr David William 3482 13:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This week I met with Betelhem and Abbas, two refugees who came here a decade ago. They sought asylum to flee persecution and try to rebuild their lives. While many people in the community have welcomed them, this government has not. For a decade they've been living without Medicare, had no work or study rights and been separated from families just because they're refugees. The Australian government treated Abbas's father so harshly that he was forced to return to Iran, a country he fled in fear. One week after he landed he went missing, and no-one has heard from him for a year. This government, like the last one, is sending refugees back to violence and harm, and it must stop. End offshore detention and provide all people seeking asylum with a fair pathway to permanency. Earlier this month, I was fortunate enough to meet with Palestine Australia Relief and Action and Palestinian families who have fled the genocide in Gaza. These were brilliant people—doctors, pharmacists, engineers and kids with their lives ahead of them—and I'm so happy they are part of the community in my home town of Sydney. They were grateful just to be safe. But the stories I heard were heartbreaking—first the genocide and now living in Australia with no work, study or support rights. Their children, who are bursting to study, are instead being kicked out of school because of their visas. There is only one decent response to this, and it's for the government to immediately provide humanitarian visas and give Palestinian refugees the support and basic rights they should take for granted. Today marks 100 days since David McBride was jailed for telling the truth. Visits to him are restricted. Last time I wasn't even able to take him a book. He has been repeatedly moved inside the prison because of safety issues. The Attorney-General must end this persecution and pardon David now. The crime here is not David telling the truth; the crime is a government that promised transparency in opposition taking office and then jailing whistleblowers. That's a crime that touches us all. Small Business 3482 13:36 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Recently I was speaking to a small-business owner in Melbourne who was telling me that she was in talks with her accountant to close down her small business because it was simply no longer viable. This is unfortunately a very common refrain. One year ago, 43 per cent of small businesses reported that they weren't breaking even. Well, now it's 49 per cent that aren't breaking even and have no chance of turning a profit. There are 2.5 million small businesses in Australia, and 49 per cent of them are not making a profit. Because of high inflation, high interest rates, high energy bills and massive amounts of red tape, life is that much harder for these businesses. The Select Committee on the Cost of Living heard last Friday that the combination of complex changes to industrial relations and the red tape that comes with them is costing businesses dearly. Not only are they spending more time on administration but it's also preventing them putting on more employees—the irony of that! Businesses are telling me that it's sucking the aspiration out of them. Why run a business, why lose sleep, why take risks, when you can simply stand at a construction site and turn a lollipop for so much less risk? I was out in regional Victoria recently, where I attended a small-business roundtable hosted by our Liberal candidate for Bendigo, Matt Evans. We heard from some fantastic female small-business owners, including Greta from Bendigo Brittle and Mandy from Edwards Providore, but they are all doing it really tough. Small businesses are the engine room of our economy, but our concern is that, instead of setting small businesses up for success, the Albanese government has created conditions for failure. The cost of overheads and rising taxes are making it untenable to employ more people, and the inflexibility of licences and regulations is acting as a speed hump to growth. The Liberal Party will always be a party for small businesses, because we know how vital they are to the local economy and local communities. Regional University Study Hubs 3482 13:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Our government has set an ambitious target that, by 2050, 80 per cent of the workforce will have a qualification. But today that figure is sitting at around 60 per cent. We know that, to reach this target, we need to boost university enrolments, particularly in regional Australia. While almost one in two young people have a university degree in our cities, that isn't the case in our regions. The best way to boost this engagement is to bring university closer to where these young people live, and that's exactly what our Regional University Study Hubs are doing. We know that these hubs are working, with nearly 4,500 students enrolled at the 46 hubs that currently operate around the country. That's why, in March this year, we announced an additional 10 new hubs across the country and funding for two existing Country Universities Centres, in Cowra and Mudgee in New South Wales. Just yesterday we announced that applications have opened for 10 more of these hubs to be established around Australia. The data shows us that around 42 per cent of students at these hubs are the first in their family to attend university, with 11 per cent of students identifying as First Nations. As someone who was the first in their family to attend university, this is fantastic to see. We're also seeing that, when you give people the opportunity to study closer to where they live, they are much more likely to stay and work in their communities after that. That means that the next nurse or the next teacher could already be in one of these towns, studying at one of the Regional University Study Hubs. From the Kimberley to Cape York and then down to the Barossa Valley, it has been incredibly rewarding to meet staff and students at these university hubs and see the impact they are having on them in their community. With applications open for 10 more hubs, I want to encourage rural, regional and remote communities to take advantage of this opportunity and lodge an application. Our government is committed to providing a better and fairer education system, and regional university study hubs are an important part of this. Rural and Regional Australia 3483 13:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to speak on behalf of the seven million Australians who do not live in capital cities. This Albanese Labor government has instigated a war on rural and regional Australia, with not one cent flowing from the coffers here in Canberra to on the ground in rural and regional communities through the programs announced by the Albanese government. At the time they came to government, they said they would deliver a grants program for community infrastructure across the country, but the regions are yet to see a cent. Last year's budget indicated regions would receive up to $130 million of funding under the government's Growing Regions Program and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program last financial year—instead, nothing. Even the funds they intended to spend last year were pushed off into future years under the last budget. The Growing Regions Program opened in July last year. Councils and community organisations put in their requests and they are yet to hear an outcome. The minister only approved 40 projects, and even the successful projects under this program are yet to receive a cent. What sort of process are you running? These are programs that, in a place like Bendigo, delivered upgrades the art gallery; the Bendigo tennis complex, which can now host national and international events; and the theatre. The National Party candidate for Bendigo, Andrew Lethlean, wants to see that investment returned. Bendigo Foodshare is still waiting for over $665,000 in a grant to support the food relief on the ground there in a regional capital like Bendigo. Bendigo deserves better from a Canberra-centric Labor government. Tasmania: Health Care 3483 13:42 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania Around 50 per cent of people living in my home state of Tasmania live outside the metropolitan city. For those who are living in the towns and regions across our state, accessing services in Tasmania's cities can be difficult, especially for those who do not have access to a private vehicle or do not hold a drivers licence. Take the Tasman Peninsula, for example. There is one bus that leaves the peninsula at 6 am and returns at 6 pm from Hobart. Those able to drive have a trip of 1½ hours each way, something which must be factored in when scheduling appointments in town. Obviously, it is a challenge even for the able-bodied, but it is far more difficult if you have cancer or another debilitating chronic illness. Symptoms and side effects can make it difficult, sometimes dangerous or simply impossible, to drive yourself. Friends and family often step in to assist; however, if you don't have those or they are not available, your options are limited. At a community barbecue on the Tasman Peninsula early this year, a number of people highlighted the hardships they face trying to access patient transport to attend appointments. During the recent Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into rare and less common cancers, these stories were repeated across the country during our committee hearings. And it is even more difficult when there is need for a patient to travel interstate for a treatment. The Community Affairs References Committee made a recommendation in its final report for a review of patient assistance schemes, with a view to creating more consistency in scheme offerings across the states, to providing an increase in financial assistance and to expanding the scheme to include costs for clinical trial patients. These changes would make a world of difference for patients living in regional areas, and I urge the government to work with the state and territory governments to unify and update the patient assisted travel schemes across the country. Paid Parental Leave: Superannuation 3483 13:44 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Acting Deputy President Walsh, they say good things come to those who wait, and you and I both know that Australian women have been waiting a very long time to have a government that is prepared to pay super on paid parental leave, and that is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is doing. Today we proudly introduced a bill, called the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill, into the House of Representatives. This bill builds on recent reforms which have made paid parental leave more flexible, accessible and gender equitable, and which increase the length of time available under the scheme. This commitment, to pay super on paid parental leave, is delivering on our commitment to provide greater support for Australian families. By introducing this legislation today, we will ensure that we pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave. This means that eligible parents after 1 July 2025 will receive an additional payment based on superannuation guarantee as a contribution to their nominated superannuation fund. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave will improve the economic security in retirement of around 180,000 Australian families each year. We know that women retire with less super, and that is unacceptable in our country. We know that there have been historic systemic reasons why women have been poorer in retirement. Today, the Albanese Labor government is ending this retirement poverty. We are stepping in and we are paying super on paid parental leave. I couldn't be more proud to be part of a government who is delivering this important reform today. Discrimination 3484 13:46 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I'm a staunchly proud migrant Muslim woman of colour. I'm not afraid of telling the truth. I'm not afraid of calling out racism, sexism or bigotry, even though I know that there will be a price to pay. But some days, some weeks, the price is just too much. This week this place has broken me. This place has broken me with its racism. This place has broken me with its attacks on Muslims, on Palestinian refugees, on disabled people and on women. Those who are not piling on hate and racism are standing on the sidelines, gaslighting or, worse, trying to shut us up. That's what you want. You want us to be silenced because you don't like us holding a mirror to you. You don't like the truth you see in the mirror because you can't handle that truth. The roots of the racism in this country and the problems in this country sit right here in this parliament. We see Peter Dutton and his outrageous comments. We see dog whistling on migrants and refugees. I had to sit here and listen to Senator Lambie attack and vilify Muslims, and she couldn't even pronounce my name. We see Senator Penny Wong falsely accusing us of politicising an issue when we actually call out racism and when we call out a genocide in Gaza. I am broken. People tell me to develop a thick skin, but I will not do that. You might break me today, but I will get up. I will dust myself, and I will be here tomorrow to say exactly the truth that I have been saying for a long time. Banking and Financial Services 3484 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak about an increasingly urgent issue impacting a growing number of Australians: scams. I asked a question about scams in question time. In 2023, there was an 18.3 per cent increase in the number of scam reports. Collectively Australians lost $2.74 billion last year. That's the equivalent of one per cent of our country's GDP. Scams are wreaking havoc in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and causing emotional damage in the midst of a mental health crisis in this country. We need the government to do more and to do more quickly. I commend the consultation that was undertaken at the end of last year and concluded at the end of January this year. We now need to see that legislation. We need to see it in this place to be able to better deal with this issue across a whole range of sectors, from banking to social media. Australians need and deserve better protections from scammers. This is urgent. We've seen this fortnight that the government can actually deliver legislation when it's urgent, and I would argue that this is one of those things that should be added to the priority list. A fellow Canberran who I've met with has lost an eye-watering $1.6 million to scammers—her entire inheritance. They are one of tens of thousands of bank customers who haven't been properly protected or reimbursed and, despite the big talk from the banks about the steps they're taking, ASIC just this week released a further report highlighting the inadequacy and immaturity—as they called it—of their scam prevention and reimbursement schemes. In a review of 15 banks outside of the big four, ASIC found that those banks had detected and stopped just 19 per cent of scam transactions by value. It's inadequate, and we need legislation to fix it. Community Legal WA 3484 13:50 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia This week, I met with Community Legal WA and was alarmed to hear of the currently unresolved funding crisis that they are under under this government. Between 2022 and 2023, community legal centres have provided legal aid for over 180,000 Australians, with over 13 per cent being from my home state of Western Australia. A large number of these cases are family and domestic violence issues. The Prime Minister has said that domestic violence against women is a national crisis. I agree. He and his government constantly boast about their funding to support women's safety—then why won't the Prime Minister put his money where his mouth is and commit funding to a vital service that helps women, like Community Legal WA? Even with an independent review into the National Legal Assistance Partnership commissioned by the Attorney-General, which found a major lack of funding to these centres, the government has yet to decide whether they will continue to fund this service. This is not a last-minute request from Community Legal. Since this government was elected in 2022, Community Legal has asked repeatedly for critical funding to not be ignored. So today I ask the Albanese government to respond to the request from Community Legal to bring clarity to this funding problem so that they can continue to provide their incredible services. This is particularly critical in my home state of Western Australia, given that we will have almost successive caretaker periods, with both the state and federal elections due to occur around a similar time. This issue must be resolved before Christmas so that their funding deeds can be in place and so that they can provide the assurance and surety to their staff, who, importantly, need to be able to continue with their work. International Relations 3485 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland It's time for politicians to focus on fixing the problems here in Australia before getting involved in foreign conflict. Last night, yet another motion appeared in the nightly Senate notices from some senators calling for stronger measures to support Ukraine. This Senate only just dealt with a matter relating to Taiwan. The Israel-Palestine war continues to feature in our Senate processes, along with the Uighurs in China and the Rohingya in Bangladesh. Among Greens senators, there seem to be more supporters for terrorist Hamas than for Australia—and that's my point. We live in a time when small businesses are closing at record rates—the hopes and dreams of those hard-working Australians broken in a vice of rising costs and falling sales. It's a disaster arising from deliberate government policy. Supermarkets, traditionally the least profitable of businesses because of the social contract to not rip people off on the necessities of life, no longer honour their social contract. Parents in Queensland are travelling up to 800 kilometres to access specialist maternity care because parliament has found a billion dollars for Ukraine yet cannot find a cent for Yeppoon, Bowen and the 33 other Queensland towns that have lost their maternity wards. Hospitals in many Queensland rural centres are still called hospitals, yet only offer the services of a GP clinic. Australian families are living in the tent cities appearing right across our beautiful country. I've visited many of these in Queensland, and the sense of betrayal is palpable—and people should feel betrayed. The Senate, as the house of review, has betrayed the very people who trusted us with their vote and who trusted us to have their best interests at heart. Although our Senate does have foreign affairs powers, convention dictates the Senate stays out of foreign affairs and concentrates on domestic matters. It's time to make that convention great again. Let's spend our time driving the government to do better to look after Australians. Let's look after all Australians—all who are here—first. Youth Homelessness 3485 13:54 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Seventy-six thousand—that is the number of children in Australia who have sought help from homelessness services in the last year. Over 15,000 of those have been reported to be from my home city of Melbourne, cementing our city with the unenviable title of youth homelessness capital of Australia. This is as devastating as it is avoidable. Housing is a human right, and everyone—no matter their income, postcode or age—should have access to safe and affordable housing. This right, however, has been eroded by successive governments prioritising the interests of banks, property developers and wealthy investors over everyday people. It has been eroded by successive governments hell-bent on treating housing as an investment vehicle rather than as a place to live or as a home. The Victorian Labor government demonstrated this with their insidious plan to knock down 44 public housing towers and hand over swathes of public land to developers. I recently spoke with some residents of public housing towers in South Melbourne about this callous decision. Many of the people I talked to had been living in the towers for decades. Others had recently moved there after experiencing years of homelessness as a result of Victoria's public housing shortfall. Residents are terrified about what the Victorian Labor government's decision could mean for them, their families and their community. They are furious that the government is choosing to sell public land to wealthy investors instead of investing in quality public housing and repairing existing homes. When 15,000 kids are seeking homelessness support, why is the Victorian Labor government choosing to defund and destroy the limited public housing that we have? Labor, your policies are costing lives. It's time to listen to the Greens and the community and to invest in public housing. It's time to end unlimited rent increases and phase out negative gearing. It's time to start putting people ahead of corporate profits. It's time to fix the housing crisis. Economy 3486 13:56 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia This week in this chamber, Senator McDonald raised the pressing issue of falling iron ore prices and the massive impact on Australian finances. For decades, Western Australia has been the engine room of this nation's economy, with iron ore at the very heart of our prosperity. It's one of the reasons we've been able to invest in our schools, our hospitals and more infrastructure. As the iron ore price falls, we must confront the challenges ahead. However, let us be clear: this does not mean we are powerless. Western Australia has weathered many storms with resilience, determination and grit. Western Australia has always done the heavy lifting, and it's time that the wise men and women from the east acknowledged the contribution we make—not just in words, but in actions. In these difficult times, I call on the government to address the unfair tax system that sees billions of dollars pouring from Western Australia into other parts of the country, with the majority of our hard-earned money finding its way into the coffers of the east. Why are Western Australians being discriminated against? Let's not forget that, when the east goes to bed, Western Australians are still digging, drilling and shipping, because someone needs to pay the bills here. Western Australia has fought for years to secure its fair share of the GST. In these challenging times, I call on the government and the wise men and women of the east to guarantee that you will not dip into our rightful share. The people of Western Australia deserve better. It's time we received our fair share. Arthritis Australia 3486 13:58 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Today I was delighted to be part of Arthritis Australia's parliamentary summit on better care for arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions. Many of you would have seen the news the other day about the alarming rate of interventions on Australians through surgeries for chronic back and other osteoarthritis type conditions that are basically ineffective, relative to much less interventionist support. Arthritis Australia today has brought together clinicians, researchers, peak groups, bureaucracies and, most importantly, consumers to really look at how we address out-of-pocket costs, innovative models of care, research and workforce. Too many Australians are experiencing unnecessary pain and suffering because they're not getting the level of care and the type of care that would make the most difference to their quality of life. So I really want to thank all of those who gave evidence and participated in the summit today, with particular thanks to Professor David Hunter; Professor Rachelle Buchbinder; Ms Jo Root, as someone with lived experience; and Associate Professor Jane Desborough. Thank you very much to everyone who was part of today's successful summit. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 3486 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Live Animal Exports 3486 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Tuesday night, when speaking at the AgriFutures Rural Women's Award event at Parliament House, the Prime Minister of Australia joked about a meal he had just shared with the Indonesian President-elect. He said this— Government senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M Don't make fun of it. He said, 'When we had dinner—beautiful Australian beef, not the live export; we made sure it was dead.' Minister, why did the Prime Minister joke about live exports when the live sheep export industry in Western Australia in particular is being shut down by your government, causing untold damage to farming families in my home state of Western Australia? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would first say that the Prime Minister and the government are very proud of Australia's beef industry and will often feature beef on the menu when we have visiting politicians, visiting leaders and ministers, because using those events to showcase great Australian produce is something I would have thought people would be pleased about. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order, senators! We are two minutes into question time, and I'm having to sit a minister down. I'm asking you to listen in silence. Please continue, Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I will remind those opposite that it is this government which has worked very hard to ensure that beef markets, which were closed to the industry, were reopened. I would also note that exports of beef to Indonesia hit a record high in 2022-23. So I do find it interesting— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I am asking senators on both sides to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I do find it interesting that those opposite are not proud of the Prime Minister and others who make sure that they showcase Australian beef. We're proud of the beef industry, and I'm disappointed that those opposite are not so proud— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath and Senator Cash, listen in silence. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU As I said, when we came to government we worked very hard with other countries, including China, to reopen beef markets. You know and we know that this is an important export industry for Australia, and it is surprising that there is not more bipartisanship around great Australian produce, noting that, of course, that industry supports jobs and economic benefit into regional Australia— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie— The PRESIDENT 112096 and Senator McGrath! Senator WONG 00AOU which I would have thought the National Party would have been supportive of. Senator Watt 245759 Why didn't you get that question, Nats? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, does the Prime Minister think it's acceptable to make farming families he's putting out of business the butt of a joke at an award ceremony for rural women? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I understand that the live sheep export phase-out has been a difficult issue for many families. I understand that Senator Cash and others seek to make as much politics out of this as possible. I think we all understand that. I also understand that we went to the election with a very clear commitment on this. Senator Cash may not agree with it— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators Cash and McKenzie— The 10000 and McGrath! Senator WONG 00AOU She may wish to get outraged, but the reality is that that was a commitment made at the election. We have legislated for that trade to end in May 2028. That enables certainty and the rollout of a transition support package. A $107 million transition support package will provide opportunities for individuals, communities and businesses to be ready for the ending of that particular trade. I appreciate this is a change. It is also consistent with the government's election commitments. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators of standing order 203. I should not have to repeatedly call you, Senator Cash; you, Senator McGrath; and you, Senator McKenzie. I've asked and asked for respectful silence. I've called you individually, and you've completely ignored me. Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Today the Labor Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, said the joke 'rubs salt into the wounds of WA farmers'. He has called on the Prime Minister to apologise. Will the Prime Minister apologise for this poor-taste joke at the expense of Western Australian farmers? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, if I have to call you again I'm going to invoke 203. 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would make three points. First, we understand this is a big change for many farmers in Western Australia and the industry. We understand this is a big change and this has been something that many people opposed. One of the things we have done is put a very substantial amount of money on the table for transition, and I would make the final point that I made earlier—that this was a very clear election commitment from the Albanese government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash? Senator Cash I0M Point of order in relation to relevance. The question was: will the Prime Minister apologise for literally killing off an industry— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, thank you. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 That's a debating point. The question also went to comments made by the WA Premier. I think the minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU We also understand that Senator Cash and others are seeking to run a political campaign on this, and this question continues that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X President, you just reflected on the fact that these were comments from the WA Premier—a Labor premier. For the minister to suggest that somehow we're playing politics with comments from somebody on their own side— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, what is your point of order? There is no point of order. Please continue, Minister Wong. You've finished? Thank you. Paid Parental Leave: Superannuation 3488 14:08 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Today the Albanese Labor government delivered on its promise and introduced a bill to pay superannuation on paid parental leave—an issue very close to my heart. The government is removing yet another financial barrier for parents, predominantly mothers, who take time out of the workforce to care for their children. With the government scheme reaching 24 weeks next year as the super payment comes online, this scheme will make a real difference to parents in retirement. Minister, can you please explain why the government has taken the decision to provide super on paid parental leave and how it will benefit Australian families? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Darmanin for her question and congratulate her on her inaugural speech yesterday; it was a wonderful speech. How appropriate it is that your first question is on paying super on PPL, which is something your union, the ASU, and your colleague and our colleague and friend Senator Linda White campaigned on for many years. It's a very exciting day for us and all those who have been involved in the decades-long campaign to have super paid on paid parental leave. It is a workplace entitlement, and it is the only workplace entitlement that remained without superannuation being paid on it. It took a Labor government to fix that—as it always does. It always falls to Labor governments to address unfairness, to make sure that women get a fair go, to make sure that we are driving women's equality through every aspect of life, including through the time that they spend bringing up and caring for young children. I acknowledge all of those that have been involved in the campaign to date to do that. It really reminds us of the importance of being in government and being able to implement these important reforms. With this change, eligible parents with babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025 will receive an additional 12 per cent of their government funded paid parental leave as a contribution to their superannuation fund. When the scheme reaches 26 weeks, as it will—another important Labor reform, to expand PPL from 20 to 26 weeks—this will see around $3,000 flow into the parent's super account. Around 180,000 families across Australia will benefit every year with extra dollars flowing into those superannuation accounts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, first supplementary? 14:10 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Paid parental leave is a Labor legacy that has benefited families across the country. Paying superannuation on PPL enriches this legacy. We want to support shared care because every parent deserves the opportunity to spend time with their newborn. Our policy supports both mums and dads to take time off to care for their children. Can you please explain how Labor's paid parental leave reforms are supporting both parents? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Darmanin for the question. Again, she raises a very important point, which is about how we encourage and improve the shared care when it comes to bringing up children so that the responsibility doesn't just fall to one parent, traditionally and more often than not the mother. The reforms we've introduced to expand PPL have meant that we have introduced reserved leave so that each parent has leave that's just for them, and, by 2026, this will be four weeks each. There's flexibility so that parents can share their remaining weeks however they want. Many of the men and second parents have told us they want to be there in those early days after a baby is born. They want to set that pattern from the beginning of being a partner not an assistant to the child's mother. This is what modern families are asking for, and this is what our reforms have been able to achieve. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, second supplementary? 14:12 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria What other measures has the Albanese Labor government taken to boost economic security for Australian women and girls since coming to government? And how are the nation's women benefiting from having a government that puts women's economic security at the centre of its decision, supported by a record number of women at the cabinet table? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, this government has made no secret of the fact that we have been driving gender equality and ensuring women's economic empowerment is strengthened in this country since our first days of government. Super on PPL is one of those reforms, obviously. Helping close the gender pay gap is another, as are the 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers and our announcement recently about early childhood educators. There's the fact that we've dealt with some of the problems in our IR system so that it doesn't disadvantage women or those industries where women are the predominant workers. We've banned pay secrecy, we encourage enterprise bargaining, and, of course, we reshaped the tax cuts. We know from the analysis we did then that it made much better sense not only from a fairness point of view to all taxpayers; it also improved the amount that women taxpayers were getting through those tax cuts. Goldmining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project 3489 14:14 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Following the Albanese Labor government's job-destroying decision to block the million-dollar McPhillamys mine, Regis Resources yesterday wrote down the value of their project by $192 million, declaring it unfeasible. This company has been smashed, and over 800 jobs will now be ripped from that community—all because of this decision by your Labor government. How does this minister defend her job-destroying decision during a cost-of-living crisis? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think this question was asked the day before yesterday. An opposition senator: No, it was yesterday. Senator WONG 00AOU Was that yesterday? The days blur together, I'm sorry. And a number of points were made, I think, by Senator McAllister in response to this. The first is, obviously, that these decisions are made in accordance with the law by the minister for the environment. It is the case that the minister did make a determination in relation not to the mine itself but to one of the locations for the tailings and waste dam. Obviously, it's open to the company to consider an alternative site, and the advice I have is that more than four sites were investigated, with a number of options in the mix. I would also make the point, Senator Duniam, that back in 2021 the relevant minister then, which was the deputy Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, made a similar decision just down the road from the goldmine and also considered the views of the same traditional owner group— Senator Duniam 263418 For a go-kart track. Senator WONG 00AOU and protected the site under section 10 of the protection act. The interjections, I think, are not on point, Senator Duniam. The point is that there's a legal framework, and ministers have a responsibility to— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU You make me laugh. You do. It was you. Senator Duniam 263418 I do. My jokes are the best! Senator WONG 00AOU I think Senator Watt might dispute that, actually! But, anyway, we'll leave that for another time. What I would say is that there is a statutory responsibility that the person occupying the role, the minister, has to exercise, and that's what minister— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Given the minister has defended her job-destroying decision on the basis of a submission from a small Indigenous group of only 18 people, I refer the minister to the comments of grazier Ross Wills, who's farmed the land of the proposed tailings dam for the Regis goldmine for nearly two decades. He says he's never heard from this group. He's now considering whether he discontinues grazing on this land in light of this section 10 decision, further damaging this community's fragile economy. I wonder: how does the minister justify this disastrous decision? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My advice is—and I'm always happy to provide further information if I'm incorrect—that this is the same traditional owner group that Minister Ley took account of when she made her decision. Senator Duniam 263418 About a go-kart track. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, Senator, your proposition is that this group ought not be listened to— Senator Duniam 263418 And a 10,000-strong petition. Senator WONG 00AOU You might just wait for at least half a sentence to finish before you interrupt. Seriously! I'm trying to give you a decent answer. You might not like it, but I am actually trying. Senator, your point seems to be that it was okay for the minister in 2021, under a coalition government, to listen to this group, but it's not okay now. That is not how the law works and that is not how the appropriate exercise of ministerial responsibility works. It isn't how it works. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:18 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's unbelievable that we can draw a link between a go-kart track and a goldmine. But I again refer to this Labor government's job-destroying decision to block this much-needed mine and the 800 jobs that go with it, near Blayney in New South Wales. Local butcher Tanya Cassel and her husband chose to set up shop in Blayney eight years ago in the hope that this goldmine would boost their business once operational. What does the minister say to Ms Cassel, who said she was 'angry' at what this government 'has done to our little town'? Does the minister now concede she was wrong? (Time expired) 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again note that the minister has not blocked the mine, and that was not correct. You keep asserting that; it is false. I know the coalition never let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign. We see that from Mr Dutton all the time. Never let the facts get in the way of a good scare campaign. The minister has not blocked the mine. She has applied legislation that came from your governments—past governments—and she has applied it in accordance with the law, as Ms Ley did when she was the minister. You don't like the decision. You're entitled not to like the decision, but it was a decision made in accordance with the law, the same law that Ms Sussan Ley applied when she was a minister and the same law that previous environment ministers have applied. As I said in my first answer, the minister has made a finding in relation to the tailings dam, not the mine itself, and the falsehoods should not continue to be peddled. (Time expired) Whaling 3490 14:20 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. Fin whales are listed as vulnerable to extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. What are your government's views on Japan's decision to add endangered fin whales to its commercial whaling program, and are you aware of disturbing reports that Japan has slaughtered its first fin whales in more than 50 years? 14:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As you know, Australia has been a world leader in advocating for the protection and conservation of whales, and, under this government, we will continue to advocate for the protection and conservation of whales and the health of our oceans for future generations. Minister Plibersek made a statement on 1 August indicating that we are deeply disappointed by Japan's decision to expand its commercial whaling program by adding fin whales. They are the second-largest of all whales, and, as you've indicated, they are considered vulnerable to extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. I note that this decision expands Japan's commercial whaling program beyond the Bryde's, the minke and sei whales that are already caught. We understand that Japan's whaling will continue to operate within its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. We've made strong representations to the Japanese government, and I understand that an answer was recently tabled in response to a question that you, Senator Whish-Wilson, asked in estimates about this. As at 19 July this year, the government had communicated on eight occasions with Japan about its decision to add fin whales to its allowable catch list. The foreign minister and Australian officials have expressed disappointment at this proposal, and we've noted that we are opposed to all forms of commercial whaling. This has included multiple representations from Minister Wong and the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I can update you that, in June, Australia led a united representation with like-minded countries to express our serious concern about the Japanese government's proposal. This included the EU, the UK, New Zealand and the United States. As I've already said, we are deeply disappointed by the decision. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary? 14:22 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for your very strong and clear response. As you point out, Australia has been a leader in the International Whaling Commission to stop whaling over many decades, including successfully prosecuting a case in the International Court of Justice in 2014 against Japan for illegal whaling. Minister, will you now be pursuing this issue through the International Whaling Commission or seeking a new action through the International Court of Justice? 14:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I understand that there will be a meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Peru in the coming months. Japan has withdrawn from the convention, and the matters raised are likely to occur within Japan's exclusive economic zone. Nonetheless, Australia will continue to play an active and vocal role in support of the whaling moratorium. In fact, we are continuing to build on our strong record against whaling. We continue to invest in the work of the International Whaling Commission as the appropriate global body for the regulation of whaling and the conservation of cetaceans. Australia is vice-chair of the commission for 2023-24, which increased Australia's influence and leadership in the global protection and management of whales and dolphins, and we have committed $1.5 million in addition to our regular annual contribution to support the effective functioning of the IWC, bolster its conservation agenda and support Australia's role as vice-chair. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'm sure all Australians support the very strong stance you're taking to protect whales. Two weeks ago, conservationist Paul Watson was arrested in Greenland by Danish authorities on his way to the North Pacific to protect endangered fin whales from the Japanese fleet. He is currently awaiting potential extradition to Japan for his previous activism to protect whales in Antarctica. Given Paul and his supporters gave us such a helping hand with stopping cruel whaling in the Southern Ocean, will your government now return the favour and advocate for Paul's release and freedom? 14:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am aware of reports of Captain Watson's arrest, and I understand that officials are engaging with the Captain Paul Watson Foundation. There are some limits on what I will say in this forum, because this concerns legal proceedings involving a foreign national in another jurisdiction, but I do wish to observe that Australia's role generally, and our work with international partners, has been extremely important. We of course stopped whaling in 1979, and we have been a global advocate for cetacean conservation. Our leadership has directly contributed to a whaling-free Southern Ocean. It is promising that, as a result of that leadership and through global action, we are seeing some whale populations recover—for example, humpback whales, which migrate through our waters. Other populations, unfortunately, like blue whales, have been slower to recover. This is an ongoing role, and Australia intend to play our part. (Time expired) National Disability Insurance Scheme 3491 14:26 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Senator McAllister. How do the Albanese government's reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme that passed the Senate today not only help participants who rely on the scheme but also ensure the scheme fulfils its true purpose of supporting those who need it and ensure its sustainability for future generations? 14:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank Senator Smith for the question. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is changing lives for the better. With today's legislation passing the Senate, the Albanese government is returning the scheme to its true purpose—that is, to get support through to the people it is meant to support. These reforms have been the subject of extensive debate in this place, and they represent a significant step towards a stronger NDIS. Not only do the reforms put participants back in the centre of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; they are getting much-needed support directly to participants. As the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme has said on many occasions, the scheme cannot be the only lifeboat in the ocean. This is part of a long-term reform plan to ensure that the investments that we are making in the National Disability Insurance Scheme are focused on outcomes, not inputs. Part of it does mean stopping the waste, and it's important to say that this is not simply rorts. Every dollar of waste is a dollar that could be spent on a person with a disability. The Albanese government will do all of this in co-design with people with disability. We know that there are a range of views. These reforms have been subjected to an extensive consultation process, and we know that not everyone will disagree or agree on every point. But our intention is to work closely with the community, and the aim of our reforms is to be able to assure people on the NDIS that it's here for the future and that it is fair, equitable and transparent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister explain how the changes embedded in the Albanese Labor government's reforms to the National Disability Insurance Scheme that passed the Senate today will ensure that significant steps are made toward building a stronger National Disability Insurance Scheme in the best interests of those who are on the scheme? 14:28 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales (—) (): I thank the senator for her supplementary question. As Minister Shorten said yesterday, the passing of this legislation is the construction of a scaffold which will allow the government to co-design the priority reforms recommended by the independent NDIS review. The legislation does a few simple things. It stops the automatic top-up of participant plans that are exhausted early without change in circumstances. It creates the architecture to implement the NDIS review's recommendation to develop a total whole-of-person budget that is more flexible for all participants, and it allows for the exclusion of supports that are not consistent with the original intent of the NDIA and those that are supposed to be funded by other service systems. This will provide the necessary legislative framework to improve the experience of participants and deliver decisions that are fair, transparent and consistent. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, a second supplementary? 14:30 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Can the minister explain the consultation that has been undertaken, since the Albanese government came to government, with people with a disability, their loves ones, carers, advocates and the disability sector to ensure that the reforms that pass the Senate today put people with disability at the centre of the scheme? 14:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank the senator for her supplementary question. The Albanese government will continue to listen to people with disability, their loved ones and those who represent them. This legislation is in fact the culmination of a huge body of consultation with the disability sector since Labor came to government in May 2022. The NDIS review talked to over 10,000 people and organisations. It took over 4,000 submissions and it listened for over 2,000 hours to the experiences, ideas and feedback of people with disability. There were NDIS town halls held around Australia with people with disability, NDIS providers, disability support workers and their unions, with over 10,000 attending in person and online. The legislation also went through a 12-week Senate inquiry, with more than 200 stakeholder submissions and three days of public hearings. Tasmania: Child Care 3492 14:31 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Watt. In Tasmania's north-west there are two co-located family day care centres that provide care for 90 families in the region and have a healthy waitlist for new families. It is a good business model that has potential to expand—it works, but it cannot expand. Because of government rules, only one childcare centre is able to run per property title. This means the centres are at risk of being shut down. The state education minister says her hands are tied due to rules made in Canberra. Minister, is she right, and what do you have to say to Tasmanian families who may end up without child care as a result of these rules? 14:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Tyrrell, for the question. I will need to get further information for you about the specific issue you have raised, regarding the number of services per title, and I am happy to come back with that information as soon as I can. What I can certainly tell you is that not only is the Albanese government committed to providing much more accessible and affordable early childhood education services than we have seen in this country before but it is ensuring those services are accessible and affordable, and regional and rural Australia is a particular priority of our government. What we're trying to do is make sure that regional services can open and stay open, through a range of targeted funding measures. For example, through round 4 of the Community Child Care Fund, we will shortly be providing around $80 million to over 430 early childhood education and care services that support disadvantaged and vulnerable communities, including in regional and rural areas. I am happy to come back to you, as well, about exactly what that will provide for regional Tasmania. Of course, our broader cheaper childcare reforms are also making early learning cheaper for over one million families, including 265,000 families in regional Australia, and I would be confident that within that number there is a pretty significant number in regional Tasmania as well. We have recognised that the former coalition government simply did not invest enough in early childhood education and care, which meant that too many families were unable to access the care that they needed and that the kids needed. We all know the wider economic benefits of ensuring that families have access to early childhood education and care, quite apart from the benefits that kids get from that as well. If I have any further information I can add about the specific issue you raised, I will come back to you as soon as I can. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary? 14:34 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The Tasmanian state government says it cannot do anything to save these centres. Their hands are tied because the federal government does not recognise a multi-educator model for family day care. Centres have already shut. Will the government relax the rules around the multi-educator family day care centres to enable these facilities to share costs while also providing high-quality care for local families? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, I will need to come back to you on the specific question you've asked that you've said the Tasmanian minister has complained about. I would obviously want to make sure that the Tasmanian minister's views are accurate and that it's not an example of a state government trying to pass the buck to a federal government. I think we know that from time to time that does occur. As I said, in general, the Albanese government is doing everything possible to ensure that families in regional parts of our country, including in your state, have access to the early childhood system that they need. I've already indicated some of the funding that is going to be flowing soon. In fact, all up we've provided about $614 million in funding through the Community Child Care Fund, which is designed to address barriers to participation in early childhood education and care in disadvantaged regional and rural communities. I've got no doubt there's a need for more in rural Tasmania, and we'll be doing everything we can to make that happen. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania These family day care centres are providing an essential service to families in a regional area of Tassie. We should be championing these day care centres, not trying to shut them down. If they close, families will be left in the lurch and forced to find care elsewhere or give up the jobs that keep the lights on and food on the table. Will the government consider Tasmania as a suitable place to test a pilot project for this model of child care that could help provide a solution for families around the country? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Of course, it would be a matter for the minister, Minister Aly, to determine what types of models she is in a position to fund, but I'm sure she'll give your suggestion some consideration. I've been advised that Minister Aly's office had been working with you on these issues, so thank you for your constructive engagement on that. I'm told that Minister Aly hasn't heard anything from the Tasmanian minister about this issue, so maybe it would be a good idea for the Tasmanian minister and their office to pick up the phone if it is an issue of concern to them and try to work constructively with Minister Aly's office in a way that you seem to be doing yourself. Housing 3493 14:37 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Gallagher. In an extraordinary move, the Albanese government has today reneged on an agreement to refer the Housing Investment Probity Bill, a bill designed to protect taxpayer funds invested in the Housing Australia Future Fund from union corruption, to a Senate inquiry. The disgraced CFMEU has three members on the Cbus board, which has funnelled money back to the CFMEU, who have ultimately given more than $6 million to Labor. Minister, are the cosy ties between Cbus, the CFMEU and Labor the reason for the government opposing probity, transparency or safeguards to protect taxpayers and superannuation investors? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think earlier this morning we sought to defer consideration of the referral of that bill, so that is a matter that will remain before the Selection of Bills Committee. In relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund, I can advise the Senate that applications for that fund have been overwhelmingly positive. It is something that the housing sector more broadly is responding to and is putting in applications for. I think those opposite that voted against the HAFF are pretty much the only people in Australia who think the HAFF is a bad idea. We have many projects that are being considered through the appropriate processes now in terms of those applications. In terms of the CFMEU, as you know, Senator Bragg, we've taken the strongest action possible to clean up the CFMEU. You've been part of that debate this week. We've passed legislation to give the minister the power to put the construction division of the CFMEU under the control of an administrator and we have made it clear that there is no place for criminality, corruption, thuggery, bullying or intimidation in any workplace in Australia. That's why we brought the legislation on to fix it. Senator Bragg, you would also know that there are requirements on superannuation funds to comply with strict governance standards and to act in the best financial interests of members. But I'm sure Senator Bragg welcomes the fact that the HAFF has been oversubscribed with loads of applications, hundreds of applications, which are seeking to build over 50,000 dwellings. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:39 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales There are allegations that Cbus and the CFMEU are using Cbus property to strongarm and delay projects across the country. For example, projects in Western Sydney have been delayed as members of the Cbus affiliate the ETU, or Electrical Trades Union, refuse to turn up on site to connect to or disconnect from the grid. Why does the government defend unions and union controlled super funds when they are crippling productivity in the construction sector? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't accept the assertions that Senator Bragg has included in his question. I would say that I would have more faith in APRA, the regulator, to examine any concerns there may be about any particular superannuation group than in Senator Bragg. APRA have already announced the steps that they are taking. They are the regulator. They have the authority to ensure that superannuation funds, whether it be Cbus or others, are acting in the best financial interests of their members. We know that Senator Bragg has an ideological obsession and hatred of industry super funds in particular, and I think these matters would be best left to APRA to work through their processes. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The government's protection racket doesn't just wreck Labor's integrity; it is also wrecking the construction sector and making this housing crisis so much worse. In just two weeks, Labor's new Minister for Housing, Ms O'Neil, has accomplished the unthinkable: she's made Labor's creditability on housing even worse. Minister, how could the Australian people ever trust this government with the housing crisis? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, that question reflects most poorly on you, Senator Bragg. The Minister for Housing is an extraordinarily capable minister. She has hit the ground running in that portfolio, and I imagine that concerns Senator Bragg. She is out there examining how we can ensure that all of our policies are implemented: the $32 billion that we are putting in place and all of the measures that you have blocked in this place and have sought to delay and frustrate. Then you have the nerve to come in here and complain about housing. You didn't care about housing when you were in government—10 years of ignoring housing. We've come in and, in two years, done more to shift the dial in terms of Commonwealth involvement in housing than any government before us has. We will continue to do that, and no doubt you will continue to block. (Time expired) Australia-Asia Power Link 3494 14:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister, and it's regarding the SunCable industrial solar project in the Northern Territory. Minister, please advise the Senate of the total value of guarantees and, as a separate figure, the total value of subsidies available to the project. 14:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am aware that the Minister for the Environment and Water has recently provided approval for the SunCable project. This is a project that, as I understand it, seeks to establish renewable generation capability in the Northern Territory and also significant transmission capability, which will allow that generation to be used within the Australian grid but potentially also to be exported to our Singaporean neighbours. This is potentially an extremely important project. It is also one that is first of kind in the Australian context— Senator Roberts 266524 I have a point of order, under standing order 72(3)(c): 'Answers shall be directly relevant to each question.' I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. What are they? If you don't know, please just say so. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will draw the minister to that part of your question, Senator Roberts. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The senator asks me to comment, I think, on policies that exist in the Australian context to support the rollout of reliable renewables, and of course— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. That's it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, the minister barely said seven words, so let's just hear the answer. I have reminded the minister of the question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The Australian government takes our advice about the future of the energy system from experts, and all of the advice that has been provided to us is that the most cost-effective form of new generation to replace the older, ageing assets that are shortly to retire is reliable renewables. Senator Cash I0M He just wanted to know what the figure is. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, this is not your question. Senator McALLISTER 121628 We take our advice from experts because we believe that Australians deserve the most cost-effective form of energy that is available to us. We can't actually go back to doing things the way that they were done under the previous government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 I remind the minister that I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have reminded the minister of the question, and I will remind her again, Senator Roberts. Senator Henderson ZN4 It's okay to say you can take it on notice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Thank you, Senator Henderson. Senator McALLISTER 121628 My advice is that this project has been— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The project proposes to generate electricity in the Northern Territory and send it to Singapore using a 4,300-kilometre-long cable, mostly undersea. This is five times longer than Norway's 760-kilometre Viking Link, the current longest cable. Viking Link loses 3.5 per cent of its generation through transmission loss. What percentage of the project's Australian generated electricity will be lost in transmission to Singapore? 14:47 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales (—) (): The senator asks about, essentially, the economics of the project that has been approved, and what I can advise the senator is that this is a matter for the project proponent. The government's role is not to assess the economics of this project. The minister has made a decision in relation to its environmental approvals. This is part of a broader transformation of the Australian economy. We are blessed with abundant sunshine, wind and land, with skilful engineers and skilful personnel, with a mature commercial and legal environment and with a natural electricity system that many other countries seek to talk to us about because of its strengths. These are strengths for Australian communities. They are strengths for Australian regions and they are potentially a source of significant economic opportunity for Australians living in regional communities. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The minister can't or won't tell me about guarantees and subsidies nor a core project assumption, so, Minister, my second supplementary question is: how much is SunCable lodging as a rehabilitation bond for the 12,400 hectares of land that will be covered in solar panels? 14:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The senator asks about the terms on which the approval for the SunCable project has been provided. I can tell the senator that Minister Plibersek applies the terms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to all of the matters that come before her. This is a project proposal that intends to establish a significant source of new generation in the Northern Territory, as you indicated in your first supplementary question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, on a point of order? Senator Roberts 266524 Minister, is there a rehabilitation bond in place to cover the desecration of the environment? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, it's your responsibility to seek a point of order, not to re-ask your question. If you have a point of order, I invite you to make it. If you don't, I'll ask the minister to continue. Senator Roberts 266524 President, the point of order is one of relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant. She has outlined to you the approval processes. So I will ask her to continue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator Cash, which bit of 'order' doesn't apply to you? Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 The minister's responsibility, of course, is to apply the law when a project is put before her. Since coming to government we have sought to do so in relation to all of the projects before us, but we are pleased to see new renewable projects coming online. Since coming to government, we have given the green light to more than 55 of those under the national environment— (Time expired) Housing 3496 14:50 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the great Australian dream of owning a home has turned into a nightmare, particularly for young Australians. Successive governments have introduced schemes aimed at making homes affordable, but these ill-conceived interventions often do more harm than good. The latest Help to Buy scheme is just another bandaid solution that will pour more money into an already overheated real estate market. When will this government address the real villain of housing unaffordability, which is negative gearing, and make the necessary changes to our tax system to stop wealthy investors from hoarding our precious housing stock and make it easier for Australians to own a home? 14:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for the question, and I see that Senator Payman has changed her position on policies like Help to Buy from when she sat on this side of the chamber. We took— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING It's the first I've heard— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order on my left! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! I've called 'order'. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING It was part of the suite of policies that we took to the election campaign, as you know, Senator Payman, and when we go to the election with a series of policies, we implement them in government, and that is what we are doing. But we are doing more than that. Whilst I acknowledge Senator Payman's speech yesterday on negative gearing, we have no plans to change negative gearing arrangements, and I have to say: that would not deliver one extra house, right now, which is what needs to happen. What needs to happen is: we need to build more houses. We need to increase the supply of housing, and that will allow more people to buy housing, which is why— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Those opposite might think it's funny. They may think it's hilarious that people are struggling to buy housing. But we think it needs policies— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left. Order! Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING We have set ourselves the target of 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade. We are backing that up with policies. We are backing that up with working with the states and territories on their planning reforms, on ensuring that they're getting rid of bottlenecks for approvals, and through our Housing Australia Future Fund and through our Social Housing Accelerator, with new housing opening all the time. That is the focus that this government brings to housing. We will continue to implement our policies. We will continue to work with the states and territories, because we know that it's supply that we need to address, to make sure that people can get into the housing market. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Minister, I've heard from many constituents, including Clare from Perth, who's a single parent, working part-time and raising her son, and she's told me that she feels there has been no progress in alleviating the housing crisis. Will this government at least act on this rort by capping negative gearing to investment in new housing? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As I said—and I refer to my previous answer—we have no plans to change negative gearing arrangements, but we have invested $32 billion into increasing the supply of housing in this country— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING that those opposite think is so funny. They are important investments that the Commonwealth government needs to make into housing after a decade of complete and total utter failure of the former government to invest or show any interest at all in housing, particularly social housing and housing for single parents, like the ones that you raised, Senator Payman. It's going to be through the increase in supply of social and affordable housing that we're able to help constituents, like the one that you raised. Senator McGrath 217241 You couldn't even put a tent together. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, your constant interjections are incredibly disorderly and disrespectful. I've called for silence numerous times. Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:55 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Another constituent, Victoria, who lives in the seat of Hasluck reached out about how the current housing market is rigged against young people and working families. When will the government address the issue of foreign investors buying up large numbers of Australian homes, driving prices beyond the reach of everyday working families? 14:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I didn't expect that question, Senator Payman—I have to say that. It's a very similar question to the question that Senator Roberts, member of One Nation, asked me earlier in the week about foreign ownership of housing, and the evidence is very clear on that. It is a very, very small percentage of housing that is bought. I can't recall the number I gave Senator Roberts, but it was absolutely minuscule in terms of housing. There are also strict conditions on it. If you are to purchase housing, you need to live in it, for example. I'm more used to those sorts of questions coming to the government from One Nation. Foreign ownership and foreign investment in housing— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, it's true. On that issue, it is. It's a very small part, and it's often thrown out there as a cause of housing pressure for Australian people to buy into housing. It is simply not the case. We need to build more housing in this country, and that's what the government will do. Economy 3497 14:57 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, the Reserve Bank of Australia has confirmed that Australians are going to face interest rates that stay higher for longer. Meanwhile, markets are predicting a roughly 100 basis-point easing of interest rates in the United States over the remainder of this year alone. Does the government expect Australians to benefit from a comparable rate cut by Christmas, or any rate cut by Christmas or any alleviation in interest rate pressures by Christmas? If not, why is Australia out of step not only with the United States but with so many other comparable economies who are seeing interest rates already coming down? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for his question. It gives me the opportunity to remind him where inflation was when we came to government and how much higher it was under him. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, you've asked the question. Senator WONG 00AOU It also gives me the opportunity to remind him that Senator Gallagher and the Treasurer have turned Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses. I would remind him of these facts. Senator Watt 245759 When you were Minister for Finance, what was inflation under you, Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X Lower than most comparable economies. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Watt and Senator Birmingham! Senator WONG 00AOU It also gives me the opportunity to remind him of the various cost-of-living measures that he and his colleagues voted against. It gives me the opportunity to remind him that they were going to go to an election because they so opposed the revamp of the stage 3 tax cuts. They didn't want all Australians to get a tax cut. It gives me the opportunity to remind him that, under the government of which he was a part, low wages were a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you truly are interested in looking at Australian's cost of living, if you're truly interested in backing in support for Australians in the time of rising costs of living, do you know what you could do? You could stop doing what Mr Dutton tells you to do. That's what you could do. You could stop doing what he tells you to do— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume! Senator WONG 00AOU because that bloke always want to divide and always wants to oppose, even when it's in the national interest. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Birmingham. Senator O'Sullivan, I am tired of calling you to order and I'm tired of calling you to order, Senator Hume. I've asked you a number of times to listen in respectful silence. Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Media reports have today revealed that the consumption of chicken, the cheapest and most popular protein for Australians, has dropped for the first time in decades under the Albanese government. Just how bad is it going to get for Australians under the Albanese Labor government, as interest rates stay higher for longer and as inflation remains persistent, with Australian families now cutting back on even the most basic of foods? (Time expired) 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I would again remind the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that inflation is less than half its peak and certainly much lower than we inherited from him and other members of the former government. Those of us on this side understand acutely that Australians are doing it tough. We know the pressures that Australians are under, and of course inflation is still higher than we would like and is proving to be much stickier than we would like. We all understand that, which is why so much of the work that we have been doing has been focused on how it is we go about trying to alleviate some of that cost-of-living pressure where we can, without adding to inflation. I, for one, find it really interesting that the opposition come in here and say to us: 'Oh, it's really bad this cost-of-living issue. What are you doing about it?' (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Reserve Bank has described the very policies that you're citing, Minister, as being 'by their nature time limited and temporary', as being 'one-off' and 'going to be reversed'. Minister, aren't your policies that you pretend are out to help Australians just bandaids to get the Albanese Labor government through an election and to cover up any sense of the Labor government having any type of real policy to tackle persistent inflation and interest rates staying higher for longer? (Time expired) 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The logic of Senator Birmingham's question is: 'We didn't like it, and we voted against it in the first place, but now we're having a go at you because it's not ongoing.' That's the logic: 'We didn't vote for it the first time, but now we're going to have a go at you because it ends.' You didn't want it in the first place. This shows the hypocrisy of the opposition, who come in here and seek to play a bit of politics with cost of living but don't do anything other than oppose measures that this government seeks to put in place to assist Australians and their families with cost of living. You have no credibility on this issue, and Australians know it. I ask that further questions be placed on notice. BUSINESS 3498 BUSINESS Rearrangement 3498 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia President, I seek leave to move a motion concerning a variation to the routine of business. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion concerning the routine of business to be moved and determined immediately. And I move: That the question be now put. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.    

The Senate divided. [15:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That a motion relating to the routine of business may be immediately and determined without amendment or debate. And I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by the minister.    

The Senate divided. [15:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:16 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.  

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

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put immediately: (i) Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, (ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024, and (iii) Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, the procedural motion just agreed to requires the substantive motion to be put without amendment or debate, so I'll now put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BILLS 3502 BILLS Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 3502

Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024

Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Second Reading 3502 15:21 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, in accordance with the resolution just agreed to, the time for the consideration of various bills has expired. I will now put the questions before the chair and all remaining stages of the bills. I will first deal with the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the related bill, starting with the second reading amendment to the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition's second reading amendment on sheet 2700 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendment— Omit all words after "that", substitute "the Senate: (a) acknowledges that the Net Zero Economy Authority is a long-held union wish list item that masks itself as being an Authority for the regions and for the net zero transition, but is really another Canberra bureaucracy that: (i) adds another level of federal government duplication by mimicking the role of the CEFC and ARENA by 'facilitating new investment in the net zero transition', (ii) significantly overlaps with existing enterprise agreements, industrial obligations, and localised transition plans with its Energy Industry Jobs Plan, (iii) gives unions access to the personal information of the employees of closing coal and gas-fired power stations, as well as the personal information of the employees of the businesses in commercial relationships with closing coal and gas-fired power stations, and (iv) aims to centrally-plan employment opportunities for the employees of closing coal and gas-fired power stations without guarantees that such employment opportunities would leave employees better off than their current employment; and (b) recognises that as coal-fired power stations close, zero-emissions nuclear technology will provide well-paid employment opportunities and economic security for generations in rural, regional, and remote communities".    

The Senate divided. [15:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 15:30 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that these bills be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [15:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

 15:33 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments to the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheet 2835 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendments— (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 16 to 18), omit paragraph (3)(c), substitute: (c) ensure Australia's regions, communities and workers are supported to manage the impacts, and share in the benefits, of Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy. (2) Clause 4, page 4 (line 9), omit "delegations", substitute "delegations, review of this Act". (3) Clause 68, page 73 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add: (7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. (4) Clause 69, page 74 (after line 10), after the paragraph beginning "The Board and the CEO", insert: There are to be reviews of the operation of this Act. (5) Clause 74, page 77 (lines 6 to 11), omit the clause, substitute: 74 Annual report The annual report prepared by the Board and given to the Minister under section 46 of the PGPA Act for a period must include: (a) particulars of any directions given to the Board by the Minister under section 20 of this Act during the period to which the report relates; and (b) a report on the operation of the Act in the period, including in response to the needs and circumstances of communities, regions, industries and workers that are, or will be, significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy. (6) Page 85 (after line 7), after clause 80, insert: 80A Reviews of the operation of this Act (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act: (a) on a recommendation of the Board under subsection (3); or (b) if no recommendation is made by the Board within the period of 9 years after the commencement of this Act—before the end of the period of 10 years after the commencement of this Act; or (c) if no recommendation is made by the Board within the period of 9 years after the completion of a previous review under this subsection—before the end of the period of 10 years after the completion of the previous review. (2) The Minister must specify: (a) terms of reference for the review, which must include a review of the operation of Part 5 of the Act; and (b) how the review is to be conducted; and (c) the timing of the review. Board's recommendation (3) The Board may, in writing, recommend to the Minister that a review be conducted of the operation of this Act. The Board must set out the reasons for the recommendation. (4) The Board may include in a recommendation made under subsection (3) advice on the matters mentioned in subsection (2). (5) Before making a recommendation under subsection (3), the Board must consider the changing needs or circumstances of communities, regions, industries and workers that are, or will be, significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy. (6) The Board must cause a copy of the recommendation to be published on the Authority's website. Public consultation (7) A review under subsection (1) must make provision for public consultation. Report (8) The person or persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review. (9) The Minister must cause a copy of: (a) the terms of reference for the review; and (b) a report under subsection (8) in relation to the review; to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the review is completed. When review is completed (10) For the purposes of this section, a review is completed when the report of the review is given to the Minister under subsection (8). Government response to recommendations (11) If a report of a review sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government: (a) as soon as practicable after receiving the report, the Minister must cause to be prepared a statement setting out: (i) the Commonwealth Government's response to each of those recommendations; and (ii) if the Commonwealth Government has not accepted a recommendation—the reasons for not accepting the recommendation; and (b) within 6 months after receiving the report, the Minister must cause copies of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.    

The Senate divided. [15:33]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

 15:38 The 112096 PRESIDENT (): I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit "5", substitute "6". (2) Clause 21, page 23 (line 8), omit "6", substitute "7". (3) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 13), after paragraph (2)(d), insert: (da) 1 other Board member with expertise or experience, professional credibility and significant standing in any of the fields mentioned in paragraph (3)(i); and (4) Clause 23, page 24 (line 14), omit "3", substitute "2". (5) Clause 23, page 24 (line 17), omit "and (d)", substitute ", (d) and (da)". (6) Clause 23, page 24 (line 32), omit "engagement,". A division hav in g been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT 112096 The whips have asked for more time. They've got a change sheet. The question is that Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheet 2707, to the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (In division) Madam President, I understand the whips needed more time. We're happy to wait once the doors are closed, but if the time allotted for the division has expired, the doors should be closed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. That was my mistake, Senator Wong. Third Reading 3507 15:42 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 3507

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 3507 15:47 The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 15:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that government amendments (1) and (4) to (7) on sheet PC111 revised be agreed to. 15:49 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Could we ask you to put the question for amendments (1) and (5) to (7) separately, as we wish to vote differently on (4). The PRESIDENT 112096 I will advise the chamber. Senator Ruston has asked for that question to be split, so it will be split. Let's deal with (4) because that's the easiest one. The question is that government amendment (4) on sheet PC111 revised be agreed to. Government's circulated amendment— (4) Schedule 4, item 26, page 259 (after line 21), after subsection 296D(2), insert: (2A) Subsection (2B) applies if sustainability standards made for the purposes of subsection (1) require the disclosure of: (a) a scenario analysis (within the meaning given by sustainability standards made for the purposes of this paragraph); or (b) information derived from a scenario analysis; or (c) information about a scenario analysis. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (1), a disclosure of a scenario analysis, information derived from a scenario analysis or information about a scenario analysis is taken not to satisfy that requirement unless the scenario analysis is carried out using at least both of the following scenarios: (a) the increase in the global average temperature well exceeds the increase mentioned in subparagraph 3(a)(i) of the Climate Change Act 2022; (b) the increase in the global average temperature is limited to the increase mentioned in subparagraph 3(a)(ii) of that Act.    

The Senate divided. [15:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:54 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that government amendments (1) and (5) to (7) on sheet PC111 revised be agreed to. Government's circulated amendment s — (1) Schedule 2, page 109 (after line 11), after item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 821A(2) Omit "paragraph (1)(aa), (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h)", substitute "a paragraph of subsection (1) other than paragraph (b)". (5) Schedule 5, page 288 (after line 18), after item 6, insert: 6A Paragraphs 850B(1)(b) and (c) Omit "Australian Stock Exchange Limited" (wherever occurring), substitute "ASX Limited". 6B Subsection 851A(1) Omit "Australian Stock Exchange Limited", substitute "ASX Limited". (6) Schedule 5, item 8, page 288 (lines 23 and 24), omit "Australian Securities Exchange Limited", substitute "ASX Limited". (7) Schedule 5, item 9, page 289 (line 5), omit "Australian Securities Exchange Limited", substitute "ASX Limited". Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that part 4 and item 127 of schedule 2 stand as printed. Government's circulated amendments— (2) Schedule 2, Part 4, page 122 (lines 1 to 14), to be opposed. (3) Schedule 2, item 127, page 194 (lines 24 to 26), to be opposed.    

The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 15:58 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition's amendments on sheets 2692 and 2693 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— SHEET 2692 (1) Schedule 4, item 25, page 253 (line 30) to page 254 (line 15), omit paragraphs 292A(3)(a) to (c), substitute: (a) the consolidated revenue for the financial year of the entity and the entities it controls (if any) is $200 million or more; (b) the value of the consolidated gross assets at the end of the financial year of the entity and the entities it controls (if any) is $500 million or more; (c) the entity and the entities it controls (if any) have 250 or more employees at the end of the financial year. (2) Schedule 4, item 145, page 280 (lines 16 to 23), omit the definitions of first transitional period and second transitional period in section 1707. (3) Schedule 4, item 145, page 281 (after line 5), after the definition of start date in section 1707, insert: transitional period: if the start date occurs on 1 January 2025 or 1 July 2025, the transitional period is the period that: (a) starts on the start date; and (b) ends on 30 June 2026. Otherwise, there is no transitional period. (4) Schedule 4, item 145, page 281 (line 25), omit "first". (5) Schedule 4, item 145, page 281 (line 29) to page 282 (line 1), omit paragraphs 1707B(1)(b) and (c), substitute: (b) the financial year commences on or after 1 July 2026. (6) Schedule 4, item 145, page 282 (line 3), omit "first". _____ SHEET 2693 (1) Schedule 4, item 3, page 247 (lines 17 and 18), omit the definition of financed emissions in section 9. (2) Schedule 4, item 3, page 247 (lines 23 and 24), omit the definition of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions in section 9. (3) Schedule 4, item 26, page 259 (line 6), omit "or". (4) Schedule 4, item 26, page 259 (lines 7 and 8), omit subparagraph 296D(1)(b)(iii). (5) Schedule 4, item 145, page 284 (lines 13 and 14), omit subparagraph 1707D(3)(b)(i).    

The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 16:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheet 2571 be agreed to. Australian Green s' circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 4, item 145, page 283 (line 21), after "person", insert "for loss or damage suffered as a result of conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive,". (2) Schedule 4, item 145, page 284 (line 5), omit "3 years", substitute "12 months".    

The Senate divided. [16:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 35 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:04 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that Senator David Pocock's amendments on sheet 2561 be agreed to. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 4, item 145, page 284 (line 17), omit "subparagraph);", substitute "subparagraph).". (2) Schedule 4, item 145, page 284 (lines 18 to 20), omit subparagraph 1707D(3)(b)(iii).    

The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 34 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 3513 16:08 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [16:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024 3513

Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024

Second Reading 3513 16:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, the time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 3513 16:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 3513 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 3513 16:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. You've got to wonder: is it dirty-deal Thursday or clearing-the-decks Thursday? Or is it a little bit of both going on—the dirty deals scattered around the chamber or the clearing the decks? Apparently, there's quite a lot of deck clearing going on both here and in the other place. I hear, while we've been here, toiling away doing the Senate's business—of course, under another outrageous guillotine by those opposite—that, in the other place, it's been valedictory speeches. Labor MPs are saying farewell. They're saying goodbye. Do they know something that we don't know? Is there a reason why there's been such a rush from the Albanese government to clear the decks, to deal with legislation and to guillotine after guillotine and get it all done but also have their Labor MPs say, 'Ta-ta, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye', as they leave this place? Is the Prime Minister really that worried that the Australian economy is about to crash that he is willing to give up 10 months of his term? Is Mr Albanese really that worried that interest rates staying higher for longer, inflationary pressures on Australians staying as high as they are and a cost-of-living crisis that Australians are facing mean he should run scared to the polls? Is that what he's thinking? Well, perhaps that is what he should be thinking. Mr Albanese perhaps should be worried about the fact that his policies continue to make life harder for Australians and that, every single day that goes by, Australians see how those policies are making life harder for them and they keep feeling the pain of higher interest rates and higher inflation and of not even being able to afford the basics of living anymore. As we saw in question time today, there are revelations that Australians are buying less chicken meat. It's the most consumed and most affordable protein in Australia, and people are cutting back on it. If Australians are at the point that they're cutting back on chicken meat, what else are they forgoing in their day-to-day lives? Just how stretched are their budgets? This is a government that was elected promising that Australian families would be better off. They promised that electricity bills would be down some $275. What happened to the $275? Trashed, gone, abandoned by the government. Instead they say, 'But we're giving people $300 this year.' What has the Reserve Bank said about that? They've called it out as the trickery that it is. It's a one-off. Bills will spike right back afterwards, and Australians will be left worse off as always. This government promised Australians would be better off, and yet real household disposable income is down 7.5 per cent under the Albanese Labor government. Prices are up. Electricity is up. Household costs are up. But household disposable income is down. It's no wonder Australians are cutting back on the raw essentials like chicken meat. Senator Cadell 300134 KFC! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Indeed, it's no wonder they are cutting back on even just a basic night out at Macca's or at KFC. The reports that are coming in now from across Australia show just how tough Australians are doing it. This is a government that hasn't just broken those promises. They promised that the stage 3 tax cuts would be delivered in full. But, no, they junked that for a temporary bandaid measure. That's what this government has done with everything: temporary bandaid measures just to get them through the next election. The questions that today is igniting are: Just how soon will that election be? How scared is Mr Albanese that things are going from bad to worse? How worried is Mr Albanese that Australians feeling the pain are going to give his government the boot? How concerned is Mr Albanese that Australian households are going to keep feeling that pressure mounting and mounting and mounting? So here we are with a government clearing the decks, a government rushing through and guillotining legislation sight unseen, a government clearly panicked and letting Australians down. 16:17 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Well, that was one of the most ridiculous speeches I've ever heard! Here we have an opposition talking about the cost of living and the pressures on the Australian public, and they're the ones that voted against every initiative that we've brought into this place to take cost-of-living pressures off of the Australian public. We know it's tough out there, but they want to make it tougher, because they vote down every initiative. Whether it's medicines, whether it's supporting Medicare or whether it's making energy prices cheaper out there, they vote it down every single time. When it comes to labour rights and to actually being able to negotiate a better wage increase, these are the people that don't support minimum-wage increases, and they're talking to us about the cost of living! They have no understanding of the responsibility they have when they come into this place to the Australian public, because if they did they'd be voting with us. Then they have the audacity to complain about the fact that we want to get on with business and make sure that we've got legislation going through this parliament to support people right across the economy. They want to bog it down with either saying no or doing nothing. And guess what? They're consistently saying no, and they're consistently doing nothing. Look at the things that they've turned around and supported. One of the craziest things was opposing the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund. We've got 50,000 homes that could be built, and what does Senator Bragg do? He starts bagging the whole concept of making sure that we give some of the most disadvantaged people in our community, people that can't afford housing, an opportunity to turn it around and have the security of housing. Who are the people that they're making it difficult for? They're making it difficult for people that are victims of domestic violence. They simply don't like the idea that governments are here to support people through difficult times, to support the community and to make sure that things are better. They are simply about saying no and doing nothing. We want to make sure that essential workers don't get priced out of their own communities, and those opposite vote against it. They have it in their DNA. They just can't help themselves. Whenever it comes to supporting somebody or whenever it comes to supporting the community, they simply vote against it, and then they complain about things being tough. They always want to make it tougher. They consistently make it tougher. Then you have to look at the question of what is in their DNA. In my home state of New South Wales, during the 12 long years that the Liberals and Nationals were in government, we saw that they turned around $3.5 billion worth of social housing that the community desperately needs right now. That $3.5 billion worth of social housing was taken out of the market—4,205 homes. That's what they did. They don't care about the Australian community. Then don't care about good policy. They care about figures on a sheet of paper that don't add up. We know that because, if they really cared, they'd be supporting the policies that this government has been putting in place to make a difference. When you look again at what's in Labor's DNA, we're making sure that we tackle the issue of housing. Again, in my home state of New South Wales, the New South Wales government has made the largest single investment in social housing in the state's history. Over the period 2024 to 2035, over 8,400 new homes will be for women and children fleeing domestic violence. Again, those opposite just don't like that idea. Don't they actually talk to people out there in the community? The community is actually against what you're saying because it makes no sense. It's heartless. It's bad policy. It doesn't actually lift the country. It doesn't lift my home state. Of course, when you start looking at initiatives that have been happening on that front, there is this lunacy and this obsession about what's happening with Cbus. You may be surprised to know—and I know they actually know; they just don't like saying it—that these superannuation funds are dually owned and managed. They're owned by their members, and they're managed by both employers and unions, and many of them have other directors. Some of them have different independent chairs. They're all accountable to APRA and other agencies. All these things are so, but they've got this obsession about Cbus—the fund that has turned around and received the Specialist Fund of the Year award for 2024, as well as Best Fund: Member Services and Best Fund: Responsible Investment. That's what they actually don't like. 16:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The question really has to be asked: what is going on here? But the one thing that you can be assured of with this government is that you probably won't know what's going on until after it's happened. I say that because, if ever there was a government that can go down in history as being the most opaque government I have ever known or seen, it has got to be this one. Probably what's most galling about this is that they went to the last election telling everybody that they were going to be transparent. You are absolutely the anthesis of transparency, as we saw just a few minutes ago. At the eleventh hour, they come into this place and they guillotine legislation. There was not one word about these three particular pieces of legislation all week in discussions with the government about facilitating the sensible and calm passage of legislation through this place, as the government is required to do. Instead they say: 'No, we'll do that and then, at the last minute, we'll come in here and crunch a whole heap of legislation.' So the question has to be: Why? Why did they need to guillotine stuff this afternoon? I'll tell you why the government guillotines. The government guillotines because it does not have the capacity or the capability to control the management of this chamber. They can't control the chamber. We've seen guillotine after guillotine after guillotine after guillotine. But what Australians probably should be asking is: Why are they doing it today? Why have we seen the kinds of speeches we've seen in the other place? Why have we seen all of the valedictory speeches? This government probably needs to be honest. What are they up to? Stop treating Australians like mugs, and stop keeping them in the dark. But one of the things that Australians should be very, very fearful of, if you have a look at what happened today, is the alliance between the Labor Party and the Greens—the next government that this government over there will seek to form if they are fortunate enough at the election. I'm not sure that the electorate is so stupid as to re-elect you, and I'll certainly do everything that I can to make sure the electorate knows what an awful government you are. The worst of it is that, every time they want to get something, they jump back into bed with the Greens. They fight like cat and dog—I've never seen anybody fight like they have all week—but, when the going really gets tough and the rubber hits the road, who jumps into bed with who? It's the Labor Party and the Greens—one bed, two parties—every single time. We're seeing this government move more and more to the left. The other thing that I think is really worth mentioning is that they are all talk and no action. We've heard contributions in this place on many occasions about all of these amazing things the government has apparently done. All you've done is to issue press releases and headline announcements. How many houses have you built? Absolutely zero. How much have you got electricity prices down? You haven't got electricity prices down; you've actually sent them through the roof. How many times have you come in here and pretended that you've delivered things? Yesterday, how disingenuous was the response in relation to domestic violence, for what you've done! What you've done—as you've done with every other portfolio—is: you've written reports, you've done plans, and you've delivered absolutely nothing. The one thing that the Prime Minister is very good at doing is insulting Australians, as we saw the other night. What a massive insult to Australian farmers. I come from rural and regional Australia, and our farmers are absolutely amazing. If it wasn't for our communities outside of the capital cities, Mr Chalmers wouldn't be backing a surplus. It's a windfall surplus, on the back of our farmers and on the back of our mining sector. He has done not one thing to contribute towards his surplus; it has actually been our rural and regional communities. But Mr Albanese thought it was okay the other night to be so unbelievably insulting as to say what he did at the AgriFutures rural women's gala night. You couldn't have picked a worse audience, really. What an absolutely tin-eared, inner-city, woke Prime Minister we have, who would then absolutely insult every single woman from the regions, and particularly those women from the regions who were in the Great Hall, who actually come not only from farming communities but from livestock communities. It was just absolutely insulting to a T. We've seen the CFMEU bill shoved through here this week. They were pretending that they were actually doing something. The reality is: Australians aren't so stupid. They know that they are worse off under this government. There would not be one person in this country who would be able to stand up and say that they feel better off than they were when this government was elected. I believe that, when the government go to the election, when they go to the ballot box, Australians will tell them exactly what they think. They'll think of all the stuff that the government has done to them, then coming in here and patting itself on the back as if it had done some wonderful job! I think that the electorate will realise that you are all talk and no action. You are sneaky. You are tricky. And you are weak. 16:27 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I, too, rise to make my contribution this afternoon. I think that this government has a really proud history and is working hard every day for working Australians and all Australians. Far from some concern about why we are seeing valedictory speeches in the other house, I think that we should be absolutely celebrating Linda Burney and my friend Brendan O'Connor for the outstanding contributions they've made to the Australian community over many, many years. As for 'all talk, no action', Australians are better off under this government. In terms of inflation, these are the facts. Inflation peaked later here than in most other comparable nations. Rates started rising here later than in most other comparable nations, and they rose by less in Australia than in most of those nations. We've seen, around the world, that inflation can zigzag on the way down, and the last push is always the hardest. Our budget is putting downward pressure on inflation, not upward pressure. Inflation is now much lower than the 6.1 per cent we had, which was inherited at the election. This government has turned big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses by banking the majority of revenue upgrades, finding savings and restraining spending in the budget. Those opposite promised to deliver a surplus each and every year. That's right—they promised to deliver a surplus each and every year. But they delivered none. The RBA governor has been clear that our back-to-back surpluses are helping our fight against inflation. The forecast from the RBA also confirms that our cost-of-living relief in this year's budget will directly reduce inflation in our economy. I reference Michele Bullock, the RBA governor, when she spoke to estimates on 5 June 2024: 'I think fiscal policy has been running a surplus the last couple of years, so I would say that has been helping.' The ABS has shown our cost-of-living policies are helping take some of the edge off inflation, and the revised RBA forecasts expect that too. We are willing partners in the fight against inflation, and we are doing our bit, with the responsible way we are delivering the cost-of-living help and with the two consecutive surpluses, which the RBA governor has said are helping. Our job, as the government, is to recognise the weaknesses in the economy and the pressures people are under, which we deeply do, as we go about getting on top of inflation in a way that doesn't smash the economy and smash people. The Leader of the Opposition can't front up and explain his risky nuclear gamble—there's a bit of a lack of transparency there, I would say—or how his dangerous supermarket policies would work without pushing up prices. I'd also like to make a couple of points on the comments around our government doing nothing about family and domestic violence leave, and our response in that regard. I take real issue with that because I know firsthand the work this government has done to help women and children escaping family violence. We made the very important decision to provide paid family violence leave to all workers in this country. That's 10 days of paid family violence leave. Family and domestic violence leave for people in work is extremely important. I have spoken to workers across Victoria who have faced job insecurity because of family violence. They have been unable to deal with the pressures of moving house and looking after their children, who had to change school, whilst maintaining a connection to the workplace. Economic security for women who are facing family violence is extremely critical to enabling them to leave a violent relationship. Paid family violence leave provides the economic security to ensure that women can leave a violent relationship and keep their job, rather than being in a situation where they have to choose between making sure their kids are looked after, with a roof over their head, and their own personal safety. I applaud this government for the work it has done in that area, let alone the many others in the national plan to address family violence in our country. 16:32 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia As has become apparent, Australians will most likely be going to the polls sooner rather than later, and they need to ask themselves: Who do they trust to lead this country based on facts as opposed to ideology? Who do they trust to put the interests of the Australian people and the national interest ahead of ideology? I rise today to take note of the answers that were given to a question about Minister Plibersek's decision leading to the failure of a project to create a gold mine which was going to be delivering jobs. This is a government that said that it was going to be transparent and that it cared more about workers, but last week what did we see? This was a project that had passed all of the federal and state planning approvals. It had the support of the environment department that Minister Plibersek oversees, and it had the support of the local Aboriginal land council near Orange, which is the statutory body with cultural authority under New South Wales legislation. All those groups had said that the project should go ahead and that there were no cultural issues for Indigenous Australians, but Minister Plibersek was persuaded to rule against the proposal for this mine—a $1 billion gold mine—after listening to a dissident Aboriginal corporation that is registered with just 18 members, who only list their first names on the website of the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. This is a corporation that has had complaints made about it before because of a lack of transparency. Not only does this deny Australians jobs in that case, but it introduces sovereign risk at a time when we need investors to come to Australia to invest in projects that will help in growing our resources base. If you look at Australia's GDP, it is actually our resources that are a large part of what funds good health care, good education, roads, infrastructure, defence and a range of other things. But this is a consistent pattern we see, where ideology drives the actions of this government. The cost of living is a huge issue for Australians, and so you would think that, with the constraints that drive up the cost of things like electricity, such as availability of gas, the government would be going all out to make sure that we got more gas into the system. Yet the Environmental Defenders Office have received more funding from this government so that they can continue their activities against resource sector companies like Santos. Eventually the court system works; in January this year the courts found that the EDO actually tutored their witnesses and relied on conflicted evidence, so the case was thrown out. So eventually the Santos development of a new gas field in the Barossa field can go ahead but at great cost and great delay, which ultimately will be passed on to the Australian people. The Albanese government are prepared to fund that, but they're not prepared to challenge the decisions that were made on similar grounds when the waste repository at Kimba was knocked back by a court. Everyone was flabbergasted because that decision changed the whole basis of freehold land and the rights that an owner has to dispose of their land as they see fit. On this issue of mining: if we see sovereign risk rising in the areas of energy and mining, we also see sovereign risk rising relating to our ability to be a reliable partner to our alliance partners, to like-minded nations, when we talk about things like critical minerals. For those who aren't aware, goldmines are often the same places where we see reserves of things like antimony, which is a critical element in semiconductors and EVs and for defence and modern technology. If we can't get investors to invest in things like the Hillgrove deposits and others because of this sovereign risk, then we will not be able to be a reliable supplier of the critical minerals that are needed to overcome the kind of coercive supply we see coming out of the Chinese Communist Party. When we go to the polls, Australian people should ask: who do we trust to govern transparently and in the national interest? Question agreed to. Whaling 3518 16:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania 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 whaling. Australians love whales. As we speak in the Australian Senate right now, on both the east and west coastlines of this beautiful big country thousands of whales are breaching and frolicking off our beaches. Australians come out in numbers and receive so much joy from seeing these whales. We are so proud that we as a nation have protected all cetaceans in our territorial waters. We are also fighters for the conservation of whales. Australians and their governments have shown leadership on the international stage now for decades to protect whales and to end cruel and barbaric commercial whaling. Senators, that's why we owe a debt of attitude to Captain Paul Watson and his supporters. Paul is languishing in jail in Greenland, being detained by the Danish authorities on behalf of the Japanese, apparently relating to incidents in 2010, when he was down in the Southern Ocean protecting the exact same whales that we now see off our coastlines. Because we've fought so hard as a nation to protect whales, we owe him a debt of gratitude, and we need to repay that debt now by standing up for Paul. He was on his way to protect endangered finwhales in the North Pacific, which are again being hunted by Japanese harpoon boats with grenade-tipped harpoons. Let me tell you: it is a simple fact that the Danish government is detaining Paul Watson for the Japanese government. We will get a decision on 5 September as to whether or not he will be extradited to Japan, facing potentially 14 years in a Japanese prison. I mentioned earlier this week in the Senate the irregularities around the legal processes so far in relation to this extradition. We are very concerned he hasn't received fair and just treatment. On behalf of many Australians I call on our Australian government to do everything it can either behind the scenes, through quiet diplomacy, through the International Whaling Commission—who have been leaders in that forum for many years—through the International Court of Justice or through direct diplomatic means with both the Japanese and Danish governments to end this potential extradition and free Paul Watson, and send a really important message that we support the conservation of whales because it was very clear in Senate question time today that we do. Minister McAllister spoke very strongly and very clearly about the work the current government and previous governments in this country have done to protect whales. It would mean a lot if our government was to make direct representations on behalf of the Australian people to the Danish government to free Paul Watson. It's not that difficult to do. President Macron, of France, has openly and publicly called on the Danish government to free Paul and has said the French are trying to actively intervene in this case to make sure he doesn't get extradited to Japan. The European Parliament, parliamentarians from nations in the EU, have come together to write to the Danish Prime Minister, saying, 'Do not extradite Paul Watson to Japan.' I'm optimistic that parliamentarians in this parliament will also sign a joint letter that they will receive soon from the Paul Watson Foundation to also show solidarity and support for Paul and see that he is freed. I've written to the Danish ambassador myself, asking for him to be freed. Disappointingly, I haven't had a response. It's good to hear our government is doing active, constructive, strong things to protect whales, and all I ask of it today—and I know so many people around this country would support myself and other senators in this chamber who feel the same way—is to show solidarity for Paul, to stand up for him, to make representations to the Danish government and to let him get on with the job of protecting endangered fin whales in the North Pacific. Question agreed to. BUDGET 3518 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 3518 16:43 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee relating to estimates. COMMITTEES 3518 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 3518 Report 3518 16:43 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report: Report 7 of 2024 and its annual report for 2023. DOCUMENTS 3518 DOCUMENTS Consideration 3518 COMMITTEES 3519 COMMITTEES Supermarket Prices Select Committee 3519 Report 3519 16:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to take note of the final report of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices. I want to start by thanking all my colleagues on this select committee, and I note that Senator Cadell is in the chamber as well. I want to say to my colleagues on the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices that it was a committee that worked really hard. It worked in a very collegial way, in the main, and as the chair I can say that all senators who participated in that committee participated in good faith and added significant value to the work that the committee did and to the final report of the committee. The Greens initiated this inquiry here in the Senate because we listened to the millions of Australians who've experienced skyrocketing food and grocery prices over the last few years. Of course, that's coming on top of a cost-of-existence crisis in this country. Wherever you look these days, whether it's food and grocery prices, rents, mortgages, power bills, transport costs—they are spiking, and millions of Australians are genuinely struggling just to exist in our society and in the communities in which they choose to live. This inquiry heard heart-rending stories of single mums skipping meals so they could put enough food on the table for their kids and of people having to dumpster dive to be able to keep their nutrition levels up. Make no mistake: the evidence that we heard was heart-rending and it was real. It was real evidence given to our committee by real people. We initiated this inquiry because we had a very strong view that the supermarket corporations—each of whom, Coles and Woolworths, are raking in annual profits of over a billion dollars—are doing over their consumers and also doing over their suppliers, who, in the main, are farmers and folks on the land in this country. I've thanked all my colleagues, but I want to make sure that I thank the secretariat for the outstanding support they provided to us. The evidence that was provided to the inquiry was clear. Coles and Woolworths together have nearly a two-thirds share of the supermarket sector, which is a sector that is significantly more concentrated than in comparable international jurisdictions. As a result of their market power, Coles and Woolworths are able to hike prices for their consumers, and they're also able to suppress prices for their suppliers. In doing so, they have both raked in billion-dollar profits in the previous 12 months, and their CEOs are making multiple millions of dollars in salaries. Experts to the inquiry agreed that, to bring down the cost of food and groceries, we need to rein in the market power of supermarket corporations—that is, we need greater competition in the supermarket sector. That is why the inquiry recommended making price gouging illegal and introducing divestiture powers to break up the supermarket duopoly. These are not radical or controversial reforms. They already exist in many comparable so-called free market economies around the world. The US and the UK, for example, have had divestiture powers for decades, and the European Union has banned price gouging. Both of these recommendations are backed by leading competition experts, including former ACCC chair Professor Allan Fels. Now, since the opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, have announced that they do support divestiture powers in the supermarket sector, there is one mob standing in between Australian shoppers and cheaper food and grocery prices, and that is the Australian Labor Party. There is one mob in here who stand hand in hand with Coles and Woolworths, supporting their billion-dollar profits, hand in hand with their CEOs and their multimillion-dollar salary packages, and that is the Australian Labor Party. There is only one mob that is saying to Australian shoppers, 'We don't understand your pain, and, even if we did pretend to understand your pain, we're not going to do anything about it,' and that is the Australian Labor Party. The numbers are here now, off the back of this inquiry, to have divestiture powers in the supermarket sector. It is only Labor who's standing in the way of that reform. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration 3519 DOCUMENTS 3520 DOCUMENTS Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd, National Housing Accord, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 3520 Order for the Production of Documents 3520 16:51 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I table three documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the National Housing Accord, land transport infrastructure project funding and Visy. 16:52 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 3520 COMMITTEES PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) Select Committee, Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Select Committee 3520 Membership 3520 16:52 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The President has received letters nominating senators to be members of various committees. 16:52 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be appointed to committees as follows: PFAS — Select Committee Appointed— Senator Ghosh, Pratt and Whish-Wilson Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Brown, Ciccone, Cox, Darmanin, Faruqi, Green, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, McKim, O'Neill, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh and Waters Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme — Appointed— Senators McKim, Sterle and Urquhart Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Brown, Ciccone, Cox, Darmanin, Faruqi, Ghosh, Green, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, O'Neill, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Stewart, Walsh, Waters and Whish-Wilson. Question agreed to. BILLS 3520 BILLS Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024 3520

Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024

First Reading 3520 16:53 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 3520 16:53 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am pleased to introduce the Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024. The bill amends the Student Identifiers Act 2014 to extend the system of national unique student identifiers to the schools sector. A unique student identifier, or "USI", is a unique identification number which represents a single student as they move through the various phases of their education in Australia. They are already in wide use in the higher education and vocational education and training (VET) sector. In fact, a USI is required for all students receiving government support in those sectors. This bill will make a USI, in the schooling context called a "Schools Identifier", available to school students across the country. It will allow them to have a single identifier which will travel with them during their schooling career and into higher education and VET. And it has been a long time coming. And an initiative which has enjoyed bipartisan support. The concept was first agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2009. COAG said in its communique that a national student identifier would "further support a seamless schooling, VET and higher education experience for students". A decade later, Australian governments agreed through the National School Reform Agreement to [i]mplement … a national unique student identifier (USI) that meets national privacy requirements in order to support better understanding of student progression and improve the national evidence base. That's what the student identifier system is about and this bill's introduction today follows agreement by Commonwealth, state and territory Education Ministers in December 2022 to finally make this a reality. What this bill does is to set up the architecture for Schools Identifiers to be issued to school students, through the existing Office of the Student Identifiers Registrar. The bill enables the Registrar to assign, collect, use, disclose and verify Schools Identifiers for school students. By establishing this architecture, the bill meets the Commonwealth's obligations under the current National School Reform Agreement to get Schools Identifiers underway. What the bill doesn't do is implement the practical use cases for these Schools Identifiers. These will be for agreement between me and my state and territory ministerial colleagues through the Education Ministers Meetings. We have already agreed one use—to allow a student's Schools Identifier to travel with them when they move from one school, system or jurisdiction to another, supporting the robust and timely transfer of a student's information as they move schools. That's a start. But there is potential for future use cases to make a real difference in the education experience of our students, and to help support them throughout their learning career. Some of the use cases that could be considered are: 1. Helping ensure that students don't fall between the cracks by supporting jurisdictions to monitor when they unenroll from one school, but don't subsequently enrol in another. We saw instances of this through COVID and School Identifiers could help address this problem. 2. We can also look to improve the way teachers and parents can monitor a student's progress over time. For example, NAPLAN reports could show a student's progress over time, and not just in the year they sit the test. 3. The Schools Identifiers architecture may also help us get a better understanding of student pathways, potentially allowing policy makers to better target the support they are providing to students and schools, and improve the design of teaching interventions. 4. We could also look at linking Senior Secondary Certificates to the National Skills Passport currently under consideration. These are some of the potential use cases that can help provide more support to students and give them a simpler and better experience of Australia's education system. But importantly, no use case will be implemented without the agreement of all Education Ministers. That is an important governance safeguard, and an appropriate one because we are talking about our children's data. For the same reason, the bill includes robust privacy measures to ensure that any data collected is secure and used only for approved purposes. Schools Identifiers, Student Identifiers and individuals' school identity management information are classified as protected information under the bill. This means that strict legislative restrictions apply to the collection, use and disclosure of this information. Any information collected by the Student Identifiers Registrar is subject to protections under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The bill identifies the circumstances under which the collection, use and disclosure of Schools Identifiers is authorised. Any other collections, uses and disclosures will be unauthorised and taken to be an interference with an individual's privacy under the Privacy Act. The administration of Schools Identifiers by the education systems of the states and territories will also be subject to the specific privacy protections in those jurisdictions. In addition to these strong privacy protections, Education Ministers will establish a data governance framework for Schools Identifiers that will: 1. implement national uniform restrictions on the use and disclosure of Schools Identifiers and specified information associated with administration by education authorities; 2. set out Educations Ministers' agreed approach to the handling of requests for Schools Identifier data under the Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 (Cth); and 3. provide guidance and information on the use, data entry requirements and maintenance of Schools Identifiers. If that sounds like a lot of restrictions on the use of Schools Identifiers it's because there are. It is very important that we protect the privacy of students whilst they benefit from the opportunities of a streamlined and unified identifier system. This bill satisfies the Commonwealth's obligations under the current National School Reform Agreement to set up the architecture for Schools Identifiers. It's a system with the privacy of the student at its centre, and it sets up the opportunity for Education Ministers across the country to agree on measures which will harness that system to benefit all Australian students throughout their education. I commend the bill to the Chamber. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024 3522

Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024

Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024

First Reading 3522 16:53 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 3522 16:54 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— TAXATION (MULTINATIONAL—GLOBAL AND DOMESTIC MINIMUM TAX) BILL 2024 This Bill is part of a package of three Bills which together will enact a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for multinational enterprises (multinationals) operating in Australia with an annual global revenue of 750 million Euros (approximately A$1.2 billion) or greater. These Bills, upon receiving Royal Assent, will apply to fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2024. The Global Minimum Tax will enable Australia to apply top up tax on a resident multinational parent or subsidiary company where the group's income is taxed below 15 per cent overseas. The Domestic Minimum Tax will enable Australia to apply top- up tax for any low-taxed domestic income before a foreign country would otherwise take that tax under the new rules. These Bills represent a landmark achievement in the international tax landscape and follow on from our Government's 2023-24 Budget announcement that we would implement a global minimum tax and a domestic minimum tax. It marks further progress on the Government's election commitment to support Pillar Two of the OECD/G20 Two Pillar Solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. It also builds on the Government's multinational tax integrity package to help ensure multinationals pay their fair share of tax. I'll come back to that later. This package of Bills will align Australia with approximately 60 jurisdictions including the likes of Canada, the UK, the EU, Japan and New Zealand who have all taken steps to implement either a global or domestic minimum tax, or both. By implementing these minimum taxes alongside other lead jurisdictions as part of a coordinated global approach, Australia will be making a key contribution to prevent a race to the bottom on corporate income tax rates. Establishing a floor on tax competition will help lead to a fairer domestic and international tax system. The floor on tax competition offers Australia various important benefits. Chief among them, the incentive for multinationals to shift profits away from Australia to low tax jurisdictions will be reduced. This is because the 15 per cent minimum tax rate will apply irrespective of which jurisdiction a multinational operates in, making it more likely that profits made in Australia will be taxed in Australia. This will also improve the competitiveness of smaller domestic businesses in Australia due to the reduced tax advantages available to multinationals. Furthermore, implementing a global and domestic minimum tax will reduce the corporate tax rate differential between Australia and low tax jurisdictions, making Australia a more attractive place to invest in, which will boost economic growth. The first global and domestic minimum tax returns, however, will not be due until 30 June 2026, giving multinationals time to adapt their compliance and reporting systems. This Bill implements the core rules of the global and domestic minimum taxes. In particular, it sets out the framework and scope for the imposition of top-up taxes under the two minimum taxes. In giving effect to this, the Bill has been drafted to be consistent with the Global Anti-base Erosion rules as agreed and finalised by the OECD Inclusive Framework, a network of 145 member jurisdictions. The Global Anti-base Erosion rules set out the requirements and outcomes a jurisdiction's global and domestic minimum taxes need to meet. For example, consistent with the Global Anti-base Erosion rules, the Bill will not apply to government entities, international organisations, pension funds, investment funds and real estate investment funds that are parent entities of a multinational group, not-for profit organisations and income associated with international shipping. The Government intends to finalise the subordinate legislation, in the form of Ministerial Rules, which is necessary for the Bill to operate effectively. Such Rules will build upon the framework established by this Bill, setting out various computational and administrative provisions necessary to give effect to the global and domestic minimum taxes in Australia. The authority to make such Ministerial Rules is provided for in this Bill. The Bill further allows for any Ministerial Rules created after this Bill is passed to operate retrospectively, being necessary to align with the Bill's retrospective application from 1 January 2024. Enacting this package of Bills to implement a global and domestic minimum tax in Australia is estimated to increase receipts by $370 million dollars over the five years from the 2022-23 financial year. Reforming multinational tax isn't just about protecting much- needed revenue. It's also about fairness. A small company operating in suburban Australia isn't conniving to cut their tax bill by using a Cayman Islands subsidiary. Suburban firms shouldn't have to compete with tax-dodging multinationals. A fair go for families and local firms is precisely what we're aiming to deliver. Three years ago, academics from the University at Albany and the University of Missouri published a research paper arguing that company taxes should be abolished. Part of their argument was that transfer pricing by multinationals has become so widespread that policymakers should give up on corporate taxation altogether. It's a stark reminder that when it comes to multinational tax reform, what's at stake is nothing less than the future of the corporate tax itself. I believe it is good economics to save corporate tax, but it will take deft policymaking and proper tax administration to do so. Company taxes go back over a century. The United States introduced a corporate tax in 1898, but it was over-ruled by their Supreme Court a year later. In 1913, after they had sorted out their constitutional issues, the US company tax rate was set at a measly 1 percent. Australia introduced our company tax in 1915. Then Attorney General and future Prime Minister Billy Hughes told parliament that it was "necessary to meet the great and growing liabilities created by the war". Hughes put the issue bluntly: "I know of no other means whereby we could raise the necessary revenue." Today, while the essential purpose of corporate income tax remains the same, the challenges of collecting corporate taxes have grown enormously. Part of that arises because company taxes are simpler in an economy that makes physical products. Agriculture, mining and manufacturing have clear locations of production. But if a company's output is digital, then it's easier to artificially shift the location of production to the place with the lowest tax rate. For instance, in 2016, Google's parent company, Alphabet, made US$19 billion in revenue in Bermuda, a small island where it had virtually no workers, owned virtually no assets, and where the corporate tax rate is zero percent. A billion here, a billion there, and soon you're talking real money. Summing up the problem, economists Thomas T0rsl0v, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman estimate that close to 40% of multinational profits—around US$600 billion—are shifted to low-tax countries each year. What is the cost of this activity to the revenue base of countries such as Australia? In a separate analysis, Ludvig Wier and Gabriel Zucman have tracked the damage done by the global profit-shifting industry. They calculate that in 2019 around 10 per cent of corporate tax income was lost as a result of global profit shifting. Back in 1975, they estimate, this figure was less than 0.1 per cent. A race to the bottom between nation states has seen average corporate tax rates fall from 49% in 1985 to 24% in 2019. Australia relies more heavily on company tax relative to other OECD countries even though Australia's aggregate tax burden across all levels of government is lower than the OECD average. Since company taxes comprise 19 percent of Australia's revenue base, to accept the accounting tricks and dodgy behaviour that multinational firms engage in would have a massive impact on Australia. Multinational tax avoidance means less resources available to fund our schools and hospitals. It means small businesses face unfair competition from large multinationals that are using tax dodges which aren't available to smaller firms. The situation for local small businesses ends up being like a team forced to play against a headwind through the entire game. Among the shenanigans we've seen are shell companies created in low or no tax jurisdictions, allowing multinationals to funnel huge profits into secret locations where they have zero employees and no physical office. We've seen one part of a multinational group purporting to owe another part of the same group a huge amount of debt, shifting profits by paying large amounts of interest to itself in another country and deducting these payments from their tax bill. The accounting details may be complex, but the principle is simple: all companies, large or small, should pay their fair share. These examples of companies exploiting tax lurks are only possible for companies with cross border operations. This gives them an unfair advantage over local firms and comes at a cost to other participants in the economy. This unfair advantage ultimately weighs on the broader health of the economy, limiting productivity, economic growth and wages. This bill should be seen in the context of the Australian Government's strong commitment to multinational tax integrity. We have already delivered four significant multinational tax reforms. First, our new subsidiary disclosure law will require public companies (listed and unlisted) to disclose information on the number of their subsidiaries and their country of tax residency. This will shine a light on how companies structure their subsidiaries, including for tax purposes. Second, as a part of the Buy Australian Plan, under the Fair Go Procurement framework, companies tendering in government procurement processes valued above $200,000 are now required to disclose their country of tax residency. This change complements broader changes the Government has implemented in taking decisive action on tax adviser misconduct, including by increasing tax promoter penalties and increasing the powers of tax regulators. Third, we've boosted funding for the Australian Taxation Office's Tax Avoidance Taskforce in the October 2022-23 Budget by around $200 million a year, and in the 2024-25 Budget further extended the operation of the Taskforce to 2028. This investment has bolstered Australian Taxation Office crackdowns on tax dodging by multinational enterprises, large Australian public and private groups, and extremely wealthy individuals. Fourth, we've taken aim at a common technique that multinationals use to minimise tax, by tightening Australia's thin capitalisation rules. Our new approach reduces the ability for taxpayers to create artificial interest-bearing debt in Australia, as a way of maximising interest-related deductions that reduce their overall tax bill. We've also created a new Debt Deduction Creation Rule, which will work hand in glove with the thin capitalisation rules, to target the use of related party debt to artificially inflate an entity's interest expenses, minimising their tax paid. In addition, we are in the process of delivering five further multinational tax reforms. First, the government's Bill to create a Public Country-by- Country Reporting register has been introduced to parliament and once it has passed, reporting requirements will apply from 1 July 2024. Creating a Public country-by-country reporting register will deliver a key part of the Government's multinational tax integrity election commitment. It will see Australia put in place a world- leading set of disclosure laws. Second, the government is progressing its election commitment to implement a Public Register of Beneficial Ownership, which will show who ultimately owns, controls or receives profits from a company or legal vehicle operating in Australia. Third, we've also added to our election agenda, by strengthening the way our foreign investment system reduces the risk of multinational investors avoiding Australian tax. On 1 May 2024, the Treasurer announced changes to deliver a stronger, more streamlined and more transparent approach to foreign investment. Foreign investment has a key role to play in our economy but only if it's in our national interest. So we're making sure that foreign investors pay their fair share of tax in Australia. This includes releasing updated guidance about the kind of tax arrangements that will attract greater scrutiny- such as those that are overly complex. Fourth, to further protect our tax system from foreign investments where investors currently have incentives to circumvent intended outcomes in our tax settings, we're strengthening the foreign resident capital gains tax regime. As part of the 2024-25 Budget, the Government announced it will strengthen the regime in line with the OECD standards to ensure foreign residents pay their fair share of tax in Australia and to provide greater certainty about the operation of the rules. Fifth, in this year's Budget, we also announced a new royalty penalty. From 1 July 2026, the penalty will apply to Significant Global Entities (annual revenue of $1 billion) where they avoid Australian royalty withholding tax by understating the value of royalty payments or disguise them as some other kind of transaction. These nine measures—four that we have delivered, and five that are in train—demonstrate the government's strong commitment to multinational tax integrity. It is important to see this in its historical and international context. No government in Australian history has done more on multinational tax fairness than the Albanese Government. No government around the world is doing more to improve multinational tax integrity than Australia. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. I commend the Bill to the House. TAXATION (MULTINATIONAL—GLOBAL AND DOMESTIC MINIMUM TAX) IMPOSITION BILL 2024 This Bill is part of a package of three Bills which together will enact a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for multinational enterprises operating in Australia with an annual global revenue of 750 million Euros (approximately A$1.2 billion) or greater. This Bill specifically imposes the liability to pay top-up tax under the global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax in accordance with section 55 of the Constitution. The Bill will commence on the day it receives Royal Assent and will apply to fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2024. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (MULTINATIONAL—GLOBAL AND DOMESTIC MINIMUM TAX) (CONSEQUENTIAL) BILL 2024 This Bill is part of a package of three Bills which together will enact a 15 per cent global minimum tax and domestic minimum tax for multinational enterprises operating in Australia with an annual global revenue of 750 million Euros (approximately A$1.2 billion) or greater. Schedule 1 to the Bill implements consequential and miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration of the global and domestic minimum taxes in Australia, including amendments to ensure the taxes interact appropriately with existing Australian taxation laws. Specific amendments are proposed to be made to the following Acts: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997; the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; the International Tax Agreements Act 1953; and the Taxation Administration Act 1953. Extensive consultation has taken place with stakeholders to inform the policy and legislative design of interactions set out in the Bill's amendments. At a basic level, these amendments will not affect Australia's existing corporate income tax rate or rules, which will continue to apply to multinational enterprises operating in Australia. The global and domestic minimum taxes will only apply after the application of the income tax rules. The amendments, moreover, do not alter or weaken the application of existing Australian taxation integrity measures such as the hybrid mismatch and controlled foreign company rules. The integrity measures in our income tax law have a proven track record of success against tax planning schemes and will largely continue to apply in priority to, and separate from, the application of the global and domestic minimum taxes. However, to ensure that relief from double taxation is provided where appropriate, a credit will be available to taxpayers under foreign income tax offset rules for any top-up tax paid under a foreign jurisdiction's domestic minimum tax, subject to certain integrity safeguards. In a similar vein, the controlled foreign company rules will be amended so that they take into account top-up tax paid under a foreign jurisdiction's domestic minimum tax. Franking credits will also be available to taxpayers who pay top-up tax under Australia's domestic minimum tax, representing a corporate tax paid on domestic profits. An amendment has also been included so that Australia's bilateral tax treaties will be overridden in the event of any inconsistency between them and the application of the global minimum tax. These points aside, the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to administratively accommodate the application of the global and domestic minimum taxes in Australia. The Bill will commence at the same time as the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill commences, that is, the day that Bill receives Royal Assent, with application to fiscal years commencing on or after 1 January 2024. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 3526 MOTIONS Renewable Energy 3526 16:55 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I move: That the Senate notes that: (a) for Australia to meet its 2030 emissions reductions goal we cannot purely rely on increasing supply into the network through more variable renewable energy sources; (b) we must support the network with a mix of future proofed and secure technologies; (c) technologies, such as co-located batteries and utilising virtual power plants, would be a cheaper and more efficient means of managing the stochastic nature of weather by providing energy when generation is low and demand is high; and (d) Australia should prioritise co-located batteries and virtual power plants in its future energy plans to support Australia's rollout of variable renewable energy and support Australia in reaching its net zero goals. Last year Daniel Westerman, CEO of AEMO, said curtailment of renewable projects has jumped almost 40 per cent in the past year. I'm sure you won't be shocked to hear that he attributes this to insufficient transmission capacity. AEMO is, after all, in the transmission business, along with myriad foreign-owned monopoly transmission companies that can only grow their revenues by growing their regulated asset base. Curtailment of energy is when an energy-generating site delivers less energy to the grid than the amount the equipment could generate at that time. What AEMO leave out of the curtailment discussion is that curtailment occurs not because of network constraints and local limits but because of economic reasons—that is, large solar farms are not bidding their electricity into the national electricity market, the NEM, because the oversupply of energy in the middle of the day means that electricity prices are negative. A negative price means that a generator must pay to send their electricity into the grid. Yes, renewables are cheap energy. The energy is often free, as we can see, or you get paid to take the energy—if it is being bid into the market, which it isn't. The popular argument about transition to net zero focuses almost solely on the need to increase our supply of green energy generation into the network to meet our renewable energy targets, yet we can see the problem is not the amount of energy being generated but the timing of when it's being generated. As we are discovering, when bringing deep structural change to the energy market in the form of more renewable energy generation projects, ideology must be tempered against the reality of the Australian energy system. The NEM is a physical system. It is governed by the laws of physics and requires certain inputs to maintain the network's stability. These include not just security and supply but also inertia and frequency control. We cannot just increase supply ad nauseam and expect to stay within the technical envelope of the grid. A case in point is the 'rhombus of regret', an area in north-west Victoria where large solar farms have been built, the generation from which is being curtailed up to 50 per cent of the time. Fifty per cent caps are being placed on capacity by AEMO due to low system strength in this region. Put simply, the solar farms are too geographically remote. This is a major failing in the history of the Australian energy market. It is a classic example of where ideology has run its course, building large amounts of generation with no actual ability to transmit it. This is uneconomical, impractical and risks investor interest in our market. Most importantly, it risks Australia not reaching its 2030 green energy targets. The rhombus of regret is not the only area in Australia where curtailment of solar farms occurs. It happens in all states, yet Victoria seems to be the place where AEMO are fast-tracking projects, known in the ISP as actionable projects, to build billions of dollars worth of transmission. Transmission appears to be the $100 billion totemic energy policy that is being championed to fix all energy system problems—an obscene amount that lines the pockets of some, but comes at a cost to all, Australian taxpayers and energy users. Recently, the Australian Energy Regulator chair, Clare Savage, described this as a '"wall of capex" coming at consumers that could more than offset the lower costs of wholesale energy as we make the switch to renewables unless we find ways to be more efficient'. She added: These network capex costs will be baked in not just for today but for many years to come. The problem we must solve is not the amount of electricity in the system, though we will need to increase this in coming decades. The problem we must solve is: how do we shift the glut of energy during the middle of the day to other times of the day when electricity is scarce and expensive? Firstly, we should be incentivising energy-hungry businesses to relocate to near the curtailed generators to make economic use of the curtailed energy. The promise that Australia will be a green hydrogen superpower will not come to pass if we waste all this zero-emissions energy. Secondly, we need to incentivise or force proponents of large renewable energy farms to co-locate battery storage with their farms to manage this increase of supply and the network constraints we are facing. We should be using this excess energy, which can be stored and dispatched into the market, later in the day when prices are much higher. This approach will turn these sites into functioning economical sites as intended. This is not my idea. It is the subject of a study by ARENA in its report titled Unlocking curtailed solar energy on the NEM through storage. This report states that curtailment across the years 2019 to 2022 was approximately 980 gigawatt hours or 16 per cent of the annual energy generation across the 44 solar farms it studied. This is the equivalent of the annual generation of seven average large-scale solar farms—enough generation to power 168,000 Melbourne suburban homes for the year. ARENA suggests that curtailment across those solar farms is approximately 20 to 30 per cent. Therefore, a 50-megawatt solar farm would only need a 10- to 15-megawatt three-hour battery outputting 30 to 45 megawatt hours. These would cost downwards of $2 million to $3 million per megawatt. It later concluded that this loss of energy represents $119 million lost by not arbitraging curtailed electricity by shifting the time it is bid to the NEM. I agree with Clare Savage on one thing. She said, 'It is vital that, before we build more network, we use more network,' yet I'm sure that we will see AER wave through billions of dollars directed at transmission lines such as the $4 billion being spent on the VNI West project and the $1.5 billion on the South Australia-New South Wales-Victoria EnergyConnect line—two transmission projects set up to manage the excess glut from the 'rhombus of regret'. It makes you wonder why we are sailing with blinkers towards more poles and wires, particularly when the Victoria Energy Policy Centre states that a large network won't alleviate the curtailment problem. Using AEMO's modelling analysis of VNI West, they find AEMO's results only show a slight reduction in renewable curtailment in those renewable energy zones affected by VNI West in the decade after VNI West is commissioned. So what we can see is that transmission costs more and would not remedy the pressing problem of curtailment. Poles and wires are, after all, a 1920s technology not fit for Australia in 2024. The questionable choices from the transmission mascots are compounded even further when we begin to look at Australia's capacity to have solar panels and battery storage situated at every home across Australia. This would create millions of virtual power plants that can be coordinated via technology to act as coordinated energy resources, providing local economic benefits and cementing consumer energy autonomy, as well as building independence into the fabric of the energy system. The recent three-year virtual power project Project EDGE shows that only 320 residential customers equipped with a VPP in regional Victoria provided 3.5 megawatts of flexible capacity. To put that into perspective, the final report on Project EDGE highlighted that, if we utilise the roles and market arrangements seen in this project, we could avoid more than 15 terawatt hours of rooftop solar curtailment by 2030 across the NEM. This is enough energy to power 2½ million houses today or almost half of the country's inhabitants for this year. It baffles me that we continue to prioritise the technology that isn't popular among the populous over technologies that make us energy secure and allow us to put Australian citizens back in control as primary decision-makers in this space. It's time we started having an honest conversation on the real need for more transmission wires—an outdated solution plagued with cost blowouts. Let's be clear, transmission doesn't generate one single watt, not an electron, or store a single kilowatt of electricity yet it costs billions, which we will all end up paying. Utilising batteries, either based at every home across Australia in a coordinated VPP format or co-located with wind and solar generation must be part of the solution, especially when over the last 15 years you can see that the cost of batteries has declined by 90 per cent. It's one of the fastest cost declines in the clean energy market. We can meet our 2030 energy targets faster and cheaper while reducing the technical limitations of our energy system at the same time. We're asking for the most rapid change in how energy is generated and transported across our country. It's a worthwhile change but one that needs intelligent governance. 17:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government supports the motion, as it aligns with the government's program of policy action in this area. Our Reliable Renewables plan includes a focus on storage, especially batteries, and is the only plan backed by experts to deliver affordable energy where and when we need it. Household batteries have increased from around one in 60 households to around one in 40, and there is a record 21 per cent growth from 2023 on the previous year. The Albanese government is on track to roll out more than 420 large-scale batteries to the $200 million Community Batteries for Household Solar Program, exceeding the election commitment to deliver 400 batteries. The government's also supporting batteries and virtual power plants through the first Capacity Investment Scheme. The first Capacity Investment Scheme auction in New South Wales is underwriting three batteries and three virtual power plants. The government's also working with the states and territories to accelerate the delivery of dispatchable renewable energy storage and nationally significant transmission projects. These actions are already supporting Australia's rollout of renewable energy and helping us reach our broader Future Made in Australia and net zero objectives. The government commends Senator Van for recognising the critical role that these technologies will play this decade and for Australia's future. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 3528 COMMITTEES PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) Select Committee 3528 Membership 3528 17:08 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That Senators Brockman and Davey be appointed as members of the Select Committee on PFAS, and Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Colbeck, Duniam, Fawcett, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Reynolds, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma and Dean Smith be appointed as participating members. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 3528 ADJOURNMENT Renewable Energy 3528 17:08 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to talk about energy policy and the Albanese government's plans for a renewable future compared to Mr Dutton's reckless, uncosted and, frankly, unfathomable nuclear pipedream of a policy. Tasmania has a proud renewable history. As I've said in this place before, we have a plan for a new offshore wind zone in the Bass Strait off Tasmania's north coast which has the potential to unlock secure regional job opportunities and clean, cheaper energy for Tasmanians. It is an exciting opportunity for jobs, education, training and cheaper power bills through renewable energy. The world is already decarbonising, and Australia will benefit from this by joining with the rest of the world and investing in jobs of the future—a renewable future at that. My home state of Tasmania is a place of opportunity, and we need to ensure that every Tasmanian understands this sentiment—understands that our clean, green image serves our state for the better. This project is clean, green and job ready. In stark contrast, as I have been saying for some time, we have a nuclear pipedream from those opposite. Has Mr Peter Dutton's nuclear plan been costed? No. Do they have a nuclear industry in Australia? No. Do we know where their nuclear power stations will be located? No. Are those opposite aware that one in three Australians have said no to a nuclear power plant in their neighbourhood? They don't seem to understand that. What do you do with the said nuclear waste? Those opposite have no idea. Very recently, I wrote an op-ed about our energy plan versus the 23 failed energy policies of those opposite and critiqued Mr Dutton's energy plan. Admittedly, I did use some hyperbole to get my point across, but I think Senator Askew missed my point altogether. Senator Askew 281558 No, I didn't! Senator POLLEY e5x My point, Senator Askew, was that there is no feasible plan for a nuclear power industry in Australia. Therefore, why should that policy and Mr Dutton ever be taken seriously? There is no debate to be had. Almost every scientific expert has said that nuclear energy is not feasible in Australia. The CSIRO, our science and energy experts, have said that nuclear power was more expensive than renewables and would take at least 15 years to develop, including construction. The CSIRO also said that nuclear power does not currently provide the most competitive solution for low-emission electricity in Australia. It would take almost two decades to create an industry and potential power plants. Even if you could make this happen, where would you put the nuclear reactors? The current owners of old and to-be-decommissioned coal-fired power stations have said no to nuclear energy on such sites. My point was: if Mr Dutton can't find anywhere to put a nuclear power plant, we may indeed find that Tasmania will be sent one from a future Liberal government. Nobody in the rest of the country wants them. I say to you, Senator Askew: Tasmania doesn't want one either. The whole point of my argument was that Mr Dutton's plan is ridiculous. There is no actual plan. There are no costings. There's no practical application plan for the nuclear pipedream, so why should Tasmanians or Australians take Mr Dutton seriously? Australians want leadership, and they are not receiving that—there's no hint of that—from Mr Dutton. What they are getting is leadership from Mr Albanese. What is really interesting is that Senator Askew is sent out to try and have a go at the wicked Senator Polley about nuclear plans. The reality is: if you vote for Bridget Archer, you will get Mr Dutton. No to that, I say. Rural and Regional Australia 3529 17:13 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia One of the great divides is that of city and regional and rural communities. You appreciate that more when your postcode is or has ever been one that is regional, rural or remote. Cities have scale and, therefore, greater access and anonymity in relation to services and choice. More than 77 per cent of South Australia's population lives in Adelaide. We are proud, though, of our food and beverages. We have globally recognised regions and brands: the Barossa, the Coonawarra, McLaren Vale—I'm sure I forgot some—and Thomas Foods, Coopers, Swanport Harvest, and, on the west coast, incredible seafood in Coffin Bay, Smoky Bay and Ceduna. We've got breathtaking tourism destinations. We have the Flinders Ranges, Kangaroo Island and so much more. We love our way of life. I'm here tonight for the 23 per cent of the population living regionally, rurally or remotely and because the country keeps the city going. Regional Australians are this Albanese government's forgotten people. There are warnings that the 3G shutdown will disproportionately impact phones, EFTPOS, and medical and security devices in regional areas. In June, Sky regional news ended its free-to-air broadcast to regional South Australia. And there have been more closures of regional bank branches. I helped to fight for the one in Coober Pedy, but we lost that one. While the Labor state government continues to trash the health system, the impact is worse in the country. In Millicent, a young child was told that it was an eight-hour wait to see a doctor and that there were no local GPs in training. The Whyalla hospital has no birthing unit. Port Lincoln Hospital is restricted in delivering only some babies. Family violence services in the country are desperate for special attention. Without it, they've had to close their doors to new clients. There was an announcement only this week about more job cuts related to steelworks at Whyalla—yes, just days ago. The water buyback bill creates uncertainty for agricultural producers relying on the River Murray for growing crops. Sheep farmers in SA confirm that the end of live sheep exports in WA will, without question, impact them. Fourteen of the 19 Closing the Gap targets are not improving, and you can bet that outcomes are worse in the country. Ceduna and surrounds—well, locals are experiencing the devastating impact of the end of the cashless debit card, thanks to the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. The Albanese government's report provided just recently included nothing on alcohol consumption, emergency presentations, gambling increases or the increase of children in out-of-home care. Why? Because South Australia didn't provide it. In a separate report on missing and murdered women, the police data for South Australia is absent, so SA's experience now won't inform the recommendations. The Prime Minister does not care about the regions and trivialises issues important to them; its policies and actions prove it. I joined the AgriFutures Rural Women's Award gathering to hear the room fill with gasps, not laughs, when the PM's joke on live animal exports was just plain not funny. It was great to join SA finalist Nikki Atkinson, from the Flinders Ranges, and to congratulate the national winner, Northern Territorian Tanya Egerton. The Albanese government cannot provide any assurance that the interest rate will be heading down any time soon, unlike comparable overseas countries. This week alone, the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill, Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill and the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill will no doubt hurt regional Australians more. The Net Zero Economy Authority Bill, for instance, leaves Canberra bureaucrats in charge of how the regions transition to renewable energy—a plan destined to fail. It's just like during the Voice referendum, when Canberra thought they had all the answers for improving outcomes for Indigenous Australians. They were the only place to vote yes. South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in the country, at 4.2 per cent—no other state in the country is above four per cent—and there's been a decline in the growth of the state's economic output. The Future Made in Australia legislation, soon to reach the Senate, is an affront to rural mining communities. Regional Australians deserve better. It's time to hold the Albanese Labor government to account and to call them out for their continued disregard of the millions of Australians who don't live in the capital cities. Tasmania: Liberal Party 3529 17:18 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I rise tonight on behalf of the entire Tasmanian federal Liberal team to address recent commentary that's occurred in certain media outlets relating to membership matters of the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party of Australia. In doing so, we join with our state colleagues who, tonight, have issued a statement to our membership about the matters I've just mentioned. They state that the importance of strong reporting processes ensures that any complainant that comes forward can do so without fear of subsequent reprisals or of adverse consequences as a result of raising genuine concerns. People in our party must feel safe to come forward with their concerns. That is paramount, and so much work has been done to ensure that this is the case. But more must be done, and the Premier's statement tonight is one from which our members and, I know, my federal colleagues can take heart. No matter where a report is made, in what forum or by whom, it's our commitment, along with our state colleagues, that these reports are taken seriously, not just swept aside. There is no space in our party for threatening or unwelcoming behaviour against anyone. There is no space in our party for intimidating behaviour, and, while members of the division are, of course, members for the organisational wing of the party, we as elected members of our party express our unequivocal support for our state president, Mr Michael McKenna, and the members of his state executive in their decision-making. We deplore personal attacks on the president and the executive of the party and the implications and motives contained in those attacks. Such action has simply no place in our party—not now, not ever. Senate adjourned at 17:21