2024-11-20 2 1 0 Senate 0 0

Wednesday, 20 November 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 4871 DOCUMENTS Tabling 4871 COMMITTEES 4871 COMMITTEES Meeting 4871 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. MOTIONS 4871 MOTIONS COVID-19: Vaccination 4871 09:01 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I seek leave to move general business notice of motion No. 685, relating to the TGA and the risks of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and requiring the attendance of a minister. Leave not granted. Senator RENNICK 283596 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 685. I have in my hands here today the smoking gun that demonstrates that the Therapeutic Goods Administration has not been honest about the safety of the vaccine. They knew about the risks of the vaccine back in July 2021, when a 52-year-old man passed away seven days after receiving that Pfizer vaccine. He passed away in his own home, in front of his wife and his 16-year-old son. An autopsy was performed on this man, and the pathologist determined that the direct cause of death was rapidly progressing myocarditis following Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination. This autopsy was eventually given to the TGA, and I note that the TGA said in the previous estimates that they don't solicit autopsy reports. They have ignored and failed to report this side effect and this death from the vaccine. This matters because we know that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Australians got myocarditis and other severe vaccine injuries from the vaccine. If we can't trust the TGA to be honest about this and follow due process, then we have serious issues. We have thousands of Australians out there today who cannot access compensation from the vaccine injury scheme because the TGA refuses to acknowledge the side effects from this vaccine. I will say it again: the cause of this death was myocarditis. The TGA know that myocarditis was a side effect from this vaccine and yet they didn't tell the Australian public. This is urgent, because today we are still rolling out the mRNA vaccine and we are still claiming it is safe and effective. So the minister needs to explain why the health minister isn't on the phone to the TGA and the health department requiring them to explain not just to the minister but to the Australian people why they failed to inform the Australian people of the risks of that vaccine. This matters, because thousands have been injured by the vaccine. They need to be compensated. It also raises the issue of how many other autopsies were sent to the TGA that they didn't bother disclosing to the Australian public. This is about due process. We cannot have the bureaucrats who approved this vaccine then being the same people who administer the injuries from this vaccine, because there is an inherent conflict of interest to cover up these injuries. It will show that they didn't do proper testing on this vaccine—not that we need the evidence of that. That was in the product assessment report on page 30. The point of it is this: we want to know from the TGA and the health minister how many other autopsy reports were sent to the TGA and why the TGA doesn't feel the need to solicit autopsy reports when a reported death is sent to them. How on earth can you continuously monitor the safety of the vaccine if you're not following up on reported deaths? We know that the TGA never rang the family. We know that the family has never even been compensated by the Australian government. What sort of government do we have when we mandate the rollout of a vaccine, we don't warn people about all the risks of a vaccine and then, when they get injured, we leave them without any government support whatsoever? This, I say to my fellow colleagues, is the smoking gun that demonstrates that the Australian people and even new people in this chamber were misled. I am asking you today to support my motion to ask the minister to explain why the TGA hasn't been held to account for the damage they have caused. 09:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [09:11]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 31 AYES Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 3 NOES Hanson, P. L. Rennick, G. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 09:14 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the standing orders be suspended.    

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

 3 AYES Hanson, P. L. Rennick, G. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 29 NOES Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

09:18 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to make a very brief statement on the previous vote—30 seconds. Leave not granted. BUSINESS 4873 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 4873 09:19 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That general business order of the day no. 81 (Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024) be considered today at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. BILLS 4873 BILLS Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024 4873

Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024

Second Reading 4873 09:19 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Since I last rose to speak on this bill, there have been a number of developments which provide further justification for this bill to be passed. First, we saw a meeting occur last month with representatives from land councils across New South Wales and New South Wales government officials where many participants spoke strongly against the decision. This was a statewide meeting, called as a result of this decision and how concerned people are about its impact on land rights and about activism that is being allowed in the name of legitimate cultural heritage concerns. At this meeting, Indigenous leaders likened the Albanese government to mission managers who are disregarding the voice of Indigenous communities. When asked, the Wiradjuri present said that none of them had heard of the blue-banded bee dreaming story that Ms Plibersek used to claim the goldmine could not go ahead on the planned site. Further on the topic of activism, earlier this month the Environmental Defenders Office announced a new specialist legal team to, allegedly, support Indigenous people who want to protect their culture and country. The EDO have proven, time and time again, that they are not interested in defending the environment, as their name suggests, but in aggressive lawfare which stops crucial development projects, and they're not afraid to use Indigenous Australians to achieve their aims. Groups like this will destroy our country and are another reason why this bill needs to be supported. Finally, we've also had correspondence tabled in this chamber confirming that our objection to the minister's declaration is not partisan, as New South Wales Premier Mr Minns didn't support Ms Plibersek's decision. We're now also told that their resources minister, Courtney Houssos, wrote to Minister Plibersek just days after, with concerns about the threat to investment and noting the benefit that would be lost to the broader community. She's right. If we don't overturn this decision, we lose millions of dollars to the economy every year. We cannot stand aside and let this decision decimate our nation, and that is why this bill must be supported today. 09:22 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The government opposes this bill, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024. The statement of reasons for the minister's decision has been available on the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water's website for some time, and the minister has spoken at length about her decision, including to the parliament. As the company has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court, it would not be appropriate to provide any further running commentary before the court has had its say. What I will say is that, under the Albanese Labor government, we have approved more than 40 mining projects and have doubled the rate of on-time approvals since coming to government. Just last month, Minister Plibersek approved a new critical minerals project near Broken Hill. The Broken Hill Cobalt Project will mine and refine cobalt for use in batteries. That's critical for transition. It will be one of the largest producers of cobalt to use in batteries anywhere in the world. It will produce enough cobalt to power millions of electric vehicles. It will create hundreds of jobs. Minister Plibersek was able to do this because she follows the law and applies it to the facts of the projects before her. What should be deeply concerning to Australian people and to those in the Senate is that the opposition leader has said that he would approve projects without knowing the details or applying the law. Clearly, those opposite want a system where getting projects approved depends more on whether they like you than on whether you comply with the law. It's a dangerous way to operate, and a recipe for uncertainty that will scare off investment and kill jobs—a dangerous way to operate for that very reason. There won't be a renewable energy project that's safe. The opposition should explain whether there are other projects that will be approved or axed without them knowing the details or applying the law. The Liberals have said that they will halve environmental approval times, with no plan to get there. We know what that means: Peter Dutton will wave through approvals on his pet projects without any consideration of their environmental impacts. 09:24 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this piece of legislation, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024. I know there are several senators who are very, very keen to have their say about what has been an absolute shocker of a decision by the Labor government and indeed the minister responsible—shall I say, irresponsible—Minister Plibersek. Here we have a project that would be delivering jobs in a regional community, a project that the local Indigenous landowners wanted to see developed and a project that the broader community had been waiting for to come to fruition. Yet the Labor Party, in some vain attempt to secure votes in inner city seats like Melbourne, Fitzroy, Brunswick and their equivalents in Sydney and Brisbane, overturned those stakeholders and that regional community—800 well-paid jobs in a country town. Why are we surprised? Why are the Liberal and National parties surprised that the Labor Party, once the great political movement of the workers, is now the political party of the far-left extremists in our society and is more interested in waging war with the Greens on ideological issues such as the State of Israel's right to exist and whether nuclear power should be part of a net zero solution? The Labor Party has turned its back on the working men and women of this country. That's why stalwarts such as Kim Carr and Jennie George have similarly turned their back on the Labor Party and called out the duplicitous behaviour. They're saying one thing out of one side of their mouth and, when it comes to making serious decisions of government, turning their back on the working men and women of Australia. This project would have delivered $1 billion worth of economic benefit to this community, not to mention the social benefit of well-paying long-term intergenerational jobs. But yes. In order to have another fight with the Greens to somehow seen to sop to the inner city elites, Plibersek has really nailed this government's colours to the mast. It's just another decision in a litany of decisions of turning their backs not only on regional Australia—we kind of take it as given on this side of the chamber that when Labor comes to power the nine million of us that don't live in a capital city will get shafted. Hello, welcome to a Labor government. It's no different under this lot. Unfortunately, they've turned their back on their own tradition, on their own heritage and turned their back on mining projects which are subject to severe and significant environmental regulation and also provide much needed benefits to communities. I know that Senator Davey has more to say on this matter. 09:29 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Let's be clear: the Minister for the Environment and Water's appalling decision to block the McPhillamys goldmine in Blayney is just another example of a growing list of Labor failures, particularly in regional Australia. The Albanese government needs to be held to account for what it has done not just to Blayney and the community of Blayney but to the mining sector, to the Australian economy and to Australia's reputation as a good place to invest. The cancellation of a billion-dollar investment into this country on the baseless claims put forward by a legally insignificant Indigenous corporation whose views have been roundly questioned and dismissed by countless other recognised Indigenous bodies is, as I said, appalling. Then there are some of the headlines that have been reported on this decision from other Aboriginal corporations. The Daily Telegraph: 'None of us have heard of it'. The Australian: 'Land council chiefs to hold crisis meeting on Plibersek'. One thing this decision has done is actually unify all the New South Wales land councils in coming together and calling for better recognition, better understanding and better transparency in this process. What this minister has shown is Labor is not interested in listening to the recognised Indigenous voices in matters that affect them. If this minister did, she would have heard that support for this project was given by nearly every Aboriginal land council, including the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. As the recognised authority in this area, under New South Wales law, there was neutral—they recognised the economic benefit. They felt that the risk to cultural heritage was minimal. Instead, this minister made this appalling decision. My understanding is she never travelled out to the site, but she listened to an organisation that has 17 people representing it, according to reports, that has no native title to the land. The Wiradyuri Aboriginal corporation didn't even issue a written statement to the minister, choosing instead to convey their concerns verbally. We can't get to the bottom of whether that verbal information was passed on to a member of the department or directly to the minister herself. If it was to a departmental official, the minister's actually getting into Chinese whispers because it's not a written statement. There is simply no way of confirming what was actually said to the minister and how that advice could possibly lead to a veto of federal and state approvals. As we learnt through Senator Duniam's questioning in Senate estimates, they didn't even send out the person who had done the section 10 audit and who had recommended against the section 10 declaration. The departmental appointed person was not sent out again to reassess and re-evaluate following this verbal information. For a government that claims to be transparent, there is a significant gap between what is being said and what is being done. It needs to be called out. People need to be held accountable and people need to be questioning the minister's reasoning for her decision as day by day her reasoning seems to change. She provides different reasons. First she said the mine threatened cultural heritage. Then she said it was environmentally risky. Well, if it was environmentally risky it would have failed the environmental approvals. If it was culturally risky it would have failed the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments that had been done at both state and federal levels. Plibersek has shown no courage— Senator Shoebridge 169119 Minister Plibersek. Senator DAVEY 281697 Minister Plibersek, thank you for the correction. By denying the release of details, she is showing a significant lack of transparency. Just recently she blocked a request of an OPD by Senator Duniam. It's not good enough. This government was elected promising to be different, to be more open, to be more transparent. What we have now is a government of non-disclosure agreements, hidden consultations and absolutely no transparency in their decisions, particularly in a decision that is overriding other federal and state processes. Organisations that have no legally recognised authority over an area should not have the final say on nationally significant projects worth billions of dollars to the Australian economy over and above the transparent, robust federal and state processes that had already occurred. Advice from an authority not legally recognised cannot be viewed when it directly contradicts that received by every other organisation. A question I would ask of the minister is: what makes the word of 17 people more important than the word of the legally recognised Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, more important than the departmentally appointed cultural auditor, more important than the state Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessments and more important than the EPBC process? The New South Wales Labor government was right to condemn this decision. Premier Chris Minns was right to call the decision to block the mine a 'mistake'. He was right to call for the decision to be overturned. My friend and colleague—and the now Nationals candidate for Calare—Sam Farraway was right, in his role as an MLC in the New South Wales parliament, to move a motion calling upon the New South Wales Labor government to work to revoke the federal government's decision. The Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation is closely involved with the hostile activism of the Environmental Defenders Office, which receives about $15 million of funding from the Albanese government. So our own government is funding an organisation that regularly takes court action against the government—that gets itself involved in dispute issues like this, that is absolutely anti-mining, anti-productivity and anti-process. We've recently seen press announcements from the EDO that they've now set up a whole team to get involved in cultural and heritage issues to block projects such as the Blayney McPhillamys goldmine. They are using and, in my opinion, abusing Aboriginal and cultural heritage issues for their own goals. The coalition condemns the use of taxpayers' money to fund nefarious and far-left activism and lawfare such as this, and in particular, cases such as Blayney. The claims being made by the Wiradyuri have been called out by the former chair of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council Roy Ah-See, who has said that such issues like this are making a mockery out of the native title process. The Minerals Council of Australia have similarly expressed disappointment with the minister's decision and how it negatively affects Indigenous Australians. They point out that in 2022 alone, the Australian mining sector involved nearly 500 Indigenous businesses, spending upwards of $1 billion and directly employing over 5,200 Indigenous Australians, representative of six per cent of the total workforce. The Minerals Council have said, 'These are highly skilled, well-paid jobs that contribute directly to the government's Closing the Gap outcomes.' But that won't happen at Blayney now. That won't happen because this minister has decided that 17 people can override the wellbeing of the broader community. The coalition believes that, to achieve real outcomes for communities, we need to back initiatives that will help the economy, support local jobs and create industry incentives. On this principle, the coalition vows to reinstate the mine under a Dutton-Littleproud government. Because on top of the $1 billion in investment, this project would have generated a thousand local jobs and provided more than $200 million in royalties for the New South Wales government. Make no mistake about it, Minister Plibersek's decision to terminate the Blayney goldmine is not just a billion-dollar loss to the Australian economy; it is akin to national sabotage. I have heard time and time again from others in the resources sector that they are now rethinking how much they invest in Australia because this decision undermines any level of certainty they could have had through our very long and very onerous approvals processes. Prior to this decision, while no knowing that we have long and robust processes, there was a level of confidence in the system. Post this decision, that confidence has blown away, because now they recognise they can jump through every hoop that is put before them and get every tick that they need, only to have it all ripped away on the word of a handful of people who have decided they don't like the project for some reason and who probably have the backing of this new EDO team of cultural and environmental experts. Consider how many billions of dollars will never enter this country because this government has created such hostile conditions for investors. This Labor government should be ashamed of this decision. The Prime Minister should show leadership in this matter and demand that the environment minister reinstate the mine. I know the minister has defended her decision to invoke section 10 and put a stop to the mine by suggesting the action only applies to the tailings dam, but people see through that as an excuse. People understand it takes time for mines and other large industrial projects to receive approval, and the minister has admitted as such more recently. She knew, because she was warned, that even a partial section 10 determination would make this entire project unviable and she went ahead and did so anyway, based on the word of a handful of people about a Dreamtime story that other Aboriginal organisations in the region claim they've never heard of. This Albanese Labor government should be ashamed of itself and the damage it has caused, particularly the damage to our international reputation. They have knowingly opened a Pandora's box during a cost-of-living crisis, when this country needs important investments, when we need to start investing in productivity instead of public servants. For the sake of regional Australia, the coalition calls on the government to overturn this decision. 09:44 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria A couple of months ago the environment minister did something that happens very rarely in this place: she listened to traditional owners and made a declaration to protect First Nations cultural heritage. This was the first time Minister Plibersek had used her power under the federal Aboriginal heritage protection act to protect sacred heritage. The federal heritage protection act is a last line of defence for First Peoples and only applies when state or territory legislation has failed. The declared area in this decision is the area which comprises part of the Belubula River, its headwaters and its springs on Wiradjuri country at Kings Plains near Blayney in New South Wales. Kings Plains contains a multitude of cultural sites of significance, particularly at the headwaters of the Belubula River. The Kings Plains region sits between the three brothers: Gaanha Bula, Guhanawalnyi and Wahluu. The three brothers dreaming story is well known in the region and songlines transverse this area between the three mountains. There are other dreaming stories related specifically to the headwaters of the Belubula, meaning the springs above and the river below. These stories cannot be shared due to cultural sensitivity. Since colonisation, First Peoples have asserted our ensuring sovereign rights to manage, access and care for country. This includes our right and responsibility to maintain and protect our tangible and intangible cultural heritage including the lands, waters, skies, our sacred sites and our songlines. Wiradjuri elders and custodians have asserted their sovereign rights to protect their sacred heritage. They have done by this using one of the only tools that First Peoples have to avoid destruction of their heritage: by making an application under the federal heritage protection act. This happened back in 2020 and was followed by a comprehensive assessment that included independent reporting and mapping of significant sites. There were significant delays to the decision, which eventually told us what Wiradjuri elders have known for thousands and thousands of years. They know their country, and they know where their sacred sites and dreaming stories are. Following the minister's decision last month, we have seen a full-scale assault by the coalition, the business and mining lobbyists, and the Murdoch media. It has been relentless with stories on Sky News and in the Australian every day attacking the environment minister for simply listening to traditional owners. It is clear that certain groups, like the coalition and mining industry, claim to support protecting First Peoples' cultural heritage until it impacts their bottom lines. Our heritage laws, like our environment laws, are not broken. These laws have been carefully designed by the government and industry to allow for the continuation of the systematic plundering and exploitation of country, displacement of First Peoples and desecration of our cultural tangible and intangible heritage. The loopholes that riddle the legislation were created so that big industry, particularly agriculture and mining, would be able to do what they have done since colonisation: rape, pillage, plunder and pollute the lands, waters and skies of this continent with little to no regard for the destruction caused to our sacred sites, our totems and our songlines. This ecocidal project is an act of cultural genocide, and it continues to this day. When politicians have actually used their power to protect country, the political backlash has been swift and severe. It's been so severe that Prime Minister Albanese has had to step in and undermine his environment minister. In the last few weeks, he's shown just how willing he is to bend over backwards for the Minerals Council and the Business Council. This shows that the mining industry expects the Labor government to do its bidding. What else are all its donations for? When Labor steps out of line, the industry teams up with the Murdoch media to punish them. Governments are supposed to work for the community—not for themselves and not for the corporations. This bill, the Blayney Gold Mine Bill 2024, which is the latest attack from the coalition, seeks to override the minister's section 10 decision and prevent any further cultural heritage processes happening on the proposed mine site. First Peoples have not ceded our sovereignty. This means we have not given up our sovereign rights and responsibilities to care for the lands, waters and skies of this continent. This is why we want a treaty, so that each sovereign nation across the continent can self-determine its own aspirations and assert its sovereign rights to care for country and protect sacred sites. Treaty will avoid some of the issues that have come up here by ensuring that the right people with the authority to speak for country are properly consulted and that their rights to free, prior and informed consent are upheld. Native title should be abolished in this country. Native title is a racist piece of legislation that only divides our families and communities. It pits us against one another. Mining companies won't be able to pick off a particular land council or native title body only to be challenged years later for doing so. They will have to respect the cultural authority of language groups and ensure all families and knowledge holders are involved in decision-making so that First Nations can self-determine our own aspirations. Treaty offers a pathway forward that respects the rights, knowledge and expertise of First Peoples. The federal government has committed to truth and treaty, and it needs to make good on these promises. The federal government must begin treaty negotiations with all sovereign First Peoples as a matter of urgency to enable all language groups to uphold their cultural authority over country, self-determine their own aspirations and have greater control over decisions relating to the management of country, rather than the mission management style that this government uses to undermine our people. We know that our cultural heritage laws are failing First Peoples. It has been three years since the inquiry into the destruction of Juukan Gorge and A way forward, the final report, recommended a total overhaul of cultural heritage protections in this country and mapped out a pathway for reform. But we are still waiting. The recommendations from the 2021 Juukan Gorge inquiry are still yet to be fully implemented. What do you know? Every day that these recommendations wait to be implemented, sacred sites and songlines risk being further destroyed. There is an urgent need for new standalone cultural heritage legislation, including protections for intangible cultural heritage and underwater cultural heritage. The Albanese Labor government committed to implementing these recommendations and mapped out its commitments to First Peoples in its Nature Positive Plan, including new standalone legislation and a national environmental standard on First Nations participation and engagement in decision-making. Yet we are six months out from an election and still have seen no evidence of any progress. Labor says one thing and Labor does something else. It's all words and no action. While the government stalls on cultural heritage protections, there are tragedies like the destruction of Juukan Gorge happening all over the continent. This includes Binybara, which you may know as Lee Point, where earlier this year Minister Plibersek rejected a section 10 application by the Larrakia custodians and paved the way for Defence Housing Australia to destroy the sacred sites and dreaming stories situated at Binybara. That's not to mention the section 10 application at Murujuga, which the minister has been sitting on for years now, leaving Murujuga custodians waiting for a decision while they watch their sacred rock art, a worldwide wonder, being destroyed. Murujuga traditional custodian Raelene Cooper said recently: I am heartbroken, devastated and furious that our governments continue to allow Woodside to destroy our sacred rock art, our songlines and our precious marine sanctuaries. I have now been waiting more than two years for a Section 10 application I filed in early 2022 under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. In those two years the development on Murujuga has continued unimpeded, and there has been irreversible and irreplaceable damage to my Ngurra. The rock art has been moved and the damage has already been done. We are still waiting for any protection for our cultural heritage. As far as I am concerned, we have now exhausted every avenue, every mechanism and every protection available to us as traditional custodians trying to care for our Country, and we still don't have any defence against industry. The federal government must progress its work program for strengthening protections for country and First Peoples' tangible and intangible cultural heritage as a matter of urgency—if you really care—including through the establishment of transparent timelines and broad public consultation processes, not the ones with mining companies but the ones with our people. You must allow for appropriate scrutiny and accountability. The federal Labor government must implement in full all recommendations from the 2021 A way forward report into the destruction of Juukan Gorge, including the introduction of new standalone cultural heritage legislation, as a matter of urgency. Everyone speaks of being committed to First Nations justice in this country. The earrings and the designer Aboriginal clothing that you walk in here wearing and your dot paintings on the wall—they're all nice and fluffy for you, and they make you feel nice. You might even have an Aboriginal friend, but you do nothing in this place. You actually do nothing around justice for my people, justice for this land and justice for this water that we all depend on. Our future generations depend on clean drinking water, but this place doesn't care about that. This place cares about the bottom line of a vote and about being in bed with mining companies and corporations who donate large sums of money to both major parties, so they're basically buying votes. When I had the Minerals Council's CEO come and loiter outside my door asking for my vote, she said to me, 'If you vote for us and help us, we will support deaths in custody.' That's what she said—the audacity of these people. Where is the care? Where is the empathy? That's what we're dealing with. The only way forward in this country is with a treaty. It will end the war against our people, which is ongoing. If this government had the will and put their money where their mouths were, they'd entertain this, but they're so scared of losing this next election that they'll scrape the bottom of the barrel to be mates with the coalition so that they may get elected next time. Well, if you do nothing about black justice while you've got a little bit of time left, then I'll encourage everybody to not support this government ever again. That's why we need more black sovereigns and more Independents in this place so that the Aboriginal people in this space are not managed by a whitefella. If you look at all the parties, they're all white men. You've got Dutton, Albo and Adam Bandt, so the black people in these parties are kneeling to a white master. We're not going to get anywhere that way. We need more of me. We need more Independents who are loud and proud and not part of the native police. 09:58 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales A lot of people have spoken about the Blayney goldmine, and a lot of people have spoken about the country, but hardly anyone has actually been there. Maybe two of us have been there. But I've been up there. I've been on that country, and I've spoken with traditional owners on country. They are the same traditional owners that the coalition are attacking. When you go to this beautiful part of my home state of New South Wales and you climb to the top of Wahluu, which is a sacred mountain for the Wiradjuri people—it's also known as Mount Panorama—and you look around, you get a sense for why it's a sacred place. There's a part of Wahluu that's a sacred traditional women's place, and you can look around and actually see down to Belubula River, which is where this Western Australian mining company wanted to put a tailings dam. There's a reason that Wahluu was called Mount Panorama after the invasion, when people came in and took Wiradjuri land. It's because it's an extraordinary place, and you can see connections with other sacred mountains. It's an absolutely magical part of the world. The Wiradjuri traditional owners know it's a magical part of the world. In fact, they fought for years to protect one side of Wahluu from being turned in to a go-kart track by the local council, run by a Nat. He hadn't declared himself as a Nat; he was one of these 'country independents' that the Nats put up in councils in New South Wales. But the local National Party, backed in by the local National MP, who ended up becoming the Leader of the Nationals—a bloke called Toole—were hot to trot to turn part of Wahluu, this sacred mountain, into a go-kart track. They got some funding from the federal government and thought they could just roll over the traditional owners. And the traditional owners just said, 'No.' They went to the council meeting, and they got the kind of disrespect we've heard here from the coalition—this dismissal and disrespect that the traditional owners have had from the latest contributions from the coalition. They had that disrespect in council. To their enormous credit, they stood firm and continued to advocate for their country and this sacred women's site. They put a section 10 application to the then coalition government to protect the site. I don't often give the coalition credit, but former minister Ley read section 10 and she listened to the traditional owners. She commissioned the consultant's report into this beautiful part of my home state, this sacred site on Wahluu. The consultant's report came in, having consulted with these very same traditional owners, the local National-dominated council and the local National MP, Toole. They said it is a sacred site and that Wahluu is special and should be protected. I'd invite anyone to walk up to the top of Wahluu, to stand there on that sacred place and not get a sense of that sacred connection. Of course, at a state level and a council level, the National Party said exactly what we've just heard from the National Party and the Liberal Party here. These traditional owners should just be ignored and run over. The site should just be demolished for a go-kart track. I say again: coalition minister Ley, as she then was, did the right thing. She listened, she understood and she said, 'No.' She said that this sacred part of my home state should be protected for the cultural connections because it's a sacred women's site. They were exactly the same traditional owners that the coalition is now saying are illegitimate, should be ignored and should be rejected. Thankfully, then minister Ley made that decision to protect Wahluu, and in fact I've been back to Wahluu with the traditional owners since that decision. Their sense of relief at finally being listened to and having that sacred place protected was palpable, as was their gratitude for that. They shouldn't have to be grateful that the system protects cultural heritage, but they were grateful, and they felt they'd been listened to and heard. And Wahluu has been protected—well, that bit of Wahluu, anyway. Twelve months before the decision was made by then minister Ley to protect Wahluu, another section 10 application was put in by those same traditional owners—the Wiradjuri owners—to protect this magical part of the Belubula River. The traditional Dreamtime story of the three brothers, the connection to the blue-banded bee, was part of why the traditional owners said that little magical part of the Belubula River, that connection with Wahluu, that connection with the three brothers is important. They spoke with traditional authority, and Minister Ley, to her credit, accepted the section 10 application for the process and commenced consultation processes to protect it. She understood there was a cultural connection because she listened to the owners. She accepted that cultural authority doesn't lie just in a land council created under New South Wales legislation—cultural authority for First Nations mob comes from mob. It doesn't come from a New South Wales act of parliament; it comes from traditional owners and their connection to country, their links to country and their acknowledged elders. That's where cultural authority comes from. Having accepted the section 10 application, Minister Ley quite rightly commenced a process of multiple rounds of consultation. An independent consultant was appointed, as happens under that act, and since October 2020, which was when the application went in, there have been six rounds of consultation between the Western Australian mining company that wants to put a tailings dam on this beautiful part of the river and the local community and traditional owners—six rounds of consultation. Minister Plibersek inherited that process. Again, to her credit—and I'm often critical of Minister Plibersek, who approves many coal mines and gas projects, and rejects many cultural applications—Minister Plibersek in this case did the right thing and continued the process that had been started by Minister Ley. She concluded the six rounds of consultation with traditional owners, the local community and the Western Australian mining company that wanted to build a tailings dam on the Belubula River. Having engaged an independent consultant and gone through that process, she listened and then determined to protect this one beautiful part of my home state on the Belubula River. The process was fair. The process had six rounds of consultation in it. The process was commenced under a coalition minister in good faith. The process respected traditional owners that had been previously respected by Minister Ley. The process respected that cultural authority doesn't come from a land council established under an act of the New South Wales parliament, and that cultural authority comes from First Nations peoples. The process determined that this part of the Belubula River should be protected as important Aboriginal cultural heritage. Then, what did we see? We saw the mining industry feeding these attack lines to the coalition—and with that, no doubt, feeding donations to the coalition—and then desperately trying to overturn this one case where a part of a mine was rejected because of Aboriginal heritage and culture. You see, for all the nonsense and talk about respecting First Nations peoples, and consultation, what really shits the mining industry—I withdraw that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Shoebridge— Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 I remind you to use parliamentary language and please withdraw. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I will. Do you want me to withdraw it a third time? I've already withdrawn it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator Shoebridge, if you can show some respect for the chair, I would appreciate it. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 What really gets to the mining industry— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 You asked for the withdrawal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 I did hear Senator Shoebridge withdraw Senator O'Sullivan 283585 Did he? Okay, my apologies. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 I was happy to let it go, but if we could show some respect for the chair, I would appreciate it. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 What really gets to the mining industry and the coalition is that there's this one case where Aboriginal cultural authority and Aboriginal heritage prevent one part of a mine going ahead. They can't believe it. Their spruikers in the Murdoch press and on Sky are appalled. How could it be possibly that, this one time, the system listens to some traditional owners who don't have the power, the resources or the money? How outrageous it is that, for once, traditional owners get heard and one small part of a Western Australian mining company's application to put a mine in New South Wales is actually rejected because, for once, the system listens to First Nations peoples over the money, power and influence of mining! They are so appalled by it. This is the same industry, of course, that just bulldozes, explodes and destroys Aboriginal heritage, as in Juukan Gorge. They don't seem to have learned. They're happy. But the very idea that a First Nations culture could once block one part of a mine so offends them. Now they come in and say the only authority is the land council. What I find extraordinary about that is that you would think that, as legislators, they would have read the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which establishes land councils. Land councils are not established to speak for culture and country. I will just read it out: The purpose of the ALRA— the act under which Aboriginal land councils are established— is: To provide land rights for Aboriginal persons in New South Wales To provide for representative Aboriginal Land Councils in New South Wales To vest land in those Councils To provide ownership and management of land and other assets for those Councils. They are not established to speak for country and culture. The people elected to the boards of New South Wales Aboriginal land councils represent all Aboriginal people in that area. Whether or not they have traditional connections to land, they represent every Aboriginal person who lives in their patch. Sometimes the members of those land councils do elect traditional owners, who have connection to country and can speak for country, but their authority to speak for country doesn't come from being elected to the board of the land council. The authority to speak for country comes from mob, from connection, from history and from culture. What we get from the coalition is this simplified view that, because a land council may have gone from opposition to neutral, somehow that negates traditional owners. It just goes to show how little regard the coalition has for First Nations culture. It goes to show what contempt they have for the very idea that there might be authority—cultural authority and spiritual authority—that stems from 60-plus thousand years of continuous connection and occupation in this country and not from some act that the New South Wales Parliament passed in the early eighties. That's where traditional authority and culture comes from. When the coalition get up here and say 'the land council this' and 'the land council that', it just confirms the utter contempt the coalition has for any sense of First Nations independent cultural authority and the tens and tens of thousands of years of connections to this country, which are totally unrelated to some New South Wales act of parliament that was passed in the 1980s. I want to end by remembering that it can actually work right, because the coalition's Minister Ley did listen to traditional owners and protected Wahluu. She did the right thing, and I credit her for it. Both she and Minister Plibersek, for once, listened to these same traditional owners and protected this one little precious patch of my home state and of their traditional country and culture. If we can do it right once, we can do it right again. Far from this ugly attack, it was a little spark of hope, and now the coalition wants to rub it out. What you're doing is disgraceful. 10:14 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The question is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:18]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Hughes)

 24 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 27 NOES Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 11 PAIRS Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Bragg, A. J. Allman-Payne, P. J. Brockman, W. E. Watt, M. P. Cash, M. C. Pratt, L. C. Colbeck, R. M. Polley, H. Fawcett, D. J. O'Neill, D. M. Hume, J. Gallagher, K. R. Liddle, K. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. McLachlan, A. L. Lines, S. Paterson, J. W. Brown, C. L.

Question negatived.

 MOTIONS 4881 MOTIONS Department of the Senate 4881 10:24 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to move a motion with other crossbench senators relating to the lack of legislative drafting capacity available to non-government senators. Leave not granted. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to legislative drafting resources for non-government senators. Yesterday, I wrote a letter to the President of the Senate outlining our concerns about the under-resourcing of the procedural team and drafting office. The people in those teams work hard. We understand that, and I, like the other crossbenchers, always appreciate the work they do. But they are under-resourced, and you promised not to put us in this situation when you took staff off us. This is how much you give a stuff about people up here and the staff in that drafting office. Can you imagine the pressure they are under? When was the last time PWSS went down there and checked on them? When have they done their job? Have you had any Comcare claims from them? If you haven't, they're coming. Seriously—it is absolutely disgraceful. This is not democracy. We can't get our stuff drafted, and you're trying to throw through 20 bills in a fortnight. What is wrong with you? My letter has called on the President to address this resourcing issue as soon as possible. I've written other letters to the President which haven't been actioned. That's my other problem. She's too scared to make a decision, yet she gets paid twice as much as most of us. The lack of resourcing is an absolute choke on democracy. The legislation that the government is trying to jam through is massive and has serious consequences if it is not correct and not amended. Getting the help of the drafting office to draft motion amendments and bills is absolutely essential for all of us to do our jobs properly. It is absolutely essential. In early September, I asked the drafting office for assistance to draft around 15 amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill. After a royal commission, I'd think we would want to get onto this, yeah? But you're trying to ram that bill through this parliament. We can't get things drafted. We can't make changes more than two months on for things which should have been easy amendments. I have six amendments; that's all that I've been able to get done for the bill. That's it. I've got lives at risk, if you didn't hear about that royal commission and the people that took their lives, and the Kool-Aid these people are drinking over here, and how Veterans' Affairs has gone back to doing the same crap. And you won't let me do my amendments, because you are stopping this as a government. You are in absolute chaos. You'll be lucky to get a minority—I never thought I'd say this—in the next election. You are falling apart. And for the pressure that you are putting on our staff and that drafting office you should be ashamed of yourselves. There are more crossbenchers in this parliament, and the procedures office workload has increased accordingly. In 2022-23, the procedures office drafted 86 second reading amendments and 1,049 committee of the whole amendments on 334 sheets, compared to the previous year of 63 second reading amendments and 747 committee of the whole amendments on 228 sheets. That's because you can't get your bills right. That's how many amendments we have to do. This is your fault. This is a 36 per cent and a 40 per cent workload increase respectively. Last parliament, the crossbench senators had more resources, but, once again, you took them off us and made us a promise that we would have more resources in the library and more resources in that drafting office. Did you lie to us? Or don't you want to see democracy going in action out there? Because, if your bills weren't so bad, then we wouldn't have to be using the drafting office. But right now their health and wellbeing—and I notice none of you are looking at me—should be a concern for you. Don't you give a stuff about those people down there and their lives? I bet you they are working overtime. When did you go down and ask them how they are going? When are you going to put more resources in there? Quite seriously, if I knew the crossbench had the spine, I'd be telling them, 'Don't vote any more legislation through because we can't get our jobs done.' But I'm not sure they are as gung-ho as I am. Quite frankly, that is what we should be doing as a crossbench. You are shameful with the damage you are doing to that drafting office. (Time expired) 10:30 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria This motion is about calling out the hard work the Clerk Assistant (Procedure) office does. This office supports all non-government senators in drafting private senators' bills, drafting bill amendments to government bills and providing us with procedural advice. This is a small team with immense time pressures, often needing to turn over work with very short notice to enable us to circulate it in the Senate. They need to ensure drafting is legally sound and accurate. I honestly don't know how they do it. They must be some of the smartest people I have ever encountered. They are always up against the wind, there is never enough time to do the work yet these dedicated people respond to us with kindness and do all they can to assist. There are seven people in that office and they work very long hours to try and get us the drafting we need. No matter how hard they work, it is almost impossible to fulfil the demand, and over the last months we have noticed that increasingly we cannot get amendment drafting in time to meaningfully engage with other officers and the government on it, or even at all before a bill comes to a vote. We have seen a very demanding parliamentary schedule and a significant volume of legislation, which are hard enough to deal with in the limitations of an Independent's office that does not have the staffing and resources that political parties have. The under resourcing and understaffing of the drafters office compounds these challenges. The consequence is that we cannot always do our job to the extent we need to represent the interests of our constituents. We cannot always negotiate the changes to legislation that need to happen to improve outcomes for the community. There are clear consequences of this to our democracy. This seemingly small thing perpetrates structural inequalities, inequities, within the parliamentary system and inevitably undermines the quality of outcomes. Therefore, I strongly call on the government to immediately review the resourcing and staffing levels allocated to the office of the Clerk Assistant (Procedure) in light of the current parliamentary workload and provide additional funding and staffing to the officers to alleviate pressures. I call on the government to ensure that sufficient time is allocated for senators, including those on the crossbench, to scrutinise and propose amendments to legislation supporting meaningful engagement and informed decision-making. 10:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak briefly in support of this motion which the Greens have co-sponsored. One of the ways in which the government of the day, no matter who is in charge, tries to deal with the power of the Greens and the crossbench is to diminish our resourcing. It is a very convenient way of thumbing their noses at the one-third of the country that voted for the Greens or an Independent. It serves the interests of the two big parties very nicely to have it difficult for us to get the drafting support we need to fix their weak legislation. We hope for a time when there is a government with courage to draft legislation that does address the problems that people are facing—the genuine cost-of-living crisis, the crisis the planet is in. We hope one day there will be a government that will have the guts to do what is necessary to meet the scale of the challenges but, at the moment, unfortunately, we don't have that. That is why the influence of the Greens and the crossbench is so crucial, because we bring those interests of the community to this chamber and we demand better from the government of the day. When the drafters say, 'We're sorry but we're slammed, there's not enough of us to do the work you need us to do, because the government haven't given us the staff to do the work,' it's not their fault; it is the fault of the government for not hiring enough people to do the work to help the Greens and the crossbench fix the government's weak legislation. That's why we're supporting this motion today. It'll be very interesting to see how the government deals with this. I don't have very high hopes, because, frankly, they're very threatened by the rise of the Greens and the independents, and there's a reason why the vote for the two big parties is going down. 10:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I want to thank the crossbench members for signing on to this. I also really want to thank Rachel Callinan for the last couple of years and now Toni Matulick for the way that they and their teams assist with drafting and I want to echo the words that have been said about just how tirelessly this small team works for our democracy. I want to add my voice saying that it is not good enough when, as an elected representative, you cannot get a private senator's bill drafted, when you cannot get amendments that are based on what you're hearing from experts when they have concerns about a government bill, when you're hearing from people that you represent and you want to move amendments that reflect that and when you've got a government that seems intent on dropping hundreds of pages of legislation, forgoing all parliamentary scrutiny and ramming it through while you cannot move amendments. This is not good for our democracy, so I urge the government to address this. You're very happy to cop an extra $20 million at election time to give yourselves $30,000 per sitting member per year to go to the party for administration costs. Let's put some money into the actual parliament so that we can do our jobs better and we can better reflect the communities that we're here for. The reality is that we have a growing crossbench. Australians want more competition. They want a diversity of views, and that means that we need to be able to move amendments to legislation, so I hope that the government will finally take this seriously. I note that over the last two years crossbenchers have consistently raised this at estimates and have written letters to the President. It shouldn't take the crossbench having to delay the Senate in the last two sitting weeks, when we have this massive crunch of 20 bills and the government willing to forgo any sort of parliamentary scrutiny of inquiries, to raise this and to bring this to the Senate's attention. Again, I thank fellow crossbenchers and hope that the government takes this seriously. 10:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government doesn't support the suspension for a reason that has been stated on many occasions, which is that we support the progress of legislation through this chamber and there is important legislation before this chamber right now. I note that the opposition has indicated their intention to vote for the suspension. That's disappointing. The opposition's stated position is that the Aged Care Bill on the Notice Paper ready for debate is their priority, yet their proposal at the moment is to support further delay rather than bringing on debate for this important piece of policy legislation. However, may I indicate this also: we were not provided advance notice of the motion that's before us, and I note there are ordinary protocols within this chamber that allow matters to be discussed between senators before they are elevated in this way. So it is disappointing to have a motion put before the chamber without notice and without discussion in the way that has occurred this morning. I understand that Senator Lambie wrote yesterday to the President and that the President is preparing a response. We were in opposition for quite some time, regrettably, as senators will understand, and we are really familiar with many of the issues that have been canvassed in the material before us. We are, as you are, incredibly grateful for the hard work, the diligence and the drafting capabilities that are present, and I think every senator in this place has had cause to be immensely grateful for the time and attention and support that we've received from that office. However, the appropriate place to raise this is either through discussions informally or through referral to the Appropriations, Staffing and Security Committee, which is the entity which oversees the budget for the Senate. It is disappointing that the matter is instead being raised in this way without notice and without discussion. It suggests that the people who are seeking to resolve it are not, in fact, seeking to truly resolve it but actually seeking to escalate a conflict when a better and more effective way of doing it would be through conversation. As I indicated, we don't support the suspension. I've made some remarks about the substantive motion as well. I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The question is that the suspension of standing orders moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to. Question agreed to. 10:41 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That a motion relating to legislative drafting resources for non-government senators may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business. Question agreed to. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I, and also on behalf of Senators David Pocock, Waters, Payman and Thorpe, move: That the Senate: (1) notes that there is a lack of legislative drafting capacity available to non-government senators and that this is constraining the ability of senators to exercise their rights to propose amendments to legislation; (2) calls on the President to urgently provide more legislative drafters to the Department of the Senate before any further controversial bills are put before the Senate; and (3) thanks all staff within the Department of the Senate for their hard work, dedication, intelligence and kindness. This is your time that you're wasting this morning, not mine. For the last two years, we've been telling you this is a problem, but you come in here and act like everything's all kosher and it's fine and we haven't been doing anything for two years. I'm intending to come back in here tomorrow and do this again tomorrow morning unless something is done today to take the pressure off that drafting office and to take the pressure off our own staff. I will come in here every day next week, because, while you sit here and you change rules up here for people who can't take phone calls of a night-time and then you say, 'No, our advisers are at work 24 hours a day,' it's like you want to do a little bit for these people over there but nothing for these people over here. You talk about the welfare of people out there, and I tell you what: you've done nothing. You are part of the problem over there. Right now—and I want to make sure this is quite clear—we have a harmonisation bill going through that's bringing three different acts together for veterans, which needs severe amendments put through it to fix it. In the meantime, I have to ask. I'm waiting for them to do a bill on the national commissioner, which they can't get done fast enough. If you were doing it in order—comporting with the royal commission—then, before you made any moves with these veterans, you would put that babysitter back on top of them, because DVA is failing to do the job. I have no idea how the coalition can possibly vote for that harmonisation bill until that national commissioner is put in place, and right now I can't do that, because I can't get that bill done. More suicides will be on your hands over there. More suicides—that's where it's going to. I want this fixed. I swear to God, I will get up every day and we will waste your time, because you've had two years. We have been begging you for more staff down there. You expect us to put through your bills when we can't even get our amendments done. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm not going to spend any more time on this, but I want something done or, as I said, I'll be up tomorrow morning and next Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I want more staff down there for those people in that drafting office. What I want you to do is go down and ask them if they're okay. I want you to get PWSS off its backside to actually start doing something in this parliament that's done in a hurry. It is failing to do its job. I want the minister to go down there and ask, 'Are you okay?' That's what I want to see today. In the meantime, I know that aged care is really important, especially for the elderly out there. I'm not going to take any more of your time. 10:45 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I want to be brief because I recognise that aged care is important, and we want to get onto it. I just want to put on the record that, whilst it's incredibly important, we're still waiting for amendments to the Aged Care Bill 2024 to be able to move our amendments and debate them. I'll put this back on the government. This isn't a new issue that's just come up today. We're only suspending standing orders because after two years nothing's happened, and now it's crunch time. We've got big bills that need to come through and be dealt with, and we can't even move our amendments to them. Question agreed to. BILLS 4885 BILLS Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 4885

Aged Care Bill 2024

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 4885 10:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia In my speech on the Aged Care Bill 2024 last night, I got to the point where I was going to reference a few quotes from submissions that were made. I'll pick up there. This quote was from the National Older Women's Network, appearing at a hearing in the inquiry to this bill. They said: It appears that the framers have been convinced that the aged-care sector is too big to fail, and so their demands remain a priority. The act, by not making the rights enforceable and actually spelling out the fact that they aren't enforceable, means that we know the words of rights are window dressings to offer appeasement and focus our attention. We must not back down to for-profit providers. We must have a rights based aged-care act that is able to be enforced. This bill has also raised concerns in relation to the legislative process. Once again this government is pushing through an enormous bill that will directly impact the lives of so many in our community with limited inquiry time and much still unknown. The inquiry was only allowed two weeks for submissions. For individuals and volunteer advocacy organisations, this is a very short period of time to give feedback on a bill that will have profound impacts on the lives of so many people. Furthermore, like we saw in the recently passed NDIS legislation, much of this bill leaves critical elements and components to rules that will come later, down the track. This means that submitters to the inquiry were giving feedback based on an unclear picture of what the legislation would mean. It also leaves the parliament in the position of voting on something that we do not have visibility of. The Greens encourage the government to give the public and the parliament the visibility of these rules so that they can be assessed and that the community can consider this type of process in its entirety—in the whole, not just in part. I want to turn now to the issue of young people in nursing homes and the challenges and dangers created when older people do not get the disability supports that they need. This is a very concerning aspect of this bill. It is a very concerning issue that we continue to confront. This bill leaves a loophole for disabled people under the age of 65 to be eligible for aged care, regardless of what disability-specific supports they may be eligible for through other avenues. Currently, 95 per cent of people who are under the age of 65 and who reside within residential aged-care facilities are NDIS participants. The latest figures that we have available, published in the NDIA quarterly report, show that about 911 individuals are in this circumstance. The Minister for Aged Care said in her second reading speech: The bill continues our mission to take younger people out of aged care and into accommodation that meets their needs. Despite her saying that, this loophole actually hasn't been addressed in the bill. We have a dynamic right now where young people continue to be placed within residential aged care. It's been a so-called priority for this parliament and for many governments for about 10 years to end this practice and to achieve the goal that no person under the age of 65 resides in residential aged care, yet this bill solidifies the process by which they may be placed in precisely that situation. We need the government to stop the approach that is categorised accurately by so many as 'talk without action'. We need the government to get it together and to take a whole-of-government approach to once and for all put their money where their mouths are and champion the rights of young disabled people, particularly those who are below the age of 65 who end up within these settings. Younger disabled people shouldn't have to go into aged care to have their needs met from this government. Convenience, cost savings and so-called efficiencies seem, in the mind of this government, to trump the rights and aspirations of disabled people. The government needs to begin to work in good faith to ensure that younger disabled people don't continue to end up in aged care because this government has no other safety net. Despite the NDIS participant status of many people under the age of 65 in aged care, they aren't actually provided NDIS or other disability-specific supports, particularly those with a need to exit residential aged care. Instead they are often being provided the same care as an older person without a disability. In fact, no disabled people in aged care are provided with disability-specific supports regardless of their age. Recommendation 72 of the aged-care royal commission is that disabled people in aged care should receive support that is equivalent to the NDIS, yet, under this bill, the maximum number of at-home support hours a person can receive is 18 hours a week. That is 18 hours where you can maybe have a shower, get some food, be supported to go outside and do more than just sit in a chair looking at whatever somebody else put on the TV for you or staring at the ceiling, watching the broken fan go round. Think about what that means across a week, if you break that down. Think about how the people in the government and the opposition would feel if they were only able to have any semblance of independence for a couple of hours a day during their week. You think about that, and think about whether it is appropriate in a bill like this not to end such an absolute insult to the human rights of human beings but to codify it, to make the passive and unwritten pathway that currently exists the law of the land. It really is sickening. The only way to ensure that disability supports remain consistent into older age is to allow people aged 65 and over to apply to the NDIS. It is clear that aged care isn't a fair solution for older disabled people. The government should work to ensure that the NDIS is available to all people who need it regardless of age, because age discrimination in this situation or any other is, in fact, not okay. One of the issues that has also been consistently raised to my office has been the guardianship laws that will be baked into aged care by this legislation. The Greens have long been calling for reform of the guardianship system, including a supportive decision-making approach that is nationally consistent and transparent, and that aims to enable the full autonomy of those subject to it to the greatest extent possible. I would like to read a quote from a constituent about these guardianship laws: Under the Bill, there are no true checks and balances, no clear legal tests of decision-making ability or exceptional circumstances, no accessible review pathways, no enforceable obligations and no natural justice. The Bill calls those given decision-making authority over older people 'supporters'. In some cases, people in that situation are supporters, but in many cases those government entities, bureaucrats and appointed individuals are, in fact, the administrators of people's lives. They have great control over their lives. These are dynamics which people wish to remove themselves from. Where they must be recognised and where they must exist, transparency and accountability must also exist, and a pathway back to agency and independence. All of that is absent from this bill. In conclusion, there are so many issues in this bill at present that will affect the lives of millions of Australians. The Greens urge the government to work in good faith with older Australians to address these issues. I foreshadow a second reading amendment that I will be moving on behalf of the Greens in relation to keeping young people out of aged care. 10:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The heartbreaking losses of life in aged-care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic were a flashing red light for the health and safety of older Australians. According to the reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald, '"Chaos", confusion and 19 deaths: how COVID-19 took hold inside Newmarch House' published on 25 July 2022, 19 residents died at the Newmarch House aged-care centre in New South Wales. Anglicare CEO Grant Millard later said 'he regretted not selling all residents to hospital'. In according to reporting from The Age on St Basil's Homes on 18 December 2022, 45 residents, as many of us are now aware, died at a Melbourne nursing home from COVID-19—another five died from neglect. These are 50 older Australians and their families who deserved better. What is incredible is that this aged-care centre, St Basil's Homes, received $2.4 million in JobKeeper payments from the Morrison government in 2022, despite slashing their staff from 40 full-time staff and 100 part-time staff before the deaths to just three full-time staff and 87 part-time staff afterwards. The conditions of care was appalling. It was clear from these deadly outbreaks that the previous legislation didn't have enough teeth for the regulators to make sure that aged-care centres were properly staffed, were taking their obligations seriously and were keeping their residents safe. The former government was handed the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety in February 2021. The Liberals and the Nationals decided it was not an urgent priority to legislate the 148 recommendations. The sheer volume and breadth of recommendations is reflective of how bad things were allowed to get and it also demonstrates how urgently the reforms in this bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, are required. This government has been getting on with the job of enacting many of the recommendations to create a simplified, rights based framework legislation to regulate the aged-care system. The royal commission recommended that a new aged-care act be enacted focusing on protecting and promoting the rights of older people. The statement of rights within the bill will place a duty of care on providers to ensure that restrictive practices are only used as a last resort, that an individual has the right to be free from all forms of violence and degrading or inhumane treatment and that providers do not cause adverse effects to the health and safety of individuals to whom they are providing services. These are fundamental, critical pieces that are at the heart of this new bill. The government committed to putting older people back at the centre of the aged-care system, and these new rights will do just that. The Albanese government's aged-care reforms are important, and to deliver them we need a sustainable funding system. The funding changes proposed by the bill are based on the recommendations of the Aged Care Taskforce for a system that is fair and equitable. The taskforce received feedback through 180 submissions, 11 roundtables, 12 in-person forums and targeted consultation with the department. While the Commonwealth will continue to be the main funder of aged care, the bill proposes a refined means-tested user-pays system for co-contributions to everyday living and independent support. The new means testing will be based on income and assets but with greater nuance and four new levels of thresholds, including different means-testing methods based on whether someone is in a home or community setting or in residential aged care. Aged-care users will pay no contribution to clinical care costs. These services will be fully funded by the Commonwealth. And there will be a $130,000 lifetime cap on the non-clinical care contributions or cessation of contributions after four years. Co-contributions are an important step to making the aged-care system sustainable now and for the future generations who will require aged-care services. Chapters 3 and 4 of this bill set out the registration process, eligibility requirements and obligations on providers in order to deliver funded aged-care services. Under the bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will have the power to monitor, investigate, search and seize documents that are necessary to ensure compliance with the act. The commissioner may issue a required action notice to a registered provider, and a civil penalty can be imposed if a provider is not complying with the notice. The commissioner may also issue a compliance notice for any breach of the new act, which carries a civil penalty if the provider does not comply. In a strengthening of the previous aged-care act, a compliance notice may refer to the provider's significant failure or systematic pattern of conduct, which can lead to its managers or owners being liable for a civil penalty. In serious cases the commissioner may vary or revoke a condition of the provider's registration or impose a new condition if the commissioner believes there is an immediate and severe risk to the safety, health or wellbeing of aged-care users. Lastly the commissioner may issue a banning order which excludes an individual and organisational entities from working in the aged-care sector. Because we know there is a hesitancy to complain about the quality of care, individuals who make disclosures about contraventions will be protected from victimisation and will not be subject to criminal, civil or administrative liability. That's an important whistleblower protection. The bill also creates the complaints commissioner and the quality and safety commissioner, who will have distinct regulatory powers consistent with those of other Commonwealth regulators. That will mean that older people, workers and others will have clear pathways to raise concerns about the quality of aged-care services. For the first time, digital platform providers in the aged-care sector will be subject to compliance obligations. Recent reforms to the NDIS require mandatory registration for all digital platform providers, and that is a good thing. However, I'm aware of the concerns that some of these stringent requirements for others won't be required in the new Aged Care Act. Transparency requirements for digital platforms are so important because of disgraceful businesses like Mable who have crept into the aged-care sector. Mable is owned by a multinational venture capital company and is making money hand over fist by underpaying its workforce, which it has classified as contractors. The Health and Community Services Union told the Inquiry into the Victorian On-Demand Workforce: … Mable's minimum rate is … below the legal minimum wage in the sector which is $26.22 per hour for level one casual home care workers. Gerard Hayes, the New South Wales secretary of the Health Services Union, was quoted in the Financial Review on 26 July 2023 as saying that 'aged care should be a direct employment relationship' and that for companies like Mable: … there should be total responsibility and accountability for employers for delivering a service, not just for a group that introduces people and takes a cut. Professor Paula McDonald from the Queensland University of Technology Business School told the Senate Select Committee on Job Security in 2021: They— Mable workers— don't get paid for the time in which to travel between their stints of two- or three-hour work. They don't get paid to go and meet a prospective employer to find out whether that arrangement is suitable. During the royal commission, senior counsel assisting Peter Gray QC argued—and this is important—'Without regulation, there is no compulsion for platforms like Mable to follow best practice.' Mable denies these arguments and says, 'Rather, Mable facilitates ongoing relationships of mutual choice.' Well, I find it hard to believe that older Australians are making a choice for their carers to not receive superannuation, workers compensation and training and for Mable not to be accountable for the quality of care that it provides. On 26 August this year, the government's laws to allow the Fair Work Commission to make minimum standards orders for a range of gig workers came into effect. We haven't yet seen an application to cover workers on Mable, but we saw that there is an inherent problem with bargaining power in the gig sector, and we acted. What did the Liberals and Nationals do in response to the threat posed by Mable? They gave $7.2 million to provide surge workforce in aged-care homes during the pandemic—in itself, logical. But they provided it to services like Mable's service, whose quality was so subpar that Anglicare, which owned a facility in Penrith where Mable provided workers, told the royal commission, 'It quickly became apparent that the staff Mable could provide did not have the skills and qualifications that were needed.' So, under the watch of those opposite, Australian taxpayers paid Mable $7.2 million to prop up a workforce that was underpaid and exploited and didn't meet minimum training standards. I strongly support this bill and congratulate the minister, Anika Wells, on the incredible amount of work that has been done in this portfolio over this term. The minister has said that the legislation 'will allow us all to take the next steps with confidence and to venture into a new age of excellence' and that 'there is more to do with aged care and our mission continues.' I support the ambition for future tranches of reform in aged care. I would like to see a strengthening of the transparency requirements that are placed on digital platform operators, particularly in the home-care sector. More work should be done to hold digital platforms to the same standard as registered providers, including requirements to demonstrate to the commission that they are compliant with the strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards and Code of Conduct for Aged Care; to be subject to regular ongoing audits or compliance monitoring by the commission; and to comply with the Serious Incident Response Scheme and report directly to the commission in line with requirements under the scheme. I've heard concerns that the Support at Home program, encouraged by the bill, could mean that unscrupulous providers will rush to take advantage of the additional $4.3 billion investment and increased availability of services. It is important that registered providers be required to ensure that their workers have minimum qualifications, but the fact the digital platforms do not need to meet those minimum qualifications could result in a race to the bottom on service quality. As part of the next stage of reforms, we should continue to consider recommendation 87 of the royal commission, which calls for the preferencing of direct employment of workers as a requirement for ongoing approval to deliver services. These are the sorts of reforms that unions and industry will be pushing for, and I'll continue to be part of that conversation. One of the hallmarks of the Albanese government's approach has been to recognise the value of all aged-care workers, which is clear with our $15 billion investment in pay rises, and to make sure we maintain and uphold people within this industry. Personal care workers will be eligible for an additional 13 per cent wage rise, on top of the 15 per cent awarded in 2023, which has amounted to wage increases of up to 28.5 per cent over the past 12 months for some workers. Jocelyn Hofman, a registered nurse in an aged-care home in Western Sydney, welcomed the wage increases and said that she has never received a pay rise like this during her 37 years in the profession. Linda Hardman, who has been an assistant in nursing in an aged-care home for over 20 years, said: I's a very complex job. It's very physical and it can be very mentally straining at times, because you have to really be adaptable. Every shift is different, because sometimes someone might have a stroke or they could have a fall. Linda also said: Because of the cost of living at the moment, when I do get the [wage] increase, it is going to improve my quality of life. Aged-care residents getting a better deal is also a priority for this government, and we can see that there's now a registered nurse on site in aged care 99 per cent of the time across Australia. Under this government, older Australians are already receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every day, which has contributed to a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of residents who experience polypharmacy, antipsychotic medication use, falls that result in major injury, use of physical restraints and unplanned weight loss. The addition of the Dollars to Care program to the star-rating profiles holds providers accountable for how they spend their budget, including how much they spend on care, cleaning, accommodation and food. Our vision is for an aged-care system that upholds the rights of older Australians and helps them to live active, self-determined and very meaningful lives. We went to the 2022 election promising to lift the standards of aged care in Australia, and we're delivering it through this bill. 11:12 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Today I'd also like to rise to speak about the government's Aged Care Bill 2024 and Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, which does begin the crucial task of reforming Australia's aged-care system in the face of an ageing population. So the coalition does actually welcome moves by this government to recognise the need to develop a strong, sustainable system that gives older Australians the dignity and clarity that they deserve. But, once again, Senator Sheldon is in here belling the cat. He really doesn't like workers' choice, the provision of services that people want to opt for or how people want to work. Again we hear from Senator Sheldon an attack on Mable and that it's all about not only how workers want to structure their work but also how people that require support workers choose to employ them. We know that, for this government, unfortunately, so much of this is driven by HSU membership and not by the provision of effective, quality care, whether it's for those in the disability sector or for those in aged care. Once again, here we are, dealing more with boosting union numbers, rather than supporting older Australians. This legislation, though, does attempt to deliver on the first recommendation of the royal commission, the royal commission that was appointed by the coalition government to implement a new rights based aged-care act. So, in response to the commission, the former government, the coalition government, provided more than $18 billion in funding to support the immediate needs of the sector, because we acknowledge that aged care is more than a sector. It's a reflection or a measure on how we value and care for those in our society who so helped it to flourish. We know that they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labour. So the issue before our aged-care system is undeniable: with more than half of aged-care homes across the country operating at a loss, with our population and with the desire for people to age at home, the way that aged care is delivered and supported needs to change. We valued the opportunity to have an open conversation with older Australians in the aged-care sector about the government's proposed reforms through this open and transparent Senate inquiry process and thank the Australians and organisations who made submissions and appeared before the community affairs committee to share their views, expertise and experience about the best way forward. However, what has struck me throughout this process and in speaking with my colleagues has been how very on-brand the conduct of the government has been in its handling of this legislation. It has been rather reminiscent of the same problems, roadblocks and issues that I experienced in attempting to work with the government in good faith on the NDIS legislation, to make opaque and half-baked legislation workable for the millions of Australians who require it to work for them. This bill is a significant package of reforms, which is why we referred the bill immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry. This was so we could scrutinise in more detail legislation that lacked legislative instruments or rules that would govern the new system, had absences on details around financial frameworks and, most disappointingly, showed a lack of consultation. This could have honestly been pulled out, verbatim, from the playbook on the NDIS legislation and inquiry process. This is a government that, time and time again, has failed to produce details on significant legislation, hoping it will be pushed through on 'the vibe' of it simply because there might be some goodwill; that hasn't sought meaningful consultation; that doesn't invite any scrutiny and won't front up and be honest with the Australian people. So, after considering all the information submitted during the Senate inquiry, and having looked at the legislation that was offered by the government, it was very clear to us that the government's bill required substantial amendments to ensure that older Australians would not be impacted adversely by rushing through this bill, as the government seems eager to do. Whilst the coalition made no fewer than 32 recommendations in our additional comments to the majority report, following the inquiry into the bill, we now note that the government has brought in excess of 90 amendments to its own legislation—yet another reflection of how the NDIS bill was handled. Senator Shorten hired billboards to suggest that the inquiry to look into the NDIS legislation was not needed. It produced in excess of 50 amendments to the legislation when it was brought to the Senate. Now we see, in aged care, an exact replica—except this is worse, because there's actually a new bill, a transition bill and over 90 amendments. Now, let's hope that there is some abiding by agreements—that there will not be an attempt to guillotine this legislation that faces significant changes. But, as we know, that's this government's favourite move. We've had 69 guillotines for around 90 pieces of legislation. That's the way they rock in this place, because they are in chaos. I'll come back now to our amendments, of which there are 32 in the recommendations. This is because we firstly sought to genuinely and meaningfully engage with older Australians, to listen to submissions and hear from witnesses their concerns, and because, as I've said, there are significant shortfalls in the legislation itself that could have unintended consequences. They don't have to be intended consequences; they could be unintended consequences, but it is through this process that we learn what they could be and how we could best address them now. The recommendations range from seeking to bolster administrative transparency as to departmental reporting to flexible transitional arrangements to ensure we're bringing Australians with us in this nationally significant reform. As coalition senators noted in our response to the inquiry, there remain concerns that this bill contains several shortcomings that should be remedied in order for it to deliver on its promised outcomes. Whilst there have been significant achievements made by the coalition during negotiations with the government, it's important to remember that this is Labor's package of reforms. The government owns them. Do not make the mistake of thinking that this bill has been co-designed. In this bill, this government has failed to address critical issues such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines. If these issues continue to go unaddressed there will be serious consequences. We know that last year, under this Albanese government's watch, 49 aged-care homes shut down. We must ensure that there are no more further closures as a result of the introduction of this bill. Instead, it's actually hoped that this legislation will lead to the commencement of critical new builds. It would also be remiss of me not to acknowledge the notable frustration of older Australians throughout this process—and rightly so—at the lack of consultation by the government and the lack of detail within the bill itself due to forthcoming delegated legislation that is both unseen and unknown. We've called on the government to be transparent. Remember how they were going to be so transparent? Every time they're asked to be transparent that black curtain comes down again. But we want them to come to the table. We want them to publicly release all the rules associated with the bill prior to the final debate—something, of course, we wanted also with the NDIS; a couple of months on, we are still to see that—but they haven't, so the assumption must be, like the NDIS, that these rules are either non-existent or unfinished, or that the government is just being sneaky and doesn't want to share them. Whichever way you cut it, the Australian people—particularly older Australians—have the right to be upset. Again, it might be forgivable if this were the first time they'd behaved in such a disappointing manner. But, as I said, this is NDIS 2.0: obfuscation, failure to come clean on details, the rushing of legislation, and the 90-plus amendments brought forward at the eleventh hour which, it can only be assumed, is because they've realised the legislation they had drafted was not workable or ready, which is probably worse. So, well done for at least putting some work into it to make sure that it is, hopefully, actually workable legislation. But this is aged care. This is, as I say, a reflection of how we provide dignity, independence and a meaningful life for older Australians. We are, as a coalition, committed to that. It's not a question of intention. This government hasn't seemed to have learnt any lessons about developing crucial legislation; they need to negotiate and engage with the coalition and the Australian people in meaningful and robust ways. There needs to be robust discussion, of course. Whilst we're not always going to entirely agree on the way forward, we at least hoped that this would have been a smoother process than it has been, especially in light of the NDIS legislation. I do note there have been no billboards this time. The coalition, though, has worked tirelessly to ensure the government's reforms are fairer, particularly for Australians who have worked hard all of their lives to save for retirement. That is precisely why we pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps for non-clinical care contributions, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the federal government will remain the majority funder of aged care, not the consumer. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential care, who are on a home-care package or who have been assessed as waiting for their allocated home-care package will not see any changes to their existing arrangements. In effect, it means that all Australians currently engaged in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged care. We've also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions to ensure that those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement are given a fairer deal. Furthermore, we sought an absolute assurance from the government that they, not the consumer, would remain the majority funder of aged care. In addition to these financial safeguards, the coalition secured an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers, who are struggling to remain open under the Albanese government. We have also successfully eliminated provisions that would have forced unionism into every aged-care home. Don't give up, Senator Sheldon; we know that's what you would love to see. We are taking the focus away from quality care and instead are increasing mandates felt the hardest by small providers. This is what would have been seen under this HSE membership push. We want to make sure that the focus is always on providing quality care, that the focus is always on supporting the small providers—rural, regional and remote providers—to ensure that all Australians have access. We will move a number of amendments to this legislation to make sure that it is workable, that it won't adversely impact older Australians and that it will not have unintended consequences. But it is the government that must ultimately wear the pain of any shortcomings or failures of this legislation. The coalition believes that reform is necessary and we do not wish to be obstructionist for the sake of it but we will also not simply roll over and give this government carte blanche to do as it pleases, especially on significant legislation that it is once again failing to develop in an honest, meaningful and open way. 11:25 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. First up, I will say that there are parts of this bill that still need to be tweaked but it is a step in the right direction. I've spoken with many who have lived experience in the aged-care industry and I've spoken with stakeholders about the bill's pros and cons. We know the bill has been watered down from its original draft. Criminal penalties have been removed in favour of civil penalties. I can understand the reasoning behind this when it comes to the individual carers but I still feel we need a bigger stick for aged-care providers. Older Tasmanians have given distressing evidence about facilities not meeting quality standards and I have asked about this previously. I will be watching how this compromise plays out very carefully, because we all know it is our most vulnerable who suffer when standards are not met. Another area I still think needs more work is how registered aged-care providers will have to monitor and manage unregistered providers, pushing a level of oversight onto parts of the sector that should really sit with the aged-care commission. I'm talking about platforms where independent contractors offer their services task by task. We have seen similar issues in the NDIS, where unregistered providers have ignored quality standards. Nobody wants these issues to impact aged care too. These platforms and their contractors or employees should be meeting the strengthened aged-care standards at a minimum and should complete the same audits and reporting requirements as other providers. Employee based platform Hireup have spoken with me about how other platforms are using complex corporate structures to bypass registration requirements within our aged-care industry. This is not right. All providers should be meeting in the same care standards and we need better transparency around this. The regulatory scheme in the bill needs more work because accountability is important. We need to know who is monitoring providers, which providers are meeting regulations and which ones aren't, and we need to know whether the aged-care commissioner actually has the power to do something when standards are not met. I've been told the commissioner has no teeth when it comes to enforcing the standards, which makes me wonder: 'Why do we go to all this effort to create rules and regulations in the first place?' And then there are the rules. These are the pointers for the aged-care industry, spelling out how the bill will actually work and what we need to do to meet the regulations. But many rules are still in consultation and haven't been released publicly or are still being written. Even with flaws, I can see this bill is a step forward for the aged-care sector and that its intention is to better protect the rights of older Australians. One thing I am celebrating about this bill is the requirement for all aged-care workers to complete competency-based training. This training includes delivering care that has the person at its heart, care that is based on the rights of older Australians and care that considers cultural factors, trauma and healing. But the training I am most pleased has been included in the new rules is for dementia care. One woman told me about her husband's experience in residential aged care. He lived with dementia and was diabetic but the facility did not give him the right food, which caused ongoing issues for him. The same facility shut down the wing he was in when a patient contracted COVID and he was not allowed outside for fresh air or sunlight for weeks, which impacted his routines and sent him into a spin. Another woman told me about her grandmother, who also lived in a residential aged-care facility and who had dementia. We've all heard about the number of minutes of care each person is supposed to receive in residential facilities each day, but that was clearly not the case for this woman's grandmother. She was frequently left for hours in her room without anyone checking on her, to the point where she fell asleep standing up in her bathroom when she was caught between her mobility walker and the wall. It was hours before someone found her. None of this is right. I've been speaking with the minister's office about the importance of good-quality dementia care and why it's necessary within the aged-care sector. Dementia can affect anyone but is most common in people aged over 65 years. Dementia Australia estimates there are more than 421,000 Australians living with this disease, and as our population ages this figure is only going to grow. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety recognised this fact and recommended, in recommendation 80: … that all workers engaged by providers who are involved in direct contact with people seeking or receiving services in the aged care system undertake regular training about dementia care and palliative care. The recruitment for ongoing dementia care training is a start, but I want the government to go a step further and make dementia care training mandatory for all people working in the aged-care sector, both at residential facilities and for at-home care support. This means that anyone caring for older Australian would be educated to a level where they have a deep understanding of dementia and the intricacies of care needed for people living with this condition. Dementia Australia agrees. This organisation's response to the royal commission recommendations included a section about the adequacy and quality of dementia care training in aged care. Eighty per cent of people who responded to Dementia Australia's question said aged care staff were not adequately educated about dementia and best-practice dementia care in order to meet the needs of persons living with dementia in the community or residential aged care settings. We have recommendation 80 from the royal commission and evidence from within the aged-care system that better and more dementia care training is needed. There is some amazing dementia care training already out there, and it's free, but it's not being used by enough aged-care providers. The Department of Health and Aged Care, Dementia Australia, Dementia Training Australia and the Wiking Dementia Centre all have accredited training programs for dementia care, but if people want to go further they can take up a Cert III program that includes dementia care, or enrol in the University of Tasmania's Diploma of Dementia Care. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. The training programs are already there. I'm calling on the government to do more than just require ongoing training. We need to set the minimum standard for dementia care at Cert III level. As it stands, people training to work in aged care do a Cert III in aged care or individual support in ageing. There is a unit on dementia care in these programs, but it's elective. I think dementia care should be essential, and I know it could be incorporated into the existing Cert III programs. I've told the health minister and her advisers this, and they agree. They have told me they are working towards a mandatory minimum level of dementia training for the aged-care sector. I'll be watching that with interest, because I know how important this care is for older Australians and their families. We need ongoing training that reflects the impact dementia has on a person's health, personality and general wellbeing, plus the implications of this condition in an aged-care setting. But it's not just about providing the ongoing training; aged care workers must be supported to complete dementia care training the same way they are supported to do other professional development. That means paid time to complete the course. If we really want aged care that actually supports people living with dementia then we owe it to them to have well-trained people providing the services that they need. We owe it to the aged-care workers to support them as they train to provide the best-quality care they can. 11:34 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024. This bill, once enacted, will replace the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act. It represents a once-in-a-lifetime reform that will reshape government supports people to live independently and with dignity throughout their later years. Aged care is something that almost everyone has been touched by in some way, whether they are receiving aged-care services themselves, they have a family member or loved one in aged care or they are thinking of their own aged-care future and what choices they have. It is therefore an integral part of our community and an essential service for looking after some of Australia's most vulnerable people. Sadly, though, our aged-care industry is in desperate need of reform. This was made painfully obvious by the shocking failures uncovered during the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We can get a sense of just how bad the situation was under the previous government from the title of the interim report, which was simply Neglect. Likewise, the first chapter of the report was titled 'A shocking tale of neglect', as it painted a grim and shameful picture of an aged-care system in deep crisis. Left isolated, powerless and hidden from view in this system are our older Australians, their families and their loved ones. This bill responds directly to recommendations 1 to 3 of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and addresses or partially addresses 58 royal commission recommendations in total. It puts in place measures to ensure that we see an end to a system that is fragmented and poorly managed and has been unsupported and underfunded. The bill also responds to the Aged Care Taskforce, which was established in 2023 to consider how to sustainably fund aged care now and into future. It has been informed through extensive public consultation on an exposure draft, which took place between December 2023 and March 2024. It will establish a strong new regulatory framework for the aged-care sector. This bill represents a $5.6 billion package that, at its heart, places the rights of older people front and centre. It does this by including a statement of rights for older people and a positive duty for providers to uphold these rights, meaning aged-care providers and workers will have explicit guidance on how to behave and make decisions. These are key protections in guaranteeing the quality of care not only for older people but for the workers who care for them as well. Eligibility has also been simplified and streamlined as a result of this bill, making it easier for Australians to access and enter aged care. This is achieved by bringing together the different assessment services into a single entry point to the aged-care system. Effectively, the single entry point assessment process means not having to retell your circumstances or the story of your life over and over to multiple people. Once the assessment is made it can be progressively reviewed to ensure that supports and services are tailored to meet circumstances as they change throughout a person's aged-care journey. The single entry point assessment will therefore provide clear eligibility requirements for a fair and culturally safe assessment process. It should be obvious to everyone that we can no longer afford to take a one-size-fits-all approach to aged care. I welcome this bill ensuring culturally sensitive services are provided to all of our Australians, regardless of their cultural background. The new framework also allows for the delivery of a range of aged-care services, including a $4.3 billion investment in a new home-care system known as the Support at Home package. We know that people would prefer to stay in the comfort and familiarity of their own homes for as long as they can. My own mum was a classic example. If my mum hadn't had a home-care package, she would have been in an aged-care facility for at least the last five years of her life. She lived to the ripe old age of 93, and, thanks to the home-care package that was available, she was able to enjoy staying in her own home and feeling that sense of security. As well as making sure that people's clinical needs are met from home, the Support at Home program allows for greater access to assistive technology and financial assistance to make homes safer and more accessible. The Support at Home package is set to benefit around 1.4 million older Australians by 2035 and is yet another key reform to the aged-care sector. The bill provides more choice and greater agency over the way aged care is delivered for all Australians, whether that is within their own home or in residential care. Another critical aspect of the bill is the new approach to the regulatory framework, with the introduction of a stronger, more powerful regulator. I remind people that the royal commission was particularly critical of the current weak and ineffective regulatory arrangements, so these new regulatory powers are essential in making our aged-care system the best it can be. As well as delivering stronger powers to protect people from harm, the new regulatory framework will also provide clear incentives for providers to make continuous improvements to their quality of care through new quality standards. To monitor and respond to complaints within the sector, a new independent statutory complaints commissioner will also be established, as well as new and strict whistleblower protections. We all witnessed the horrors in the aged-care system that led to the royal commission. These horrors were particularly acute during the pandemic. Sadly, we lost a lot of older Australians during the pandemic, many of them living in aged-care facilities. Without an independent complaints commissioner, nor the necessary whistleblower protections to make a complaint, their situations were made more helpless, as they suffered in excruciating sorrow, pain and silence. This should never have been allowed to happen. The passage of this bill will go a long way in making sure this never ever happens again. The bill also implements a number of commitments that the Albanese government took to the last election. Our government is laser focused on improving the quality of aged care, and this bill is a clear example of our commitment to achieving this goal. At this point I'd also like to acknowledge the enormous contribution made by aged-care workers, especially during the COVID pandemic. The efforts made by this workforce to care for our older Australians during this incredibly difficult period is nothing short of heroic, and we cannot thank them enough. These reforms are of particular importance to my home state of Tasmania. The latest census data indicates that Tasmania has a higher proportion of people over 55, at 35 per cent, compared to the rest of Australia at 29 per cent. It's now more important than ever for Tasmanians that this legislation be passed by the Senate, so I urge my fellow Tasmanian senators from across the chamber to vote in favour of this bill. In summary, high-quality services, safe and compassionate care and fairer contributions are the centre of our reforms to aged care. After nearly a decade of neglect, funding cuts and general dysfunction under the previous government, the Albanese government is once again picking up the pieces in rebuilding this critical sector. This once-in-a-generation bill is not just about giving Australians a world-class safety net in their old age; it's about dignity, it's about respect and it's about giving our older Australians and those who care for them a voice. In concluding, I'd really like to thank Minister Wells for the incredible work she has done in preparing this legislation, as well as members of the taskforce for their work in reshaping the way we look at aged care in Australia. As I said earlier, this is a landmark piece of legislation that this country both needs and deserves. I commend this bill to the Senate. 11:43 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Older Australians deserve to receive the best quality care as well as the best quality of life that fits their own lifestyles and their own interests. The reality is that our country is now getting older, and getting older faster. It's important to recognise that aged care is not merely just a sector in our community; it reflects how we as a society value and care for all older Australians. By 2026 it's estimated that 22 per cent of Australians will be aged over 65, which is up from 16 per cent just four years ago. At a critical time, when our aged-care system is subject to very significant reforms, it's absolutely essential that we engage with and listen to older Australians, as well as the industry that supports them, to hear their experiences, their views and their wishes in how we go about reforming this sector. Unlike Labor, the coalition really understands the importance of listening to the sector and also to older Australians—not just to listen but also to act on what they want, how eventually all of us in this place want to live our lives and how we want to be respected and be able to realise our individual aspirations for our future lives. It was a pleasure, along with Jan Norberger, who is the Liberal candidate for Pearce, to host shadow minister for health and aged care, my wonderful colleague Senator Anne Ruston, for an aged-care leaders roundtable recently at the Perth RAAFA Merriwa Estate. There, senior representatives from across the aged-care sector provided absolutely invaluable insights, which were listened to and are now being acted upon in amendments that will be before this chamber shortly. The responsibility and the need to consult is exactly why those on this side of the chamber fought so hard to have public hearings around this nation on the bill which, as all of us in here recall, the Albanese Labor government was so not in support of. We fought them every step of the way to get that transparency and to get that scrutiny, which has proved so important with the sheer number of amendments to the original bill and now the amendments that will be coming forward in this place. The issues confronting our aged-care system are undeniable. With more than half of aged-care homes across our country now operating at a loss, it is not sustainable for the sector. We have an aging population, as I've said. So many Australians now aspire and want to live at home for as long as possible. We not only need to listen to what people want in how we deliver aged care but have to then make sure that we have the right legislative changes in place and we give the sector time to deliberatively implement those reforms. We on this side of the chamber understand the significance and the importance of an aged-care system that is strong and sustainable and that not only supports those who currently need to access the system but supports those who will be aging over the next many decades. I am very proud that it was the coalition who called for and actually initiated and responded to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The coalition has remained absolutely resolute in advocating for the dignity and clarity that older Australians deserve and in the findings of the royal commission. In response to the royal commission, the former Liberal-National government provided more than $18 billion in terms of funding to support the immediate needs of the sector at that time. This legislation delivers on the first recommendation of the royal commission—the royal commission that those on this side of the chamber initiated—to implement a new rights based aged-care act. When you think about it, it is something that is so important. It's almost unbelievable that until now we haven't actually had a rights based aged-care act. Through significant negotiations with the government, the coalition has sought to bring in amendments to ensure that any reforms provide the dignity and clarity that older Australians now need. In relation to the inquiry that those opposite fought so hard not to have—which, given the amount of flaws that were discovered and reported on during the course of that inquiry, thank goodness we fought so hard to have that inquiry—this bill does represent a significant package of reforms. The inquiry gave us the opportunity to put older Australians and the aged-care sector at the forefront of these proposed reforms through an open and transparent Senate inquiry process that the Labor Party was so desperate not to have. The inquiry had over 200 stakeholder groups provide submissions, and, again, the message from them was very clear. When we had the inquiry, it became so clear from the feedback why the government didn't want to have any scrutiny on this bill, because it was demonstrated to be yet another poor, rushed piece of essential legislation served up by those opposite that required significant amendments to make it workable and to achieve the intent. Having considered all the information submitted to the Senate inquiry, it is very clear, as I've said, that this bill requires significant amendments, which, again, the coalition has drafted and will be putting forward in the committee stage of this bill. As the coalition senators noted in our response to the inquiry, there remains concerns that the bill still contains shortcomings that must be remedied in order for it to deliver on the promise that those opposite are making to older Australians. The government must be transparent and release all subordinate legislation associated with the Aged Care Bill before it passes. I am Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation and it is very clear just how much the government have said: 'Trust us. Let's rush through this bill. We won't worry about sharing the regulations or any of the delegated legislation at the same time, but just trust us. We haven't written this really essential information yet, or, worse, we have written it but we don't want to share it with you because we know it's not going to pass muster.' For that reason, I, like other colleagues, call on the government to release all of those regulations to provide the certainty on the timeline and also to allow all in this place and the sector to work out whether this bill is achievable for the sector. Like in so many other areas, this government, by withholding this critical information, prevents stakeholders from being able to understand and prepare in full for the changes contained in this bill. It's been extraordinary how many confidentiality agreements that this government has had across so many pieces of legislation so that the select few who do get an opportunity to participate in the proposed changes are subject to confidentiality agreements so they can't discuss it with anybody else. This happened for the Pharmacy Guild amendments and the NDIS, and it goes on and on. Not only does it prevent stakeholders from understanding the detail of the bill and the detail of what they will need to do in the very short timeframe those opposite have given them but it prevents all of us in this place from being able to sufficiently scrutinise the impacts of this bill on behalf of all Australians. The coalition does remain supportive of introducing a rights based framework to guarantee a world-class aged-care system for older Australians, but the government must play fair and recognise that the quantum of change they are asking the parliament to accept without knowing any of the detail on the transition arrangements is improper, inappropriate and, again, preventing this place from fully discharging its duties in relation to this legislation on behalf of all Australians. The coalition have already made very significant changes to this bill, and we've got many more amendments coming in the committee stage. Through these negotiations, we have achieved very significant changes to the proposed legislation—we've achieved scores of them, in fact—and the government, I understand, only has one or two amendments to this legislation. So I would like to heartily congratulate the coalition team and, in particular, my colleague Senator Anne Ruston, who have worked tirelessly for months, effectively doing the government's job for them to improve this bill and make it workable for the sector. Congratulations to you all. That's why we, on this side of parliament, have pushed the government to include grandfathering arrangements, lifetime caps for non-clinical care contributions and a much lower taper rate. But we've also sought from the government an assurance that they will remain the majority funder of aged care and not the consumer—that is, older Australians. These grandfathering arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential care, on a homecare package or are assessed as to be waiting for their allocated homecare package will not see any change to their arrangements. It beggars belief that the government didn't introduce a grandfathering provision to start with, but we have advocated and been successful in getting that put in. That is just basic fairness for older Australians who are already in receipt of packages or have been approved. On this side of the chamber, we also advocated for a lower taper rate towards care contributions to ensure that those who have worked hard and saved for their retirement are dealt a fairer deal. It's something that those opposite are not ideologically supportive of, but that those on this side of the chamber know just how fair that is for older Australians who have worked so hard to contribute to their own retirement. The taper rates we demanded mean that funding contributions increase at a much slower rate than this government had wanted to achieve. Furthermore, we also sought an absolute assurance from the government that they would remain the majority funder, not the people who have worked so hard for their retirement. We also fought for the maintenance of a lifetime cap on non-clinical care contributions across both home care and also residential aged care. The annual lifetime caps that we demanded and achieved mean that Australians will always know the maximum they could ever be required to contribute to the cost of care, and as you age, and as you've exited the workforce, that is a particularly important assurance, guarantee and comfort for those who have access to aged care. But not only do we fight for a lifetime cap we also introduced a time-limited contribution cap for four years for residential aged care. In addition to these financial safeguards, the coalition has also secured an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers who are struggling in record numbers to even keep their doors open under the Albanese government. So this funding has been critical for the upgrading of its facilities that often struggle to meet the needs and also the necessary standards that are set before them. Time doesn't permit for me to go through all of the other reforms that the coalition has fought for and achieved. But while there have been significant achievements during these negotiations, it is important to remember that this is Labor's package of reforms which we have worked very hard to get to a point where we can support what started off as incredibly poor legislation. This government has still failed to address critical issues such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation times contained in this bill. So while we have improved it significantly, after 2½ years this government is still letting aged Australians down. 11:58 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I, too, rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Bill 2024, which will deliver historic reforms to our aged-care systems—historic reforms that only a Labor government would deliver in office. This legislation is about ensuring that every older Australian receives the dignity, respect and care that they deserve. It's about valuing the generations of Australians that helped build our country, who worked so hard and who have contributed so much to our communities. It's about putting the care back into aged care. Australians are living longer and healthier lives, and that's a great thing. And as they age, they want more control over how and where they live. That's why we have listened to older Australians, and they've told us one thing loud and clear: they want to spend more time living at home, connected to their families, to their friends and to their communities. A key feature of this bill is the Support at Home program, which will ensure that older Australians can remain independent and connected to their communities for longer, with tailored support that meets their individual needs and helps them live with dignity. For so many older Australians, whether that's someone living in Melbourne, an elderly parent in Mornington or a grandparent in Warragul, this bill is about choice. These reforms are about choice—choice to remain in their own home, to stay connected to their community and to receive care that is respectful, compassionate and high quality. This bill also delivers a rights based aged-care system, a new regulatory framework and a stronger regulator, new quality standards and also fair co-contributions to make sure that our Australian aged-care system remains sustainable into the future. This legislation is part of our broader agenda to put the 'care' back into aged care. Absolutely critical to that is valuing our essential aged-care workers. We see our aged-care workers and we value them. These workers, mostly women, are the absolute backbone of our aged-care system, providing not just essential care but also compassion and connection. For too long they've been undervalued and underpaid, and that's why we supported a 15 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers, with more to come next year. Our government is committed to ensuring aged-care workers are supported to stay in the jobs that they love and the jobs that we as a community need them to perform. Reform like this is once-in-a-generation change, delivering the largest improvements to aged care in more than 30 years. Again, this is an agenda that only a Labor government would deliver. This bill is a culmination of years of advocacy and inquiry. It builds on the findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which exposed the heartbreaking failures in the system but also provided a clear roadmap for reform, and our government listened. We consulted and we acted. In conclusion, this reform is about the kind of nation that we want to be—one that respects our elders, one that values their carers and one that ensures dignity for all Australians. This legislation will make a difference for every family member who wants the best for their loved ones, for every aged-care worker who has dedicated their life to caring for others and, most importantly, for every older Australian, whether they are in their own home or in aged care. 12:02 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise to speak on the Aged Care Bill 2024 and the related Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. If you were to describe Australia's aged-care sector over the past few years, you'd probably think of words like 'frustrating', 'disappointing' or 'challenging'. As confronting as that is, we must all acknowledge that it has not been smooth sailing for our aged-care sector, particularly for those older Australians seeking support or for the nurses, carers, chefs and cleaners who work in the industry. For too many years the aged-care sector has been forced to deliver care to our elderly in an environment of high costs and high staff turnover, which has led in some instances to chronic underresourcing and occasionally substandard levels of care. Across Australia, more than 50 per cent of aged-care homes are operating at a loss, and reform is desperately needed. I have no doubt that everyone in this place wants to see improvements to our aged-care sector, because we all want our older Australians to be treated with dignity in a caring environment. We want them to feel safe and secure. In May 2023, the Leader of the Opposition undertook 'to work with government to ensure that our aged-care system remains sustainable'. In honouring that commitment, the coalition has agreed not to amend the financial framework of the bill without bipartisan support—but only after gaining agreement on quite a number of significant changes to the original exposure draft and draft bill. These changes included grandfathering arrangements for older Australians, lifetime caps for non-clinical care contributions, a much lower taper rate and an assurance that the federal government, not the consumer, will remain the majority aged-care funder. These arrangements guarantee that Australians who are already in residential aged care or on a home-care package, or who have been assessed and are waiting for their allocated home-care package, will not see changes to their existing arrangements. In effect, it means that all Australians currently in the aged-care system will not pay one cent more for their aged care. I want to acknowledge the work done by my colleague the shadow health minister, Senator Ruston, in securing these critical amendments to the early draft of the bill. I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge my colleagues on the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senators Kovacic and Hughes, for their efforts in interrogating the impacts of this bill as they heard from a wide range of witnesses as part of the recent Senate inquiry process. The coalition senators' additional comments in the inquiry's final report detail a number of recommendations which would provide significant improvements to the proposed legislation, and I anticipate that the amendments submitted by the coalition will reflect those recommendations. While the coalition will ultimately support this bill, it is important to remember: this is Labor's package of reforms. It was not co-designed with the coalition. As mentioned in response to the advocacy of witnesses to the inquiry, further amendments will be proposed by the coalition. These proposed amendments will address concerns raised and will look to ensure the bill is fit for purpose, provides dignity, respect and security to our older Australians and does not penalise hardworking people in the sector who are just doing their jobs. The coalition wants older Australians to feel safe and supported in our aged-care system. But, for them to be safe and cared for, there first needs to be a workforce. That has been just one of the frustrating challenges for the coalition during these negotiations. We remain disappointed that this bill has failed to address critical issues such as workforce, regulatory impacts and implementation timelines. In 2018, the sector participated in the aged-care royal commission initiated by the coalition government, a necessary but difficult process for many working in the sector. Two years later, while looking towards implementation of the recommendations of the aged-care royal commission, the sector was again heavily impacted, with staff forced onto the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Wearing full personal protection equipment throughout their long shifts, staff were also required by law to enforce strict visitor rules with family members, often frustrating residents and their loved ones. The last few years have not been an easy road for the aged-care workforce. As a result, many people have left the profession to work in other areas of the health sector or left the industry altogether. Staff are the backbone of this sector, and we must support them to ensure continued growth of the aged-care industry to accommodate our ageing population, particularly at a time when there have been significant political, legislative and economic changes. This is one reason the coalition did not support Labor's proposal to introduce standalone criminal penalties—yet another example of the government's heavy-handed approach to regulation. The introduction of standalone criminal penalties would only make it harder for the sector to attract staff. Our position on criminal penalties has always been clear. We do not support their introduction, and neither does the royal commission—although, for clarification, I'll say: by removing criminal penalties from this bill, the coalition has not given a free ticket to providers for doing the wrong thing. Existing workplace health and safety laws, banning orders and criminal codes provide the necessary regulatory framework to hold people to account. The coalition has always recognised that rural and regional aged-care facilities face unique challenges and need more support from this government. I come from a regional state. Tasmania is totally regional, and it was pleasing to note that Senator Ruston was able to negotiate extra funding for regional and remote aged-care facilities—something the Labor government had failed to address in its original bill. It is vital that all Australians, regardless of their geographic location, have access to quality aged-care services. It should not be a postcode lottery, where access to services is determined by where you live. This is why the coalition fought to secure an additional investment of $300 million in capital funding for regional, rural and remote aged-care providers struggling to remain open under the Albanese Labor government. We need to invest in and support our regional and remote aged-care providers, to ensure they can continue to do their important work and provide the care needed by their communities. I regularly visit aged-care properties across Tasmania, and it is obvious that many of them are struggling under the regulatory burden placed on them, and, as a result, their services and resources are often stretched. I have seen aged-care providers struggling to recruit staff, often forced to rely on agency nurses, at significant cost, or foreign workers, such as those here under the government's PALM scheme. But I've also seen great providers, including not-for-profit organisations who are community-led and community-driven to provide services to their local region—providers like Longford's Toosey aged care, which was created from philanthropic donations and is run by a dedicated community board. They provide home-like facilities, with separate wings grouped like family homes, and have been entrepreneurial in their pursuit of new revenue streams, such as the Meals on Wheels service they provide to their local community. Toosey is not heavily reliant on locums or agency workers; in fact, during a visit to their facility earlier this year, they told us that they often have a waiting list of people who want to work at their facility—not a common story anywhere. They are a blueprint on how to run a successful grassroots, community-led aged-care service, yet they, too, struggle with the regulatory burden placed on them by the aged-care royal commission and other changes. While this bill aims to ensure Commonwealth aged-care services remain accessible to those who require them, now and into the future, it is important that the government acknowledges the impact the changes in this bill will have on providers. There is frustration within the aged-care community. Sector providers and older Australians are looking for clarity and surety in relation to their future plans, yet the government has withheld vital information in relation to the bill and the associated rules. Labor has chosen not to share their proposals and has not consulted more widely with the sector or the coalition about what they are and how they will impact the industry. Then, just this week, the government dropped an additional bill, as well as about 80 changes for consideration, none of which had been sighted previously, yet they expect the coalition and the crossbench to consult with stakeholders, to form a position on each of them and vote on them here this week. With that kind of disrespectful behaviour from the minister and the Albanese government, how can the industry be expected to adequately prepare, respond and implement these changes in a timely manner? Despite these concerns, I'm grateful for the negotiations of, and amendments secured by, Senator Ruston to date, and to everyone who participated in the Senate inquiry to add strength and rigour to this proposed legislation. It is testament to the reason we, as senators, are here: to ensure the bill is improved through the consultation and inquiry process, to ensure the legislation is as strong as it can be and to ensure no unintended consequences occur. Older Australians in our communities deserve dignity, respect and a secure quality of life, and that is the ultimate intention of this bill. I hope the government and the crossbench senators carefully consider each amendment as we progress the bill, to deliver security and confidence in the future for our older Australians. 12:13 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Every month, over a hundred thousand hours of care are delivered to older Australians through digital platforms. But what if I told you that these services operate under far weaker regulations than traditional providers? Registered aged-care providers must adhere to over 40 pages of compliance obligations. In stark contrast, the digital platforms are subject to just three pages of requirements. This gap in regulation creates a two-tiered system, and the consequences could be serious. That's why I intend to move an amendment to the bill, the Aged Care Bill 2024, to close this gap. At a minimum, platforms should meet the strengthened aged-care standards, undergo regular audits and comply with the Serious Incident Response Scheme. Older Australians deserve better. Whether care is delivered by a traditional provider or a platform, the standards must be the same, because their safety, dignity and wellbeing are not negotiable. My amendment, as circulated, on sheet 3152, intends to fix that. Shall I move the amendment now? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No. Is this a second reading amendment? Senator VAN 283601 It is. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We already have a second reading amendment that has been moved, so that, when we come to the second reading and the first one moved is put to the chamber, then—thank you for foreshadowing it—the person who is in the chair will look to you to move yours. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 4899 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 4899 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 because I'm a product of the public school system in this country and proud of it. The Albanese Labor government is proud to introduce this bill to improve the futures of millions of Australian children. This is a bill to increase funding for our public schools because we know public schools are the backbone of education in Australia. Overwhelmingly, Australian mums and dads send their children to public schools. In fact 64 per cent of Australian kids attend public schools across our country. I am, as I said, a proud participant and a proud product of the public education system, and I know that other public educated Australian MPs and senators would also be very proud of their public education. Education is the most powerful cause for change. Education invests in individuals, communities, the economy and society, and it changes lives every single day, from kindergarten to year 12 to TAFE and university. Education creates opportunities for success, improves health outcomes and actually delivers you a longer life expectancy. Nothing is more powerful than that. Our public school teachers across the country do the heavy lifting amongst our schools. There are over 6,700 public primary schools and high schools in Australia, and those teachers and school staff are working every single day to give our children the very best opportunities to live a fulfilling life. Public education is literally for everyone, for all Australians, which is why the Albanese Labor government and the Labor Party will always be there for public education. We will always put it first. The Minister for Education, Jason Clare, was recently in Tasmania, and we were talking about how education plays such a significant role in ending disadvantage and helping kids who fall behind, but we need to do more. Still too many public schools are underfunded. One in 10 children in Australia right now is still below the minimum standards that we set for literacy and numeracy. This must be fixed for this generation and for future generations. This is what this bill does and what the Albanese Labor government has set out to do. That's why we are reforming the system. It needs to be fixed. In 2011 David Gonski delivered the report that recommended a new funding formula for schools—what we now call the schooling resource standard or SRS—and we on this side embraced it because it was from an expert who knew his stuff. The SRS sets the estimated level of total public funding for each school and sets out that it should receive that funding to enable the school to provide the education for the children attending that school. At the moment, the base per student amount is $13,570 for a primary school and $17,053 for a high school. The Gonski model, or the needs based funding, deserves the support and respect of this chamber. It really should be non-negotiable. There should be bipartisan support to ensure that we meet our obligations and that non-government schools are funded at the level that Gonski set out all those years ago, are on track to get there or are above it and will come back down to the baseline where they should be. But most public schools are not funded to the level that Gonski advised. The Commonwealth government provides 80 per cent of the SRS funding for nongovernment schools, and the state and territory governments provide the last 20 per cent. For public schools, it's the reverse. The Commonwealth provides 20 per cent of the SRS funding, and the states and territories as supposed to provide another 75 per cent. Some do, some don't. That means that there's at least a five per cent gap. At the last election, we promised to work with all states and territories to get all public schools on a path to 100 per cent SRS. This bill that we, the Commonwealth government, introduced ratcheted up the funding for public schools. The Minister for Education, Jason Clare, negotiated with state and territory governments. We know it was really important that this legislation was passed to make it very hard for a future government to rip that money out. After all, we know on this side of the chamber that, if Mr Dutton ever becomes prime minister of this country, he will gut wherever he can. We know that they much prefer to support the private sector when it comes to school and everything else, but we support public education. This great reform will change lives for the better. Kids in public school deserve the same opportunities in life as those whose parents choose to send them to a private school. It means that, when the Commonwealth government does a deal with the states and territories to increase funding to public schools, that bigger contribution—that bigger share from the Commonwealth—becomes the new floor for states and territories. It locks in funds for the better, and it can't be changed. That is so critical. So far this year, the Albanese government with Minister Clare have started locking in these deals. The deal has been done in Western Australia, the deal has been done in the Northern Territory and the deal is being done in my home state of Tasmania. I was at the signing ceremony in October and was immensely proud to be part of it, because it improves the lives of Tasmanians. Tasmanian children are some at the lowest end of our numeracy and literacy skills in this country. It's an absolute disgrace in a country as rich as this. But my home state, governed by Liberals for far too long, have run the education of our children into the ground. It's an absolute disgrace. But these agreements basically mean that the Australian government and future Australian governments will now provide more funding for state and territory government schools, which will be beneficial for our children and the children that follow on. It means a bipartisan commitment from the federal and state governments and the territory governments to improve public education. It's a win for education, and, most importantly, it's a win for our children. These agreements mean more funding will go to public schools from 1 January 2025. In the case of Western Australia, it means that every public school will be fully funded by 1 January 2026, just over 12 months away. In the case of Tasmania, it means that every public school will be fully funded by no later than 2029. But what I did witness that day when we were doing the signing was that the Liberal premier of the day, along with the education minister and the Minister for Education, Jason Clare, gave a commitment to try to improve that date and bring in 100 per cent funding way before 2029. I commend the premier for finally doing something and working with our minister. In the case of the Northern Territory, it promises to be truly transformational. Reforming education should always be a continued project. More resourcing is always going to be welcome, but we must also listen to teachers, students and the experts. We must to talk to them to hear what they need. Education is changing. It is delivering to us a bold new world dominated by technology and instant communication. These crucial reforms include phonics checks and numeracy checks in year 1 or earlier to identify children before they fall too far behind. Evidence based teaching and catch-up tutorials will help these children catch up and keep them at that level. This extra funding for mental health and wellbeing services in schools, including counsellors, psychologists and full-service schools, is also very important, and is critically important at this time where we know the impact of social media. Education 4900 12:25 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I just decided to change my speech in senators' statements after hearing Senator Polley. As the shadow minister for education, I can say we have been prosecuting from day one the importance of evidence based teaching in every classroom. I say to Senator Polley: shame on you, Senator Polley, for any suggestion that you have just made that there would be any cuts to school funding under a future Dutton Liberal government. This is palpably untrue. The Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 currently before the parliament has already passed the House of Representatives with the coalition's support. It is absolutely disgraceful that this Labor government has become so desperate to mislead Australians that it is now prosecuting these falsehoods. Senator Polley is not the only one, because the member for Corangamite in a private members motion in the other place also did the same thing—suggested that when the Liberals were in government that we cut billions of dollars from school funding. It is an absolute disgrace. We are seeing a greater tendency of this government to lie through their teeth, to mislead the Australian people and now we have just heard that in relation— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, there is a point of order being raised about your use of the term 'lie'. I ask you to withdraw that. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I was referring to the government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Yes, but there has been a ruling. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I withdraw. We're very concerned about the fact that this government continues spread these falsehoods and misrepresent the situation to all Australians. When we were in government, the former coalition government lifted annual schools funding from $13 billion a year to more than $25 billion a year. We nearly doubled annual school funding, so it is a complete embarrassment that Senator Polley, obviously using talking points given to her by the minister for education's office, is now trying to prosecute this line. I want to put on the record a couple of really important corrections in response to Senator Polley's contribution. Time is running out because, while there is a national school reform agreement—and there have been agreements settled with a number of the states, and then most recently the ACT—there is still no national reform agreement with New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. So there is no funding deal with those states and these agreements run out in a matter of weeks, on 31 December of this year. What is really concerning is that there are no national school reforms that Mr Clare promised to ensure every child reaches his or her best potential. We have seen a full-blown school funding war. We know it's a war because, on 21 August this year, Labor education ministers from the states and the ACT came to Canberra and protested against the Albanese government. The Victorian education minister, Ben Carroll, even declared on ABC radio that morning that the Liberals did a better job funding public schools when in power than the current government. It's very telling to be called out by your own side of politics, by the Victorian education minister. I have to say it takes a special sort of incompetence for things to get this bad. We demand and call on this government to get on with the job of finalising these agreements because we have seen the majority of public schools—government schools—which deserve funding certainty being put in limbo. Senator Polley speaks about one in 10 being below the minimum efficiency standards. It's in fact one in three students who are effectively failing NAPLAN. There is nothing better or fairer about failing to deliver the national school reforms which are critical to ensuring that every child can reach his or her best potential. We do acknowledge that there are a number of important reforms in the draft agreement which have been settled by some of the states, the ACT and the Northern Territory, including evidence based teaching interventions, screening tests—such as the year 1 phonics and numeracy check—and improved student attendance and performance targets. Unfortunately, these reforms are both light on detail and inadequate. Evidence based teaching methods such as explicit instruction must be mandated in every classroom. We're starting to see this happen in some states, but this needs to happen in every classroom. The draft agreement says nothing about the need to further improve the national curriculum or deliver crucial reforms to combat classroom disruptions such as a national behaviour curriculum which was recommended by the Senate inquiry into classroom disruption, very ably chaired by Senator O'Sullivan. Australia has some of the unruliest classrooms in the world. So we are concerned that while this government has committed to some reforms, the reforms do not go far enough. I also want to place on the record that the Albanese government continues to talk about fully funding government schools. Senator Polley made another mistake in her contribution because the Commonwealth, under the current legislative requirement, does in fact fully fund all public schools. The only state or territory meeting its requirements currently is the ACT. The Northern Territory is at a dire 59 per cent and every state is behind as well, with Queensland's Schooling Resource Standard contribution to government schools down to 69 per cent and Victoria's down to 70 per cent. This shortfall is not a responsibility of the Commonwealth under the current agreement. It is because of the shortfall from the states. Let's get to the nub of this. We know that it's not just about the amount of money that goes into government schools and to all schools; it's what happens in the classroom. Regrettably, through no fault of teachers and other educators, Australian students are not getting the education they deserve. As I mentioned, students are failing dramatically in NAPLAN. In the OECD-run program for international student assessment the average year 10 Australian student is one year behind in his or her learning compared to 20 years ago. What we do know—the Australian Education Research Organisation does an incredible job researching evidence based teaching—is that once children fall behind only one in five will catch up. So students not learning—and teachers not getting the best resources to teach and excel in the classroom—can have a lifetime consequence. Failure to teach children to read and write, to teach the fundamentals of education, fuels disengagement, disfunction and even youth crime. That was very much the finding of the National Children's Commissioner, Anne Hollonds, who warned that, unless schools do more to help struggling students, things will go from bad to worse. She said the fact that kids have to wait to be in prison to get the one-on-one intensive learning support that need is abominable. There is much more to be done. There is much to be done on combatting classroom disruption, and so, to that extent, this national reform agreement is very disappointing. There is much to be done in terms of fixing the national curriculum. We heard, during the Senate inquiry into this bill, the Australian Government Primary Principals Association call out the national curriculum, saying it was impossible to teach and that teachers needed a simpler curriculum to focus on literacy and numeracy. It is disappointing firstly that we have not seen this agreement finalised. There is so much smoke and mirrors from the government. Secondly, we're not seeing all the reforms addressed that need to be. Environment: Plastic Pollution, Cannabis 4901 12:36 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Senator statements come around once a year, and it's an opportunity for senators to get up and make a contribution about something that's personal to them and important to their electorate. My first statement in 2012, as a new senator, was on the terrible problem we face with plastic pollution in the oceans. My staff at the time did a quick search of Hansard, and we believe we were the first people to ever talk about this issue in this chamber. It pains me that nearly 13 years later, the problem has continued to get worse. Plastics in our oceans are arguably one of the greatest environmental challenges of our time. We know that microplastics are all through our food chain in the oceans, including in plankton. They've been detected in the Antarctic. We know it's all through the seafood we eat. We know it's through the human body now. Recent work by the Minderoo Foundation has unfortunately informed us we have microplastics inside the human brain. This is a very serious issue. What are we doing about it? Next week, people will gather from across the globe in South Korea for the final meeting to establish what is being touted as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to solve the plastics crisis and sign a global plastics treaty. The treaty has the potential to create global rules and obligations for the full lifecycle of plastic, setting standards for plastic recycling, production, consumption and pollution. It's been a two-year process to get it to this point. People who are interested can read the minutes from those meetings themselves. It's been a very frustrating, difficult process. This is a very big, complex, urgent and critical issue. I can tell you what the treaty is trying to achieve; it aims to reduce pollution, improve waste management, eliminate or minimise the most polluting and available plastic products and the most dangerous chemicals, design plastics for reuse and finance clean-ups and global transitions away from plastics. These all have significant merit and are urgent issues. But what is simple is the stumbling point for this treaty, which is that big producers, retailers and manufacturers of plastic—for example, plastic packaging, which we have through our lives—have refused to be regulated. Walk down any supermarket aisle and have a look at the shelves; it's all plastic packaging. This has been a stumbling point in the global treaty negotiations to date. It's the big corporations that produce plastic. For senators who aren't aware, plastic is a very significant sink for global fossil fuels. Why do big corporations not want to be regulated? That's a really good question that we need to answer. They don't want to be regulated, because they want to continue to drive demand for plastics and for fossil fuels. It's not just internationally. They're happy to see a voluntary agreement, by the way, so they can greenwash this, but they don't want to be regulated. They don't want a binding agreement that sets targets and holds them to account. Australia is on the international stage showing leadership, and our environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has been to these previous negotiations. It is telling that, while we're calling for a mandatory binding agreement internationally, we don't have one in Australia. Our plastic packaging companies, our retailers and our brands have had 25 years of failed voluntary plastic and packaging reduction targets. That's 25 years of official failure, and yet we still haven't regulated these companies. While we're calling for it on the international stage, we still haven't done it in Australia. The clock is ticking, with an election around the corner. When are we going to see proper, binding, government regulated packaging regulations in Australia? The second thing I want to talk about today is a very personal thing to me. My colleague Senator Shoebridge will very soon be introducing in this chamber a bill to legalise cannabis. It is not the first time the Greens have done this. We've seen state parliaments around the country also introduce these bills. I urge senators to take this issue very seriously. I am the only federal politician who's gone public with being on the medicinal cannabis scheme, a legal scheme in this country that has seen over a million scripts written out for Australians. I want to talk today about the stigmas associated with being on this scheme and the barriers to more Australians accessing what I believe to be an amazing medicine. It's been a game changer and life-changing for me—I've been on the public record about this—and many other Australians are also experiencing that. The biggest stigma and barrier to uptake for more Australians on this legal scheme is roadside testing. At the moment in Australia, all around the country, if you get roadside tested with a drug test, a saliva test, and you test positive, that test then goes away to a lab. Each state has set thresholds at which cannabis can be detected. If it's detected in your system through a lab test, you can lose your licence, be fined, lose your job or worse. But here's the problem: this test is not an impairment test. It is simply testing for the presence of cannabis in your system. Cannabis lasts four to five hours in terms of potential impairment. Recently, it's been noted around the country that Tasmanian MP Craig Garland, an Independent member for Braddon in the north-west of Tasmania, tested positive at a roadside test. What's on the public record is that Craig has said, 'I had a joint the night before,' and it was detected when he was driving the following afternoon, towing his boat. Even if he tests positive, this test cannot test whether he was impaired or not. However, he will lose his licence or worse. This is not just happening to a member of parliament, so it's high profile; this is happening to thousands of Australians around the country. It's not roadside tests where people who are legally accessing this medicine are then losing their licence, getting fines and losing their jobs; there's also workplace testing. We've heard stories where people have successfully applied for a job, and told their employer that they're legally on the scheme for a number of well accepted reasons, and the employer has said, 'Well, I can't employ you anymore,' or people have failed a test at work when they're not impaired because, like me, they had taken the medicine before they went to bed, to help them sleep, and then the following afternoon they lose their job. We've got to fix this, senators. This is entirely unjust and unacceptable, when there are impairment tests we can introduce. Like California, Canada and other places around the world which have legalised cannabis, we need to have an impairment test that can test if you're impaired. You shouldn't drive if you're impaired, but at the moment we can't determine that, and that's simply not good enough. It will be an impediment to legalising marijuana. I urge senators to take this issue very seriously. We know that a lot of Australians do access cannabis, legally or illegally. A lot of money is spent on policing this. There aren't tests for driving for other drugs that we know also impair drivers, like benzos and opioids and other legal drugs. We have to change our laws and make them just. I would ask senators to have a look at Senator Shoebridge's bill when it comes to the Senate. We are very excited about this, as, I know, are a lot of people around the country. Not just states but other countries around the world are moving down this path. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure. Numbers of cannabis users have continued to rise. Police resources have been tied up. So much money has been spent on this, so many lives have been ruined and so much injustice has happened all around the world. It's time we looked at cannabis, treated it seriously, took a harm minimisation approach to people using it and developed a set of laws for the 21st century, because I can tell you this issue's not going to go away. I would hope that the government won't touch the legal scheme. It could certainly do with some improvements, I'm all ears about that, as I know my colleagues are, but we have to listen to Australians and change these unjust laws. Genomic Medicine, Cancer 4903 12:46 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Seven years ago, I was proud to push for the establishment of the Senate Select Committee into Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates, and I was also appointed chair of the committee for the duration of its one inquiry, the report of which was tabled in November 2017. This is a wide-ranging inquiry which covered many aspects of cancer research, treatment and patient care. After receiving 326 submissions and hearing from 117 witnesses in seven days of public hearings, the inquiry produced a range of recommendations covering matters such as streamlining annual approval processes for treatments, improving patient data and tissue sample collection, boosting research funding for new treatments, improving patient care and support, and improving patient access to clinical trials. Among the matters on which evidence was heard by the committee was an exciting and emerging field of research called genomic medicine. As the committee heard, cancers used to be treated primarily according to where they occur in the body—for example, brain, lung, bowel or pancreas. However, genetic testing of cancers has revealed that cancers found in one area of the body are not just one disease but a group of diseases with different characteristics and treatments. Genomic medicine presents new possibilities for precision or personalised medicine which has the greatest impact in advancing the treatment of rare and low-survival cancers. This opens many exciting possibilities for the treatment of cancer and has the potential to dramatically improve prospects for the survival of cancer patients. To help realise these possibilities, the Albanese government is establishing a new national body called Genomics Australia. Genomics Australia will provide leadership, coordination and expertise so that the benefits of cutting-edge genomic research and technologies can be available to all Australians. We, the Labor Party, have committed ongoing funding for Genomics Australia, including $30 million for its first four years of operation. Its focus will be on turning significant breakthroughs into treatments, with one of its first priorities being to improve access to personalised cancer care. Genomics Australia will work with the states and territories to implement an updated National Health Genomics Policy Framework, and it will be led by a commissioner who will provide expert advice to government on health genomics. The commissioner will be supported by expert advisory committees comprising researchers, clinicians, industry, consumers and First Nations people. The model for Genomics Australia has been informed by advice from experts and has also had input from the states and territories. The establishment of Genomics Australia will put Australia on the cutting edge of genomic research and development, making us a world leader in this exciting new field of medicine. During my more than 16 years as a senator, I've been a strong advocate for improving cancer research, as well as cancer patient treatment and care, especially as it relates to rare cancers and cancers with low survival rates. This advocacy has led me to meet people from all walks of life, not just researchers and clinicians but cancer patients and their families and carers. I've met them in meetings with peak bodies such as Cure Brain Cancer Foundation and Neuroblastoma Australia, I've met them at the fundraising events I've organised and I've met them at events in parliament and at public hearings for inquiries. The most confronting of these meetings was with parents fighting for the survival of their children or with parents who have already fought and lost that battle. I've heard their stories and their aspirations for the future, and what they want for the future is hope. This morning was the Australian Brain Tumour Collaborative second annual Head to the Hill event, and at this event this desire for hope was echoed loud and clear. I want to thank colleagues in this place and in the House who took the time to drop in at Head to the Hill and to speak to brain cancer and tumour patients and their families. You would have seen the pairs of shoes strewn across the lawn, representing the more than 1,400 Australians who have died of brain tumours just in the last year. This is who we are fighting for. Genomic medicine is not a silver bullet for cancer treatment, but it is a vital new weapon in our arsenal in the fight against cancer. If we're going to boost Australia's genomic medicine capability, we need leadership. Australian Genomics will provide that leadership and help drive advances in diagnosis, treatment and health outcomes for all Australians. Environment 4904 12:51 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania We're living in a time when the most important issues facing us by far are the breakdown of the planet's climate and the collapse of the ecosystems that underpin all life on earth, including human life. If we don't act urgently and radically to address these overlapping challenges, the world will inevitably, as it has already started to do, slide into social and environmental chaos. It is already starting, colleagues, and, if you can't see that, if you can't feel it and if you can't understand it, then you are simply not paying attention. We have to be honest about what we are facing here. We are facing drowned cities. We are facing billions of people who will die by disease or be displaced by wars, famines, floods or fires. The human cost and the impact on nature will be incalculable. Part of the ecosystem collapse that we are living through is the extinction crisis. Around a million species across this planet are on the brink of extinction, and extinctions are now happening more rapidly than at any other time that humans have been in existence. While our planetary survival mechanisms crumble around us, in this place, the political establishment uses public funds to encourage the burning of fossil fuels, uses public funds to encourage the poisoning of our rivers and our waterways and uses public funds to encourage the destruction of our precious native forests. We are literally subsidising extinction. You utter fools. You are leading us into catastrophe and calamity. How else are you responding? You're responding by passing laws that criminalise the people that are actually demanding that we stop subsidising extinction, that we stop subsidising deforestation and that we stop subsidising the burning of fossil fuels. You want to throw people who are demanding you stop doing those things into prison—in some cases, for many years—rather than doing what we should be doing, which is profusely thanking them for taking such risks in the public interest. You utter fools. I want to speak quickly about two species in my home state of Tasmania that are being subsidised into extinction. One is the maugean skate, an ancient species of skate found only in the Macquarie Harbour that is being driven into extinction by the industrial salmon farming industry. This is an ancient relic species that has been with us since dinosaurs roamed the earth is now down to less than 120 individuals and is being driven into extinction by an industrial salmon-farming industry that is owned by foreign multinational corporations, directly subsidised by the government. The Prime Minister came down to Tasmania a couple of weeks ago and announced funding for a so-called oxygenation trial in Macquarie Harbour. The science is in: we know what is driving the maugean skate into extinction. Labor is putting off a decision about what to do about fish-farming in Macquarie Harbour, but indecision is actually making a decision. Labor is backing in the industrial salmon-farming industry over and above the survival of the precious maugean skate. Labor chooses multinational corporate profits over the survival of a species—it is an absolute disgrace, you utter, utter fools. One million species are sliding into extinction. The maugean skate is on the brink and you come down to Tasmania to try to win the seat of Braddon for yourselves, placing your own political self-interest over and above the survival of a species. Western Australia: Albanese Government 4904 12:56 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Everywhere I go in Western Australia now, sadly, I hear from locals that Australia is heading in the very wrong direction under the Albanese Labor government. In fact, I have not heard one person say they think the nation and our state of Western Australia is heading in the right direction. When talking to locals and small-business owners in Perth's northern suburbs with Liberal for Pearce Jan Norberger, the feedback is always—and sadly—the same. After 12 interest rate rises under Labor—not just under Labor but caused by Labor's inflationary policies, including pump priming the economy and interest rates with an additional $315 billion into the economy—household budgets have been impacted and significantly diminished. Whether it's the weekly grocery shop, the monthly bills or the cost of doing business for small business, the cost of living is biting into all Australian households. The sad reality is, no matter which way you look at it, Western Australians are worse off under Anthony Albanese. While interest rates are falling in New Zealand, Canada, the UK and the United States, there is no sign of relief yet for Australian families. Labor is letting down residents in Perth's northern suburbs, including suburbs such as Yanchep and Two Rocks. Not only are they increasing the cost of living for residents of in Perth's northern coastal suburbs but they are also failing them by not providing adequate health care. For example, there will be 200,000 new residents over the next 20 years in the northern corridor, and it is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. Yet federal and state Labor are failing completely to make any provision for new hospitals or new health campuses to support the people in those northern suburbs. Serious pressures continue to mount on the Joondalup Health Campus, which is a 60-kilometre round-trip risking patients not receiving care within that golden hour. Sometimes that round-trip can take more than two hours, and given the pressure on Joondalup Hospital, guess what they find? In the last month alone at Joondalup Hospital there were 800 hours of ramping, highlighting the urgent need to take the pressure off Joondalup health. But 800 hours of ramping in one month means that patients who were critically ill were sitting or lying outside of the hospital in an ambulance for up to 800 hours under Labor, and that is shameful. That's one of the many reasons I'm supporting Jan Norberger, who is fighting for a new hospital in Yanchep to ensure that people who choose to make the north coastal area of Perth their home can get the same health support as everybody else. I'm also dismayed to hear from local residents in Ellenbrook in Perth how much they are struggling with their daily household bills and the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis. It is a fact that Australia has suffered the single biggest fall in household disposable income across all developed countries—not just some but all developed countries—over the last two years, or 2½ years now, under Labor. This strain on Australian households—Western Australian households, in the case of the people I represent—combined with the rising, spiralling, costs of buying a house or renting a house, means that the Australian dream of homeownership, or even just of having your own home to live in, has never been further out of reach for hardworking families, particularly in suburbs like Ellenbrook in Perth. I've been working with David Goode, our Liberal candidate for Hasluck, and we have both heard from so many locals across Ellenbrook that younger Australians in particular are not only struggling to find a rental but finding it almost impossible to get a mortgage, and, even when they do have one, to find a house that they can afford. As a finance broker, David Goode has decades of experience helping people achieve homeownership, and he understands just how critical it is for families and for younger Australians to have the opportunity to buy their own home and have their stake in, their own piece of, Australia. But, sadly, after just 2½ years of the Albanese Labor government, it feels, for so many Western Australians, like that dream is slipping away. Labor's failure to address the housing crisis has made it hard for families to get ahead. Let's have a look at how Labor has caused this to happen so quickly—in less than 2½ years. We've seen, in Western Australia in particular, but nationwide, record high construction costs, which have been driven by a building industry that has been held completely to ransom by your supporters—by the union that those opposite are so proud to be members of: the CFMEU. They are pricing Western Australians out of the market. I think the latest was that they've put at least a 20 per cent premium on the cost of producing houses now in Western Australia. Those opposite were again, yesterday in question time, talking about all of the new programs that they've announced and implemented and all of these new homes they're going to build. Guess how many they have actually built, with all of those programs and all of that money over the last 2½ years? Senator Lambie 250026 None! Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Exactly right, Senator Lambie. They have not built a single home in that time. Yet they keep coming into this place and saying, 'We've got XYZ millions and billions of dollars for housing, and we've got this great policy here.' But it sounds like Sir Humphrey Appleby's hospital! It's a great hospital—it's a great plan, in this case—but it doesn't have a single patient. Under their program, we've got these policies that have not delivered a single home. Our plan, unlike that of those opposite, is incredibly practical, and it will work. Our policy is to unlock 500,000 homes, by funding essential infrastructure like water, power and sewerage, and to rebalance the migration system properly to ease pressure on housing demand. Those opposite, when they came into government, said, 'Let's open the migration gates; let's open the floodgates.' We do need more migrants here in Australia, but we don't need the yoga instructors and things like that that those opposite have put on the critical list. We need electricians, we need builders, we need bricklayers, we need engineers, and we do need students. But, of course, those opposite—with hundreds of thousands of extra people coming into the country—forgot that, if you're going to bring hundreds of thousands of people into Australia, they'll need to live somewhere. Those geniuses didn't stop to think, 'If we let so many people come in so quickly, where are they going to live?' That has further contributed to the housing shortage and the spiralling costs of rentals and also of homes to build. Unlike those opposite, we will restore the Australian dream of homeownership because as Liberals we not only understand the importance of homeownership and rentals to Australians but have always been able to deliver the policies to make that a reality. Those opposite, after 2½-plus years, haven't delivered a single home, and, through their inflationary policies, they've driven up 12 interest rate hikes in their term of government. They've put pressure on the cost of living for all Australians. Australians are struggling, and they are struggling to make the decision about whether they feed their family tonight or they turn the heater on. It is unforgiveable what those opposite have done to our nation in 2½ years. Grimson, Mr Barry 4906 13:05 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia The Australian road transport industry has lost a true icon in Barry 'Sleepy' Grimson. I want to read some words from a very dear friend of mine, Mike Williams. Mike is one of the co-owners and co-directors of on the road media—On The Road Radio and On The Road Podcast—Truckin' Life and steering the future trailer. These are Mike's words: Vale Barry "Sleepy" Grimson I had set out to write some sort of obituary, a telling about a man and the role he played on the vast stage of life. Instead I find myself unable to recall the days and dates. I can only remember how much the news affected me. There are only a handful of people over the years I could truely call a mate. Only a handful who could come to my door in the middle of the night asking for a hand, where I would without question grab a shovel and head to the car. The first time I met Barry I'd just started at UTH, he had been there for many years. He was a tough looking fellow with outrageous mutton chops, hair combed back and a ready smile. He helped me a lot when I first started. I knew bugger all about tankers and Barry was always only a phone call away. We seemed to hit it off right from the start. I spent hours talking with him in person and on the phone. I interviewed him several times for various bits I was writing and podcasts I was doing. Barry never declined. He was always good for a yarn. We would meet on the road from time to time and make a brew together on the side of the road. Barry was always worth a good chin wag. Barry taught me a lot about the trucking history I thought I knew and opened doors for me to talk to others. He was generous and giving of his time. We didn't always agree though, but that was ok we just agreed to disagree and moved on. He could do that. Bob McMillan and I thought that the men of The 1979 Razorback Blockade should be remembered at the Road Transport Hall of Fame in Alice Springs so we lobbied them and finally a new award was created called the "History Makers Award" I was very proud to see that award conferred upon the men. Barry had always downplayed the importance of his role at Razorback but it changed the direction of trucking in Australia. Barry was no stranger to a bit of activism though, he'd played his part in several stoppages and protests. He was part of getting CB radios made legal in Australia and as a strong supporter of the TWU he stood for the rights of workers without fear. Barry was a man who talked the talk and walked the walk. The word legend gets thrown around but in my mind he certainly was one. He loved trucking, he loved his family and friends, he was staunch in his convictions and had the courage to stand strong and defend them. I've got no doubt he was a larrikin. A bloke cut from cloth that's no longer on the shelves. My condolences to Lesley and all his family. I'm deeply honoured to have known him and shared a small slice of his life. I will miss him. With the time remaining, I'd certainly like to pay my respects to Barry and to Lesley. I had the privilege of travelling up to Shellharbour to catch up with Barry. As we know, Barry was one of the ones that Mike and I had raised money for to go to Alice Springs and take the families of the men that were left. Unfortunately we paid the airfare and we paid the accommodation, but Barry couldn't make it because of the illness that he'd just been diagnosed with. When I caught up with Barry and Lesley at their home, they were so generous with their time. They wanted to share with me a T-shirt that the family had got made. The whole family were going to come—his kids and his grandkids. They were black T-shirts for Barry, Lesley and the whole family. On the front there was a photo of Barry with those insane mutton chops standing proudly in front of his Kenworth Prime Mover. On the back there was a cartoon of a Kenworth Prime Mover with the words 'My pop is on the National Road Transport Museum hall of fame.' Unfortunately, they didn't get to wear those shirts in Alice Springs, but I was so glad that I was in Alice Springs to honour that great man and the other men. Barry, vale, mate. We really have lost a true icon, a legend and a champion of truck drivers in this nation. Your memory will never be forgotten. Thank you, Barry. Cost of Living 4907 13:10 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to make a contribution. The cost-of-living crisis is hammering Australian families. Food banks are reporting overwhelming numbers of families who have never had to go to food banks before. The Labor Party is supposed to be the party that lifts up the working families, but instead you are busy handing out billions of dollars to the US and the UK for a dodgy submarine deal that we'll probably never see. Then, in the same sentence, you say you can't afford to up JobKeeper or JobSeeker. Is the government doing enough? No, not by a long shot. And worse, they are throwing around taxpayers' money just to help themselves get re-elected. That's right—your re-election money will go from three bucks to five bucks because apparently they can afford it. You can't afford it. Look at the $28 million they are chucking at Macquarie Harbour. Instead of the environment minister biting the bullet and making a decision about salmon farming in the harbour, they are giving—that's right—$28 million of your taxpayers' money, Australians out there, and will say that will fix the problem. By the way, this is to help salmon companies that are foreign owned and have been making a motza out of us for years and years. Their profits are huge, and yet they haven't paid any tax for three years. How about, instead of giving them $28 million of taxpayers' money, you make them pay that $28 million. Why is the taxpayer paying international companies that make a crapload of bloody mess in our harbour in Tasmania? Why aren't they cleaning up their own mess? You should be ashamed of yourselves. That's $28 million, all because Labor wants to win Braddon. Good luck with that, because I don't think you're hearing the people of Braddon. Australians are struggling to put food on the table and are skipping vital medication, and what is the Labor Party doing? They want to once again up the public spend on elections. They want to give those political parties five bucks of your taxpayers' money instead of three. Apparently the coalition is onboard with that, because they don't care about the cost of living either. What struggling Tasmanians tell me is that they need help now. That does mean chucking around money to help them, but it does not mean chucking around money to help the major parties get re-elected. Here's a good idea: why don't you get off your backsides, get your boots on and go and earn it. If you did that, people might even know who your ministers and backbenchers are. Quite frankly, I don't think I could name 130 of those people sitting down in the lower house. That's how shameful it is. They don't work for it; they buy their seats. That is shameful in itself. It's all about power. You say you're the party for the working people and that you want every Australian to have the same opportunities not just to survive but to thrive. What a load of rubbish! Nice gimmick, by the way. You haven't even raised JobSeeker, as I've said, and I can assure you that those living below the poverty line or on it are not thriving. They are absolutely sinking, and you are part of the problem. The government has money. You have a huge surplus. But, when it comes to Australians struggling with the cost-of-living pressures, you have no idea—none at all. You've done nothing to reverse the hike in arts degrees fees for students, even though I remember sitting in this chamber listening to you flog these people over this side. But—oh no—you didn't come up and reverse it, did you? Our students and kids will have bigger debts. Good luck! That's why you're never going to own a house. You've got councils out there who are struggling with the cost of climate change; you've done nothing about that to give them money to attack the situation. Instead, you hand out $10 billion to the US and UK to upgrade their ship-building facilities under the AUKUS deal. And you're not going to believe this, Australia—they didn't even think to negotiate getting that money back if AUKUS falls apart. How shameful is that? 'Here you go, go take your 10 billion bucks, don't worry, we don't want it back. It's not a problem here, we've got plenty of cash,' but we can't help those people that are feeling it the most in our own country. We'd rather have this on our resume that we got some AUKUS deal done that is not going to ever happen. It's never ever going to happen. What a waste! What an absolute joke! It's Australian taxpayers' money that the government has its hands on. That money needs to go to Australians who need it the most, not just where the government think they're going to win votes. You're not winning votes anymore because the Australian people are right on to you, and they've had a gutful. They've had an absolute gutful. Menopause 4907 13:15 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Today I rise to speak on an issue that affects every woman and, by extension, every family, workplace and community in this country: perimenopause and menopause. These are natural stages of life, but they are too often misunderstood, dismissed or ignored. It's time to change that. More than 2.5 million Australian women are in the age range where these transitions begin. For some, symptoms may pass with little notice. For many others the experience is profoundly disruptive. This is not just about a few hot flushes or sleepless nights. Perimenopause, which proceeds menopause, can bring dozens of symptoms—debilitating symptoms—lasting years. Anxiety, depression, brain fog, fatigue, joint pain, heart palpitations and a host of other physical and emotional challenges often go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. Here is the stark truth: seven per cent of midlife women have missed work because of these symptoms. Another 17 per cent have taken extended breaks over the past five years. One in four report that their symptoms have made daily life a struggle. These numbers translate into hundreds of thousands of women being forced to step back from work, family and community life not because they want to but because they cannot get the support they need. Even finding a doctor who truly understands is a challenge. Too often, women are told that they are too young to be experiencing these symptoms, or are handed antidepressants as a quick fix. Many women are left cycling through multiple GPs before finding the one with genuine knowledge of perimenopause and menopause. This is not just frustrating; it is damaging. Women deserve better. The flawed study from decades ago which unfairly cast a shadow over hormone replacement therapy deprived an entire generation of women of life-enhancing treatments. We cannot let that mistake continue to harm women today. Menopausal hormone therapy or MHT is a proven treatment that can offer real relief, yet it remains financially out of reach for many because it is not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This is just one part of the puzzle. Women need access to affordable care, but they are also need informed care. Education for medical professionals must improve so that women are met with understanding and expertise, not disbelief and outdated advice. Research into perimenopause and menopause must be prioritised so that we can contribute to advanced treatment options. Imagine a future where MHT is subsidised by the PBS, making it accessible to all women who need it. Imagine a healthcare system where doctors are trained to recognise and treat perimenopause and menopause with the respect and attention these stages deserve. Imagine workplaces that offer flexibility and understanding, ensuring women can thrive through this phase of life. This is about more than women's health; this is about societal health. When women are supported, they're not just surviving; they're thriving. They're fully present in their families, they contribute to their workplaces and they enrich their communities. Gen X and millennial women are going through this now. Boomer women are reflecting on what they have missed out on: quality-of-life-saving medication and resources. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us ensure that every woman in this country has access to the care, education and support she deserves no matter her stage of life. Fellow senators, it's time to act. We need to subsidise MHT through the PBS. We need to invest in education and training for medical professionals. We need to fund research to better understand these transitions and create a healthcare system where women are believed, supported and empowered. When we do this, we are not just addressing a health issue. We are building a society where these values uplift women at every stage of their life. The time to act is now. Energy 4908 13:20 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria The National Electricity Market, the electricity grid that serves our country by delivering energy to both our homes and industry, is enormous and incredibly complex. It is also arguably one of the greatest contributors to GDP if taken as a single entity. It is also one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gases in the economy. But, even though it's one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gases, it also presents probably the easiest industry to largely decarbonise. There are roughly 20-odd gigawatts of coal fired generation that we need to be able to take out of the system as quickly, efficiently and cheaply as we can without impacting on our economy. I was very, very thankful to get support from across the chamber to stand up a Senate select committee looking at energy planning and governance in Australia. So far we've had four days of hearings and the committee has received, I think, nearly 75 submissions from various bodies. I'm incredibly thankful for those who have contributed to the inquiry. While I'm not here to pre-empt any of the findings, I think it's important just to put on the record what the committee is looking at and why the inquiry is so important. The National Electricity Market, the NEM, was created in 1998. Back then, the energy system was very different to what it is and what we're trying to bring it towards, and that is a decarbonised electricity system with generation that supplies reliable, affordable energy to both households and industry. There is a risk, however, that we may miss some of the goals that we're striving to achieve. The inquiry has been hearing evidence about what that might be and how that might come about and will hopefully be putting forward some recommendations that might help fix that. It's really apparent at this point in time that there's a huge amount of passion to see this project succeed. I and my fellow committee members, such as Senator David Pocock here, have been heavily invested in taking the evidence that's before us. As we saw from the Clean Energy Council's announcement overnight, we're making a lot of progress towards decarbonising the electricity system, but if we don't make more progress and make it quickly then we do risk missing the goals that we're trying to achieve. The priorities that are being planned into the system are important now, and how we plan for the system for tomorrow is going to affect the outcome more than what we plan to do in 10 years time. The important upshot of this is ensuring that we see regulation for what it is. There have been numerous previous inquiries into our electricity system, all of which have presented very important contributions to the development of the system. The Vertigan review in 2015 and the Finkel review in 2017 made incredible contributions to this. However, the system has changed, and what we're trying to achieve has changed so rapidly that I think reviews such as the select committee is looking into now are going to need to be done quite regularly to enable our energy market bodies to keep track and keep up with the changes that are coming in order to achieve our objectives. Housing and Homelessness, Climate Change, Gambling Advertising 4909 13:25 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The Economics Legislation Committee recently tabled the committee report into my private senator's bill the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 (No. 2), and it's pretty instructive reading as to how things work in this place. Here is a bill that had 80 of the 81 submissions support it, and we have the report, which has 44 pages outlining why this is a good idea, with supporting evidence from submitters and witnesses. Then, on page 45, there is the most feeble attempt from the government to say, 'No, this isn't a good idea; we shouldn't do it.' This aims to actually build on the work that the government say that they're committed to. In Australia, in a housing crisis, we have no housing plan. How is that so, and how, as a parliament, can we not say this is something we should actually legislate? The government of the day should have a requirement to actually have a plan for something as fundamental as housing. In my dissenting report, I outline that I find: It is extraordinary that we do not have one— a housing plan— and even more extraordinary that the Albanese Government, in the Chair's report on this inquiry, suggests legislating such a plan is unnecessary contrary to the weight of evidence tendered in submissions and evidence to the committee. The major parties seem determined to keep living up to what Donald Horne wrote 60 years ago: Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second-rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise. How are we surprised about the housing crisis if we haven't had a plan, and why aren't we developing one? I'd urge the government: surely what a grown-up government looks like includes actually having a plan for these things. It's been interesting to hear the government talk about duties of care. We've heard them talk about a digital duty of care and a duty of care on social media platforms. But, when it comes to a duty of care on climate, they don't like it. They do not believe that they have a duty of care to young people in future generations on climate, and they have said so in their report on my private senator's bill that would do exactly that—put a duty of care on the government of the day to look after young people in future generations. We had 403 submissions to that inquiry; only one was against it. The government want to talk about all these duties of care, but when it comes to our future on this planet—on this place that we call home—they don't want a bar of it. They don't believe that they have a duty of care to young people and future generations. They won't listen to climate scientists and Australians who see the risks, who want bolder climate action, but they'll ram through legislation at the behest of Santos and other fossil fuel companies who are banking on climate inaction. In the last two sitting weeks of the year, probably the term, I have a question for the parliament: Are we really going to allow Peter V'Landys, the gambling industry and vested interests to trash Peta Murphy's legacy? How are we allowing this to happen after all of the great work— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 We shall now proceed to two-minute statements. Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 4909 13:30 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The coalition is opposing the Albanese Labor government's chaotic and confused international students bill because it will fail to fix the migration and housing crises of the government's own making. Since Labor was elected, the number of international students has almost doubled from 475,000 in May '22 to more than 800,000 today. The proposed cap of 270,000 new overseas student commencements will not go far enough to curb excessive numbers of foreign students coming to Australia. This cap will look after Australia's most prestigious universities, which are bringing in record levels of foreign students. At the University of Sydney, 50 per cent of all students are foreign—41,000 international students—which are delivering the rivers of gold to the university with $1.45 billion in revenue. By basing their proposed cap for universities on the 2023 intake levels—a record-high of foreign students in Australia—Labor's notion of a cap bakes in a benefit to the most elite universities. Based on the 2019 numbers, foreign students under Labor's plan at the group of eight universities would go up by 11 per cent but the cap for regional universities would go down by 16 per cent. By getting the migration policy settings right, the coalition will free up almost 40,000 additional homes in the first year and well over 100,000 homes in the first five years for Australians, reducing congestion on our roads and relieving pressure on existing services. We will go further than Labor; we will reduce student numbers further, specifically at the major metropolitan universities, to relieve stress on rental markets in our major cities. That is why we are opposing this. (Time expired) Raise Our Voice in Parliament 4910 13:32 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I am honoured to be part in the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. Due to the nature of the Senate, I am delivering this far later than I would have liked. However, I'm excited to finally have the opportunity to share these words from a very special young woman from my community. Raise Our Voice is a fantastic initiative that provides young people from across Australia with the opportunity to engage with political leaders on issues that matter to them. I'm delighted to read out the following speech from Abby from my state of Tasmania—hello, Abbie. Abbie said: 'My name is Abbie, and I've been a resident of Hobart for 14 years. Over the next decade, I would like to see substantial improvements in junior pay. As a 14-year-old, I'm finally old enough for a job. While researching, I discovered junior pay. Based on information I found on Indeed I discovered the minimum wage for someone under the age of 16 is $8.55 an hour. As of 1 July 2023 the national minimum wage in Australia is $23.23 per hour. That is a $14.68 difference. Now imagine a 21-year-old girl and a 14-year-old girl. They are working the same hours and put the same amount of effort in, yet the 21-year-old is paid substantially more. Even by the age of 18, the minimum wage is only $15.87. This is not enough to pay for university or even buy a car. Paying juniors less also effectively encourages discrimination against older workers in the hiring procession. I understand that increasing the junior wage to match the adult pay might lead to employers hiring fewer younger workers. I'm not suggesting a completely equal raise. I just believe that an increase is necessary, as $8.55 is appalling. Thank you for your attention to this matter.' Raise Our Voice in Parliament 4910 13:34 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I also want to add a speech for the Raise Our Voice campaign written by a person from my state Western Australia—thanks, Allysha. Allysha said: I've always had a somewhat complicated relationship with multiculturalism in Australia. While I am uplifted by the presence of various cultures, ethnicities and identities that are present throughout our community, I still feel a niggling sense of unease settle in the atmosphere whenever topics of racial inequality are brought forward. Some question whether Reconciliation is necessary. Some say that we have already done enough, and that racism no longer divides us like it used to. Some think that what's passed is passed, and that we should look forward instead of dwelling on what has already happened. But in doing so, we are moving into a future that has still not dismantled the systems of institutionalised racism against minority groups. Looking at various collections of data that can be found with a quick google search, it is evident that career and educational opportunities for people of colour, especially Indigenous Australians, are significantly lower. And as we know all too well, these economic and social disadvantages are passed down from generation to generation, further entrenching racial inequalities in our society. In all honesty, I don't know what actions can be taken by the parliament to fix racism, because it is a constant process that requires everyone's willingness to listen, learn, and accept confronting truths. By facilitating open discussions with different demographics, giving marginalised voices local and national platforms, and by promoting an open-minded attitude when it comes to matters of race, our social landscape will be drastically changed in 10 years' time. In the next 10 years, I hope to see communities that aren't afraid to speak about race. Communities that are brave and open to feeling slightly awkward and uncomfortable when facing their own privileges, and instead of shying away from these conversations, join together to better understand how we can make our nation more fair, safe and equal. Men's Rights 4910 13:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I don't know about you, but I'm getting a little bit tired of the relentless campaign against men which is masquerading thinly under the banner of preventing toxic masculinity. This movement seeks to postulate that young men, in their hearts, are all toxic domestic violence offenders in waiting. The idea that masculinity is toxic is all too frequently raised by the simps of the corporate world and the automatons of the commentariat—the political scene. Now, even more alarmingly, it's being raised in our educational settings. In some instances we've seen reports of male students being asked to stand and apologise to women as a symbolic gesture for past behaviours by members of their gender that have caused harm or offence. What do you think this is going to do to young men? Is it any wonder they're looking for refuge online? Weighing down boys with collective guilt and negativity is divisive and counterproductive. Men are increasingly being demonised and attacked by those more intent on winning gender wars than peacefully co-existing. Masculinity isn't inherently violent. It isn't inherently toxic. No man, young or old, should feel ashamed of being male, nor should they be weighed down by the sins of a small few. Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 4911

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

13:37 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Our government has brought a bill into the parliament, the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, which is a really important piece of legislation. We are looking to fix the mess that we inherited from the previous government and to put a cap on international students while making sure that there is a fairer distribution of those international student numbers. Regional universities are desperately crying out for this legislation to be passed, yet those on the opposite side, the Liberal and National parties, are opposed to this legislation. It is so disappointing—that's not the word that I use; that's the word that the regional universities in Far North Queensland and Central Queensland have used. They've used it to describe the decision by Peter Dutton to oppose this legislation, to stop regional universities getting their fair share of international students and to stop regional universities training people and having the certainty that they need to deliver good skills for our regional communities. We inherited the worst skills crisis in 50 years because of those opposite. Every measure that we've put forward to fix this skills crisis has been opposed by Peter Dutton and the Liberal and National parties. That's why they don't support regional communities. If you support the regions then you support taking action on the skills crisis. It's why our government has made fee-free TAFE available to regional students. One in three of those students are from regional Australia. It's why we're decreasing student debt and raising the threshold. It's to make sure we have more skilled local workers. And yet every single one of these measures is opposed by Peter Dutton and the Liberal and National parties because they say that there is no value in training up a nurse in a regional community who will then serve her community as a nurse in aged care or in early childhood education. Shame on Peter Dutton and the Liberal and National parties. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 4911 13:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland It's my pleasure to join the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, a national non-partisan initiative aiming to increase the political literacy of all our young voters and voters-to-be who are under 25 through connecting them with their local member of parliament or senator. Today I'm pleased to read 16-year-old Queenslander Jade's speech: My name is Jade, I am 16 years old and my electorate is Petrie. The issue I would like to address is how little there is being done about mental health. Recently, I attended a youth mental health/leadership camp—this camp is called Borderline Australia. I went into this camp terrified; I went in with 3 friends but we were in separate groups, in separate cabins and I knew I was going to have to talk to strangers. I've struggled with many issues in my life, mainly mentally. They were either internal or they were due to the experiences I've had to face whether that be growing up or even recently. At borderline, I connected with many people and made new long lasting friendships, I would call them family. But it was when people would share their stories that I realised nothing is being done. Many issues with mental health are occurring and it's not good enough that we don't do enough. And it's so sad that everyone has a story. Having this realisation made me sad and sympathetic—are my future children going to grow up in a world where their mental health isn't cared for? This issue is important because it is a fundamental right that people should live in a community where they are cared for and they shouldn't have to pay to seek help for their struggles. People do care, people will listen and help—the ones you least expect. My call to action is for therapy to be free to the youth, and for Borderline Youth Camp to be able to occur more frequently to help the youth like myself—as it makes an everlasting impact. Jade's heartfelt comments deserve a place in the Senate Hansard. They'll be going into the Hansard as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. COVID-19: Vaccination 4911 13:41 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland In May 2021, deaths for that particular month spiked by 7.6 per cent over the year before. In June 2021, deaths spiked by 12 per cent over the year before. By the time the year was out, there were 172,000 deaths all up, which was 10,000 more than in 2020. May 2021 was one month after the vaccine rollout. There was no respiratory disease in the country that year other than COVID itself, which was responsible for an extra 400 deaths. In other words, out of the extra 10,000 deaths, only 400 of them were due to COVID. There was no immigration increase that year, and there were no other respiratory disease deaths. There were further lockdowns in New South Wales of three months, which would have resulted in a lower death rate. I have asked the ABS to provide me the information on the 172,000 deaths of that year. I've asked for the date of death, the date of vaccination, the age of the person, the last time they got their vaccination and if they had any comorbidities. The ABS have replied that they want to charge me $40,000 for that information. I put that request in as a question on notice during the excess death inquiry, and the ABS now want to charge a sitting senator—a representative of the people—$40,000. I wrote to the Treasurer, who then referred me to the Assistant Treasurer, who says, 'The ABS is an independent statutory authority with a key role in supporting public interest research; customised personal data requests come at a cost.' If wanting an explanation for the increase in deaths by 10,000 in the last eight months of 2021 isn't in the national interest then I don't know what is. It's time the cover-up ended. Trade Unions 4912 13:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Unions are the backbone of our workforce, protecting the rights of hardworking Australians and ensuring their workplaces are safe. They're the lifelines for workers relying on collective strength to fight injustice, unsafe conditions and exploitation. It takes courage to work hard each day but even more to fight for better pay, safety and respect. Unions exist so no worker stands alone, yet today 120,000 workers have lost their representation, silenced by a system prioritising unelected bureaucrats over the voices of men and women who build our nation. CFMEU workers union dues meant to protect their rights now enrich an unaccountable elite. Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? Delegates have been stripped of roles, leaving worksites less safe and just. Let me be clear: any wrongdoing must be addressed. But using those allegations as an excuse to undermine unions—the very organisations that keep workplaces safe and fair—is nothing short of union-busting. This isn't about justice; it's about silencing dissent and punishing workers who dare to stand up for themselves. I've spoken to workers, like Allan, Waffa and Darren, who feel abandoned by the Labor Party that once claimed to champion them. They see their dues wasted and their workplaces neglected, and they are right to feel betrayed. But I will not stand by while workers' rights are trampled. As a proud union member and a former organiser, I know the power of collective action. Unions are not the problem; they are the solution. I will fight to ensure your voices are heard, your rights are protected and your workplaces are safe. Climate Change 4912 13:45 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Imagine living on a small island, surrounded by water, where you know every creature and every plant that lives in the ocean. You feel so connected to the ocean that, as Indigenous people who have lived there for countless generations, you are known as the saltwater people. Now imagine that the fish, that have always been so plentiful, are nowhere to be found. The ocean has swallowed your home and you have no means to rebuild. And imagine a future where you're forced to flee rising tides and your children no longer have an island to call home. This is the reality for many Pasifika people, yet this government is failing our Pacific island neighbours at the global climate summit in Baku, where world leaders are gathered to make the most important decision since the Paris Agreement: securing a new global climate finance goal. Climate finance is critical to fast-tracking low-income and indebted countries' cutting of emissions and transitioning to renewable energy. Without this funding, we're on track for a catastrophic 2.7 degrees of warming, well above the globally agreed goal of 1.5 degrees. Overnight, Labor pledged $50 million towards the loss and damage fund. But let's be clear: this is nowhere near our fair share as one of the world's largest exporters of coal and gas. In the final weeks of the UN climate talks, Australia needs to act for the Pacific, to act for our children. Labor must commit to supporting loss and damage and the new global finance goals for developing countries. It must commit to no new coal and gas projects, which are adding fuel to the climate crisis. It must commit to net zero by 2035 before the election, and it must throw everything at tackling climate change, the greatest challenge of our time. United States of America: Presidential Election 4912 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Today I'd like to talk about Donald Trump's landslide victory. What did it prove? It proved once again that the influence of the legacy media is a thing of the past. Screw those guys. Nobody likes them. Mainstream media effectively campaigned for Kamala Harris, and they lost. Their influence is lost; it's dead, it's buried, it's cremated. If you thought this election was bad for the Democrats, it was more devastating for legacy media. The media gave their left-wing candidate 90 per cent positive press, but they still couldn't convince the majority of Americans to vote for her. They dismissed and demonised Donald Trump. Ninety per cent of what they said about him was negative. Who cares what the mainstream media thinks? The public don't care about these people, the traditional gatekeepers of political discourse: TV networks and newspapers. They're not just dying; they're already dead. We no longer need the mainstream media to get our message to the masses. Social media, podcasts, live streaming—it all means that they're about as relevant as a VHS tape. They are a relic of a bygone era. No wonder you all want to censor the internet. There are those in this place that are worried that those—in my opinion, the liars and the Marxists—in the mainstream media are being bypassed online. They are fighting a losing battle. And you know what? They know it. President Trump's win proves one thing: if we ignore the media and communicate directly to the masses, with strong commonsense policies, we will succeed. It's little wonder the mainstream media is snarkier than ever. It's little wonder the establishment is more frantic than ever. It is a great day for people like me. Your days are numbered, all of you. Charitable Organisations 4913 13:49 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I have here two letters. The first was sent to Treasurer Chalmers last year and calls for the introduction of a food donation tax incentive to boost donations to food relief charities and to end the wasteful dumping of good food. The letter is signed by more than 60 organisations, but the Albanese government is yet to respond to it. I received a second letter yesterday, addressed to me, which confirms that the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul Society, Anglicare Australia and UnitingCare Australia are adding their names to Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite in support of my private senator's bill that will provide a tax incentive to encourage food donations to food relief organisations now, at a time when they need it the most. But Labor chooses to turn its back on the needs of Australian households who are suffering from food insecurity and on the calls for greater assistance from Australia's food relief charities. But, more than that, Labor chooses to turn its back on its own Labor members of parliament. The House Standing Committee on Agriculture last year recommended that a tax incentive for food donations, like the one that I have introduced to the parliament in my private senator's bill, should be supported. So why do Dr Jim Chalmers, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the assistant minister for charities, Dr Leigh, ignore the calls of important food charities and charitable organisations and even their own backbench members of parliament? Now is the time to act. Tasmanian Government 4913 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania When I was first elected to the Senate, I spoke about how I wanted to do politics differently. I know that has challenged many of you, but I want to do things differently because I want to learn. Part of learning is being willing to change your mind. I'll put up my hand and say I change my mind about things all the time. I'm okay with that part of me, but that means I also have to be okay with others changing their minds too. And I am, but what I'm not always okay with is the reasons for changing your mind. The Labor state opposition in Tasmania changed its mind yesterday. Labor MPs were set to move a motion of no confidence in Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff, which was supported by the Greens and some Independents. In the end, the Greens moved the motion, and, when it came time for the vote, the motion was defeated because Labor changed its mind. So it makes me think Labor was just after the headline—what a waste of a day. But, while Mr Rockliff survives to govern another day, he doesn't get off either. The reason for the no-confidence motion was the government's poor handling of poker machine reform and its backtracking on plans for a mandatory pre-commitment card. Tasmanian Liberals made a commitment during the election campaign that they would reform pokies. During state estimates, the government was asked if it would back away from that commitment. They said they wouldn't, yet—guess what?—they have. I don't see this as changing their mind. I see this as going back on a promise without giving a good reason. If you say you're going to do something, then do it. Don't stand behind a 'complex process' or a report that nobody has seen. Good government is transparent, and this, I believe, is as transparent as mud. Funding of Political Parties 4913 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria The writing is on the wall. We are seeing a wave of First Peoples around the world rising up to dismantle colonial institutions that inflict harm on people and the planet. We will no longer accept the lies of the major parties, who routinely team up to pass harmful laws, undermine transparency and block justice. We will pursue our own justice independently. We won't be complicit in their racist agenda that is just more of the same—no change; no justice—and it's making the major parties nervous. That's why they're pushing for reforms that will make it harder for Independents to get elected to parliament. They want to keep out Independents like me and others who dare to call them out on their lies. At election time, Labor will present candidates, stating, 'The only way to make change is from within the major parties,' but don't be fooled. If they're elected, the party powerbrokers will keep them in line and force them to vote against what is right. Think about the complete lack of action on the genocide in Palestine or justice for First Peoples. Labor will tell you that a minority government will be a disaster, but that's a lie too. This government is a disaster and has done more harm to First Peoples—even though they've got First Peoples within their ranks, that makes no difference at all. We need a minority government to get real outcomes and real justice, not the tokenistic native police kind. We need crossbenchers who will vastly improve policies, give power back to community and force Labor to listen and to take action. Cost of Living 4914 13:55 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria 'Australians are in a per capita recession, yet, at a time when the Reserve Bank has increased the cash rate, the Labor government and many state and territory governments have continued to spend unnecessarily. In doing so, they have made the cost-of-living crisis go on longer than it needs to.' These aren't my words. These are the words—direct quotes, in fact—from the cost-of-living committee's final report. After a two-year-long inquiry, the evidence was clear that Australians are more worse off than they were 2½ years ago. We know that Australians are struggling to meet basic costs of food and to have a roof over their heads and heating and cooling. Now Australian families and small businesses, in particular, are about to head into their third tough Christmas period under Labor. But what is left in the kitty? Their savings have been eaten away, the credit cards are adding up, bills are piling up and we all know that reward points only stretch so far. Australian households and businesses have been doing their very best to move their way forward, to get ahead, but we know that they can't do this on their own. The government can't shy away from the problems that are facing Australians. They must not allow this cost-of-living crisis to go on any longer than it needs to. It's high time that the Prime Minister showed leadership and called a national cabinet to address what is a national issue, and that is the cost of living. The IMF, independent economists and the RBA have all said that government spending from all levels of government is pushing up inflation and keeping it higher for longer. We need to see the states and territories come together for a coordinated approach in reducing that unnecessary and ill-disciplined spending. Families and businesses have made tough decisions about their budgets; it's high time the government did something about its own. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 4914 13:57 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise to deliver a speech written by a young South Australian for the 2024 Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign. It says: Dear Members of Parliament, my name is Aarav. I am 11 years old, and I study in Year 6 at Westminster School, in South Australia. When I think of my community in 10 years, I see a bright, happy and sustainable place. A big part of sustainability is controlling how much rubbish goes to landfill. The parliament could work with local councillors to organise community drives where residents can swap or give away their unwanted household items or toys, instead of them going to landfill. This will also bring the community closer. In a busy country with people always on the move, many don't actually know their neighbours. This is an added benefit, especially for older people who may be lonely at times. Making soft plastic recycling centres more accessible is also very important because 70% of all plastic thrown away is soft plastic. The government could educate, support and promote sustainable packaging which will also help to reduce waste. Using sustainable and recycled materials for playgrounds and benches is a great way to reuse waste, and it makes new fun places for the community to enjoy. Making our country more sustainable is important for the economy and everyone who lives here, including our diverse wildlife. With the right steps we can make our future greener. The PRESIDENT 112096 We will move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 4915 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Business 4915 13:59 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Data released by debt-monitoring firm CreditorWatch showed that the failure rate of Australian businesses rose to 5.04 per cent in October, the highest since the peak of the COVID pandemic in 2020, when the failure rate reached 5.08. Annually, insolvency rates are now roughly 25 per cent higher than they were prior to the pandemic. What responsibility does the Albanese government accept for the growing number of businesses going bust under its watch? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Canavan for the question. We recognise, and have since we came into government, that there are a number of pressures facing small business. We have sought in our responses, particularly to cost-of-living pressures and some of the issues around the energy transition, to provide targeted support to small business. This issue did come up through estimates and we talked about it at estimates. When you look at it as a proportion of the number of businesses, which is growing over time, what we're seeing at the moment is not at a historical high. But I'm not saying that to dispute the fact that there are businesses under enormous pressure. We had $640 million in the last budget— Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm just putting some facts on the table. I know you like to argue that this is the worst, but, when you look at the facts, the facts don't support that. As I said in estimates and as I am saying today, when we brought in energy bill rebates for small business, you lot voted against them, despite that being something that small business was telling us was a big issue for them. In this budget alone, we are providing support for small business, with $640 million in practical support, including the instant asset write-off and energy bill relief. This is an area we will continue to focus on to do what we can. There's another big piece of work in cyber and ensuring that small businesses are given the right support to deal with some of the cyber challenges that they are facing. But providing responsible and effective cost-of-living support for Australian small businesses is something that this government has done. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, a first supplementary? 14:02 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, Australia's construction industry had the second-highest business failure rate, with a 12-month average of 5.3 per cent. The recent COSBOA report revealed that the costs of doing business and increasing red tape remain one of the biggest cost pressures amongst Australian businesses. Do you accept that the Albanese government's industrial relations reforms are playing any role in these increasing cost pressures and resultant insolvencies? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I accept that there's a view put by some in the business community who have not been supportive of our industrial relations amendments, which have supported significant employment growth and wages growth in the last two years. What we have seen is a million new jobs created. The highest number of jobs that have been created in any parliamentary term have been created under this government. We have seen— Senator McGrath 217241 In Canberra. Senator GALLAGHER ING That's not correct, Senator McGrath—I take the interjection. That is absolutely not correct. I know the coalition have a view about what are good jobs and what are not good jobs, but there have been a million jobs created and we have got wages going again. All of those things are good for business. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Aside from red tape, businesses are grappling with the cost-of-living crisis, just like every Australian household is, record interest rates, sticky inflation, sky-high energy bills, record insurance premiums and increasing rents, making it near impossible to stay afloat under this government. Minister, how many more businesses have to fail before this inept government will put forward a credible plan to bring down inflation and boost productivity? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As we know—the data is clear—there have been more businesses created under this government. I know you like to hand-pick and select your own statistics to try to paint the worst picture, but the reality is that more businesses have started, more jobs have been created, wages have got moving and we have looked at ways to support small business, including with energy bill costs, which you voted against but which you cited in your question there, Senator Canavan. What are we doing about energy costs? We're providing energy bill rebates for small business to help them with some of those increased costs. We are dealing with all of the issues, such as unfair contract terms. We're dealing with those. We've been trying to put forward—and we have—a significant small business agenda, and we will continue to do so, because we know that small businesses are the engine room of the economy and they have, as I said, been increasing in numbers since we came to government. Wages 4916 14:05 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Labor wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. As part of our focus on cost-of-living support for all Australians, the Albanese Labor government has prioritised wages growth at every opportunity. Minister, how is the government getting wages moving in the right direction, and why can the Australian people always count on Labor to prioritise pay rises? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ghosh for that question and for focusing on wages of Australian workers and the plans that the Albanese government have been putting in place to make sure we get wages moving again after a decade of wage stagnation and a decade of economic policy that sought to keep wages growth low. Creating good, secure, permanent jobs is fundamental to our government's economic plan, and it's central to householders being able to deal with many of the cost-of-living pressures they're currently experiencing. Under the Labor government, workers are earning more, with four consecutive quarters of annual real wages growth, and keeping more of what they earn, with our tax cuts for every single taxpayer. Over the past two years, the government has argued for an increase to the minimum wage three times. At every opportunity we've had, we have argued for a wage increase through the minimum wage increase process. We've supported and funded increases for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, and we've seen average wage growth almost double compared to the wages growth that was seen under the former Liberal government. Wages are growing; inflation is falling. Wages have grown in both the public and private sectors, and wages in the private sector have actually grown faster than public sector wages. A million jobs have been created, more jobs than had been created in any previous parliamentary term, and we've seen a record number of women working, including working full time, with more choices available to them. Since we came to government, the average full-time worker is now earning an extra $159 per week, and we have the smallest gender pay gap on record. But we know that there is more to do. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I'm aware, Senator Gallagher, that as Minister for Women you've made women's economic equality a core imperative of the government. Today the Workplace Gender Equality Agency announced that we have again broken the pay gap record, narrowing the gap to 21.1 per cent down from 21.7 per cent last year. How have the Albanese government's policies contributed to this important achievement in addressing women's economic inequality, and what does it mean for Australian women? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ghosh for that question and for focusing on the narrowing gender pay gap. It is a really important report today. Australia's gender equality scorecard reports that the latest gender pay gap data shows that the gender pay gap in total remuneration has narrowed to 21.1 per cent, down from 21.7 per cent. The report from WGEA itself says: The main driver of the decrease in the gender pay gap in 2023-24 was the increase of wages for lower paid workers; in particular, Aged Care Residential Services, where women make up— the vast majority of employees. Isn't that amazing? Where you have large groups of working women in low-paid industries, if you try to address their pay levels and raise them to appropriate standards, you see a closing of the gender pay gap—amazing! It never happened under those opposite, who never prioritised women's wages and never prioritised feminised industries. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 14:09 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Wage growth is back as a priority of the Australian government after a decade of wage suppression by the Liberals and Nationals. Minister, how can Australians give themselves the best chance to achieve future pay rises? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ghosh for that question. They've simply got to look at the record of achievement on a gender pay gap that was stagnating, wages that were stagnating—negative wages growth. Over here we have, in the space of two years, women's average weekly earnings have increased by $173.80 a week since May '22. That is almost $200 a week because of the policy of arguing for wage increases for low-paid workers. I know you hate it. I know you hate it, but facts speak for themselves. In those feminised industries, where you have a government that prioritises workers and their wages, not only will those workers get the right wages and a better deal, you will also see systemic change in the gender pay gap. It's something that those opposite never prioritised and something that we have as a central feature of our economic plan. Economy 4917 14:11 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is also to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, can you categorically rule out additional spending in the form of one-off payments prior to the next election, which would pour additional fuel on the inflationary fire and ensure Australian interest rates stay higher for longer? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can tell you what we will rule out. We will rule out spending $600 billion on nuclear energy plants that are going to get established in, what, 20 to 30 years and deliver four per cent of Australia's energy requirements. I will definitely rule out that additional spending. That is quite a bit of additional spending, and one might think that $600 billion may have an effect on the government budget, maybe on the spending side. Senator Dean Smith 241710 You've broken the rule. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Smith, you have asked your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING So I can rule out that. That is the biggest threat to the budget. The biggest threat to the budget is this uncosted lack-of-detail plan from Mr Dutton to build nuclear energy plants that will at some time in future provide less than five per cent of Australia's energy needs. That is the biggest risk. You asked me about spending on the budget and its impact on inflation. Well, I am ruling that out. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham, on a point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Smith asked a question very clearly about one-off payments. While it may be flattering the government is fixated with the coalition's policies, the reality is the minister has spent more than half of her answer now talking about opposition policies and going nowhere near answering the question asked by Senator Smith. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, the minister was asked to rule out additional payments. I believe she— Senator Birmingham H6X One-off payments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, that is right. I believe that the minister is being relevant. I'm going to invite her to continue and I will listen carefully. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING It might be a one-off $600 billion investment in nuclear energy. We don't know because you haven't told us. I can assure those opposite that our approach going forward will reflect the decisions that we have taken in previous budgets, which is to find savings where we can, to repair the budget where we can. Remember there is $80 billion less interest we're paying now because we repaired the budget. We have delivered two surpluses, which are helping with the fight against inflation. And where there are additional investments required, they will not add to the inflation challenge. As you have seen in the decisions we have already taken, it is a responsible approach that looks at the short term but doesn't take our eye off the longer term. That is the approach we've taken since October. It is the approach that we will continue with. The 10000 Senator Dean Smith, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Dr Jonathan Kearns, the chief economist at Challenger and former RBA executive, stated that 'any stimulus is going to add to aggregate demand' and 'Anything that's stimulating spending will make the Reserve Bank's job harder and slow the reduction in interest rates.' Minister, does the Albanese government support keeping rates higher for longer by increasing spending in the form of one-off vote-buying payments? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm sure that Senator Dean Smith is very interested to know that the latest inflation figures show that headline inflation is the lowest it has been in almost four years. When we came to office, it was much higher and it was rising, at 6.1 per cent. Now it's 2.8 per cent. We also know that inflation is now at half of what we inherited and about a third of its peak. All of us in this place should welcome that, because that means that the prices people are paying are less than what we inherited when we came to government, when inflation was rising under you and interest rates were rising as well. Our budget strategy—and I know you continue to misquote the RBA in all of your questions, when they have said that our surplus budgeting is helping in the fight against inflation. We've delivered the first two surpluses—something that you were not able to do in your entire time in government—in 15 years. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Dean Smith, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Public sector spending reached a record high of 27.3 per cent of GDP in the June quarter, with economists and the RBA now effectively ruling out an early 2025 rate cut and forecasting no cut until at least July, August or even later. Senator Watt 245759 What are you going to cut? Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Minister, as rates stay higher for longer and insolvencies rise, real disposable income goes backwards and our standard of living diminishes— (Time expired) 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think I got the gist of that even though it was over time. I would remind those opposite as they demonise public demand, which is what they're doing, that it is an important component of the economy to make investments into public services. We believe in Medicare. We believe in the NDIS. We believe in aged care. We believe in aged-care wages. We believe in funding the community sector and healthcare workers properly. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator GALLAGHER ING We know you don't. You demonise public demand, but we know your demonisation is our essential public services. That's what we think. So investments are needed in those essential public services. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston 243273 Katy Gallagher scare campaign. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I have just sat the minister down, because, quite frankly, I'm over the interjections. When Senator Smith asked his question, I heard one interjection from the right-hand side. The rest of the question was given in absolute silence. The minute the minister stood, the interjections from you, Senator Smith, and other senators increased in volume the longer the minister spoke. I'm asking you to give the same courtesy you give to the person who's asking the question to the person who's answering the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING We see investment in public services as important, but I will remind those opposite that the Governor of the Reserve Bank has on a number of occasions said that public demand is not the main game, from her point of view. (Time expired) Climate Change 4918 14:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. With reports yesterday of the worst coral loss in 39 years in parts of the Great Barrier Reef, still the Albanese government is saying no 2035 target will be set until advice is received from the Climate Change Authority. Under the Climate Change Act, the minister has to request that this advice be given. The authority can't initiate that advice on its own. My question is: has the minister formally asked the Climate Change Authority for advice, under section 15 of that act, on what Australia's 2035 targets should be? 14:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Waters did give me the courtesy of alerting me that she'd ask this reasonably particular and fact based question. I can draw her attention to the website of the Climate Change Authority, which says this: The Climate Change Authority is developing advice on the 2035 emissions reduction targets for Australia's next Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), as requested by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. On their website they go on to talk a little bit about how they're doing that. What they're doing is complex whole-of-economy modelling, policy analysis, consultation and consideration of international trends. The question from Senator Waters seems to suggest in some way that the decision to make this request of the Climate Change Authority is a device of some kind by the government. Senator Waters might recall that the decision to insert such a requirement into this legislation was a decision that was supported by the Greens political party. In fact, it was a decision that we also welcomed. We think it is useful to have an independent, authoritative source of advice and analysis that can assist the government in recommending any future target. We are proceeding in exactly the way it was set out in the legislation. We are requesting advice from the Climate Change Authority. We look forward to receiving that advice, which the minister, as he has indicated on many occasions publicly, will consider and weigh before recommending any future target. The point is there is a lot of work to do in relation to our existing targets. Those opposite, as I understand it, don't plan to have a 2030 target at all. In fact, some of them are talking about walking away from the 2050 target. Some of them are calling to pull out of the Paris Agreement. We're getting on with climate action. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Overnight, Minister Bowen said, 'We must strengthen efforts and deliver our highest possible ambition.' At last year's climate meeting he said: We stand behind its call for future NDCs— targets— to be aligned with 1.5 degrees. This is the guiding "North Star" as countries prepare most ambitious NDCs. Will Australia's 2035 target be aligned with limiting warming to 1½ degrees? 14:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Waters, for pointing out that Australia is in fact involved in international forums, playing a constructive role and, frankly, back at the table. Senator Paterson 144138 Why didn't Albanese go? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McALLISTER 121628 The truth is it matters. It is in our national interest because if those opposite were actually paying attention, they'd notice that in communities they claim to care about bushfires are intensifying and becoming more frequent. Rainfall is intensifying and causing greater levels of flooding. Heatwaves are affecting older Australians— Senator McKenzie 207825 What's your target? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Senator McKenzie was called by you, she took a breath and then interjected again. I'd ask you to call her again. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I will remind you I did call order. You and Senator Paterson were interjecting. Senator Paterson kept quiet and you continued on. Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thank you. Senator Waters points out that we're at the table calling for international collaboration to deal with this challenge because it matters for Australians and, incidentally, it matters for our neighbours in the Pacific. The approach we take to setting the target will be exactly as we have explained on many occasions and is set out in the act. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The UK has set the test for the rest of the world by pledging an 81 per cent reduction in pollution by 2035. To be anywhere near that sort of ambition, the Australian government would have to finally confront the oversized contribution that our coal and gas exports make to cooking our planet. Is that something the Albanese government is willing to face up to? 14:23 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It again appears that the Greens political party are inviting us to offer and speculate about the kinds of targets we might propose prior to receiving the advice from the Climate Change Authority. It appears that what you'd prefer is a speculative process where we pick targets out of the air. What's actually being undertaken is analysis from the Climate Change Authority, which precedes government consideration of any target, which will be announced at the appropriate time. The truth is that action is required, and it's required because of the consequences for Australia and for our neighbours if we cannot, as a world, come to terms and start to reverse the warming trends that are causing so much damage to our communities. We are back at the table, part of the international community working to forge exactly such an agreement. First Nations Australians 4920 14:24 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving outcomes for First Nations communities. Can the minister please outline what the government is doing to reduce the cost of everyday essential items and improve health outcomes in remote First Nations communities? Senator Thorpe 280304 Locking all the babies up—that's what you're doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Come to order, Senator Thorpe! Senator Thorpe 280304 I thought I'd answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Come to order, Senator Thorpe! 14:25 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question. I know it is one that does concern her deeply. I recently returned home to my community of Borroloola in the remote Gulf region of the Territory. Residents in Borroloola, like many communities, face health challenges that are all too common among First Nations people, including diabetes and kidney disease, and, like residents in other communities, they have to travel long distances for health care and treatment. During my visit, I was pleased to announce the Albanese government is investing $13.5 million for a multipurpose community development that will include a renal dialysis clinic. A new renal facility in Borroloola means kidney disease patients will no longer have to relocate to Darwin or Katherine for lifesaving treatment. I take this opportunity as well to acknowledge the Mayor of Cairns, Amy Eden, and her delegation who are here. I recently visited the Cairns base hospital to work and talk with patients there so that we could look at setting up some treatment for them at home on the Torres Strait. We know that diabetes can be managed, if not prevented, through diet. That's why it's vitally important we improve food security for remote First Nations communities. Groceries in some remote First Nations communities cost more than double that in capital cities. Everyone deserves access to affordable, fresh and healthy food. In August, I wrote to manufacturers and producers asking for action to expand remote access to bulk-purchasing discounts. The letters asked for prices for 30 core products to be no more than those paid by major supermarkets. Earlier this month, I hosted the remote food supply chain industry roundtable. It was the first time stakeholders in the remote supply chain have come together to identify food security solutions for people in our most isolated communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:27 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I thank the minister for explaining the Albanese Labor government's action to reduce the cost of food in remote communities and how this is all part of the broader strategy to close the gap. How is the government supporting remote communities to access food all year round? 14:27 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator. Every wet season, some remote communities have road access cut off by floodwaters. Communities like Yarralin had its supply chains cut off for months. Stores were paying $10 per kilo for air freight, adding $20 to the cost of delivering two litres of milk. The Albanese Labor government is investing $9.6 million to improve food security for First Nations people in remote communities. The Store Efficiency and Resilience Package will support upgrades for more than 15 remote stores to ensure a reliable supply of nutritious food and essential groceries. We've worked with state and territory governments to identify the remote community stores most in need of immediate support. Funding will support increased storage capacity for both dry and refrigerated stock so stores can better manage supply chain interruptions, and the funding will also support stores to install backup power stations to save perishable stock and allow continued trading when power supplies fail. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It is great to hear about tangible outcomes for First Nations people in remote communities. What are the Albanese Labor government's long-term solutions to improve food security in remote communities, and how will these have a positive impact on health outcomes? 14:29 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We've heard from remote First Nations communities across Australia, from Galiwin'ku, to Charleville, to Yalata and to Bidyadanga. Remote communities are asking for reliable access to affordable fresh and healthy food. We are listening. We're working with state and territory governments, as well as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, to remove the roadblocks to cheaper, healthier food. The National Strategy for Food Security in Remote First Nations Communities will set out long-term sustainable solutions to improve food security in remote communities. The national strategy will identify and coordinate action for remote First Nations communities, and it will improve prices, quality and availability of food and other essential groceries. The national strategy's key objective will be improving the health and wellbeing of First Nations people in remote communities, and I do thank all of those who were involved with this process, in particular all the stores and the communities. Men's Health 4921 14:30 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday I visited the lawns in front of parliament to speak to advocates for the many victims of the epidemic of male suicide in Australia. Not a single Albanese government minister, senator or member bothered to turn up. In 2023, more than 2,400 Australian men and boys committed suicide, while the figure for women and girls was 203. In January 2023, the Albanese government halved the number of subsidised psychologist appointments per person. This has affected veterans, farmers, police, health workers and many other sections of our society. Given the growing mental health problems in Australia contributing to our suicide epidemic, when will the government restore funding to 20 subsidised psychologist appointments per person? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson for raising the very important issue of the mental health and wellbeing of Australian citizens and the difference, in particular, in numbers of men who are successful with suicide than women. That has been the case for as long as I've been watching that data. Obviously how we deal with trying to support people who are contemplating suicide is a real focus of everybody in this chamber. It has huge individual cost, obviously, family and friend cost and also significant costs to the community. I can go through a number of the initiatives we are funding in mental health. I wasn't aware of that gathering on the lawns of Parliament House yesterday. On the issue that you raise about better access, the issue we found with that program was when it was returned to its normal level of 10 sessions—it was expanded only in COVID for 20 sessions—per person, it allowed a much greater number of individuals to access it. It didn't reduce access. It actually increased access because what we saw was that there's only a certain number of psychologists. If they see the same patient 20 times as opposed to seeing two patients 10 times, we were able to— Senator Ruston 243273 It's demand driven. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, it's demand driven. But there is only a finite capacity of psychologists available to provide services. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator ING What we've seen is that— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Senator Ruston today, President, has ignored your ruling and laughed about ignoring your ruling on numerous occasions. It is time that she, as a senior member, actually showed the chair some respect. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I have called you, and, the minute after I called you, you continued interjecting. You are being disrespectful to me. I'm asking you that, when I call you to order, you come to order. Senator Thorpe 280304 Censure her too, then! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you come to order as well. Senator GALLAGHER ING I will provide some more information in the next answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Advocates at yesterday's event spoke passionately about unjust family law outcomes contributing significantly to the epidemic of male suicide in Australia. The Albanese government's removal of shared parental responsibility from family law has made the system even more biased against men and fathers. Will the government acknowledge the family law system is heavily biased against men and fathers and is contributing to the male suicide epidemic in Australia? 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson for the question. Just to finish up on the Better Access program, I think it is important. The evaluation found that people with lower incomes and those living in rural, regional and remote areas were missing out on much-needed care. That's why one of the programs that we are starting through the last budget is to establish a new national mental health service free of charge for all Australians, regardless of your postcode. There was significant investment, and it was particularly to deal with the issue that you raise, Senator Hanson. On the family law matters, the changes we made to family law were not aimed at disadvantaging one parent over another. They were focused on—and this was informed by advice from various inquiries—custody arrangements or access arrangements being made in the best interests of the child. That was, I think, agreed through this place. It was not aimed at disadvantaging any parent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland That may not be the case, but it's having the impact. The Albanese government has committed considerable taxpayer funding to address women's issues and has appointed an assistant minister for women. The government has also stated on many occasions that it is committed to gender equality. Minister, when will the Albanese government show a real commitment to gender equality and appoint a minister for men? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hanson for the question, and she would note that the first national strategy on gender equality does include and mention specifically areas where men and boys face particular disadvantage. That is the whole purpose of gender equality. It is not promoting women over men or men over women. It's saying that we all benefit when both genders have access to equal opportunities. That is the whole nature of having a strategy on gender equality. I can tell you that the assessment, particularly around health, and particularly around mental health and access to health services, is looked at through what services are targeted at and best designed to support men. It's about how we reach men, particularly in relation to health services, because we know that men are more reluctant than women to reach out and access health services. Energy 4922 14:37 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator, Mr Daniel Westerman, was recently asked at a Senate inquiry if he could guarantee that electricity prices would be lower under the government's energy plans. He responded, 'I can't guarantee that; no.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Can the minister guarantee that the government's energy policies will lower the actual ongoing electricity bills for Australians, as Mr Albanese promised? 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I tell you what I can guarantee. I can guarantee that energy prices under us will not include the $600 billion that you would spend on the single most expensive form of energy that there is. I can also confirm that Australian households would have been worse off if you had gotten your way and prevented the energy bill assistance that the Labor government put forward from flowing to Australian households and Australian small businesses. And I can also confirm that your $600 billion nuclear scheme will take decades to build, will add $1,200 to power bills and will provide four per cent of energy needs. The facts are, Senator, that you can come in here and talk about energy bills, but you propose more expensive energy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 I asked about the government's policies making power prices lower, not our policies that they don't even know about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Duniam, the minister is relevant, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU It is clear that there is one party working to ensure we deliver cleaner, more reliable, cheaper energy to Australians. There is one party working to ensure we assist Australians to the extent we are able with higher energy costs. And there is another party that doesn't want Australians to be assisted—another party that wants to spend $600 billion on the most expensive form of energy there is. And now they want to make a political point about energy costs. Do you want to know why energy bills have been spiralling? Some of it is international circumstances, but, in great part, it is because you and Senator Canavan and others didn't allow Senator Birmingham and others in your party to put forward an economically responsible transformation of the energy system. You had 22 policies. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary? 14:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania When pressed on why Mr Westerman could not guarantee lower power prices, he stated that the Integrated System Plan: … doesn't refer to whether it's cheaper or more expensive for that wholesale component … Minister, how much more do Australians have to pay for electricity to meet the government's plans for an 82 per cent renewable energy target by 2030 and also net zero emissions by 2050? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm happy to respond to that and I'm happy, in particular, to point out that net zero emissions by 2050 is actually— Senator Canavan 245212 Did you watch the doco? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take that interjection from Senator Antic, or was it Senator Canavan—'Did you watch the doco?' What we've noticed is that, despite the fact that Mr Dutton and the coalition are for net zero by 2050, all of those who helped kill the 22 plans are now up to it again. Senator Canavan is saying very clearly, 'Why do we remain committed to this radical net zero agenda?' Senator Matt Canavan is part of the group, along with Mr Joyce, who destroyed 22 policies that the Liberals tried to bring forward and now are trying again to walk away from net zero. That is why we are having to work to fix up your mess after 22 plans and less supply. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! I have repeatedly called you. Senator Canavan! Senator McKenzie, I am now standing. Senator Canavan, I called you three times and you completely ignored me asking you to stop. That is disrespectful and disorderly. Senator Ayres, you also interjected, and so did you, Senator McKenzie. I should not have to stand to get order in this place. Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania We will try a third time to get the government to talk about their energy policies if they have any. Will the Albanese government ever deliver on its promise for an ongoing $275 average electricity bill reduction for Australian households? The 10000 Order! Senator Colbeck, I was just on my feet because of the disorder in this chamber, but somehow that completely went over your head. You immediately began interjecting. I'm asking all senators, on my left and my right, not to interject. 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, what I can indicate to those opposite is that we will do what is most economically efficient, which is to deliver the cheapest form of energy that we can. Senator Birmingham H6X Why did you promise it? You promised this cut. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham! Senator WONG 00AOU Unlike you, Senator Birmingham—thank you for continuing to interject—we will help with people's energy bills in a way you refused to. You voted against cheaper energy bills. You voted against energy bill relief. Anyone who wants to understand the hypocrisy of what is being put to the government in this chamber by those opposite need only look to the votes where they voted to ensure that Australians did not get energy bill relief on their bills. That is what Mr Dutton voted against here and in the other place. Now they want to pretend that they care about cheap energy. (Time expired) Middle Arm Project 4923 14:44 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. There's been more delays to the controversial Middle Arm gas and petrochemical hub on Larrakia country, which your government is pumping billions of dollars into. Engagement with Larrakia custodians has been a sham. Larrakia families and First Peoples across the Territory have made it clear that there is no consent for this ecocidal project, which will destroy sacred Larrakia country, harm health and poison the oceans, waters, lands and air. As the minister for First Peoples, how are you making sure that this project does not progress without the free, prior and informed consent of the Larrakia people and other First Peoples impacted by this gas hub? 14:45 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the question. Given that Middle Arm is a focus of one of my colleagues, I will touch specifically on the First Nations element of it, and, of course, I'm sure there will be more to say in regard to Middle Arm. In terms of any First Nations organisations or First Nations people to do with construction or with development, there is always a process in each state and territory jurisdiction. It is not for the Commonwealth, in this particular instance, to focus specifically on the Larrakia people; it is for the Northern Territory government in terms of the discussions and decisions they have. But in terms of— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 A point of order on relevance: this is about free, prior and informed consent. How do you get that? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. Your question was much broader than that, and the minister is being relevant to your question. Senator McCARTHY 122087 As I was about to say, we have the four land councils in the Northern Territory. Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, their role is to consult with each of the language groups across their jurisdiction. The Northern Land Council covers the northern part of the Top End. You have the Central Land Council in the central part of the Territory. You have Anindilyakwa Land Council over on Groote Eylandt, and you have the Tiwi Land Council on the Tiwi Islands. It is important that through the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, whether it's with Larrakia people or people in the western area or the Yolngu in the eastern area, there is a process they go through to provide their consent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:47 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria You are the minister for First Peoples and a senator for the Northern Territory, yet you're willing to stand by and let your government push ahead and pour billions of dollars into destroying country. When will you properly represent First Peoples in the Territory and call for your government to redirect the $1.5 billion towards projects that will help the community and protect country and health? 14:47 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory As a senator for the Northern Territory and, certainly, as Minister for Indigenous Australians, I'll always do my utmost to represent First Nations people across the country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? Senator Thorpe 280304 That's not what they say! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, wait until you're called. Senator Thorpe 280304 Did you call me? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe— Senator Thorpe 280304 Do you want me to sit— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. I simply asked you to wait until you were called. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, come to order! Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Your government won't stop the destruction of country, you won't introduce new cultural heritage legislation, you won't comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, you won't touch truth or treaty and you won't stop the ongoing genocide against our people. Given all of that, why do we even need a Minister for Indigenous Australians? 14:48 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I certainly would completely disagree with Senator Thorpe. There is a great need for a Minister for Indigenous Australians in this country to push through on Closing the Gap; to meet with our state and territory ministers, which I did on Friday; to meet with the Coalition of Peaks, who do their utmost to improve the health and livelihoods of First Nations people; and to negotiate within cabinet and with my colleagues, with their respective portfolios, on how we can reach agreement through the national agreement, which was signed by both the opposition and the government in every single jurisdiction. That's why we need an Indigenous Australians minister: to ensure that all of these things go through— Senator Thorpe 280304 We need one that actually takes action, not sits on their hands. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, order! Senator McCARTHY 122087 and that there is the ability to have the traineeships to ensure— The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Minister McCarthy. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Senator Thorpe continues to interject. I ask that you call her to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 I have been calling the senator to order. Senator Thorpe 280304 You're a joke. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe! Senator McCARTHY 122087 I'm certainly incredibly proud of the Indigenous organisations that do their best for First Nations people across this country. (Time expired) Vocational Education and Training 4925 14:50 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training, Senator Watt. We know fee-free TAFE is changing lives. Within the first three months more than 118,000 people had enrolled in free TAFE courses, with hundreds of thousands more over the past 18 months. These enrolments have been in areas like care, early childhood education and construction. How is the Albanese Labor government bringing costs down so Australians can get the skills they need for the jobs they want, and what are the key barriers to delivering this support to Australian students? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks very much, Senator Urquhart. While we will very much miss you in this chamber, we know you will do an outstanding job as the future member for Braddon. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the Far North Queensland delegation who are here. It's great to have some more Queenslanders in this chamber as well. We know that Australians are under the pump at the moment, and that's why we are delivering cost-of-living relief and helping more Australians get a job. That's exactly why Labor is making it free for more Australians to study at TAFE—so they can access high-quality, affordable training. Free TAFE is delivering the training that Australians want and the skills they need to get ahead for free. Yesterday I attended a ceremony here celebrating the Australian Skillaroos, the best apprentices and trainees from around Australia, who competed on the world stage at the WorldSkills event in France earlier this year. But, shortly after yesterday's event, the deputy Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, snuck away to the coalition caucus room, where they chose to turn their backs on these TAFE students, announcing the coalition will oppose Labor's Free TAFE Bill. Peter Dutton's deputy Liberal leader went further when she spoke in the House yesterday, where—wait for this—she said, 'It's a key principle of the Liberal Party: if you don't pay for something, you don't value it.' How unbelievably arrogant of the Liberal Party to say those sorts of things. She went on to say: So, if you're told that your TAFE is free … all you have to do is turn up … if that's all it is but you haven't paid for it, you don't see it as something that makes a difference to you in your life; you don't see it as something valuable. I have never heard such arrogant, vile sneering from someone, looking down their nose at those working-class Australians who are trying to get ahead. If the Liberals believe that apprentices and trainees don't deserve free TAFE, well Labor does. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Since June 2023, more than half a million Australians have enrolled in free TAFE courses. Despite this, I know the Liberals and Nationals have described free TAFE as 'wasteful spending'. Why is it important that free TAFE is enshrined in legislation, and what would be the consequences of failing to do so? 14:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Urquhart. You've really got to hand it to Mr Dutton's coalition, because it is them who called free TAFE 'wasteful spending' and it is them who say that Australians don't value something if they don't pay for it. No Labor government will ever call TAFE a waste, and I'm proud the Albanese Labor government is locking in free TAFE, making it permanent nationwide, and so are the working-class Australians who are taking up those free TAFE places to get ahead in life. But the Liberals and Nationals say that you don't value something if you don't pay for it, that you should pay more to go to TAFE. What else do the Liberals say that Australians don't value, because they don't pay for it? What else will Mr Dutton make Australians pay for, just so they can value it? Will Australians pay more to see a GP under Mr Dutton, just like he tried to do last time he was the health minister? Will Australians pay more to access the free NDIS, just so they can value it? Australians are beginning to realise exactly how arrogant and reckless Mr Dutton is, and we'll make sure they remember it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Urquhart, second supplementary? 14:54 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania One in every three free TAFE places have been taken up by people in regional communities, and six in every 10 enrolments have been women. How is the Albanese Labor government's investment in free TAFE supporting people across Australia to get the high-quality skills our country needs, and what challenges has this cost-of-living support faced so far? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Urquhart. Obviously, the biggest challenge we face in delivering more free TAFE to Australians is the sneering, arrogant view from Liberal Party members and senators that you don't value something if you don't pay for it. If the Liberals believe that the diesel mechanics in Mackay taking up free TAFE don't value their training, Labor does. If the Liberals believe the trainee nurses in Devonport don't value their training and their courses, Labor does. If the Liberals believe that apprentice carpenters in Nowra don't value their training because they don't pay for it, Labor does. Labor will continue to deliver the free TAFE courses that working-class Australians deserve and that they are using to get a pay rise and a step ahead in life. We will not cop the sneering, arrogant, looking-down-the-nose attitude of the Liberal Party, who want to keep people in their place, just as the Liberals always want to do. Free TAFE will stay under Labor. It'll go under Peter Dutton and the Liberals. Banking and Financial Services 4926 14:56 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The 1937 banking royal commission recommended that the central bank should always control the volume of credit in the system. This wise policy saw housing ownership reach record levels after the war, until the mid-1980s, when Paul Keating recklessly reversed this policy by lifting foreign capital controls. This saw foreign debt held by the four major banks increase from $8 billion to almost $800 billion by 2008. This doubled the price of houses relative to income, lifted household debt to record levels, forced households to put two parents back into the workforce and lowered Australia's education rankings. Will the Labor government reverse this reckless neoliberal policy and use capital controls to limit household debt to sustainable levels and increase housing affordability so that future Australian generations can afford to buy a home? 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, the government isn't planning on reforms such as the one outlined by Senator Rennick. Our focus on housing affordability is on the supply side. That is the area of pressure which we are experiencing in the housing market right now. There are simply not enough houses to match the demand for houses. We do believe the government has a role to play to ensure that we are delivering the right type of housing for the demand that's out there. That involves making sure that we have funded services that are dealing with homelessness and people who need a particular support in that sector. Then, in the social and affordable housing sector and the community housing sector, it involves making sure that there is accommodation and that suitable projects are happening there. Then it involves looking at how we can support renters through rent assistance; we've put in a big increase there. Beyond renters, we're looking at how you support people into homeownership. Our Help to Buy Scheme, which is stuck in this Senate, would support tens of thousands of people into homeownership, with the government providing the necessary support. And we are ensuring that we're working with the states and territories to unblock all of the barriers and the bottlenecks that exist with the delays in infrastructure and enabling works to get housing developments open. So that is the plan that we have, Senator Rennick. I accept that it's not your preferred plan, but that is the plan that we have been working on for the last two years, since we came to government. We do believe there's a role for the government to intervene and to be actively involved in supporting the areas of demand in the housing system, but we prefer the path that we've gone on, which is focusing on supply. It would be great if the Senate would support some of those bills that have been locked in here for way too long. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, first supplementary? 14:59 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Australians don't want foreign social media companies controlling their free speech, yet that is exactly what happens with our banking system, whereby the government allows domestic banks to borrow unsecured credit from foreign banks with no controls in relation to earnings capacity or security. Will the Treasurer take responsibility for the volume of credit in Australia rather than allowing it to be controlled by foreign central banks? 14:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We have a highly regulated banking system in Australia. It is highly regulated, it is well capitalised and it has functioned well, particularly in times of crisis where we have seen failures in other economies, particularly of big financial institutions. We have not seen that here because of not only the capitalisation they have but also the highly regulated environment that they operate in. We believe strongly in a competitive and profitable banking sector, we believe it's good for the economy and we believe that the regulations that exist now are appropriate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland There are two types of capital: debt and equity. Companies issue new equity all the time against income producing assets. Will the Treasurer, using Australia's sovereign equity in its untapped wealth, create an infrastructure bank to provide capital to state and federal governments to fund nation-building dams, roads, rails, ports and power stations, instead of using foreign debt? 15:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Rennick for the question. We certainly believe the Commonwealth has a role in nation-building infrastructure. That's why we have a very significant infrastructure program that Minister King is rolling out, and we do have a role to play in water security, in national highways and in other important projects. We believe the way that they are being funded right now is appropriate. It's funded through the budget. There's always more demand than we can meet through that, but we wouldn't be looking to establish a fund such as the one Senator Rennick outlines. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 4927 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 4927 15:02 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. What we heard today was a government in denial about the scale of economic challenges that Australia is facing. We had Senator Canavan ask Senator Gallagher about business insolvencies being at a four-year high. We had Senator Dean Smith ask questions about the size of public sector spending, now at a high of 27.3 per cent in the quarter, and the role of public sector spending in contributing to inflation. But what we heard from Senator Gallagher was that the facts don't support that, that the RBA was being misquoted and that public demand was being demonised, and she was trumpeting a headline inflation figure. It has taken me a while to figure out the meaning of this term 'gaslighting', but after a lot of discussion with my children I think this was a textbook example of gaslighting—telling not only those of us on this side of the chamber but the Australian public that their lived reality, their lived experience, of higher electricity prices, of higher inflation, of deteriorating living standards, of lower disposable income and of higher interest rates is not actually true. We had Senator Gallagher say that COSBOA's figures were wrong, that the RBA didn't say what they said, that the Productivity Commission, which has been warning about these things, was also wrong and that, indeed, the everyday lived experience of Australians was wrong. Let's look at the facts here. Insolvency rates in Australia right now are 25 per cent higher than they were prior to the pandemic—5.04 per cent in October. That means that one in every 20 businesses has been failing over the last 12 months. CreditorWatch expects this to rise to 9.1 per cent in the next 12 months—that is, one in every 11 business will be at risk of failure. Senator Gallagher's answer was: 'The facts don't support that.' We've now seen public sector spending reach a record of 27.3 per of GDP in the June quarter. The average size of public sector spending in the decade prior to the pandemic was 22.5 per cent. So we've seen government spending massively increase. Senator Gallagher was trumpeting employment growth. Well, of the 209,000 jobs created in the first half of 2024, fully one in two of them was a public sector job. In normal economic conditions, in normal economic times, six in seven jobs are private sector jobs and one in seven is a public sector job. Instead, one in two of those jobs created are in the public sector. We've seen 26,000 more permanent APS staff added to the payroll, adding $5 billion annually to the government's wages bill. Real household disposable income has declined eight per cent in Australia since the first quarter of 2022. That's why everyone is feeling worse off: because they're paying more in taxes, because inflation is eating up more of their after-tax income and because interest rates are higher. That is the worst performance in the OECD, if you look back over the last 2½ years. In the US, for instance, real household disposable income has increased by three per cent since the first quarter of 2022. In Australia, it's gone backwards by eight per cent. That's why people feel like we're in a recession: because we've had six consecutive quarters of negative real GDP per capita growth. The only thing that is keeping the economy ticking over, in notionally positive terms, is record-high immigration. We have core inflation at 3½ per cent—still stubbornly high. Senator Gallagher was trumpeting the headline inflation rate. The RBA has been very clear that they are looking at the core or underlying inflation rate when they are looking at interest rate settings, and we just had Michele Bullock, the Governor of the RBA, warn earlier this month, publicly, about the inflationary implications of the government's own policy—a shot across their bows. Yet we didn't have Senator Gallagher ruling out massive handouts or spending sprees prior to the election. Instead, she focused on a policy that the government should be embracing—zero emissions nuclear energy—but which, instead, they are shunning. So we have a government here which has no answer to inflation, no answer to the challenges of homeownership, no answer to the productivity challenge, no answer to high electricity prices—and, incidentally, no reduction in emissions. It contests what the RBA says, what COSBOA says, what the Business Council of Australia says, what the Productivity Commission says—indeed, what everyday Australians say about how tough living conditions are. Its only answer is some sort of alternative reality where we are told that Australians have never had it so good. Their experience is quite the opposite. 15:07 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria We know, on this side of the chamber, that Australians are doing it tough. It's something that we have been taking very seriously since we came into government 2½ years ago, and we've been working every day to reduce the pressure that Australian families are under. That job is certainly not made easier by the previous coalition government and the numerous gifts that they left the Australian people with—gifts like debt, inflation, declining real wages and energy insecurity; gifts that nobody wants to receive for Christmas. This is the same economy that they left for small businesses, who they purport to care so much about. Despite these constraints, the Albanese Labor government has picked up the pieces and delivered two successive budget surpluses. We've begun to pay down the Liberal debt, while reducing inflation to its lowest in four years. We've put significant effort and time into easing the pressures felt by Australian families. From 1 July 2024, every taxpayer received a tax cut—not just some, as was planned by the Morrison government. We are putting more money back into the pockets of Australians. Australians have saved more than half a billion dollars in cheaper medicines since September last year. To ensure you aren't paying more at the check-out, we've initiated an ACCC inquiry into the supermarket sector. The ACCC will provide their final report in early 2025. Those opposite often misled Australians about the economy, but they were telling you the truth when they told you, in 2019, that wage stagnation was a deliberate design feature of the coalition government. And you can expect more of that if a Dutton government is elected. On this side of the chamber, a Labor government could not be more different. Australians deserve strong bargaining rights and strong wages. Through successive rounds of reform to the Fair Work Act we've rebalanced industrial relations, allowing real wages to grow in each quarter of the last year. Peter Dutton has opposed increasing wages and tax cuts so the average worker will be almost $4,000 worse off. That is you, the average worker, $4,000 worse off under Dutton. He opposed power bill relief so the average household would be $300 worse off. How can you oppose power bill relief for every Australian? It is absolutely insane that you would want Australians to be paying more on their energy bills, but that's exactly what happened in this chamber. He voted against making medicines cheaper. In fact, the average household will be around $7,600 worse off under a Dutton government. That is absolutely what you can count on under a Dutton government. The coalition have said that they want to wind back $315 billion of government spending. That includes cuts to the public service—services that you rely on, whether it's Medicare or Centrelink or aged-care services. They want you waiting months for your passport, apparently. Don't worry about your holiday! The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently said that electricity prices fell 17.9 per cent in the 12 months to August, thanks to the energy bill relief of the Albanese Labor government that you voted against. This is the largest annual fall for electricity on record. On record. The Albanese Labor government understands what it takes to sensibly manage the Australian economy while looking after you. That's why we have introduced cheaper child care and made health care more accessible. To moderate inflation and grow the economy, we need a thriving and modern workforce. Those opposite have ignored the economic realities that are right in front of them. After almost a decade of doing nothing to confront Australia's long-term energy insecurity, the previous government left Australians exposed to global interruptions in supply. Now the opposition wants to use their taxpayer money to fund the construction of inefficient nuclear power plants, costing $600 billion for only 4 per cent of energy supply. 15:12 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I know that, coming into this chamber, sometimes there seems to be some repetition here, and it gets very repetitious if you're in the chair. I'm sure you appreciate that, Deputy President. One of the things that has been repeated—quite reasonably, in my view—is the number 275. Do you know why? I'll tell you, because you want to ask. The answer is that that is the figure this Labor government promised the Australian people their power prices would drop by prior to the last election, and guess what? Guess what actually happened? Senator Sharma 274506 I've got it on my fridge. Senator ANTIC 269375 Senator Sharma has it on his fridge, he tells me. He's just sitting there waiting, looking at it, hoping for it to manifest: 'When am I going to get this fabled number? When is it going to come to me?' It didn't happen. It was never going to happen. The more we hear it, the more ludicrous it becomes. In his excellent commentary earlier on, Senator Sharma used the word 'gaslighting', which is a term that I've known for a while. It took him a while—not me. This is the ultimate form of gaslighting because I don't think that Prime Minister Albanese had any feel that would become reality. We have seen why now. The plan was never to encourage a drop in power prices; the plan was to spend as much of your money and my money and Senator Scarr's money as he could in order to prop up this intermittent power Ponzi scheme that we have. Have you heard about this? This is a scheme where you go out and get power from the sun and the wind—except when the shine doesn't go and the wind doesn't blow. Some people call these 'bird choppers', by the way. They do. They call them 'bird choppers'. They chop up birds. Go to the bottom of one of these things and you'll see it's like a bird graveyard. They've got the Holy Trinity: they're expensive, they don't work when the wind's not blowing, and they kill the wildlife. Imagine the left going for this! But here we are and that's where we've got to. Now we're here, after all this, and today we heard Senator Duniam ask some questions about the comments made by the CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator. He said, 'I can't guarantee that the prices will be lower under this energy plan.' What a shock it was when we found out that it's actually going to be $642 billion more expensive. We now learn that costs are going to be five times higher than what was originally claimed. That sounds like a bit of gaslighting to me. We understand that on this side of the chamber. We've set out a plan for bringing energy prices down. It involves nuclear power and it involves gas, obviously. Yet what have we got? We've got Chris Bowen racing around at COP29 looking very excited—he's in with his people and loving it; it's like going to Disneyland—but not actually allowing us to sign up to the nuclear bit. During the previous COP, 31 countries signed up and signed this nuclear agreement; it's true. These COP conferences are where billionaires go to tell millionaires how to tell us to live, by the way. We turn up this year and we're still: 'Oh, I don't know about nuclear power. No-one's ever tried before.' Everyone's tried it. Canada has a $5 billion a year industry—I think it's actually $15 billion; I could be wrong—based on this very technology. 'It's unproven.' But everyone uses it. All of the OECD countries use it; France uses it. 'It's going to poison the landscape.' Well, your French champagne you chug down at the chairman's lounge doesn't seem to bother you, does it? No-one seems to care. They all get into their French champagne and they're like: 'Where's the radiation? Who's got the radiation?' No one's got the radiation, because it's a complete joke. What we want in this country is cheap power, and there's no plan to get it under this. We've now got proof that the plan is going to cost $642 billion. What we actually need in this country is a department of government efficiency, a DOGE. That is what the Trump administration's going to do. It's brought in Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Elon reckons he can cut $2 trillion from that. I reckon I could do it in about 45 minutes around here. You go to estimates and watch bureaucrats walking around and patting each other on the back, saying: 'Great job. What's your job?' 'I'm in gender diversity.' 'No kidding! Are you really? Wow!' 'What do you do?' 'I'm into bird choppers. I regulate bird choppers. I'm the bird chopper guy.' I reckon I could do it in about 15 minutes—honestly. Give me the job; I'll do it! The Australian DOGE—that'll be me. Anyway, it's going to be too expensive. 15:17 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I rise to take note of the answers to the questions asked by Senator Canavan and Senator Dean Smith in relation to productivity and inflation. By way of context on productivity, I think it's fair to accept that we haven't had significant productivity reform in the two decades to this government. That's a conclusion that's reaffirmed by the comments of the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission also told the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living in June 2023 that improving productivity growth in Australia requires applying a productivity lens across the entire policy landscape. Boosting productivity is difficult and takes time. It takes consistent investment. It requires us to improve skills in our economy. It requires us to provide incentives for capital deepening across the economy and it requires competition reform in Australia. To that first point on education and skills, we need to increase the size of the skilled workforce in Australia. That's both in terms of productivity gains that come from that and also in terms of some of the capacity constraints that are driving some of these inflationary numbers. One of the things the Reserve Bank have told Senate committees and House committees in the last six months is that while demand remains higher than they expected, it's slightly higher, and public demand's not the main game in that. They've also said that there are significant capacity restraints in the Australian economy, it's that mismatch between supply and demand that drives up inflation. There are a number of measures that the government's implementing in order to improve productivity through upskilling the Australian workforce, but the best example and the most recent one is the fee-free TAFE program which has been in place since January 2023 and had 508,000 enrolments to 30 June 2024. That's 508,000 new skills put into the Australian economy. To break that down a little more specifically, 131,000 of those placements were in care. 48,900 were in the digital and technological part of the economy, 35,000 were construction related and 35,500 were in early childhood education and care. Six out of 10 of those enrolments went to women and one-third went to regional and remote Australians. That's a policy that improves skills in our economy and that's a policy that the coalition opposes. They oppose it even though they see it's working. They call it wasteful spending and then they have the temerity to come in here and complain about productivity when they oppose one of the main measures that would improve productivity in a fair way in our society. The second thing I want to talk about is competition reform. This government's approach to a revitalised national competition framework and policy has the potential, according again to the Productivity Commission, to return an additional $45 billion to our GDP and reduce prices across the economy by 1.5 per cent. That's a potential and it's an estimate; I accept that. But there are two things I want to tell you about today. One is merger reform. That is making mergers in our commercial sector quicker, simpler and easier. That's by first removing unnecessary barriers to low-risk mergers—mergers that don't have a significant impact on competition in the market—and second— The DEPUTY 10000 Senator Scarr, do you have a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 I do. I'm struggling to find out how merger reform is relevant to the answers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Competition reform is a testing to productivity, and I think the questions were of an economic nature, as were the answers. Senator Birmingham H6X You're being very generous, Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Merry Christmas. Please go on, Senator Ghosh. I'm interested. Senator GHOSH 257613 I appreciate the ruling, Deputy President, but could I refer to Senator Canavan's question, which said: Minister, how many more businesses have to fail before this inept government will put forward a credible plan to bring down inflation and boost productivity? I'm talking about productivity and the plan to do it. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 We're taking note of answers, though. Senator GHOSH 257613 It was part of the answers too, Senator O'Sullivan. Can we also talk about non-compete clauses. They're a cost in the economy, and a proper review of how non-compete clauses operate in employment contracts would significantly add to the Australian economy. It has done so in the United States in the implementation of those policies. Can I briefly talk about technology investment in that capacity as well. The Tech Council of Australia last week released a report that suggested there's significant opportunity to improve productivity and economic growth in our economy by investing in technology. We accept that much of that investment must come from a private-sector perspective but public sector has a role to play here too. That's where the government's National Reconstruction Fund, a $15 billion fund to help businesses improve their technological capacity, comes into it. That will give us the ability to continue to invest in technologies that improve productivity, drive economic growth and bring down inflation. This is the broader point. Those opposite oppose these policies and they oppose investment in the economy, and then they come in here and talk about how productivity is languishing. These investments take time. The government's got its priorities right and it's got a plan that's good for our economy. 15:22 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I note Senator Sharma's admission that he has Labor's promise of $275 per annum off power bills on his fridge. I must say I don't share his decorative habits in terms of my fridge. I've actually got a Thai restaurant menu and also a depiction of the Deputy President on my fridge, Tintin like. You know what I'm referring to there. There's been some discussion in relation to nuclear power in the course of this debate, and I just want to bring to the attention of this chamber the most recent observations coming out of the COP29 conference. As Senator Antic said, there are 31 nations around the world now who have signed up to triple nuclear power energy generation. Thirty-one nations are looking to triple it—not just to start it but to triple it. And a number of new nations signed up at the last COP29 conference. These include El Salvador, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo and Turkiye. Are we seriously suggesting that all of these countries, including El Salvador, Kazakhstan et cetera, are going down the nuclear power path and Australia shouldn't? Is that the suggestion? I say to this chamber that I believe the greater risk is if the whole world goes down the nuclear power path and Australia doesn't. From my perspective, that is a huge risk. We see at this point in time there are 64 nuclear power reactors being built around the world in 15 different countries. If they can do it overseas, why can't we do it here, with one of the world's most bountiful sources of uranium? Why can't we do it here? We're one of the most geologically stable countries in the world. Why can't we do it in Australia, when we've got the resources and, no doubt, we could quickly develop the know-how? These are the three additional countries which are going down the nuclear power path: Ghana, Poland, the Philippines. They can do it in Ghana, but we can't do it in Australia? They can do it in Poland, but we can't do it in Australia? They're going down the nuclear power path in our own local region, in the Philippines, and we're not going to do it in Australia? It doesn't make any sense at all. I'm proud to be a part of a coalition which is advocating going down the nuclear power path. As I say, the greater risk is that we don't go down the nuclear power path if the rest of the world does. Question agreed to. Men's Health 4931 15:26 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to men's mental health. I asked a question today of Minister Gallagher with regard to male and boys' suicide in Australia, of which there were 2½ thousand in 2023 and only 203 amongst females. I asked the question: why wasn't any Labor representative down there on the Parliament House lawns yesterday? I know for a fact that veterans, farmers, defence personnel, police officers, paramedics and health professionals are at risk of suicide. I asked a question about how the 20 visits a year have now been cut to 10 visits a year because we don't have psychologists. We have all these suicides that are happening, and people who have attempted suicide and need assistance, but they can't see a psychologist, because we don't have psychologists. How about looking at the NDIS? Professionals can be paid up to $195 an hour in the NDIS, so you have psychologists leaving the profession. They're not dealing with veterans, and they're not dealing with those people who need it in the normal sector. They're all flooding to the NDIS. That is one idea: let's look at what we're paying them in the NDIS. Another thing is, why don't you give incentives to the universities to get the students to actually apply for psychology courses? Give them incentives, because this problem is not going to go away. We have to find measures of addressing that. I also addressed family law, but you've got a closed bloody heart to this because you're not admitting that your policies and legislation are making it harder. You say it's in the best interests of the child, while the reports have said the best interest of the child is to have a connection with both parents. When you deny connection with the father—and if there is abuse there, by all means deny connection, but fathers are being denied the right to see their child when there's not. It's the right of children to have a connection with their fathers. Stop suicides happening in this country and get a minister for men. Question agreed to. Climate Change 4931 15:28 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 asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate (Senator Waters) today relating to emissions reduction targets. Senator Waters reminded the Senate today that, just yesterday, the Australian Institute of Marine Science have released some preliminary results from their survey of the Great Barrier Reef and the summer that we've just had. I remind the Senate what Senator Waters said: so far, some of the northern reefs that have been surveyed have shown the worst recorded loss of corals in the 39 years that the survey has been underway. This is in the northern section of the reef. I visited the southern section of the reef in April myself. I went to Heron Island Research Station. The devastation there was something to behold. I tell you, senators, it was very troubling to see the greatest natural wonder of the earth devastated by another marine heatwave caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The science tells us—not that we haven't seen enough of these marine heatwaves in recent decades—we will get them every year. And, on a two-degrees-warming scenario, we will see a loss of 99 per cent of the world's coral reefs, which is well underway. You wonder why this is happening, and you come into this place and hear the Liberal Party talk about nuclear energy—a deliberate distraction. I can't work out whether it was cooked up by Mr Peter Dutton and his compadres in here or by the IPA or the CIS—the Centre for Independent Studies—or one of the other networks around the world who are doing everything they can to undermine action on climate change and the rollout of renewable energies. That is why the Great Barrier Reef is dying on our watch, because we are failing to act in this place. I'll tell you what: the gist of Senator Waters's question is an absolutely critical one for us going into a federal election. In this place we have passed two pieces of legislation on climate. We set a target—completely inadequate—of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, and then we passed the safeguard mechanism. The Greens passed this legislation because we understood that this was the beginning of climate action after 10 years of nothing from the Liberal and National parties except undermining climate action. We passed this legislation with the expectation that the government would significantly increase their ambition on emissions reduction, and it is high time for the Labor Party to tell the Australian people and to tell senators in this place what their new emissions reduction targets are, if any at all. The last I heard, Mr Chris Bowen said he'd wait to see what other countries do. So much for leadership on climate action! We've seen the Queensland Labor government implement a target of 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035. Why can't federal Labor do that? What is holding the Labor Party back? I wonder what is holding the Labor Party back! No doubt it is their donors in the fossil fuel industry. It is the fact that they are totally captured by coal producers, big gas producers and oil and gas explorers. It's the same situation across both major parties in this country. That is why, sadly, we have another recorded mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. I am not politicising this. I have seen it with my own eyes, and it was absolutely devastating to see. I know what's happening off my coast in Tasmania, with the loss of giant kelp forests because of warming oceans and the march of invasive species. We can take adaptation measures to try and live with this new reality, but we must keep focusing on reducing emissions. The Labor Party needs to come clean. Will you promise the Australian people that, if you are elected to be the next government, you will set new climate targets for 2035? So far, all we've heard from the minister today is that he has requested that from the Climate Change Authority. But we have no idea whether this is going to be an election promise from the government. It has to be. I won't be part of a party that helps in any way prop up a government that doesn't take climate change seriously. There is no way in the world that the Australian people will accept that either. It is time to put up what your ambition is for climate action so that the Australian people have a clear choice when they vote. They will be voting for climate action. Question agreed to. NOTICES 4932 NOTICES Presentation 4932 BUSINESS 4935 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 4935 15:33 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator O'Neill for today, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Pratt from 20 November to 27 November 2024 for a parliamentary delegation. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 4935 15:34 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Fawcett for the following dates: (i) 10 November 2023, for personal reasons, and (ii) 9 to 10 October 2024, on account of parliamentary business; and (b) Senator McDonald for the following dates, for personal reasons: (i) 8 March 2023, (ii) 10 August 2023, (iii) 9 and 17 November 2023, and (iv) 22 August 2024. Question agreed to. NOTICES 4935 NOTICES Postponement 4935 15:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. COMMITTEES 4935 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 4935 Reference 4935 15:35 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I move: That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2025: Access to diagnosis and treatment for people in Australia with tick-borne diseases, with particular reference to: (a) the initiatives and resources developed to improve awareness, diagnosis, treatment and management of tick-borne diseases in Australia since the release in 2016 of the Community Affairs References Committee report Growing evidence of an emerging tick-borne disease that causes a Lyme-like illness for many Australian patients; (b) the adequacy and effectiveness of the 'debilitating symptom complexes attributed to ticks' clinical pathway to support patients; (c) current research to advance the management of complex inflammatory diseases; and (d) any other related matters. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 4936 DOCUMENTS Digital Transformation Agency 4936 Order for the Production of Documents 4936 15:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than midday on 25 November 2024, with reference to the Australian Government's Data Digital Strategy Implementation Metrics Framework, the following: (a) the percentage of users who were satisfied while engaging with government services; (b) noting House of Representatives question in writing no. 671, the satisfaction results per agency that participated in the trial; (c) the percentage of services co-designed with the requirement of the Digital Service Standard (DSS); (d) the names of the services and their sponsoring agencies that have been found to be co-designed per the requirements of the DSS; (e) the names of the services and their sponsoring agencies that have been found not to be co-designed per the requirements of the DSS; (f) a list of applicable entities that have launched since 1 July 2024 as per Phase 1 of the DSS; (g) the percentage of services, and the names of those services and their sponsoring agencies, that have been co-designed in line with the DSS as per Phase 1 of the DSS; (h) the percentage of services, and the names of those services and their sponsoring agencies, that have not been co-designed in line with the DSS as per Phase 1 of the DSS; (i) the names of those services and their sponsoring agencies that applied through the Digital Transformation Agency for an exemption in 2023-24 and to date in this financial year; (j) the names of those services and their sponsoring agencies, for those services that met all 10 criteria, as per Phase 1 of the DSS; (k) the names of those services and their sponsoring agencies, for those services that have not met all 10 criteria, and what those criteria were, as per Phase 1 of the DSS; (l) the percentage of services that are started digitally and successfully completed (digital service completion rate); (m) the names of the services and their sponsoring agencies that satisfied the digital service completion rate; (n) the names of the services and their sponsoring agencies that did not satisfy the digital service completion rate; and (o) the percentage of those services which were available to users, and the names of the services and their sponsoring agencies which comprised this metric and their respective availability percentage. Question agreed to. BILLS 4936 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024 4936

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024

First Reading 4936 15:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 4936 15:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I present the explanatory memorandum and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The bill addresses the unfair lack of democratic representation of the ACT and the Northern Territory. At our national birth in 1901, Part 2 of the Constitution set out that each state was to be provided an equal number of senators. A significant reason for this was the need to safeguard smaller jurisdictions against being dominated by a democratic majority. This is why there are as many senators from Tasmania as there are senators from New South Wales. This was a wise decision from the authors of our national birth certificate. It means that despite being vastly outnumbered in the House of Representatives, the Senate offers protection to smaller states from decisions that threaten their interests. But the Territories are not afforded the same protection. In 1975, a deal was struck to grant two Senators to each Territory. It was a political deal based on a calculation that each major party would get two more representatives. But the calculation did not address the core question of what baseline level of democratic representation is appropriate for Territories. It overlooked a deeper consideration of the appropriate balance between federalism and representative democracy. As a result, Territorians are denied protection and their legislatures suffer from interventions from the Federal Government. Historic violations of territory rights are a dark stain on our democracy. In the ACT, we suffered 25 years of discrimination that prevented Territorians from accessing voluntary assisted dying. But until just recently this was not the case. And attempts from the Federal Parliament to reach into territory issues continue. Less than a year ago, the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 was introduced into the Senate. That bill was yet another attempt to prevent the ACT government from making laws that impact ACT residents only. This overreach must stop. And part of the solution is providing the Territories fair representation in the Senate. This bill provides the ACT and the NT with half the number of senators as the states. In doing so, it strikes the right balance between federalism and representative democracy and would finally provide Territorians appropriate democratic safeguards. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 4937 DOCUMENTS Department of Social Services, Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint 4937 Order for the Production of Documents 4937 15:38 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move general business notices of motion Nos 682 and 683 together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 682 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than midday on 28 November 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction in relation to the Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint, from 1 July to 15 November 2024, between: (a) the Department of Social Services and the Minister for Social Services or their office; (b) the Department of Social Services and the Treasury; and (c) the Minister for Social Services or their office and the Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or their office. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 683 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on 28 November 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction from 1 July 2024 to 15 November 2024 between the Treasury and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or their office in relation to the Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint. Question agreed to. NOTICES 4937 NOTICES Postponement 4937 15:39 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 684 till the next day of sitting. Leave granted. COMMITTEES 4938 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 4938 Reference 4938 15:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move government business notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 together: GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1 That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water—Southern Ocean research aquarium. _____ GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2 That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Australian Institute of Sport revitalisation project, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. I also table statements in relation to the works. Question agreed to. NOTICES 4938 NOTICES Postponement 4938 15:40 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I seek leave to postpone business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 till the next day of sitting. Leave granted. DOCUMENTS 4938 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy the Environment and Water 4938 Order for the Production of Documents 4938 15:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) an internal review of freedom of information (FOI) reference LEX 77481 in relation to Coomera Connector stage 1 from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) was published on 12 November 2024; and (ii) Appendix B: Koala research updates was entirely redacted, (iii) Appendix C: Koala Translocation Status was entirely redacted, and (iv) Appendix G: Coastal Swamp Oak TEC was entirely redacted; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Thursday, 21 November 2024, DCCEEW FOI document LEX 77481 with appendices B, C and G unredacted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 678 standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.    

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

 39 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 15 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) 10 PAIRS Allman-Payne, P. J. Walsh, J. C. Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Cash, M. C. Pratt, L. C. Davey, P. M. Ciccone, R. Hanson-Young, S. C. Bilyk, C. L. Hume, J. Watt, M. P. McDonald, S. E. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Farrell, D. E. Ruston, A. Chisholm, A.

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 4939 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 4939 Reference 4939 15:48 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the following motion moved by Senator Hanson relating to a proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 February 2025: The failure of the Albanese Government's immigration policies to manage population growth and protect Australians' interests, with particular reference to: (a) the Government's failure to meet immigration targets and the impact of allowing record numbers of migrants into the country without adequate planning; (b) the role of mass immigration in driving up housing costs, worsening the rental crisis and locking Australians out of homeownership; (c) the unchecked influx of international students and the strain this placing on housing and services; (d) the strain on infrastructure, essential services and the environment caused by rapid, immigration-driven population growth; (e) the lack of clear and accountable processes for managing visa programs, including the Government's failure to enforce promised restrictions; (f) the uneven impact of immigration, creating unsustainable pressure on cities while diverting resources away from rural and regional areas and stifling their development; (g) the failure to address critical skills shortages through alternative methods, such as increasing apprenticeship subsidies and investing in local workforce development, instead of relying on high immigration; and (h) any other related matters. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the deferred vote, as moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 4940 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Albanese Government 4940 15:55 The PRESIDENT 112096 A letter has been received from Senator Lambie: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: "The Albanese Government has widened the trust deficit by backtracking on commitments to support small businesses and advancing legislation that damages the integrity of the political process". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:55 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to stand on a matter of public importance. When Senator David Pocock and I agreed to vote for a second tranche of the closing loopholes legislation, amongst other things, we asked for, and thought we'd got from Minister Burke in good faith, a review of the suitability of the Fair Work Act's definition of 'small business', which is currently set as fewer than 15 employees. Following a reshuffle, the new minister, Minister Watt, told the ABC that he didn't have plans to follow through on our good-faith agreement. How disappointing. Apparently, the words 'good faith' mean absolutely nothing to this government. This doesn't just send a very bad message to Australians; it says very clearly that the Albanese government is totally out of touch with small business and what they are dealing with right now. Tasmania has lost thousands of small businesses since this government came to power, and over 6,000 jobs have been lost over the last six months alone. They have been smashed by the red tape, including the unfair dismissal laws, which have completely gone Left. Since this government came to office, promising greater transparency, promising integrity and promising the Australian people that they would be careful about how they spend Australian taxpayers' dollars, I think we all had higher hopes, or at least some hope, that this government would not just talk the talk but walk the walk. Let's face it: they're not walking; they're crawling, and they're still in their naps. I think the only thing this government cares about is getting elected again. That's why they've done a dirty deal with the coalition to design election funding rules that help the major parties lock in more power. Time and time again this government has tried to stitch up the crossbench. They've taken away crossbench resources. They've pushed a mountain of legislation onto the crossbench with hardly any notice. The Australian Labor Party likes to think of itself as the party for the people, but, according to my research, they could also be known as the party of guillotines. They absolutely hold a new record on that. For those Australians watching who aren't political junkies, let me explain. A guillotine is when the government, usually in an attempt to avoid debate and scrutiny, put a lot of bills together and try to get them passed all at once. I don't like guillotines. In just one term this government has brought on more guillotines than the coalition did in nine years. In 2½ years they've shut debate down more in here than the coalition did in nine years of power. It's absolutely shameful. From the start of the 47th Parliament to August this government has stopped debate and pushed through 157 different pieces of legislation. That's 157 bills that weren't properly debated or scrutinised. A prime example of this was just last sitting week, when the government jammed the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill down the crossbenchers' throats. Despite there being 30 crossbench amendments on this bill, none of them even had a chance of being debated, let alone seeing the light of day. There was no community engagement. The local council that was affected by the Osborne site has since voted to oppose the storage and disposal of radioactive waste at the site. This just goes to show how much disregard the major parties have for communities, the Australian people and the crossbench. This government doesn't care about struggling small businesses, and, my God, are they struggling. They are absolutely on their knees. They don't care about kids getting addicted to gambling, and they don't care about wasting taxpayers' money—that's for sure. They certainly don't care about integrity and transparency. I want to remind Australians that these guys over here did everything that they could before the last election to say to you: 'We will be transparent. We will be so transparent. If there's one thing we promise you, we will be transparent.' Well, you failed. You have not been transparent with the Australian people. Even in here, we're trying to get questions on notice—what a joke!—and waiting months on end. They can't get it. They don't want to show us documents. This is not the way to run a country. This is not the way to build trust. It's certainly not the way to build trust in here, let alone the trust with the Australian people. When you go down at the next election, have a good look at yourselves and go back to one word: transparency. (Time expired) 16:01 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you to Senator Lambie for this reference for us to have a little debate. There were a range of things in there, but I got the general sense that you were really wanting to talk about electoral reform. When we talk about transparency, let's be really clear. We have talked about electoral reform for years. When the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters first started to look at this, as it does after every election, we were very clear about the things that we were going to look at. We have a very longstanding commitment to sensible long-lasting electoral reform. In the time over the 2½ years since we came to government, those conversations have been ongoing. Senator Farrell has reached out across this chamber and had ongoing conversations. We've held numerous hearings of the Join Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into people's perspectives and people's views. The committee worked exceptionally well together in doing that piece of work, in understanding what it was that wasn't working and in understanding what it was that we wanted to achieve. Some of the recommendations in there are exactly why we are where we are now. The notion that, just because you have a lot of money and just because you have a lot of resources, you can buy a seat in this chamber or a seat in the other chamber is not okay. That is not about the will of the people. That is not about people across this country being able to decide for themselves who they wish to have represent them in this chamber or in the other chamber. We can all stand around and talk about not agreeing with someone's views and not respecting different people's views. We should respect everyone's views in this chamber, because every last person in here has got here because they got enough votes to do so. These reforms are about making the system fairer. The reforms that have been put forward through tireless work from Senator Farrell are about fairness. One of the things that is, I think, a little sad is the thought that the truth in political advertising bill won't gain support. I've had this conversation numerous times over the last couple of years. I come from the great state of South Australia, where we have had truth in electoral advertising laws since 1984. We do it quite well, especially when we look at other states. The fact that we're hearing that people across this chamber are not going to support the introduction of truth in political advertising is deeply alarming to me. I would have to ask the question: why would you not support that? I think you should really ask yourself that question. We see some great opportunity here to make our electoral system fairer and to even up the playing field so that no-one can spend large sums of money and that every donation that is provided into any political campaign is declared as quickly as possible for transparency and for clarity. That's so that when voters, the good people of this country, decide who they are going to vote for, they can see exactly whose money has been spent and exactly who is utilising what resources to help get their message out about why people should vote for them. So why some of our colleagues in this room think this is bad is totally beyond me. We need to ensure transparency. We need to build faith, across the country, in how people get elected and how they campaign. We need to make sure that we are honest and transparent. These are things that we should all be aiming for. These are things that we should all be getting behind. Any conversation that says this hasn't been consulted on is, frankly, misguided. I was on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and I can assure you: there were many meetings, many conversations and many witnesses called, and many senators from this chamber engaged in that process. It was a great process, very well chaired by Ms Thwaites from the other place. I would commend this reform— (Time expired) 16:06 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I thank Senator Lambie for moving this motion. Rightly, Senator Lambie spoke, in moving this motion, to the promises—the very hollow promises—that the incoming Labor government gave about integrity and transparency, which they have, over and over again, walked away from, misleading the Australian people. I won't use another term that would more appropriately fit, but they have completely ignored the commitments they made to the Australian people for honesty and transparency. I was in this building, in a different capacity, in June 2013, on that very ugly day when 55 bills were guillotined through this place. So I say to you, Senator Lambie: this is not a new phenomenon. This is not some new pattern of behaviour from the Australian Labor Party in government. They have form. Not only was there that one week—effectively, one day—where 55 bills were guillotined through this place without proper debate, but during that term of government, 216 bills faced the guillotine. The Committee of Public Safety would have been proud of the Labor government's record of using the guillotine; Robespierre would have been proud of the Labor government's record on using the guillotine! Did they learn from the process failures of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years? Did they look at their own behaviour and say to themselves, 'Oh, maybe this actually isn't the way to run a legislative program. Maybe this isn't the best way of governing Australia'? It got to the point where bills with multiple, multiple—sometimes 10, sometimes close to 100—amendments were being rammed through, with no chance to look at those amendments, no committee stage on those bills and no chance to properly debate. Sometimes, there was not even the chance to have second reading debates, which are an essential component of our work of this place, in doing our duty to the people of Australia. Two hundred and sixteen bills, in one term of government, were guillotined through parliament. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years—we thought we'd seen the end of them; we thought that the Labor Party would have learnt their lesson from that time. But, sadly, Senator Lambie, the Labor Party didn't learn their lesson from the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Senator Lambie, something I would also like to point out, as to this motion, is that the Labor Party cannot guillotine alone. The Labor Party, on their numbers, cannot guillotine bills alone; they need the support of their allies in the Greens and they need the support of some of the crossbenchers in order to guillotine. So I say to you, Senator Lambie: I accept that you have been strong in this area, but the fact is that fellow crossbenchers have not been as strong. They have worked with the government. They worked with the government back in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years to ensure all those bills were guillotined—216 in one term of government. Currently, the crossbench works with the government to see all the many, many bills we have already seen in this term of government guillotined, and I suspect next week there's going to be another raft, if not later this week. We're going to see another huge raft of bills rammed through this place. Senator Gallagher, are you going to stand up and deny it? Is there going to be a guillotine next week? Oh, well, Senator Gallagher laughs, but I'm willing to predict there will be a guillotine next week. I'm willing to predict that the Committee of Public Safety will be at it again, that we in this place will lose our power to speak to bills, to discuss and debate amendments, and to have a committee stage, where we ask the minister very justified questions about this government's failure of process. (Time expired) 16:11 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Over the last couple of years we've seen small businesses ignored when it comes to legislative agenda. We've seen things like the instant asset write-off and the energy incentive legislated weeks before they expired. How is that an incentive? Sometimes we are legislating things after the fact. How are these not permanent measures to allow small businesses to actually plan? I think for the last seven budgets they've been announced. The coalition did it too—they announced new spending for small businesses. This new package which you've had for the last five or six years—just make it permanent. Allow small businesses to have certainty. Another extraordinary failure—and I spoke about this yesterday—of both of the major parties is their failure to act on security of payments. These are small businesses and subcontractors across the country who are getting dudded. They are not being paid for work that they have completed. They are doing jobs, builders go under and they don't get paid. We've seen the parliament move to make wage theft illegal, to do all sorts of things to protect workers, yet when it comes to tradies who run small businesses or sole contractors who are subcontracting on job sites—nothing, not even a response to the Murray review. We have a firm commitment from the Prime Minister to respond to the Murray review in this term of parliament, yet it seems like we're in the last two weeks of it and we still haven't seen it come through. The other area that we've heard so much about from small businesses is our procurement rules. They are not working for small businesses, yet we haven't seen any major changes to these procurement rules, despite everything that has come out about the failure of multinational firms who suck up contracts, often just skimming off the cream and then subcontracting to Australian businesses who should be able to get these contracts in the first place. Again, I've heard from so many Australian businesses who, when it comes to big procurement construction work from the Commonwealth government, will put in their bid with the builder. The builder will go to the Commonwealth government and say, 'These are all the subcontractors we're using and this is the price we can do it for.' The government then awards that contract, and the builder goes back out to all the subbies and says, 'If you want this job, give me your best price.' They've already worked out what it's going to cost them. Now the subbies are fighting amongst themselves, having to undercut each other, leading to more profit for the builder, while the subbies are at times are losing money to do jobs. We've got to do better than this for small businesses. The other part of this urgency is rushing through huge bills without any parliamentary scrutiny. I think the Senate recognises that at times guillotines are used to deal with bills that have been sitting in the Senate for a long time and have been through a Senate committee process, and people are largely settled on the way they will vote. We've seen that happen. It's a very different thing we are seeing with electoral reform. JSCEM recommends broad strokes, but the government then drops 400 pages of legislation and wants it passed in eight sitting days. It's extraordinary. I think it's a real abuse of parliamentary process to not even have a Senate committee scrutinise that amount of legislation. One of the other issues we've seen not dealt with is whistleblower protections. After almost a full term of government, we have heard lots of promises from the A-G about better protecting whistleblowers, acknowledging that the PID Act is often useless for whistleblowers. At the same time, he continues to prosecute Richard Boyle. It's time to drop that prosecution because that is also undermining trust not just in government but in institutions in this country. 16:16 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I too rise to speak on Senator Lambie's MPI about the damage the Albanese government has done by advancing legislation with regard to the integrity of the political process. We can talk about legislation, but we can also talk about the way we go about business in the chamber. I think there has got to be serious consideration and a bit of foresight. This fortnight is going to be very good example. I fear we are going to have a lot of important legislation guillotined at the end of next week, and we aren't going to get an opportunity to speak on the bill or ask questions in the committee stage. That's very important to do. If we and the public want to have a better understanding of the meaning and impact of these bills, it's important that we have an opportunity to put questions to the minister in a more informal process than question time. We could also cut some of these things that go on throughout the week—even this MPI. We do two lots of MPIs, but maybe we could do one set of MPIs throughout the day, or none at all. We have take note of answers to questions, which is basically bickering between the two major parties. Even question time most of the time, like today, is a waste of time, with people shouting over the top of each other. We really need to look at ways to stay focused on the legislation at hand and actually ask serious questions about the legislation at hand. I want to support Senator David Pocock's comments about whistleblower protections. I did speak about it last night. The case of Richard Boyle, who raised the issue of the ATO and how they were being heavy handed on small business, beggars belief when you compare with the double taxation arrangement we have with Ireland that hasn't been updated since 1983. Perhaps time would be better spent by the ATO and Treasury if they focused on looking at tax loopholes in these double taxation arrangements. I'll repeat the numbers for those of you who haven't heard them by now. Withholding tax on royalties to Ireland is 10c, company tax in Ireland is 12½c, and 10 plus 12½ is less than 30, so you have a 7½c arbitrage on every dollar that goes offshore. There are businesses in this country that are lucky to make a margin of 7½c, and yet we've got this screaming tax loophole that you could drive a truck through, and Treasury and the tax office aren't doing anything about that, but they're going after someone who was acting in good faith, Richard Boyle. We do need greater whistleblower protections; indeed I said last night here in the chamber that that is going to be one of People First's key policies for holding the establishment to account. I'm sick and tired of it. I often come in here and criticise the bureaucratic departments, but, to be fair, there are good people in those departments who try to speak up, or would like to speak up, but live in fear of actually losing their jobs. Indeed, I know whistleblowers who have lost their jobs because they spoke up. One in particular, who worked for Home Affairs, came to me about the fact that one of his roles was to censor posts throughout COVID. The other thing is that these electoral reforms are coming up. If you want to cap the big end of town in terms of donations, I think it's only fair that you allow minor parties to get electoral funding for the votes that they receive. The four per cent cut-off at the moment, I think, is entirely unfair to minor parties, because sooner or later, if you do want to break the monopoly of the two major parties, you've got to start as a small party, and denying them funding whilst also denying them access to the big end of town is not fair. So I have serious concerns over what may be proposed there as well. I look forward to the opportunity to actually discuss that particular bill if it comes up in the next fortnight and also to ask questions in the committee stage about that. I support this matter of public importance, and I would have liked to vote on it. 16:20 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Ask anyone in the real world what they think of politicians, and the answer is, 'I don't trust the bastards.' And why should they? We're again about to enter an election season where the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties will make endless promises about things they will never do. If you lie to the people, they won't trust you, and Liberal, Labor and the Greens have done plenty of lying. It's telling that in this chamber we can't call out a lie. I can say that the Labor Party lies, that the Liberal Party lies and that the Greens party lies, yet I can't say a particular senator has lied in a debate. That's unparliamentary. Well, Australians are listening to this discussion live right now, and tens of thousands more will listen later on social media. Listening to the comments, Australians think the never-ending lies are what's unparliamentary. Teenagers make a lot of those social media comments, and teens certainly are not fans of the government. The memes that teenagers come up with in picking apart the government are as funny as they are cutting. Has Prime Minister Anthony Albanese started reading the comments on social media? Is that why he's trying to get teenagers banned from social media? Eighty-nine per cent of Australians agree most politicians will lie if they feel the truth will hurt them politically. The Australian people aren't morons, and they aren't just seeing things. Many politicians do lie, and they lie all the time. That's not how it should be. It's not what I believe in. Ministers stand up in this place and avoid answering simple, direct questions. They give themselves a pat on the back and cheer themselves, thinking they're so clever for not giving an answer. Well, ministers, out in the real world, no-one believes the spin and the lies. They can see through the distractions and smears from ministers—for example, Ministers Watt and Ayres. People are laughing at and ridiculing you. Ninety-four per cent of surveyed respondents believe that a politician who is caught lying to the Australian people should resign their position. Liars are destroying trust in the democratic process and parliament. This place should deserve respect and trust as a gathering of representatives of the people. Every dishonest answer is a chip away from the health of our country. So I say to the other parties: the proof is in the data, and the solutions are obvious from the data. On 18 October, the Courier-Mail in Queensland reported the Roy Morgan survey on political trust. They surveyed the number of people who trusted and distrusted four of the largest parties and looked at the difference to get a net figure. Have a listen to these figures: net trust for the LNP, minus 12 per cent; net trust for the Greens, minus 13 per cent; net trust for the Labor Party, minus 17 per cent. Guess which is the only party with a net positive trust rating? One Nation. It turns out that, if you have principles and you say what you mean, people trust you. Many people agree with what One Nation says. Some people don't agree, yet everyone knows where we stand. If politicians stuck to their guns as Pauline Hanson does and if they listened to the people and stood up and said, 'This is what I believe in, and I can't be changed,' no matter what side of politics you're on, our country would be in a better place. No matter how embarrassing they are in the short term, honest answers are better for politicians and for the country in the long term. What will it take for politicians from the major parties to understand this? The Australian people are not mugs. They can make up their own minds, and they sure know when you are lying, so it's time to stop lying. The misinformation bill treats people as if they're all idiots who can't be trusted with the facts. There's nothing more damaging to trust and integrity than censorship. Australia doesn't trust them, so the question immediately becomes: what are the Liberals, Labor and the Greens hiding? The answer is everything, because you stand for nothing. That's why One Nation will move a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill this Monday. I'll say that again. This Monday, One Nation will be moving a motion asking the Senate to throw out the misinformation and disinformation bill—the MAD bill, the censorship bill, the one that doesn't trust the people. To restore trust in politics, politicians must be trustworthy. No-one who seeks to censor the opinions of Australians deserves their trust. While Labor pushes for a censorship regime under the excuse that it's about protecting your safety, One Nation pushes for you to be allowed to see the true facts and make up your own mind. There is nothing better for getting to the truth and being the arbiter of truth than free, open, public debate. Why do you not like free, open, public debate? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The time for this discussion has expired. Superannuation 4945 16:26 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Bragg, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move the following matter of public importance to the Senate for discussion: "When Cbus Super breaks the law, the workers' pay, because the Albanese Government will always protect Mr Wayne Swan, industry super and the unions over the interests of Australians, who are seeing the dream of home ownership slip further away". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:26 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The government of Australia is about to preside over the greatest conflict of interest in modern times, because the government of Australia is going to allow major super funds to pass on enormous regulatory fines for their wrongdoing to their members. The trustees of these major funds who have made huge errors will have these fines paid by the workers. It's a howling conflict of interest which goes to the centre of this government, where one of the main players is the National President of the Labor Party, Mr Wayne Swan, who is also the chair of Cbus Super. The Labor Party was surprised, apparently, when Nick McKenzie of 9News exposed heinous crimes of the CFMEU. These, with the CFMEU's 30 per cent tax on Australian building, have inflated the building costs for all Australians and have made the Australian dream further out of reach for younger people wanting to buy an apartment. The conflict of interest in relation to Industry Super and Cbus was well known and has been for a long time. In fact, Jeremy Stoljar, the counsel assisting the Hayne royal commission, said of the Cbus CFMEU issue that Cbus was infected by the separate private interests of the CFMEU and a deep-seated loyalty to these interests. A review by Mr Graeme Samuel, the former head of the ACCC, recommended the end of this model. He said of Mr Swan: 'It's a very powerful position to hold as chair. It sets the tone and culture of the organisation. If he's got a tendency or history supporting certain groups, then you've got a problem.' He said, 'And Wayne Swan is a perfect example of a political operative, so then you have a question about the absolute independence of the chair.' That was the view of Graeme Samuel almost 10 years ago, when he recommended reforms to Cbus and the super funds, which have not been adopted. The prudential regulator, APRA, has now had to come in and commissioned a new inquiry into Cbus's governance—the same thing that Graeme Samuel did 10 years ago. APRA, I'm sure, is going to have to recommend that there is a better system here which protects workers. Yesterday, the CFMEU, which owns Cbus, tried to put three new directors onto the board of the fund. APRA apparently seems to be resisting this. The issue here of conflicts of interest is enormous, because Mr Wayne Swan, as the chair of the Cbus fund, has publicly committed $500 million to the Housing Australia Future Fund. That's usually a role reserved for the chief investment officer, but no; the president of the fund, who is the president of the Labor Party, apparently commits members' money to the government's boondoggle housing scheme. Then the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, covers up the secret lobbying undertaken by Mr Swan through bogus public interest immunity claims made here in this parliament. It's appalling. But the main point is that, when they make a mistake, you pay. The trustees have made a mistake, according to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Cbus fails to pay insurance claims. So the workers of Australia pay insurance premiums for decades in some cases, and, when there is a family bereavement, the super fund refuses to pay. That is the opinion of the corporate cop and the Financial Complaints Authority. When they issue a fine—and, in this case, Cbus might be facing a $50 million fine—that fine is passed on to the members. So the poor old members pay these fees. Where is Labor on this issue? We've asked the question—we asked Senator Gallagher in the Senate. Her view is that it's a matter for the regulator. But, when there were issues of corporate malfeasance, the Treasurer was fast to condemn Woolworths, where he said, 'I need to be careful not to pre-empt, but I will say this: we don't want to see ordinary Australians, families and pensioners being taken for a ride by the big supermarkets.' But, on the Cbus issue, he says, 'It's really important that regulators can do their job, and I won't be making any further comments.' So the government is quick to condemn wrongdoing in corporate life, corporate Australia. They wouldn't even vote yesterday to disclose the Samuel review and they worked with the Greens—the Greens have been big on PwC—but they're small on Cbus. The question is: why do the workers of Australia have to pay for this ridiculous conflict of interest? The super funds are privileged people. They open the door; the money falls in. The least they can do is treat people with respect, pay their claims and do the right thing. We shouldn't have a situation where the Treasurer is using his position to cover up for the crimes of Mr Swan and the Cbus super fund. It's a disgrace. 16:31 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Conflicts of interest and bias are very good finishing points, because Senator Bragg's job for virtually his entire career before being elected to the Senate was being policy manager at the Financial Services Council. That means his job was to develop and push out policy ideas on behalf of the Financial Services Council members. Who are those members? They are big retail super funds like AMP and Colonial First State. That really tells you all you need to know about this motion. When we talk about vested interests in this place, it doesn't get any more vested than that. The massive for-profit super funds who have consistently charged their members higher fees and generated lower returns sent their chief lobbyist into the Senate via the Liberal Party, of course. Now he comes in here every week and makes the same comments on the same policy initiatives. It's worth remembering that, while Senator Bragg was managing policy at the Financial Services Council, its members engaged in some of the most disgraceful corporate misconduct ever seen, as was revealed in the banking royal commission: billing the dead for financial advice, deliberately misleading regulators, lending to people with no capacity to repay, charging fees for no service and pushing dodgy financial advice and insurance products onto vulnerable people. Somehow being the policy officer for these companies qualified him to be put at the top of the Liberal Party's New South Wales Senate ticket, which tells you all you need to know about the cosy relationship between the Liberal Party and the biggest rip-off merchants in this country. Listening to Senator Bragg talk about what is best for your superannuation is like listening to Alan Joyce talk about what's best for aviation policy. Let's talk about Cbus. The Chant West Super Fund Awards are one of the most prestigious awards for the super industry in Australia. Earlier this year, at the 2024 awards, Cbus Super was recognised as the best fund for responsible investment, named the best fund for member services for the second year running and named the best specialist fund of the year for the fifth year running. It was also shortlisted in the top three for Super Fund of the Year. I noticed something else interesting in the shortlist for Super Fund of the Year. Of the 10 funds shortlisted, there was not a single retail fund. It almost makes you wonder if the retail for-profit funds charge higher fees, deliver worse services and generate inferior returns. In fact, we know that it's true because modelling by independent body SuperRatings has consistently found this to be the case. On one hand, industry super funds, including Cbus, are consistently recognised as delivering better outcomes for members, charging lower fees and generating higher returns. On the other hand, you have retail super funds consistently delivering worse outcomes for members, charging higher fees and generating lower returns and being exposed by a royal commission as grossly extorting and ripping off their members with ridiculous fees while deliberately misleading regulators. So why does Senator Bragg hate industry super so much? Why does he lobby so hard for retail super? Could it be because of his previous employment as their policy manager, or maybe he just hates the idea of unions and employers working together jointly managing super funds and delivering better returns for members? And lastly, there was an important announcement yesterday made by Cbus titled 'Independent review confirms Cbus Super directors fit and proper'. It goes on to say: All existing and new directors on the Cbus Super board have satisfied a 'fit and proper persons test' as part of an ongoing independent review being conducted by Deloitte at the direction of APRA. …    …    … After applying a comprehensive 'fit and proper persons test' the Cbus Board confirmed the appointment of three directors nominated by the CFMEU. They are Paddy Crumlin, Jason O'Mara and Lucy Weber. I'd like to congratulate the new board appointments because it's critically important that construction workers have representation on the construction industry super fund. Anyone who tells you otherwise might be looking out for their own vested interests in the banking industry. 16:35 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to support Senator Bragg's motion. I'll just pick up Senator Sheldon on those board appointments. The question I'll ask Senator Sheldon is: were those board members elected by the members of that fund? They weren't; they were selected. In the People First Party, we are proposing a policy that all board members of superfunds have to be elected because democracy matters when it comes to capitalism. I know the Australian people weren't given a choice in 1992 when Paul Keating decided to take two per cent of their wages and give it to someone they'd never met. Had he been honest with the Australian people back in 1992 and said, 'By 2025, I'm going to take 12 per cent of your hard-earned wages and I'm going to give it to someone you've never met and you may or may not get it back when you're 67,' I strongly doubt the Australian people would have ever voted for such a scheme. That is the problem with superannuation; it is undemocratic and it is effectively communism by stealth. Today we have almost $3 trillion in the superfund industry. I'm going to be honest here and I'm going to be critical of the Liberal Party as well. Howard and Costello should have killed superannuation stone-cold dead in 1996, when they first got into power. But they didn't do that. They hopped on the gravy train and, as Senator Sheldon rightly points out, because the private superannuation funds were milking fees the Commonwealth Bank bought Colonial Mutual, National Australia Bank bought National Mutual, Westpac bought Bankers Trust and ANZ did a joint venture with ING. I well remember being shocked one year when Colonial Mutual's return on equity was 66 per cent. Of course they could earn such a high return on equity because it wasn't their equity they were playing with. We well know the Productivity Commission came out in 2017 or 2018, I think, so it would be more by now, and said there is $30 billion a year spent on managing money in superannuation and that was because it was effectively one per cent of the $3 trillion under management. That's expected to grow to $9 billion by 2050. But let's get to the nub of what this motion is about: Cbus hasn't been paying out people's superannuation upon death. I've had people come to me in my own office. They've had to struggle to get their pay outs. One lady, her fiance died at the age of 40 after getting the AZ vaccine. Her fiance suddenly dropped dead and she was unable to get any money. It's only because she's just gone public with it that she's been able to get her fiance's money out of superannuation. It has taken over a year for Cbus to pay that money out. That is an absolute disgrace. Apart from the fact that super needs to be voluntary in the first place, there need to be clear rules and guidelines as to how quickly money is paid out from superannuation upon the death of a person. They are playing games. They are basically abusing their inherent power to deny people who can't afford legal costs their right to their loved one's superannuation. It bells the cat on the whole fact that superannuation was never designed to help the people they're taking the money from. It was never designed to help the workers. We know today that there are still 50 per cent of retirees on a full pension. That is the same percentage of retirees that were on a full pension in 1992. There are $50 billion in tax concessions that go mainly to the upper 30 per cent, yet that pension only costs $53 billion. So who's winning here? It's certainly not hardworking Australians. To think that when their loved ones pass away they cannot access their money out of superannuation is an absolute disgrace. What's going to be an even a bigger disgrace now is that the other superannuation members of Cbus are going to have to pay the fines because their board members, who they never elected, were too incompetent to actually ensure a timely payout of death benefits upon death. That's because they don't really want to give your money back to you. They want to keep it for themselves so they can continue to milk fees and live off those rivers of gold at the expense of hardworking Australians. 16:40 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I thank Senator Bragg for bringing forward this matter of public importance because it is incredibly important that we shine a light on the concerning relationships between industry super funds, their leadership and the Australian Labor Party, this government. It is concerning because of the absolute lack of regulatory enforcement that we see with respect to industry super funds. I thank Senator Bragg for the work he does to draw attention to these disturbing facts. What was discovered at Senate estimates was of significant concern. Every worker with funds in one of these funds, particularly Cbus, should understand what is actually going on. We need to be very conscious of this government's attempts to protect their mates running industry super funds and the funds' habit of using their members' money for the political gain of the ALP. Cbus is the only super fund to have committed its members' money to Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund. Who from Cbus announced this decision? It was Mr Wayne Swan, the former Labor Treasurer of Australia, former Deputy Prime Minister, current National President of the ALP and chair of Cbus. This is the same Cbus that currently remains under the ownership of the disgraced CFMEU. This is despite the CFMEU being put into administration by this parliament. We all remember the government being dragged, somewhat kicking and screaming, to support it. But the CFMEU's 21 per cent stake in Cbus still remains as well as their three board seats. Think about that. Let's reinforce that: despite being in administration, they have three board seats. That's not quite in line with basic governance, in my view. Now we have heard that ASIC is alleging Cbus failed to properly administer and pay insurance claims for bereaved families. This isn't a small AUM fund; this is a massive fund with massive resources failing to pay insurance claims for bereaved families on time. This super fund is the same one that has been a key adviser to the government on its housing policy. It's no wonder this government has built a grand total of zero homes in a housing crisis. Like most things this government has done, it sets up bureaucracy after bureaucracy to sustain rent seekers in the trade union movement and in the industry super sector. Cbus has sat on a paid advisory committee to consult the government on the HAFF legislation, something that was only uncovered under FOI. Again they are the only super fund to have committed their members' money to the HAFF. This is despite the serious allegations of criminal behaviour and misconduct in the CFMEU. They are the same bodies that have brought on a 30 per cent increase in construction costs. That's according to the Real Estate Institute of Queensland. These are the same people that have compounded the housing crisis, and now, despite all of these veritable red flags, the government seems to think that these are the same people that can solve the problem that they had their hands in creating. This is in spite of significant evidence to the contrary. In 2023-24 we saw the lowest homebuilding commencements in over a decade, down 8.8 per cent and far below the level under the coalition government. But, if anything, Cbus's sensational appearance at Senate estimates really highlighted the operational dysfunction at Cbus head office. We saw an attempt to evade the committee, and they were constantly rejecting invitations to appear. Then, at the eleventh hour, they decided to appear, and the testimony was shocking to say the least. The CEO, Mr Kristian Fok, revealed that Wayne Swan, the chair, makes announcements about housing investments without the CEO's knowledge. And, when asked about documents discovered under FOI showing communications between Mr Swan and the Treasurer, Mr Fok sensationally revealed that he had no knowledge of these discussions. The CEO was unaware of communications between his chair and the Treasurer of Australia, an oversight perhaps. But it's an oversight that Australia's workers continue to— (Time expired) 16:45 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Another day in the Senate, another attack on Australia's superannuation system from Senator Bragg. Senator Bragg has been offering up some pretty out-there ideas for Australians to raid their super and to dismantle our world-leading superannuation system in this country. The senator's ideas are risky, they are getting increasingly weird and they are wacky. The first idea was to somehow help young Australians buy a home by raiding their super. That's where everyone takes $50,000 out of their super and puts it into the housing market. What does that do? It pushes house prices up. Everybody knows that. What else does it do? It reduces your retirement savings. It does both of those things without building a single home. That is, on its own, a pretty weird idea. But what we have next from Senator Bragg in his efforts to dismantle our superannuation system is an even more weird and wacky proposal, which is to use your super as collateral for a house. That's a proposal that risks your super and your home at the same time if you fall behind on your mortgage payments. These ideas are risky to Australians. They are risky when it comes to the housing market and they are risky when it comes to the retirement of Australians. These are not genuine efforts to get Australians into their first homes. What they are is genuine efforts to dismantle Australia's superannuation system. All of this of course started with the Liberal's COVID early release scheme. It was early release of people's hard-earned superannuation, and it was a complete failure that led to massive amounts of regret. Research shows that people who took out $20,000 during the pandemic will retire with $120,000 less in today's terms when they come to their retirement. That's $120,000 gone. Because lessons have not been learnt on that side of the chamber, they think raiding your super to buy a house is a solution. The reality is it won't help a single person. It will push house prices up, it will reduce your retirement savings and it won't build a single house. We think that Australians should be able to buy a house and that they should be able to retire with some dignity and security in their retirement as well, founded on a strong superannuation balance. That's why we've expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme. One-third of first home buyers have bought their first home using the expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. That is a way to help people get into their first home. We on this side of the chamber want to help people even more. That's why we have our Help to Buy bills before the chamber to support 40,000 Australians to get into their first home with as little as a two per cent deposit. But what we know is that the coalition have teamed up with the Greens to block 40,000 Australians from getting access to help to buy their first home. We believe in homeownership and we believe in strong retirement savings and that is why we are building up Australia's world-leading superannuation system. Don't let Senator Bragg and the Liberals talk down our superannuation system. This is a world-leading system. It is the envy of the world. It is delivering retirements to Australians that mean for the first time they don't need to rely just on the aged pension but can retire with some dignity and security. It is a proud Labor legacy and it is one that we are building on. We are building on it with superannuation on paid parental leave to help close the gender pay gap even further. We stopped the freeze on the superannuation guarantee to enhance people's retirement savings more. And we are going to make sure that superannuation is paid on payday to end the wage theft of people 's superannuation savings. Superannuation is a world-leading system, one Australians can depend on, and we will always build on and improve Australia's superannuation system. 16:51 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Isn't it telling that in this debate from those opposite there has hardly been a mention of the word 'union'? For those listening along at home, you know why just as well as I do that the link between the union movement and the Labor Party is well-known, well-ventilated and it is what the Labor Party never want to say when it comes to their defence of the superannuation system—that the link between the union movement and the superannuation system is corrosive. It has at the very least the whiff of corruption about it—and I will use that term—and Senator Kovacic has very clearly enunciated why. Let me just paint you a picture of a reverse scenario. Let's just say there was the chairman of a company who just happened to be the president of the Liberal Party of Australia and that company was doing big deals with a Liberal government. Senator Kovacic, do you think those opposite might be slightly concerned by that sort of an arrangement? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Through the chair, please. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I suspect they probably would. And what have we got here? As Senator Kovacic very clearly outlined, we have the current president of the Labor Party, the former Treasurer of Australia—a failed Treasurer but we will put that to one side—the chairman of an industry super fund who can communicate directly with the Treasurer about a government policy and then commit that super fund to investing in that government policy. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 That is more than a whiff of corruption, Senator Ayres. That is an absolute disgrace. If the situation was reversed, Senator Ayres— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Order! Order! Through the chair, please. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 you would be the first one jumping up and accusing people of corruption. You would be the first one jumping up. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senators, I have called order a number of times, thank you. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 A chairman of an industry super fund communicating directly with the Treasurer about a government policy, and what did the CEO of that fund have to say? The CEO of that fund said, 'Mr Swan made announcements on housing funding without the CEO's knowledge.' My goodness me. This has more than a whiff of corruption about it. The President of the Labor Party, communicating directly with the Treasurer, commits an industry super fund that should only be responsible for the money of its members to supporting a government's policy without telling the CEO. I mean, this is absolutely unbelievable. In fact, the CEO had no knowledge of the discussions between Mr Swan, the President of the Labor Party and Treasurer Chalmers regarding a $500 million commitment to this Labor Party policy. That is an utter disgrace, and it reveals the cancer at the heart of the industry super fund system—the fact that the industry super funds have these guaranteed board positions for union members. The union, in this case, is the CFMEU, a union that this Labor government, kicking and screaming, has put into administration. You couldn't write this as a script for a Hollywood movie—the president of the Labor Party has been talking directly to the Treasurer about investing $500 million of members' money in a Labor government policy. Surely Mr Swan had the brains to realise that that was an extraordinarily crass, dangerous and potentially corrupt thing to do—surely! It's absolutely unbelievable that this is the way the chairman of a super fund would behave, it's absolutely unbelievable that the Labor Party would defend this, and it's absolutely unbelievable that they cannot see this core of corruption at the heart of the industry super fund system. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 4949 DOCUMENTS Consideration 4949 COMMITTEES 4950 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 4950 Government Response to Report 4950 16:56 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I present the government's response to the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the Australian Research Council Amendment (Ensuring Research Independence) Bill 2018. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT LEGISLATION COMMITTEE REPORT: AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL AMENDMENT (ENSURING RESEARCH INDEPENDENCE) BILL 2018 Overview The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee (the Committee) Inquiry into the Australian Research Council Amendment (Ensuring Research Independence) Bill 2018 (the Bill) proposed amendments to the Australian Research Council Act 2001 (ARC Act). The Bill sought to amend the ARC Act to remove Ministerial discretion from research grants administered by the Australian Research Council (ARC) by legislating that the Minister must approve a research proposal and associated expenditure if that proposal was recommended for approval by the ARC Chief Executive Officer. The Committee recognised it had been 20 years since the ARC Act was examined in detail and accepted that a broad review of the ARC was necessary. They recommended an independent review of the ARC, including its governance and research funding processes, with a view to maximising the impact of public investment in university research. Government response A substantive Government response is no longer appropriate due to the passage of time and the Bill having lapsed on 25 July 2022. However, the Australian Government noted the recommendations contained within the Committee's report and on 30 August 2022, the Hon Jason Clare MP, Minister for Education, announced an independent review of the ARC Act (ARC Review). The Government agreed, or agreed-in-principle, to all 10 recommendations of the ARC Review final report, subsequently introducing the Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Act 2024 (ARC Amendment Act). On 2 April 2024, the ARC Amendment Act was registered on the Federal Register of Legislation, enabling the changes under the ARC Act, which sets the foundation for modernising the ARC's governance, bolstering its independence and enhancing its role in supporting Australia's dynamic research landscape. The amendments to the ARC Act commenced on 1 July 2024. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 4950 Scrutiny Digest 4950 16:56 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I present Scrutiny digest No. 14 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence. I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Scrutiny Digest 14 of 2024 Chair's Tabling Statement Wednesday 20 November 2024 As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 14 of 2024. Digest 14 contains the committee's consideration of 24 bills introduced between 8 October to 7 November 2024 and amendments passed during this period. The committee has commented on 9 of these new bills, and concluded its consideration of 5 previously introduced bills. One new bill, the Migration Amendment Bill 2024, has raised significant scrutiny concerns about which the committee is seeking a detailed and expedited response from the minister. One Schedule of the bill seeks to respond to a recent High Court decision ruling that visa conditions imposing curfews and electronic monitoring were unconstitutional. The proposed amendments do not fully address the committee's previous concerns regarding the effect on personal rights and liberties of the overall scheme and the lack of procedural fairness afforded to visa holders. Further, the committee is concerned about the effect on personal rights and liberties by measures in the bill providing for the immediate cancellation of certain visas, and therefore immigration detention, of people who are given 'permission' to enter and remain in a foreign country, if it is a party to a third country reception arrangement. The bill provides the Commonwealth with the authority to take or do any action in relation to these third party reception arrangements. These powers raise significant scrutiny concerns, particularly in relation to the potential for lengthy periods of immigration detention in Australia and the potential for the Commonwealth to pay a foreign country to detain, perhaps indefinitely, the individuals removed there. The committee is concerned that there are very few safeguards in the bill setting out the extent of the Commonwealth's powers regarding these arrangements and is questioning this broad delegation of administrative power and the potential effect on rights and liberties. In this Digest the committee has also concluded its consideration of the Aged Care Bill 2024, following receipt of a ministerial response. The committee welcomes the minister's commitment to consider a number of amendments in light of the committee's comments. However, the committee remains concerned about the use of delegated legislation to regulate the use of restrictive practices, and has recommended amendments to the bill to provide stronger safeguards in relation to this matter. The committee also remains concerned that, through the publication of banning orders, personal information will be published online when the same purpose may be achieved through a more private means and has recommended some amendments to the bill to strengthen privacy protections and ensure that significant matters are included in primary legislation. The committee has otherwise drawn its comments to the attention of the Senate. Finally, I draw senators' attention to the committee's concluded comments in relation to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. The committee remains concerned that the scheme has the potential to apply a chilling effect on freedom of expression, and there may be insufficient protections to ensure there is no undue trespass on personal rights and liberties. The committee has recommended a number of amendments to better protect individual rights and liberties and otherwise draws this important matter to the attention of the Senate. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest14 of 2024 to the Senate. DOCUMENTS 4951 DOCUMENTS Gambling, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, Report on Outstanding Orders for the Production of Documents 4951

Gambling

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

Report on Outstanding Orders for the Production of Documents

Order for the Production of Documents 4951 16:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning online gambling and electoral reform. I also table documents relating to reports on outstanding orders for documents. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 4951 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Economy 4951 16:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland On behalf of the Treasurer, I table a statement concerning the economy. 16:58 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The Australian people were asked to put their trust and their future in the hands of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his Labor government—a future where, in his words, no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. This was to be based on a strong economy where Australians could comfortably afford the cost of living. There would be cheaper electricity, cheaper child care and cheaper mortgages, because Labor had real, lasting plans to deliver them. Australians were told to do more than simply vote for a party; they were implored to vote for hope. What has become of this better future? What has become of this hope? Instead, Australians are struggling to weather a cost-of-living crisis characterised in many cases by record-breaking struggle and suffering. It is the greatest of many broken promises. The Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, stands before us to paint an optimistic picture of the economy, but the lived experiences of Australian households and businesses tell a very different story. The statistics do not lie, the hardship is there for all to see, and the time for spin is over. This Labor government must confront the reality of its own failures. The Treasurer was attempting to project his usual calm confidence today, pointing to global economic pressures as the root of our challenges. He spoke of a strong recovery and record low unemployment. But I must ask: Dr Chalmers, where is this recovery being felt? It's certainly not in the homes of everyday Australians as they grapple with the highest inflation in a generation and stagnant wages. The evidence is clear—Australians are worse off now than they were 2½ years ago. Disposable incomes fell by 8.7 per cent per capita between March 2022 and June 2024, which is the steepest drop across all OECD nations. Nearly 94 per cent of Australians surveyed in a recent committee study have experienced cost-of-living pressures. More than 90 per cent of those surveyed were forced to reprioritise their spending or go without essentials. These are not just statistics; they are proof of an ongoing struggle. While the Treasurer praises the government's actions, the truth is Labor's fiscal policies have actively worsened the inflation crisis. Higher spending outlined in the 2022-23 October budget, the 2023-24 budget and subsequent fiscal projections have intensified inflationary pressures. This mismanagement has led the Reserve Bank of Australia to keep interest rates higher for longer, compounding the pain for mortgage holders. Meanwhile, other developed nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have already begun cutting interest rates. Labor's policy has left Australia in an 18-month long per capita recession, with annual economic growth stagnating at just 1.5 per cent, which, apart from the pandemic, is the weakest since the early 1990s. Inflation may have eased slightly, but rental prices have surged by 6.7 per cent annually and food prices remain high at 3.3 per cent. Even the government's much touted Energy Bill Relief Fund has proven to be nothing more than a bandaid offering temporary relief but failing to address the underlying situation. Electricity prices may have decreased by 17.3 per cent in the September quarter, but Australians know that subsidies won't last forever. The International Monetary Fund has predicted Australia's headline inflation will still be at 3.6 per cent in 2025, nearly a full percentage point above the next highest country in the developed world. The Reserve Bank of Australia has forecasted underlying inflation won't return to its target range until late 2025, with the midpoint not expected until 2026. Officials reconfirmed this to me and other senators during Senate estimates just a couple of weeks ago. I'll focus briefly on the economic experience of Western Australia as a case study, which I know well as it's my home state. It's a case study that's important because it also has set records for all the wrong reasons under Labor. Last financial year, 1,000 WA businesses failed, unable to weather the government's twin cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business crises. That is double the number of insolvencies of those recorded during the 2008 global financial crisis. Western Australians are spending an extra $1 billion a year on mortgage repayments. That's money which, at best, cannot be spent to support the wider economy and, at worst, is forcing families to make decisions like skipping meals. That is, of course, if they can make their repayments at all. WA has the second-highest rate of mortgage arrears in the nation at 0.62 per cent according to data that I was able to obtain from the Reserve Bank, although the number of people falling behind has also surged nationally. These are also higher rates on larger loans, with the ABS confirming that the average loan in Western Australia jumped 36 per cent or $146,800 since the lower interest rate environment at the beginning of the pandemic. When I started tracking ABS figures on this midyear, I found that the average home loan in Western Australia was now the highest since published ABS data began, having jumped over $62,000 in just eight months. The largest rises are in the more affordable areas of Perth, where first home buyers, newly arrived Australians and those poorly equipped to deal with cost increases are looking to settle. Renters in the west face similar challenges struggling to find a home in what has become the most restrictive rental vacancy rate in Australia. I'll return to the coalition's vision for Australia's economy in a moment. But here it is worth mentioning our plan to resolve the housing crisis, a plan that includes restoring the dream of homeownership by unlocking up to 500,000 homes through investment in infrastructure, ensuring faster housing delivery. Because unmodelled and record immigration is a key component of this challenge, the coalition will reduce migration numbers and ban foreign investors from buying existing homes. This reality of what Australia is experiencing highlights a key structural problem. Australia's economic woes are not simply the result of external forces. They are rooted in deep-seated, long-term issues that Labor is unwilling or unable to address. Declining labour productivity, which has fallen by 6.3 per cent in just over two years, speaks to a broader problem. We now require 6.3 per cent more labour output to produce the same amount of goods and services as we did in 2022, which inevitably leads to employment growth at the expense of living standards. It creates a vicious cycle of increased labour output for less reward. The McKinsey Global Institute's findings stress the need for productivity growth, which is needed to meet the challenges of debt, inflation, energy security and skills shortages. These are challenges that advanced economies like Australia must face head-on. That is not what is happening and likely what cannot happen under Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Albanese government. In conclusion, the path forward for Australia is clear. Under a Dutton led coalition government we'll work tirelessly to restore economic stability and prosperity for all Australians. We will tackle the rising cost of living head-on by reducing inflation, curbing excessive government spending and implementing policies that support small businesses, families and farmers. By prioritising productivity growth, simplifying taxes and ensuring affordable energy we will lay the foundation for a future where Australians can once again aspire to homeownership and economic security. We will also address the housing crisis, reduce migration pressures and invest in infrastructure to unlock new homes. Our agenda is focused on getting the basics right, restoring confidence and ensuring a brighter future for generations to come. Australia deserves better, and under our leadership we will get it back on track. It's worth making one other point, and that is that in his budget speech the Treasurer didn't mention charities or not-for-profits and the pain that they are enduring. This sector is one of our largest employers, and in many cases it is literally keeping Australians alive through a crisis of the Albanese government's making, yet Labor repeatedly turns its back. Millions of Australians are now unable to afford food and other basic necessities, and it is charities picking up the pieces. The final report of the Senate Select Committee on the Cost of Living, released less than a week ago, observes that 'the sector is crying out for help'. Charities told the committee of the severe food insecurity affecting record numbers of Australians, with Anglicare Sydney working with adult clients forced to go hungry so their children could eat. Charities are not immune from inflation. They themselves are struggling to operate in an environment of skyrocketing operating costs, something acknowledged recently by the Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock. On top of all this, Labor has failed to progress, in any meaningful way, its election commitments to the sector. Australia deserves much better. (Time expired) 17:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I sort of feel sorry for Senator Dean Smith having to advance that blizzard of words that really betrays the lack of substance and the lack of seriousness that sits behind what passes for economic policy from a once great political party that took economic policy seriously. You wouldn't have caught Mr Peacock or Mr Howard or any of those characters, less than six months out from an election, without any substance on anything. Well may he say 'back on track'. I have a few things to say about that in a moment, but I just observe that when I began my career in the labour movement there was an outfit called 'back on track'. It was a Trotskyite outfit in the building industry supported by the BLs from Melbourne— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Smith, you were heard in silence. Senator AYRES 16913 and Mr Setka financed that hyper-militant organisation in all sorts of funny ways—they talk a lot of rubbish to building workers, made big promises that could be never kept. 'Back on track' was not only their slogan; it was the name of the election they ran in. They were some of the most disreputable characters in that industry that you'd want to meet. These were the forerunners of some of the issues that that union faces now. Mr Chalmers has just this morning presented this ministerial statement. The last time that he did it outside of the normal budget and MYEFO opportunities that a Treasurer has was in mid-2022. These kinds of statements are what a responsible government does—treating Australians like adults, talking to them in an open and transparent way about the challenges that the economy faces, levelling with Australians, many of whom are still working with the challenges of increased prices in the economy and increased interest rates. They are working hard in practical ways to work their way through that. But if you cast your mind back to when the Treasurer last gave us a similar statement in the parliament, what was the situation? Inflation was at 6.1 per cent and rising, with no plan. With the tail of spending from the COVID period, there was no plan from the Morrison government—or what passed for the Morrison government then—in any way to substantially tackle the inflation challenge. No plan—the figures just arrived, and the coalition were helpless in the lead-up to an election, with no strategy at all to get Australians through that period. Interest rates were on the way up, but there was no plan from Mr Birmingham, Mr Frydenberg, Mr Morrison, Mr Taylor or Mr Dutton to deal with that challenge. Real wages were down by 3.4 per cent. You can hear the hooting and hollering up on the front bench here about real wages, but the last time they got an opportunity to touch wages policy, Australian were going backwards to the tune of 3.4 percent this year. Back on track! Politics is about choices, and Australians will have to make some choices. If people think for a moment—I know the smug sense of entitlement over there leads them to think that automatically they are somehow good economic managers, but that smug sense of entitlement blinds them to the fact that Australians don't have to reach very far back at all. Just two years ago was the period when this show—the triumvirate of Mr Morrison, Mr Dutton and Mr Taylor—had their hands on the levers of economic policy, and you don't have to think too far back to know what that meant. Back to the Morrison period! The only thing missing is Mr Morrison himself, who of course occupied a series of simultaneous executive government positions secretly—no wonder economic policy-making was so debauched! It was 15 years before there was a surplus. Mr Morrison and Mr Taylor—I'll come to Mr Taylor and his duplicity in these areas in a second—and Mr Frydenberg and Senator Hume and others talked about budget surpluses every day except the day they could never deliver one. They never delivered a single budget surplus—not one. It was 10 years of the lowest productivity growth on record—not compared to the year before, or the year before that. What matters in productivity growth is the trajectory, and the trajectory was down for a decade. You can't grow an economy responsibly, you can't lift wages over time and you can't create opportunity for investment for Australians unless the curve starts to lift up. But the productivity line was going down for a decade. Some of the things that were shouted out by the crowd opposite during question time about productivity growth just show how they don't grasp the problem. It is true that labour productivity has fallen over the last year. Well, I'll let you into a little insight. If you've got a sluggish economy—as it is now, with lower levels of growth than normal—and one million people get jobs, labour productivity falls on the graph because there are more people and lower growth. But that is a good thing. I know that it's resented by the Liberal and National parties, who love nothing more than failure; they want to find failure in everything they see. But a million new jobs under this government, most of them permanent, is an unambiguously good thing. It's a record. It means Australians are earning more because there is more work in the economy and wages are lifting in a sustained and deliberate way—because lifting real wages is a design feature of our economy—and it means there are more Australians in work. Those opposite think that's a terrible thing. We have seen the charges that have been laid about the fiscal position. All I say is this: two budget surpluses in a row and $80 billion worth of retired debt—lower interest rate payments in a high-interest-rate environment is a good thing—could never be delivered by the people who claim that they would make better economic managers. They could never deliver. Australians gave them a decade, and they could never deliver. And we are doing it for the right reason. Finally, what sits underneath this claim about the fiscal position? They claim there's $300 billion of additional spending. But what are we going to cut under a Dutton government? Imagine the spectre of an angry, aggressive and reckless Dutton government. Are we going to cut aged care? Are we going to cut pensions and pension growth? Are we going to cut energy bill relief? Are we going to cut support for child care or students? Which bit will be cut in this $300 billion worth of cuts that are contemplated by the other side of politics, and what will it mean for people in Nowra, Port Stephens, Gladstone and Cairns when the government cuts services? We know what that will mean. (Time expired) Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 4954 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Recycling and Waste Reduction (Fees) Amendment (Export of Regulated Waste Material Fees and Other Measures) Rules 2024 4954 Disallowance 4954 17:19 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Fees) Amendment (Export of Regulated Waste Material Fees and Other Measures) Rules 2024, made under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, be disallowed [F2024L00850]. I don't think any responsible party here moves a disallowance motion on fees with joy or happiness. This is something that has come about through inattention to a serious problem that saw commodity based recyclables heading to landfill, which is a perverse circumstance and not what we try to do in the renewables industry. As part of Senator Whish-Wilson's very well-run recycling inquiry, we had industry coming to us and saying it wasn't working and something had to be done. The putting up of this disallowance and the subsequent delays and putting off in the vote were to give time for the government to get together with industry and other stakeholders and come to a commonsense opinion that everyone would think they could work with. So we have no joy in being here, and we are not saying, 'This is a great day for Australia; we've rolled something.' It is sad that the minister's office and the department couldn't meet with industry and come to a compromise. I will speak very briefly about that. I note that, in my office, I did not have success in getting through to the minister's office on the phone. Two of my staff went across to the minister's office seeking someone and were given the business card of someone who would potentially call us later. That has not happened. To this day, we have had no ability to sit down and discuss this at length. The industry tell me, very similarly, that they haven't been consulted or worked with to make these things happen. At the estimates, we had an answer, but we couldn't pursue that further to get to a position where this motion would not be put today. It could very easily not have been put today. It could very easily have disappeared into the ether with a happy industry and a happy conversation. It hasn't happened. It is a disappointment that we are here, but we will be voting for this motion today, simply because it is wrong that good recyclable products end up in landfill, and it is wrong that an industry that wants to work on a full circular economy is being held back because of that. I commend the motion to the Senate. 17:21 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania The Greens will also be supporting this disallowance motion today, and I also would like to convey that this was avoidable and it would have been my preference that we not have to disallow this today. The Senate inquiry that the Greens initiated to take the pulse of where the government was at in driving Australia to a zero-waste future looked at this issue specifically in the terms of reference back in March and April this year. We had a whole day of evidence in Sydney, and let me tell senators: the evidence from the resource recovery industry, sometimes called the waste industry, and the recycling industry was unanimous that these regulations that are here before us today are unworkable for the businesses and will create perverse outcomes and unintended consequences that will undermine recycling and circular economy objectives, and no-one is going to win from these. So we wanted to avoid this today. Let me tell you that the government's own consultation on these regulations had pages and pages of issues raised by industry saying, 'These are unworkable.' These issues were published, and every senator could go on there and have a look for themselves, but they were never addressed. I'd like to read one example. The industry associations have written to the minister, urging her to change these regulations. A number of companies have written to her. But my understanding is that, despite Senator Cadell and I having tried to get the department to meet with industry to sort this out, it didn't happen. I will go back to look at the concerns that were being raised by industry. Perhaps I could give senators a bit more of an understanding. We've had a series of disallowance motions come before this Senate in the last four years relating to the RAWR Act, the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act. This was brought in by the previous government. We're the only country in the world to put restrictions on the export of recycled commodities. Alongside that, there was a series of other initiatives to help grow recycling in Australia so that we would be capable of recycling this stuff ourselves. I think the intention was a good one. Supposedly, we were going to have packaging reform so that we would have local demand for this stuff and, when it was recycled here, it could be sold here and used. But there has been no progress in the last five years on creating a market for recycled product—no progress. Recycling companies and resource recovery companies have had no choice but to export what is a valuable commodity. Contrary to what a lot of Australians think, we're not talking about contaminated waste here. We're talking about waste that has been recovered that is now a valuable resource and can be sold. If it weren't exported, it would go to landfill, which is exactly what we wanted to avoid. If it were exported, it could be reused as recycled product and recycled content in things like packaging and reduce the demand for virgin material—another outcome for a circular economy that we want to achieve. Here is another perverse outcome. Let me read some of the concerns written directly to the minister back in August this year. This one was from Veolia, but I can tell you the concerns are pretty much unanimous across the industry: 'If the rules that were before us today were passed as they are, we will see more recyclables landfilled, and recyclables will be stockpiled, will lose financial value, and, of course, present a fire risk, as we've seen all around the country. The cost impacts to the industry will be passed on to councils and therefore ratepayers that recycle. There will be significant business disruption and closure, and there will be international trade failures.' These businesses clean up the mess, that's their job. They point out to us that there are no restrictions on companies that want to import material into Australia—none at all. It's not a level playing field. Nor are there restrictions on importing recycled material into Australia, yet we're the only country in the world that is penalising exporters of a valuable commodity. That is still part of a circular economy; it's just a circular economy in our region. The Greens have not disallowed any of the other regulations around export restrictions. We have not opposed them, and we don't oppose the licensing fees that are in this disallowance motion today. We believe that's fair. If you want to export recyclate, a valuable commodity, the department should check it because there have been environmental concerns in the past. What we have a problem with—that we've tried to get the minister and the department to solve—are what's called the variations, the rules and fees on the variations of that license. A company that may have a customer, loses a customer or changes customer has to pay an exorbitant fee—even though it has already got a license fee and it's been approved by the department. Just to change a customer in another country, it has to go through a whole new process, a process that can take up to six months for the department to approve. It doesn't work for anyone. The department has not been able to explain it to me—and I do thank Minister Plibersek's office for answering the many questions we have put to her department in recent weeks—and it didn't satisfy me. It didn't provide any new information. This is an issue that has now been before us for years, and it hasn't been solved. This will be disallowed today. My hope is that it will go back to the drawing board, and the department will sit down with industry, work on these variations and find a way where they can continue to export a valuable commodity for recycling that won't go to landfill, which will take pressure off using virgin materials, like virgin plastics, which require fossil fuels for their use—a really important circular economy outcome. They will sort that out and bring it back to the Senate so we can pass it. It should have already happened. I know that the Labor Party will speak on this today. They will say that we haven't been meeting with the minister's office about this, and so on and so forth. Well, I dispute that. I wrote to Minister Plibersek nearly one month ago and was really clear. We urged her and the department to meet with industry to sort out this mess. Everyone who looks at this thinks it is a mess and should have been sorted out some time ago. It's fine if you want a revenue-raising measure, and that seems to be what this is all about—it's a revenue-raising measure for the government. They do need cost recovery, but it can be done better than this, and not at the expense of recycling outcomes, circular economy outcomes or the industry that employs up to 90,000 Australians and is cleaning up our mess. It is a hard enough industry to run as it is. It has very low margins. It's very complex. Here's the other thing I wanted to raise today. Maybe just a little bit of history here will be important context. When the RAWR Act passed in 2020, I stood in this chamber and moved a motion to mandate a product stewardship scheme for packaging. One of the critical targets in the mandate was for minimum recycled content of Australian or locally recycled material. This is one APCO's, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation's, own goals that was set by state and federal environment ministers. I wanted that mandated so that industry would meet that target and there would be a demand and a market for recycled content. We failed that by one vote in the end—the Senate President cast the deciding vote—and we lost the opportunity to actually hold to account big businesses, big packaging companies, big producers of plastic, big retailers of plastic and the brands that keep putting all this packaging into our life. Five years later, guess what? It's a mess. We've still got almost no recycling of plastic packaging. We still haven't got a product stewardship scheme where producers are responsible for the plastics that they produce. Fine, the minister has talked a lot and the government has talked a lot. We've had lots of reviews. We've had consultations. We've had forums. We've appointed taskforces. But we're a few months away from an election, and the things that urgently require action have not been done. I have campaigned for 20 bloody years to get an outcome on this, including before I came into the Senate, and I am furious that I'm still standing here in 2024 and it hasn't been done yet. So you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little bit peeved that we have to do this here today. The department has not taken the battery fire issue seriously and come up with a product stewardship scheme that the industry has desperately been calling for in recent years. They still haven't moved on a product stewardship scheme, and I doubt they will in this parliament. Who knows what will happen in the next parliament. We may well have lost that opportunity. There has been almost no action where it has been required. These disallowance motions are the only things that have come before this Senate in this term of parliament on an issue that I can tell you is the most popular issue across all of Australia in the environmental space. I've been campaigning on this for 20 years, as I said. Every Australian—it doesn't matter what colour their politics is or what their demographic is—supports action on moving to a zero-waste future. Everybody hates the idea of pollution in the oceans, plastic in our bodies, things not being recycled or there being no efficiency, and we need to support local jobs. This will undermine businesses and local employment. It will undermine attempts to move to where we need to go. I've worked with this industry now for nearly a decade, and I have disagreements with some of the big recycling companies, some of the packaging companies and some of the waste resource companies. For example, we have a very strong disagreement around waste to energy—like incineration of waste—but I can tell you that they are good businesses doing good things and trying to work in a very difficult industry but they are at the end of the waste pipe. It's always lumped on them. The regulations are lumped on them. In this case, excessive, exorbitant and unworkable costs and delays are lumped on them. But, at the front of the pipe, the people putting all the waste in our lives—the big packaging companies, the big retailers, the brands and all the chemical companies producing plastic—don't get any regulation. They are the problem. So, fine, ban experts or put restrictions on exports if you want to grow the local market and the local business, but you need to do that too. You can't just penalise these companies and not do other things that are required to build a circular economy and a waste-free future in Australia. There's a lot of context to this today that is really important, but the most important thing is that we have heard unanimous evidence that these regulations are unworkable. We will support a new set of regulations that make companies pay a licence fee so the department can raise revenue, but we want to make sure that the variations in that licence fee actually work for the businesses that employ people, work for the environment, don't lead to more landfill and don't lead to the use of virgin materials and the importing of this stuff ad nauseam. If we want to build an industry in Australia where we use recycled Australian content we need to listen to this industry, and that is exactly what the Senate are doing today—we are doing our job. I don't think I've ever seen a more cut and dried case of rejecting this and asking the department to fix it and bring it back to the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:39]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 40 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 8 PAIRS Allman-Payne, P. J. Thorpe, L. A. Birmingham, S. J. Wong, P. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Hanson-Young, S. C. Watt, M. P. Hume, J. O'Neill, D. M. McDonald, S. E. Smith, M. F. McKenzie, B. Gallagher, K. R. Paterson, J. W. Pratt, L. C.

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 4957 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 4957 Reference 4957 17:42 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I, and also on behalf of Senator Duniam, move: That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2025: (a) the operation, implementation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at the federal, state and territory levels in blocking development and locking up our country on the basis of race, with particular reference to: (i) the declaration by the federal Minister for the Environment and Water regarding the tailings dam of the McPhillamys Gold Project under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, (ii) the declaration by the Victorian Government through Parks Victoria with respect to rock climbing on Mount Arapiles in the Wimmera region and in the Grampians National Park, (iii) the closure of Mount Warning by the New South Wales Government, (iv) the proposed closure of Kate Thanda-Lake Eyre by the South Australian Government, and (v) any other similar declarations; (b) the effect of any proposed, potential or existing Treaty agreements with Indigenous Australians on the operation of cultural heritage laws; and (c) any other related matters. We are moving this motion for the Senate to refer various matters to the Environment and Communications References Committee for an inquiry and report. Those matters include the operation, implementation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at both state and federal level in blocking development and access to land on the basis of race. It also includes an examination of the effect of proposed, potential or existing treaty negotiations and agreements with Indigenous Australians on the operation of cultural heritage laws. There are many reasons why this inquiry is needed. One of those reasons is due to the increasing evidence that our current legislative scheme allows cultural heritage laws to be used to block critical infrastructure and development projects. One of the most stark examples of this, of course, is the Blayney goldmine decision. In August this year, Minister Plibersek made a decision under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. The declaration had the effect, which she well knew, of stopping the development of the proposed McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. It was a terrible decision on many fronts. It, of course, made a mockery of state-level planning processes, given that the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission had already approved the project to go ahead. It was based on bad evidence. Despite the Albanese government's resistance to release the material, we finally know that the minister did and, perhaps more importantly, did not consider it before making the declaration. We know that the key opponent weaponised by the EDO to oppose the project used to be on the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and did not identify as Aboriginal at that time. There was also much disagreement about her recognition and acceptance by Wiradjuri people themselves as a member of their community. Her evidence included her own paintings, which allegedly depicted the area in question as well as a supposed blue-banded bee dreaming. We also know that Minister Plibersek did not seek the advice of independent cultural heritage experts to verify the legitimacy of this dreaming story—surprise, surprise! Further, this dreaming story was denied as legitimate by the Wiradjuri present at a meeting of New South Wales land council representatives last month. While I'm speaking of the land councils, the decision was also bad in that it disregarded the opinions of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who has authority to speak on matters of cultural heritage. The decision also undermines certainty for investors at home and abroad who would otherwise be willing to invest heavily in these major projects. It diminishes our attractiveness as a region to be invested in. Why would anyone want to pour millions of dollars into a project that could easily be stymied at the last moment? Investors cannot have confidence that they won't be left out in the cold at the last minute even when they have complied with every permit or planning process. The decision was bad in that it fuels activism—case in point being the newly created specialist legal department of the Environmental Defenders Office. This team is meant to assist Indigenous Australians who want to make cultural heritage claims. But let's not forget, when justifying her decision, Minister Plibersek said that if we want to protect cultural heritage, then occasionally we have to make decisions like this. I can tell you that the establishment of this new legal team within the EDO proves that they have no intention of keeping these occurrences occasional as the minister suggested. Why else would the EDO devote a specialist team to assist people making these kinds of claims unless their aim was to exponentially increase these kinds of claims being made? The EDO are in rabid pursuit of shutting down development, and decisions like this only add fuel to their destructive, antidevelopment fire. The Blayney goldmine clearly demonstrates the inadequate nature of our current cultural heritage laws. Despite all of the criticisms listed above, the legislative framework is set up to allow the minister to make decisions like this. That's why we need an inquiry into the operation of those laws, including their particular operation in the case of the Blayney goldmine. Aside from stopping development, this motion also seeks to inquire into the operation of cultural heritage laws on decisions that are locking up land away from the public. The most recent example of this comes from Victoria. The Victorian government, via Parks Victoria, is proposing to prohibit rock climbing in the area of Mount Arapiles. Some estimate that up to half of all the climbing routes on Mount Arapiles will be closed. In 2020 there was an interim protection order made, which denied access to an area of Mount Arapiles. The order was made under the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Act and was the first of its kind. The order was allegedly put in place to protect, among other things, culturally significant rock art motifs. Most of these rock art motifs cannot be seen with the naked eye. Instead special equipment is required to even observe this remnant of cultural significance. Perhaps more concerning in this case was the consultation—or lack thereof. The Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network was established in light of the bans, and their 54-page report was relied on by Parks Victoria. This report was allegedly from a rock climbing perspective but the report has not been released, so we don't know what it actually says. The cultural heritage assessments have not been released either. Why the secrecy? Further, the Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network have themselves confirmed that they did not help climbers and, further, that they did not act on behalf of the climbing community or claim to act in consultation with the climbing community. They have been unapologetic about the fact that they have a relationship with traditional owners, not rock climbers. They admitted that their sole role was to help the Barengi Gadjin Land Council in their understanding of climbing at Mount Arapiles. And, yes, this is the organisation Parks Victoria relied on to prove that there was a balanced consultation process—surprise surprise! The Victorian government has failed to appropriately consider rock climbers or the economic impacts of these closures. Let's be clear. Rock climbers usually—and in this case specifically—care deeply about the environment and about protecting what they have around them. Why wouldn't they? Rock climbing in this region generates a significant amount of money. There are small communities like Natimuk that will feel the impact deeply. Places like the local Pines campground would also likely have to be closed as a result of climbing bans. A spokesperson for Climbing Victoria estimated that about 90 per cent of the visitors to Mount Arapiles were in fact rock climbers. Mount Arapiles is a world-known rock climbing location and its status as a destination to visit is quickly diminishing because of these bans. These are the kinds of places we should be showcasing to the world instead of restricting them so much that the surrounding communities end up shutting down. We've also seen the closure of the summit track at Wollumbin National Park. It was initially closed in 2020 due to COVID. However, the closure was extended by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service not only due to safety concerns but also due to the cultural significance of the mountain to the Bundjalung nation. Before it was closed it attracted over 100,000 visitors per year. The ongoing closure is estimated to have cost $50 million to the region. In 2022 the management of the site was given to the Wollumbin consultative group, which is made up of various Aboriginal groups, but the claims of cultural heritage made by the WCG have been disputed by some Indigenous people, such as Sturt Boyd, the son of the last keeper of Mount Warning, Marlene Boyd. There are allegations of some claims being nothing more than a modern-day invention, not dissimilar to what we have seen regarding the claims of the dreaming at the Blayney goldmine site. As well as issues of cultural invention, we again have issues of accountability and transparency in the case of Mount Warning. People like Mr Boyd, who has long-standing ties to the mountain and is a Ngarakwal elder, has not been allowed to participate in the consultation process or know who is attending these WCG meetings. We must ensure our consultation processes are robust, accountable and transparent. Finally, this motion also seeks to investigate the impact of treaties which are progressing or may be developed in states and territories on cultural heritage laws. Aside from treaties being at odds with the wishes of the Australian people, they also introduce a lot of unknowns. We don't know what impact treaties will have on these cultural heritage laws and vice versa. Ultimately, these treaties should not be progressing, but, given they are, at the very least, we need an inquiry to understand their ramifications. Minister Plibersek herself said that it is possible to both protect cultural heritage and have development. It is ironic because, despite her acknowledging this, she is not actually doing it. She is placing too much weight on cultural heritage claims when they are paper thin in their legitimacy and evidence. We need a legislative framework in this country that truly promotes balance. Of course, if we really want reconciliation, we need a framework that appropriately addresses cultural heritage while also encouraging development and sharing our incredible places and spaces with each other and those who visit from abroad. I've always said—my elders have taught me—that, if you are born in this country, you belong to it. You too share the dreaming spirit of the creator ancestor of this land, and that should be shared amongst all Australians. That makes us all custodians of this land. That is what true reconciliation means in this country. But it is not ideal to the Left. It's certainly not an ideal concept to the Greens and Labor, this government who would not like to see Indigenous Australians have any kind of economic development opportunities or economic independence but would rather that they remain in their stagnant positions, dependent on welfare. But what better way is there for people to get to know this lucky country than to actually let them come and see and access it for themselves? If we do not take a commonsense approach to these matters, we will end up locking up anything and everything instead of benefiting all Australians. So, yes, Minister Plibersek, we can have both. We can have a lot, in fact. We can protect cultural heritage and the environment. We can promote development and investment. We can enjoy, celebrate and share everything our wonderful country has to offer instead of creating classes of people in this country that can block off land and access to something that should belong to all of the Australian public. But, in order to have this, we need to revisit our frameworks, especially our cultural heritage laws. That is why, of course, my colleague Senator Duniam and I are moving this motion today. In the spirit of this country, with the separatism that's been pushed onto us by this government and their coalition partners in the Greens, we need to step away from separatism. We need to treat all Australians equally for the benefit of us all. For the benefit of our children, our grandchildren and future generations, we need to end the separatism, we need to stop antidevelopment, we need to stop locking up land and we need to celebrate who we are as a country together. 17:57 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to speak on this motion. The Greens will not be supporting the motion brought by the coalition—no surprises there. This is an attempt to, I suppose, whitewash Aboriginal cultural heritage in this country through the claims that have been made again and again and again about the EDO and activism and how it's all wrapped up in this conspiracy. I wish there were some days that the people on that side would listen to themselves—play themselves back. Play your tapes back and listen to what you've actually said. It is absolutely conspiracy theory, because your views are not shared by other First Nations people across the country. I've said this before, standing here. The northern Australia committee's First Nations cultural heritage report called A way forward—how about you go have a look at that? How about you go and read up on the journey that we took to listen to traditional owners across the country talking about the destruction of their rock shelters? I know that there are coalition people sitting here in this chamber—we don't have to agree on everything; we don't have to agree on that. But the connection to country, whether you want to deny it or not, is about identity, and our connection to that country is about the ngurra where that stands—the ngurra that shows people that we have been here for 65,000 years. You might not want to hear the truth-telling that is at the heart of that. You can whitewash that all you want. You can try and do that. We already see that in the education system, in schools where kids are still being taught about 1788 and that Captain Cook discovered it. Well, terra nullius disproved that. Eddie Mabo disproved that through two High Court challenges. Still we see people bring motions into this place to try and do that—to ensure that we just open the floodgates to development and the destruction of this land, this water, this country and our connection to it. As long as I'm here in the Senate, for the next three years, that's not going to happen, because I will keep fighting. You may label that as activism. I don't care. But we are going to stand on the front line and put our bodies on the line, like we've been doing for many, many generations. Our old people are the giants whose shoulders we stand on, who have been fighting for land rights all of these years and fighting for country. I want to go to the heart of some of the points that Senator Nampijinpa Price made in her speech just a minute ago about the investors and how they can be ripped away at the last minute. Wow. I wonder how much Regis Resources and other investors around the country are paying for those comments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Cox, you will withdraw that. It's an imputation of motive. Senator COX 296215 I withdraw. I'll rephrase my comments to say that investors' wishes are put before traditional owners. Well, guess what? We're constituents, we are now citizens of this country and we too have rights. It's not about capitalism. It's not about putting money first. I know it is for some parties in this place. I know that that is your view, and that's your prerogative. But investors must listen. Investors have a guide already around business investment. Investors know this, yet in my home state of Western Australia they want to flout the rules. We're a mining state, and they love to get around them. In fact, they wound them back because of the pressure of the coalition during the Voice referendum. You must have been clapping your hands about that one. Our cultural heritage laws went so far back that they went right back to the Dark Ages, where you could get a section 18 and you could blow up caves. You could continue to ram through mining trucks and destroy our country with little to no impact and no consciousness that you are drilling into the soul of First Nations people by doing that. You have no consciousness. That's the sad bit about all of this. People can stand in this place and say we should just let investors and developers clear land. Who cares about that? Well, we do. Our 65,000 years of culture, history, language, people and connection to all of that are about our skies, our water, our country, our cultural practices and our totems. Before all of this technology came along we actually had our own sophisticated systems. We actually were able to follow kinship systems, the totemic systems of marriage, to make sure we didn't mix our bloodline. But since what happened 200-odd years ago we've now been developed and indoctrinated into thinking that we just let people through the floodgates. Let's open it up because that's exactly what this motion says. It says let's just open it up and unlock the land because, according to this motion, we're locking up every piece of land in this country. Well, I don't think that's true. I know that my colleague here Senator Shoebridge made a wonderful contribution yesterday about McPhillamys goldmine in his home state of New South Wales and what that means. We can fan off a list of places and of orders that have been issued across Australia. That's because the law of the land actually existed before colonisation. I'm not here to give everyone a history lesson, but clearly we just have to keep saying the same things over and over again. It's like the definition of madness in this place. No-one understands why there is a protocol. No-one understands that the rock art that exists at Murujuga is the first handprint in the world. There is law and culture connecting that land, which was part of the desert before. There is a songline there that connects a trade route that people have walked for thousands of generations. But no; let's just open it up! Let's give it to the gas companies, according to these mob on the right side of the chamber. You want to talk about transparency and accountability? Let's have that conversation. Most of these companies don't even understand what that looks like. Every Senate estimates—Minister McAllister will vouch for this—I'm on the opposite side of the table asking questions about cultural heritage and saying: 'Where are the new laws? When are we going to be there? Are they drafted yet? Are we further down the line?' I know Minister McAllister tells me, 'We're still consulting.' For three years, we've been in this hold pattern, but we're not going to make a referral to the environment and comms committee so that we can continue to have conspiracy theories batted around by the coalition. Let's talk about treaty; let's go there. Treaties are about settlement. Treaties are about reconciliation. Treaties are about getting us a fair deal because we were invaded and colonised. I don't know how many different ways it's going to take for us to keep saying that. The truth-telling—which, again, the coalition asked questions about in question time yesterday—and the makarrata commission will help you all to get educated. It'll help you to understand through the truth-telling why it's so important to have a treaty. In my part of the country, there are actually two treaties already. Two settlements already exist in Noongar country and in Yamaji country. In fact, it was the settlement brokered through the Barnett government, a Liberal government in WA, that did that. It's a treaty. It is an agreement, and every single day across this country there are agreements which unlock land for development. You might want to do your homework in relation to Indigenous land use agreements and what they actually mean, because, while you're saying that a treaty is not progressive and isn't about reconciliation, it actually is. It's about reconciling the nation and giving us a fair deal, because the land and resources in this country belong to First Nations people. Of course we want to share that. Of course we want to contribute to the GDP of the country. If Senator Price participated in the JSCATSIA economic inquiry that's already been happening, she may have heard some of the evidence that was quite clear about economic development for our nation. You cannot continue to come into this place and say, 'They just want to keep people on welfare.' That's not actually true. In the inquiry, there was substantial evidence around business development and economic opportunities for First Nations people across the country. Now we have a draft report about that, and I'm really happy, because it shows people how progressive things have been when we actually work together and get this done. One of the biggest areas of contribution to economic development in this country is tourism. Do you know why? It's an export service to the world that we, as the world's oldest living, continuing culture, contribute to. We're able to showcase that every day. Australians should be proud of that. We should share that. We should share that our nation is so proud to be part of the oldest living culture in the world. We can showcase that through tourism. I'm proud to have the tourism portfolio, where I can encourage our tourist operators across the country to work hand-in-hand with First Nations people. They're already doing it. They're already creating economic pathways across this country. But they don't have to destroy country. They don't have to destroy the water. They don't have to stick in a tailings dam in order to achieve that. They're doing wonderful things. In my home state of WA, that's exactly what they're doing. The Tourism Council WA even provide a cultural tourism award. This is such an amazing, amazing venture and is a joint partnership that goes into the heart of how we can reconcile this nation if we walk together—but we have to tell the truth first. And the truth is where the transparency and accountability will come from, not this slapped together motion. 'Let's have an inquiry and then make sure every investor and every corporate and developer in the country can come in and talk about how they're being stopped.' They're not being stopped. This group of people just want to remove the red tape. They've already said that. They have, as an election platform, 'Let's remove all the green tape, all the red tape and even the black tape, now; let's remove it all and just open the floodgates, unlock all the land'—so everyone can just bulldoze their way through it and destroy it. Well, you know, in our part of the country, our communities can't even drink their water because it's already contaminated. Nitrate, uranium, gold tailings—it's all there, and this is the destruction that it causes. There is the poverty that continues—one of the highest rates of poverty in the OECD, in a high-GDP country like Australia. You only have to go to the town of Roebourne, 40 kilometres away from one of the biggest ports in our country, that exports billions of dollars of iron ore every day—and yet, just across the road from that, Murujuga can't even be protected under section 10, cultural heritage, and we heard that today in question time when Senator Thorpe made that statement. It is an indictment on this place when we get people bringing in motions like this. They want to continue to deny the truth, to continue to push the barrow that investors are getting a raw deal. What—because they're getting pulled up about cultural heritage? They already have a booklet. They already have the regulations—the laws, even—that dictate that they're not supposed to do things without free, prior and informed consent and that they are actually supposed to consult communities. And they never do—in some of those instances, they never do. They send an email and make a few phone calls. That's what we heard in the Barossa case, because that's what they did to the Tiwi Land Council: they made four phone calls and sent two emails. And Senator Duniam knows that; that's why he's smiling right now, because they know that the EDO made sure that the full Federal Court knew that that's what Santos called 'consultation'. Now, this is where, on the protection of our cultural heritage, the rubber hits the road, because you're saying, 'No, no, no'— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order. Senator Cox, I remind you to address— Senator COX 296215 'This is not happening. We're getting hard done by'— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Cox, I'm speaking. I remind you to address your comments through the chair, not directly at people across the chamber. Senator COX 296215 Yes. Thank you, Acting Deputy President. But this is a continuation of all of that. It's the continuous attacks on the EDO and on activism in this nation. We are never going to be quiet and we're going to keep active. 18:12 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to support this motion today because Australia is being divided by race, because of these claims over land that belongs to all Australians. In particular, I want to talk about Mount Arapiles, because that is a rock-climbing mecca amongst rock climbers. Rock climbers from all over the world go down to Mount Arapiles. I myself spent a week down there, back in 2005, where I climbed a lot of the routes, like the great Bard, which is one of the world's great beginner leads; I did all five pitches on that. I think it's an absolute disgrace that places like Mount Arapiles and the Grampians are going to be locked away from people who want to enjoy nature. Rock climbers take a great deal of care. The Arapiles is trad; there are a few bolted higher-grade climbs, but most of the Arapiles is traditional climbing, so there's no damage to the rock. People have been climbing on rocks for thousands of years. As to the idea that someone got here first, I'll quote former prime minister Bob Hawke, who said, 'There should be no hierarchy of origin in this country.' And yet here we are, trying to divide access to Australia's great natural beauty and its environment by race, based on this notion of the oldest continuous culture, when there's actually no recorded history, prior to a few hundred years ago. We've got something like 300 Aboriginal languages, so that would clearly indicate that there were different waves of immigration throughout the thousands of years that people have been moving around the planet. So the concept that Australia is any different to what happened in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas in terms of people moving around is absolutely absurd. We cannot continue to keep talking about the past. We know that First Nations Aboriginal people were colonised, but colonisation has brought many benefits, and it's extremely hypocritical to be criticising colonisation when Aboriginal people enjoy the benefits that colonisation brought with it—things like running water, clean water, shelter, protection, energy, electricity, education in terms of writing. All of these things have lifted the standard of living not just for Aboriginals but for all people. Two hundred years ago the standard of living across most of the world was nowhere—even the wealthiest people's standard of living was nowhere what it is today—so why are we continuing to divide people by race and by history? If you want to talk about 200 years of persecution, come and talk to the Celts. We got persecuted by the Romans in BC 53. There was the great Vercingetorix at the battle of Alesia, Boudica and the Iceni tribe in Great Britain, and the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes in the fifth century. The Angles are known as the English because of the great vowel shift in the 16th century—for those of you who are wondering who the Angles are. The Normans came and gave us a touch-up again in 1096 in the 11th century, and then we had another 100 years—but we had the Vikings turning up and doing their raids throughout the eighth and ninth century. Then we had the Normans, and there was a good 100-year-war there that went on for a very long time. I must say the British turned around then they started going around and building their empire, but they had a good touch-up with the Germans again in World War I and World War II. In amongst all that were the Irish, which some of my heritage stems from. They were practically starved to death their homeland in the 1850s, which is part of the reason why I'm here. The idea that any particular race has a monopoly on persecution is absolutely absurd and it needs to stop. By all means: I'm happy to acknowledge the Aboriginal culture and I accept that there is culture here, but we have to accept that we're all here now and we all have to live together. I do not want to see beautiful places like the Arapiles, the Grampians, Mount Warning—which is just down below the Queensland border. These were mountains. Human beings, regardless of their race, heritage or culture have been climbing mountains for years, and we need to enable people to climb these mountains because that's what we do. That's what human beings love to do. I'm sure we all go and put our nose to the grindstone throughout the working week but I went down to Mount Warning. I've climbed many mountains— Mount Kilimanjaro, Mont Blanc, Mount Karisimbi in Africa, Mount Paradiso and the Three Peaks. I love mountain climbing, and I know many other thousands of Australians like mountain climbing and rock climbing, and to think that tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands of Australians—are going to be locked out from accessing our great natural beauty and our national parks is an absolute outrage. It's an absolute outrage, especially when the state governments who are locking these people out aren't even disclosing the reasons they are locking people out. The government is here to serve the people. It is not there to tell us where we can and can't go. These things are in national parks. They were created as national parks so that people could access them. It just goes to show the mentality of governments today versus the mentality of governments of yesterday that they're now trying to cut people out and deny people the right to access their own public land. It's an absolute outrage and it has to stop. We need to support this motion. I don't even know why we need an inquiry—I'm happy to have one, but to be quite frank, the state governments need to pull their heads in and allow all Australians to access national parks. By all means, we should treat any cultural sites with respect and make sure we protect those areas, but it doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater by locking people out altogether. The other thing I'll touch on is the goldmine. Yet again there needs to be due process. Regis Resources spent something like $190 million on trying to get environmental approvals for that mine, which the New South Wales government gave them, only for the federal government to then turn around and deny it on cultural heritage grounds. This is the problem we've got here: if the federal government want to do that, are they going to refund the $190 million that Regis paid to the New South Wales government? Are they going to refund that money? If the federal government is going to override what is effectively—under the Constitution the environment is technically the responsibility of state governments. Or at least it was until Bob Hawke used 51(xxix) to undermine the plenary powers of the states on the Franklin dam decision. He basically said if the federal government signed any treaty with another power, foreign country, it could override the plenary powers of the states. And this is the long-term consequence of this—that is, we now have the federal government kiboshing just about any project that wants to take place, especially with regard to dams. We've had one dam built in Queensland since the Franklin dam decision, the Paradise Dam just next to Bundaberg there, and it had to be pulled down because the state Labor government at the time didn't build it properly. Civilisation is based around the ability to control water. If you look at the great civilisations of the world—the Indus Valley, the Mesopotamian Valley with the Tigris and the Euphrates, the Nile, the Yellow River, the Yangtze River—they are all based around irrigation from the great rivers. These early civilisations are based around what they call the great flourish of the Neolithic period. We have to be able to cultivate water and yet environmental and cultural treaties are being used to block progress in this country. If we're going to have a rapidly increasing immigration rate, you have to be able to build more dams. You have to open up more mines to generate more royalties to pay for the infrastructure that is going to accommodate these people. We're not doing that. We have power stations that are coming to the end of their lives that aren't being replaced. In Queensland, the big mining companies there are saying they're not going to open up any new coalmines, so we have a declining royalty revenue base. But we also have an increase in population. So we have extra government costs but less government revenue. That is completely unsustainable if we want to live a high-quality and prosperous life. As I said, I'm happy to protect genuine cultural sites where they need to be protected. I spent a week climbing the Arapiles—I probably did about 20 climbs—and I didn't see any Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. I'm not saying they weren't there, but they weren't evident at the time. We don't want to close down things. It's the Arapiles today; it'll be the Blue Mountains tomorrow; it'll be Frog Buttress at Mount French in Queensland next. There is a big rock climbing community out there. I rock climbed for five years. I lived and breathed rock climbing for five years. It's another one of those worlds within worlds where you don't really know it exists unless you're in it, but when you're in it there's a great big mecca. I know people who have basically given up their jobs and lived on the smell of an oily rag just so they can climb day in, day out. I'm a bit too old for it now, but I'm certainly going to get my sons back into rock climbing when I manage to finish whatever I'm doing and I retire. I want to be able to take them down to the Arapiles. I want to be able to take them to the Blue Mountains. I want to take them down to Mount French and Frog Buttress, down at Boonah. And I want to be able to take them to Flavours afterwards, which is one of the great cultural practices of the rock climbing community in South-East Queensland. I don't want to see these things stopped because if my children aren't out there in nature, rock climbing and bushwalking, they're going to be on iPads. I don't want them on technology. I don't want them living and breathing technology, I want them out there seeing the natural beauty of the world, and not just here in Australia but in other countries as well. I strongly recommend that we support this motion because it's very important that all Australians have access to our beautiful country. It's very important that we can get on with developing this country in a way that is going to ensure prosperity for future generations. 18:24 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I think it's important to remind ourselves that we are simply debating a motion to have an inquiry into a matter. On at least one occasion in this debate, it sounded like it was a lot more. But it is purely a motion before the Senate to send a matter off to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee to inquire into matters that a number of speakers have spoken about—that is, the operation and outcomes of cultural heritage laws at the levels of government in which they operate. I don't know what's wrong with inquiring into laws that many in this country perceive to be broken or in need of beefing up. There is no reason for us to not have scrutiny on an area of law that is quite topical at the moment for a range of reasons. It's also worth pointing out, as Senator Cox mentioned in her contribution earlier, that this government promised new standalone cultural heritage laws to replace the outdated and broken ones we have operating in this country now. The act—insofar as it pertains at a federal level to the McPhillamys goldmine in Blayney, which I'll talk about at length during my contribution—is 40 years old. It predates land councils, and it predates native title. It is out of date and not fit for purpose. But that is the piece of legislation that the minister has relied upon to make a declaration. The government's tried to squirm away from this by saying: 'It's only a partial declaration on part of the site. It is not a measure that kills the mine.' In fact, if you talk to anyone that knows anything about mining, they'll tell you that if you can't have a tailings dam, you can't have a mine. The thing will not proceed. We don't need to go into the details about that, but the point is that we were promised that the cultural heritage laws would be replaced, fixed or made fit for purpose to ensure that we don't have terrible outcomes like the ones we've seen here—which are rightly being appealed by the proponents of McPhillamys goldmine—and to ensure that those sorts of situations don't arise ever again. This is an opportunity to assist the government to get these laws right. At Senate estimates, a week and a bit ago, we were able to interrogate the officials in charge of this very slow-moving piece of work. Again, as I say, there was a promise that we would have laws in this parliament, passed during this term of government. There is no sign or hope of that happening at all. When I asked the officials where things are at, as did Senator Cox, the response I got was: 'Well, we're working with stakeholders to figure out what the problems are. We're trying to understand what needs to be fixed.' I cannot believe, nearly three years on, that we are still trying to figure out what the problems are. It was urgent off the back of Juukan Gorge. It was urgent to reform the laws to ensure that those things never happened again. It was urgent to ensure that First Nations people have a voice when it comes to protection of country. But now—well, we'll do it after the election; we'll kick it off into the long grass. I'm not even sure that this government will promise to address these broken laws after the next election. It was a promise before—they've failed; they've not delivered—and of course we're left with the situation we're in now. We do not know whether it will remain a priority or whether the government was just paying lip service to certain groups in our community ahead of the last election I remind senators that this is just a motion to establish a references inquiry into broken laws, to ensure that we have a better system operating in this country, and to provide guidance and advice to ensure that we can actually get things right for all, not just some, in our community. This inquiry would enable the government to get some much-needed information to hurry up this long, protracted and ridiculous process. As I said before, these laws are outdated, from 1984, and predate all of the other arrangements and processes that have been put in place around matters for First Nations—native title, land councils—to try and give effect to a robust regime, to ensure protections do occur. Is it perfect? No. There will always be work to be done, which is why we need to reform these laws and replace the 1984 act. We make a point, as I did earlier today in response to a terrible decision by this government to double down on the appalling decision to not overturn Minister Plibersek's decision around the McPhillamys goldmine. We can tinker around the edges with the Future Made in Australia Bill. We can tinker around the edges with other programs and measures, spending allocations within budgets to try and generate productivity. We can tinker with the environmental approval laws. We could make them the best laws in the world. But, in effect, section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 is so open-ended that anyone of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage anywhere in the country who fears for the desecration of a particular piece of land to which there is connection anywhere in the country can make a written or oral application. There is no limit to that. It can be anyone, anywhere, anytime, provided those measures are met. The problem with the process—the laws as they are set down—became very, very evident in Senate estimates. It is, in fact, borne out in the section 10 declaration signed by the minister. I refer senators to paragraph 6.33 of the minister's statement about the making of the declaration, where the minister says: I note that the reporter— that is, the section 10 reporter, an anthropological expert, someone who knows what they're talking about and who was picked by the government to do this report— expressed the view that the evidence at the time of the Section 10 Report did not provide a basis for concluding that the specified area— that is, the area that they've now said that, under this declaration, is not fit for having a tailings dam— is of particular significance to Aboriginal people. It does go on to note that further evidence was provided by the applicants that made the section 10 application. None of the evidence that was tendered later on, over a four-year period, and there were multiple versions of information presented, went back to the section 10 reporter—the appointed expert, the person with anthropological and cultural heritage expertise—to enable them to make a determination. Instead, we had the officials, who are doing their job, abiding by the law, telling us senators that this is perfect and that this system is working as it should. We had six rounds of consultation and procedural fairness. Hang on. No, all they did was seek further information from the applicant, and then they said: 'We found this does not have cultural heritage significance.' The applicant went away, looked for something else, found something else, brought it along, went back to the proponent and said: 'Can we test this with you? Does this make sense to you? Does this claim of Indigenous cultural heritage make sense to you?' They kept bouncing off the applicant and the proponent for six rounds. At no point did the government go back to the appointed expert to test any of this. None of it went back past anyone who would know anything, beyond the applicant and the proponent. The bureaucrats in the department acted as judge and jury in this open-ended process. That is not right. This is why we now find ourselves watching legal proceedings unfold relating to the McPhillamys goldmine. I will watch with interest how these laws are tested. But the fact is that it is open-ended. Anyone, anywhere meeting the criterion under the act can make a claim. That means there will be investor uncertainty, and that is a bad thing. Investment in our country is not a bad thing, nor is seeking people to come and make a choice to invest here, where we have good environmental laws and regulations at a state and federal level. I will echo what others have said, which is that this mine proposal had every single state and federal environmental approval required met. It was approved. They'd spent, in acquiring the site and going through the processes, $192 million getting to this point. Despite going through all of those robust processes, including cultural heritage processes through the state planning schemes, this act was activated and weaponised, frankly, as even some in the government have said. There was an article recently in the Australian newspaper, where it was stated: Senior government sources have also revealed they have witnessed an increasing use of section 10s— that is, these applications under the ATSIHP Act to try to stop projects after all other avenues have been exhausted. That says to me that there are people in government that know what is going on. There is a suggestion that investors have a guide—not when, out of the blue, out of nowhere, with no robust process occurring under these laws, this can happen to a mine proposal that has been in the works for five years and has had nearly $200 million spent on getting it up and to the stage where they should have been digging a hole in the ground, extracting resources and generating royalties revenue for the state of New South Wales for hospitals and schools and creating 800 jobs. To suggest that somehow they have guides, when they are blindsided by this—that is not a good legal framework for governments to be making proponents go through. There was a lot of emotive language used in Senator Cox's contribution—and I understand that—but, again, all we are doing here is seeking to set up an inquiry. The Greens have an amazing way of using words to inflame things, to conflate things, to make people think that things are worse than they are. To try and weaponise things like this and to try and suggest that— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Cox. Senator Cox 296215 Acting Deputy President, I would like Senator Duniam to withdraw that comment trying to impugn my reputation and my contribution to this debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Cox, he didn't refer to you personally. He was referring to the Greens. Senator Cox 296215 He actually did. He referred to me directly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Cox, I'm pretty certain he didn't because I was focusing very carefully on what he was saying. I'm certain he did not— Senator Cox 296215 I'd like you to review the tape. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 I'm very happy to ask for the tape to be reviewed. Senator Duniam, you have the call. Senator DUNIAM 263418 As I was saying, the Australian Greens have this amazing capacity to try and tap into people's emotions and avoid fact and science to get a certain political outcome. That's what they're in the business of doing. The basis of what has happened here is so flawed that it is almost laughable, and we would be laughing except for the fact that 800 people are now without work and the state of New South Wales has less money to pay for schools and hospitals because of activists that want to undercut our society. If you're an investor looking at where you might park a billion dollars, would you want to go through this process only to be knocked on the head by spurious claims from activists who tap into emotions rather than deal with fact? You wouldn't. You'd go somewhere else, where there are worse environmental outcomes. We're supposed to be global leaders. This is the thing—the Australian Greens love to push things over the horizon so we don't see it. We feel better about not mining here, but we're happy to have the life dug out of certain countries where they have no environmental regulations. This is the by-product of their 'shut it down, lock it up and oppose projects at all costs' approach to the world. They are not doing the right thing by our country in opposing this motion. It is important to have a look at these laws. Senator Cox herself has been asking where the new cultural heritage laws are. I'd love to know. An inquiry might tell us a bit more than we know already, which is nothing because the government have done, as far as I can tell, diddly squat. So I have no idea why we would not have a discussion about these things and enable everyone on every side of the debate to come and have their say. That's what democracy's all about. To suggest that Senator Nampijinpa Price is on her own in these views—well, what about Roy Ah-See? He's a Wiradjuri elder, and he has some real problems with what's happened here. Maybe he's on the wrong side of the ledger too because he doesn't agree with the Australian Greens. What about the members of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council? They have a problem with what's happened here. Their community—their people; their mob—have been denied economic empowerment by a group of people they don't agree with who frankly, if you look at what the minister has done, have had an immense impact on this community. So to suggest that Senator Nampijinpa Price is on her own is frankly wrong. It is important for us to be able to interrogate these laws at a state and federal level to understand why the government have not acted. In the interests of all Australians, it would be great to ensure that we get the laws right moving forward. It was also interesting to note, of course, the defence of the EDO, an organisation which, frankly, I cannot believe the government continues to fund after the evisceration by the Federal Court judge Justice Charlesworth. This activist organisation is now setting up a specialist arm to go around looking for cultural heritage claims like this, as reported recently in the media, to try and stop them. This goes back to my point about the government sources' concern that section 10 is being weaponised. Why would we give them money, through the taxpayer, to enable them to do more? I'd also love to know where the EDO gets most of its money from. I don't think it's local. I have real concerns that the EDO has been getting a lot of funding from overseas in recent years, and that would be great to see. Perhaps the EDO might table those documents for us given they are a recipient of taxpayers' money. To write off other's concerns as conspiracy is exactly what the left do. They do it all the time if you have a concern. All we are asking for is an inquiry. A bit of truth-telling would be helpful here. Let's see what's said, let's see the truth, let's see the facts and let's get these laws right; let's have an inquiry. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is that the motion moved by Senators Nampijinpa Price and Duniam be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, because it is after 6:30, the division is deferred until tomorrow. BILLS 4966 BILLS Aged Care Bill 2024, Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 4966

Aged Care Bill 2024

Aged Care Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 4966 18:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was a damning assessment spanning five volumes summed up in one word: neglect. The report illuminated a systemically failing system where treating older people without dignity was normalised. The report highlighted a sector mired in crisis due to a lack of ambition. Most Australians were shocked by the findings of the royal commission. Commissioners pulled the curtains back on a macabre theatre that had been left to decay in the dark despite the best efforts of brave advocates. But others weren't surprised by its findings at all. The final report validated their trauma and painful lived experiences in black and white for all to read. The royal commission delivered a stern rebuke. It said that we as a nation had let older people down. And yet it wasn't just about the past or the present; it was also about the future—tomorrow, next week, 20 years from now and beyond. Since the final report was tabled three years ago, 136 recommendations of the royal commission have been addressed, 58 of which are directly addressed today as part of the Aged Care Bill 2024. This moment marks the most impactful aged-care reform in Australia in 30 years. The Aged Care Bill delivers recommendation 1 of the royal commission: to introduce a new rights based Aged Care Act to replace the Howard era Aged Care Act 1997—a new act to put older people, not providers, at the centre of aged care. Since the election of the Albanese government in 2022, we've worked hard to fulfil the mandate delivered by the royal commission. The very first act of the 47th Parliament was passing aged-care legislation responding to the royal commission. Its passage delivered a new funding mechanism for residential aged care, a sector-wide code of conduct, an expanded Serious Incident Response Scheme, and stronger provider governance. The Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Act 2022 came shortly after, delivering greater transparency, capping home-care fees and, most importantly, putting nurses back into nursing homes. The creation of an Inspector-General of Aged Care reinforced the Albanese government's commitment to being open with the Australian public about how aged care is administered and how it is being reformed. It demonstrated that we are holding ourselves to the same high standard that we expect of the sector. It made aged care more transparent, with star ratings for residential care, empowering older people and their families to make informed decisions. The addition of the Dollars to Care program and star rating profiles holds providers accountable for how they spend their budgets, and the Albanese government's $11.3 billion investment in a historic pay rise for aged-care workers is important as well. These reforms have had a tangible impact on the lives of older people and the friends, families and workers who care for them. Right now, there is a registered nurse on site in aged care 99 per cent of the time in Australia. Older Australians collectively are receiving an additional 3.9 million minutes of care every single day, 1.7 million of which are delivered by qualified registered nurses. There has been a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of residents experiencing polypharmacy, antipsychotic medication use, falls that result in major injury, use of physical restraints, significant unplanned weight loss, and consecutive unplanned weight loss. Trend analysis for the most recent quarter shows that, for the first time, the prevalence of one or more pressure injuries is declining over time. We are also seeing improvements in the star ratings data, with fewer one- and two-star ratings and more four- and five-star ratings. This is incredible progress, and I want to thank particularly the aged-care workers who have delivered this care. But there is more work to do, and our mandate continues. Since 1997, aged care has been in a slow state of evolution. Some changes have been far-reaching and others incremental. But, as Jim Carey, a 94-year-old aged care resident and members of the Council of Elders, said earlier this year: When you're building something, the first thing you need is a good foundation, and right now aged care doesn't have a good foundation. Jim's right. Aged care doesn't need a renovation. It needs a revolution, and that's what this bill and the other reforms of the Albanese government are delivering. The primary focus of the 1997 Aged Care Act is the funding and operation of aged-care providers. It lacks purpose, values and mission, and it lacks a focus on people. We all have at least one person that immediately comes to mind when aged care comes up in conversation or on the news—a grandparent, a loved one, a neighbour or a friend. For me personally, it's my father, and so many others are in the same situation. The new rights based Aged Care Bill we are introducing puts older people and the services they need front and centre. It promotes positive attitudes towards ageing. It empowers people with choice and control in the planning and delivery of their care. It builds trust and confidence with strong regulation and complaints mechanisms that prevent mistreatment, neglect and harm from poor quality and unsafe care. The cornerstone of this bill is a statement of rights underpinned by Australia's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The statement of rights outlines what all Australians can and should expect from aged care—person centred care that is culturally safe and trauma aware, dignity and respect, individuality and diversity, independence, choice and control, dignity of risk and privacy. The rights of older people will be embedded in care delivery in the way workers are trained and in the way people talk about the care they receive. We heard that rights need to be enforceable but also balanced. Including a statement of rights in this bill is not about opening the litigation floodgates; it's about empowering older people to have conversations about the dignified care they deserve. Under this bill, providers must take all reasonable and proportionate steps to act in accordance with the statement of rights. This is backed up by an enforceable registration condition that will make sure providers have practices in place to deliver care consistently with the statement of rights. In plain English, if a provider breaches the rights in this bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will have tough enforcement actions at its disposal. The bill also introduces a new model to embed supported decision-making across the care system. Supporting older people to make decisions for themselves for as long as possible is at the heart of this bill, recognising that, in a system that prioritises dignity and respect, the will and preferences of older people must always come first. As Rosemary, an 84-year-old aged-care resident, said: We are still people even though we are in aged care and we have the right to live our own lives and be treated with respect and dignity. The rights in the new Aged Care Act will give me more autonomy over my decision making and my daily life. We have been contributing members of Australian society all our lives and we don't suddenly become inanimate objects when we enter aged care. The royal commission was clear about the need to create a duty of care for providers which will hold them and the people in positions of leadership accountable when things go wrong. In line with their recommendations, this bill includes new duties on providers and a limited group of people in leadership roles. The duties mean that providers and responsible persons must not act in a way that puts older people in their care at risk or actually causes more harm. The duties are carefully targeted towards the most egregious conduct. Leaders who fail to fulfil their duty of care without reasonable exception will face significant civil penalties. Good people who understand the responsibility that comes with caring for older people should in no way be deterred from taking on positions of responsibility because of these new duties. There are a number of other significant changes that this bill makes to the delivery of aged care to Australians. It brings together the complex, multiple entry pathways criticised by the royal commission with a single culturally safe entry and assessment pathway. It builds a stronger regulator and an independent complaints commissioner. It invests in and assists the workforce which is so critical to delivering the aged-care services that our elderly deserve and need in our country. It significantly adds to the support that older Australians will receive at home, because we know that older Australians want the freedom, support and choice to remain in home and with the community that they love. This bill also makes significant reforms to the finances surrounding aged care. These reforms are important. To deliver them we need a sustainable funding system, and that's what this bill will deliver through the amendments that it's providing. In conclusion, this bill has the potential to provide a new and enduring foundation for the Australian aged-care system, from 1 July 2025 and for years to come. From then on, aged care will put the rights of older people first. The new Support at Home program will support all of us to live independently in our own homes for as long as possible as we age. The aged-care system will be fair and financially sustainable, with those who can afford it making contributions toward the cost of their own care. Older people will be cared for by skilled workers who are properly respected and fairly paid, and this bill puts high-quality, safe and compassionate care and services first. It implements a system of caring for older people living with dementia that incorporates contemporary, evidence-based care, and it delivers our election commitment for better, more appetising and more nutritious food, underscored by new food standards. We cannot realise this potential if senators do not come together and pass this bill, so I urge the Senate to support this bill to deliver the long-term, sustainable and high-quality care that older Australians deserve. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Kovacic be agreed to. A division is required, but, because it's after 6.30 pm, it will be deferred till tomorrow. The debate is adjourned accordingly. Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024 4969

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

Second Reading 4969 18:57 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024. The primary purpose of the bill is to amend the Australian Education Act 2013 to enable the Commonwealth's share of funding for government schools to be increased. The government says this is all about delivering its election commitment to put every school on the path to full and fair funding, under its so-called Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, formerly known as the National School Reform Agreement. However, after 2½ years under this government, there is still no national schools funding agreement and there are still no national reforms, and time is running out. The Commonwealth has reached bilateral agreements with the Tasmanian and Western Australian governments to lift its contribution to government schools from 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard to 22.5 per cent. For government schools in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth's share will be a much more significant 40 per cent from 2029, recognising the dire challenges facing Territory schools, particularly in remote communities, and in recent days we have learnt that there is now an agreement between the Commonwealth and the ACT. We certainly welcome this certainty, yet there is no funding deal with the four largest states: New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. That means there are no national reforms agreed as the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, promised so that every child reaches his or her best potential. Regrettably, what we have instead is a continuing schools funding war. I say to the government: there is nothing better or fairer about leaving in limbo almost 5½ thousand government schools across the nation—those in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia—comprising 81 per cent of government schools. With one in three students failing NAPLAN, there is nothing better or fairer about failing to deliver the national school reforms which are critical to ensuring that every child excels in the classroom and reaches his or her best potential. We know this is a school funding war because, on 21 August this year, Labor state education ministers came to Canberra and protested against the Albanese government. That was a very big step, I might say, but it indicated the level of animosity and hostility between the states, with the ACT, and Minister Clare over the failure to conclude this agreement. That morning the Victorian education minister, Ben Carroll, even declared on ABC radio that when the Liberals were in power they did a better job funding public schools than the current government were. This was obviously very embarrassing for the government. After 2½ years, given how long the minister has been talking about this agreement and given the fact this agreement has been extended by one year, it's very regrettable that these deals have not been done, and they are of course due to expire on 31 December. While the government's draft heads of agreement has been agreed with some of the jurisdictions—with agreement on a number of proposals and important reforms, including evidence based teaching interventions; screening tests, such as the year 1 phonics and numeracy checks; and improved student attendance and performance targets—the reforms are both light on detail and inadequate. The coalition has been demanding that evidence based teaching, such as explicit instruction and the teaching of phonics, be mandated and be available to every child in every classroom. It is also time that our hardworking, wonderful, committed teachers across this country receive the resources they need to excel in the classroom, because at the moment it's a real hotchpotch. To put a teacher in the position where they don't have access to the best evidence based materials is really not good enough. It was only this year, only a number of months ago, that, in Victoria, the minister announced that the Victorian government will move from their whole-language, so-called balanced literacy approach to evidence based phonics, which is very much founded in the science of reading and learning. The fact that we have had a generation of children be subjected to less-than-ideal teaching methods—I would call it the era of loose learning—means we have failed many, many students. In fact, since the 1970s we have failed Australian children by not giving them the very best evidence based teaching, by not giving them the resources that we know work and, of course, by denying our teachers the very best. On that note, I really want to commend the work of the Australian Education Research Organisation. Established by the former coalition government in agreement with the states and territories, AERO are leading the charge in demonstrating the very latest evidence based teaching methods, including providing practical guides for teachers, to support them in matters such as combating classroom disruption. AERO are doing in incredible job. They are running against the tide in terms of what so many teachers have been taught in universities that are, frankly, totally letting down teachers by giving them a less-than-adequate teacher education. It actually has been woeful. With a couple of exceptions—and La Trobe University is a real standout—generally speaking, our universities have got a lot to answer for in the woefully inadequate teacher training that they have provided over not just years but decades. This bill permits but does not require the Commonwealth to increase its share of funding to government schools beyond 20 per cent with the exception of the Northern Territory, which would receive a 40 per cent share from 2029. These provisions grant the Commonwealth new flexibility in funding arrangements with the states and territories, principally required because of Minister Clare's school funding war and his threat that the government schools in the four biggest states will miss out on any increase if those states don't sign up to a 22.5 per cent share from the Commonwealth and, of course, agree to contribute 77.5 per cent to the SRS by the end of the year. In fact, that deadline was set at 30 September, which has now slipped. At the moment more than 80 per cent government schools are facing a situation where they may effectively not get the funding they deserve from 1 January next year. This is no reflection on the newly elected Crisafulli government, which is still getting its feet under the table after an overwhelming vote of no confidence in Queensland Labor. The bottom line for students, teachers, principals and parents is this funding fiasco must be resolved. I made this very important point in my senator statement earlier in the day: the coalition has a very fine record of backing schools when in government. I say this because, through his office, the minister is issuing points trying to denigrate the coalition, trying to suggest the coalition cut school funding when it's anything but. Under the former coalition government, annual school funding increased from $13 billion a year in 2013 to $25.3 billion a year in 2022. Our quality schools package drove record funding of $318.9 billion to all schools between 2018 and 2029. We also strengthened the curriculum with stronger evidence based content, including teaching phonics and the science of reading and learning, and improved teacher training recommendations. We backed our high-achieving teachers and delivered best-practice literacy and numeracy programs to close the gap. Of course there is more to be done, and we say to the government: please get on with it. I do want to make the important point that, under the current legislated arrangement, the Commonwealth is meeting its SRS obligations of 20 per cent funding to government schools. It was always misleading for the Albanese government to claim it would fully fund government schools when the Commonwealth was in fact meeting its agreed obligations. The shortfall, with the exception of the ACT, was responsibility of the states and the Northern Territory, which was contributing just 59 per cent. Other poor performers were Queensland at 69 per cent rather than the 80 per cent required and Victoria at 70 per cent. It's very important to put that on the record. At the end of the day, what is critical is not just the amount of money but how it is used in the classroom—the difference it makes. We know on this side of the chamber—and I have to say, to be fair, it's well-recognised right across this parliament—that raising school standards is crucial because we have seen some really concerning results continuing through the NAPLAN. One in three children are not meeting the benchmark standards. One in 10 children are so far behind they need catch-up tutoring, so there are some very significant concerns across the four NAPLAN test areas of reading, writing, conventions of language—which is spelling, grammar and punctuation—and numeracy. Year 9 students fared the worst, with 35.3 per cent failing to reach those expected standards or minimum standards of proficiency, falling into either the 'developing' or 'needs additional support' categories. It is also—I've said this before, during the Senate estimates process—concerning that ACARA, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, claims that these stable results are an important achievement. That really is embarrassing. We are a very smart country. Our children are very smart. With the best, evidence based teaching, and by giving teachers the support they need, we can do better. We know we can do better, because even the program for international student assessment shows that, 20 years ago, the average year 10 Australian student was one year ahead in their learning compared to now. So we have seen significant decline, and that is really concerning. As I mentioned, we are concerned that the reforms proposed in the National School Reform Agreement do not include appropriate obligations in relation to combating classroom disruption. Australia has some of the world's most unruly classrooms, sitting 71st out of 80 countries on the disciplinary climate index in the 2022 PISA results. We know that, when you have disrupted classrooms, child and teenage students cannot learn. It's very regrettable that the government has not responded to the many important recommendations made by the Senate inquiry, led very ably by Senator O'Sullivan, into classroom disruption, including a national behaviour survey, a behaviour curriculum and the clear abolition of open classrooms, which we know simply don't work. We've also raised concerns about the national curriculum not being fit for purpose, and in the Senate inquiry into this bill we heard from primary school principals that it is impossible to teach. I believe more work needs to be done, and it's very regrettable that the government has not tackled that important task. The coalition supports this bill, but we are strongly advocating for a back-to-basics education sharply focused on literacy and numeracy, underpinned by explicit teaching and knowledge which commonsense curriculum— (Time expired) 19:12 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak for the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, because, as I said earlier today, I'm very proud of the public education I had. Although I didn't go all the way through the public system, my children have done so, and I believe in a public education system. The Albanese Labor government is proud of this bill because we know how important it is to give our children the best possible start, and education is key to ensuring millions of Australian students get the opportunities that they need to have not only a great education but to be prepared for the world and our future. That will open doors for them. We know in this country the public education system is the backbone of education in Australia—overwhelmingly. More mums and dads send their children to a public school than to the private system, with 64 per cent of Australian children going to our public schools. Like every piece of legislation and reform that we are bringing before us now, nothing is ever perfect. But we do know that we have to start addressing the concerns, highlighted by the other side of the chamber as well as this side, that too many young Australians are not reaching NAPLAN's criteria in terms of where they should be in their year. This is a really good step towards addressing that. But, from my personal experience, having been in this place for a long time, I don't remember a better education minister than Minister Jason Clare. He knows how important it is—he has lived the experience of how important it is—for many people in this place that they have been the first in their family to go to university. If you don't get that start right at the beginning, if we do not acknowledge and address the issue—there are children now starting school that have never had a story read to them. So they're always going to be behind. We know that if a child has had early childhood education, going through and being cared for in a childcare centre, they normally start off better at school than those who haven't. So what we really need to do is address the fundamental issue, and that means, when children start school and they are behind, that we help them catch up. But you have to continue to monitor those children to make sure that they don't fall behind. It makes all the difference. We know that education is the most powerful tool that we can use to bring about change in an individual's life. We know how powerful it is to the Australian community to have a well-educated and supported education system, because our kids do much better. Education is an investment in individuals; it's an investment in communities; it's an investment in our economy and our society. My husband's and my youngest daughter works with children with high needs. Those children have academic challenges as well as behavioural problems. I think we still have a little way to go, to say the very least, to actually acknowledge that children learn very differently. If you talk to child psychologists, they will say that we are still failing too many children who don't fit into that educational box where we expect that children go into a classroom and have a teacher with a whiteboard—it is no longer a blackboard, which is what I experienced. We have to be able to allow children to learn in an environment that suits their abilities. We know that there are a lot of children who have special needs. I have to say about my daughter Jasmine I don't know how she does what she does every day. But I know she is passionate, just as we know that teachers throughout this country are passionate in what they do each and every day. I hear from a very good friend of mine whose daughter has been working as a teacher for a long time of the challenges now that teachers are confronted with in the classroom. We know there are so many issues and people that are doing it hard. We know of the cost-of-living challenges that we are experiencing in our communities today. There are always challenges. There are family breakdowns. We know there are children who struggle with their education. But we also know what social media is doing. So we have to ensure that we have the support structures to wrap around our kids, because our futures depend on that. The work that has been done to bring this legislation forward—the consultation and the committees that have inquired into education—has only just reinforced what we've all known: how important it is from kindergarten to year 12, to TAFE and to university that the opportunities are there for our young people. We know that those with an education actually have better health outcomes and their life expectancy is longer. We know in this country there's still a gap between our First Nations people and the rest of the population, and we have so much more work to do. There is the work that Minister Jason Clare has been doing. I spoke earlier today about my experience being with him when he visits schools in Tasmania and the passion that he brings to meet the challenges. Unfortunately, in my home state the challenges of our children are where they sit on NAPLAN, which is very low. Of course there are exceptions to that, and of course we've got great teachers. But there's more that we've got to do. We need to put more tutors in the schools. We need to have more people doing the work, such as the special teachers' assistants that are in classrooms. What is really unfortunate is that there are schools that are having those special teachers cut right now in New South Wales. At a time when it's recognised that we need more assistance for our children, they're being cut. We know that we need more in my home state of Tasmania. This extra funding that we're doing and the agreements that we have brought together through Minister Clare will bring about better opportunities for those children in Western Australia and in Tasmania. We know how important this funding will be. We know how important it will be to have that support around children's wellbeing. We really aren't just teaching children in education terms reading and writing but teaching them life skills. We're teaching them how to engage and to relate within their communities—the skills that they get to be able to negotiate and to be able to work together in a classroom. We have seen too many generations who have not had the opportunities and who should have had this sort of reform, which was going to fix these problems. That has been very apparent in too many of our communities right around this country. Now we are bringing this reform. I always think it's sad when you have an opposition—who have been in government for a considerable period of time, like the previous government's 10 years, and failed to actually invest in education—come into this debate and to others in this place and never want to, at least, acknowledge that they could have done better. You might hear acknowledgement from a very few senators on that side about the fact that their government could have done better. I'm very pleased—and I would expect—that the opposition support this legislation today, because it's going to help fix the problems that they created. But it would be nice if occasionally an opposition could actually acknowledge that they didn't do enough. Even in one area would be a change. This reform is actually going to allow this government to finish the great work that David Gonski brought to the previous Labor government, who wanted to see and actually had a formula to make sure there was fairness in education. I'm very proud of the fact that it's our government that is actually doing that here with this legislation. I want to again acknowledge the great work of Minister Clare. I know when he was dealing with the Tasmanian Minister for Education, the good thing was—I think this was a saving grace, and I can say that as a Tasmanian senator—that the current premier was the former minister for education, so he gets it. He understood what this was about. He was instrumental in getting the Tasmanian Liberal government to the table with the Minister for Education and with Minister Clare to reach this agreement. What is even better is, even when the agreement was signed that this would not be in place in totality until 2029, that they got a commitment together—between a federal Labor government and a state Liberal government—to do everything they can to deliver this funding before 2029. In fact, I have confidence—if the state Liberal government lasts for the next 12 months, with the way they're going; they're very shaky at the moment—that that money will be delivered before 2029. I am very grateful for the work the Premier did and his commitment to do everything he could to bring forward that funding. Why is he doing that? It is because they acknowledge that we've fallen so far behind in our children being able to have the education they deserve. I put that on record and acknowledge that. It takes special people—and we don't have enough of them in the federal parliament—to acknowledge that more should have been done and could have been done and to now work with a Labor government to bring this about. In the Northern Territory we know what that is going to mean to the Territory and to the children there, to help bring them up to the standard where they need to be. From our point of view, as a Labor government, we were prepared to work with every state and territory government, irrespective of their political colouring, to make sure that this funding was delivered and that this bill was passed in this place. As I said before, no legislation is ever perfect and there is always more to be done. I think it's a bit like being at home trying to do some maintenance and some housework; there's always more to be done tomorrow. This is an amazing start, but there is, as I said, so much more to be done. We have to continue to evaluate the evidence that is based around professional people, the teachers, the school leaders, the school communities, parents and students themselves. As students get older in the upper years of high school and then go on to college and university, we know how important it is to have them engaged. I commend this bill. (Time expired) 19:27 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, which brings a critical issue before the Senate today—that is, the future of our education system. While this bill seeks to amend the Australian Education Act 2013 to increase federal funding for government schools, it falls short of addressing the core challenges facing our classrooms. I note the title of this bill—'funding and reform'. I think this bill lacks reform. It doesn't have the reform that, ultimately, is necessary in our school systems across the country. I applaud the states that have been able to negotiate an agreement, and there should be more, but we need to see greater accountability and we've got to see reform of our education system because our children are falling further and further behind. More needs to be done. The government claim that this is a step towards full and fair funding for our schools, yet nearly three years into their term they have failed to secure a comprehensive national funding agreement. As I said, only a few states and territories—Tasmania, Western Australia and the ACT—have struck bilateral deals to increase the Commonwealth funding contribution from 20 to 25 per cent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of government schools, 81 per cent, remain uncertain about their financial future. More needs to be done, and it's critical that the government gets this right, because kids' lives and their education are at stake, and I am concerned that there is not enough reform done through this bill that will drive the changes that we need to see. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 4973 ADJOURNMENT Mount Gambier, Education 4973 19:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia It's always a good day when I get up and I'm able to speak about my fantastic home state of South Australia. I recently had the opportunity to spend some time in the great city of Mount Gambier, which is in the federal electorate of Barker. While I was there, I met with a range of residents, particularly healthcare professionals from the urgent-care clinic and the other GP services across that great region. I also met with farmers, with schoolteachers and with a lot of very enthusiastic students. I got the opportunity to visit multiple schools when I was in Mount Gambier, and two in particular stick out for me, Melaleuca Park Primary School and Mount Gambier North Primary School, probably because I got to spend a great deal of time with their students. I got to hang out with them in the classroom, talk to them and get quizzed mercilessly by them, and it was great. It was a really lovely experience. These students shared with me some of their hopes and dreams, and it was great to be able to see what they were passionate about and to have a really solid sense of what the Albanese Labor government can do to help them achieve that—what we can do to help them realise those dreams. One of the key things that I think are really important is their ability to go on to postschool education, be that university or TAFE, and to be able to do it in their own home town—to be able to stay at home and not have to travel great distances. That's one of the biggest problems we face in our regional areas. So I was quite delighted to be able to talk to them about those opportunities and the fact that we are growing fee-free TAFE so that they can go and learn the skills that they're going to need into the future right at home. They were all pretty excited about that. In addition to that, the fact that we are now looking to remove a significant chunk of the debt that students are carrying is also something that's going to make a difference to those families and to those kids while they're trying to pursue their dreams. Cutting student debt by 20 per cent is going to make a difference to that region. But I was quite fascinated, while I was in the great seat of Barker, to hear the local Liberal member, Mr Tony Pasin, who spoke out against these things on the radio while I was there. It was interesting to see how little he actually seemed to know about our vocational education system. He seemed to be under the impression that the reforms to student debt were only going to benefit people with university degrees. I'll quote what he said on the radio. He said that 'carpenters and plumbers' should also get 'this free kick'. I think that's a fairly disrespectful way to put it, but he obviously doesn't understand what's going on here. He obviously has not realised that these commitments are going to slash 20 per cent from every kind of student debt, so, yes, it will include debts accrued for TAFE courses and apprentices if they're listed on 1 June next year. This is exactly what we need to do, and I was just blown away that Mr Pasin doesn't want 12,000 people in his electorate to have that debt reduced and keep more of what they earn. I'm aghast. If he's just attempting to make political commentary, as opposed to looking at the needs, wants and dreams of the people in his electorate, maybe they should reconsider how they vote. The other thing that we are doing that makes a difference in regional areas is putting university hubs in nine locations across regional South Australia. University hubs are brilliant. I've spent quite a bit of time with the people who run the university hubs in Port Pirie and Port Augusta, and it's really working for students, so we're opening more. Three of those new locations are in the seat of Barker, but I'm not sure Mr Pasin has anything positive to say about that either. There's so much going on, so many great things for these students who have dreams and aspirations. The Albanese Labor government are going to deliver and help them achieve those dreams. It was excellent to have a trip down there. Small Business 4974 19:35 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales During estimates and once again today during question time, Minister for Finance Katy Gallagher told Australians that the record number of business insolvencies under the Albanese Labor government was proportionate. This dismissive response fails to understand the real and human toll behind these business closures. For the business owners and their employees, there is no such thing as a proportionate loss. Each failure is a devastating blow to an individual's or family's financial stability, and to their enormous efforts in starting and building a family business. Despite the minister's claims that the government is committed to supporting small businesses, new data released today by CreditorWatch, a commercial credit reporting agency, paints a far different picture. The figures show that more than one in 20 businesses are now failing—a shocking 25 per cent increase in insolvencies compared to pre-2020 levels. The industries most affected remain retail, hospitality and construction. In fact, more than 4,000 construction businesses have collapsed in just the last two years. This contributes to the skyrocketing costs in housing construction which are only exacerbating our national housing crisis. Where are these failures concentrated? Small businesses in Western Sydney. Areas like Maryland, Canterbury, Bringelly and Bankstown are bearing the brunt, with almost eight per cent of businesses closing their doors. Yet their local Labor representatives remain largely silent, burying their heads with a 'nothing to see here' attitude as their communities struggle. Instead of focusing on the cost-of-living and the cost-of-doing-business crises, instead of working to improve the lives of business owners and employees in his own community, the member for McMahon is busy undermining our AUKUS allies. In Watson, the former employment and workplace relations minister has left kilometres and kilometres of new industrial red tape behind him as he has moved on to the Home Affairs portfolio. Neither have spoken about pointing to these failures being proportionate—we know for a fact that they weren't. They know there is a big problem, but—as usual—Labor continues to take Western Sydney for granted. It's time for that to stop. Today in question time Minister Gallagher accused the coalition of failing to support feminised industries, yet it is under the watch of this government that sectors with a high proportion of female workers, like retail and hospitality, are being decimated. It is brutally unfair to tell these women who rely on these jobs or who have started these businesses that the closures and losses are proportionate. That's not okay. I should note that women make up the majority of retail and hospitality workers, but workers in these industries also have a median age of 33 and 22 respectively. It is young women who are the most affected. I know the government will hate to hear this, but I note that under the watch of this government young people are officially worse off today than their parents and grandparents. The Productivity Commission found that Australians born after 1990—I have three children: one born in 1990, one in 1991 and the other in 1993—have the lowest disposable income of any generation in their youth since the Second World War. The Commonwealth Bank has also revealed that Australians between the ages of 18 and 39 have gone backwards in essential and discretionary spending. If all this wasn't bad enough, I also note Australia is suffering through the longest and worst per capita recession in our country's history—something the government is desperate to run away from. Interestingly it was only a few years ago that then Labor shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said that Australia entering a per capita recession just once was 'a damning indictment of the coalition government's economic stewardship'. If one quarter of per capita recession is a damning indictment, then six quarters must be a profound economic cataclysm. Amid all of this, we have a Treasurer still deflecting blame for the prolonged period of high interest rates. This is despite the Reserve Bank of Australia repeatedly urging the government to curb its reckless spending. (Time expired) Glenorchy Multicultural Hub 4975 19:40 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise tonight to highlight an incredible milestone for Tasmania's multicultural community: the official opening of the newly upgraded Multicultural Hub in the northern suburbs. This hub has always been a vibrant space where people from diverse backgrounds come together to share, celebrate and connect. It's the cornerstone of the inclusivity and community spirit, a reflection of the values that define Tasmania and our nation. I had the privilege of attending the official opening of the upgraded facility at the Multicultural Hub alongside my colleague the Hon. Julian Hill MP, Assistant Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who opened the upgrade, together with the Glenorchy City Council mayor, Sue Hickey. It was a full house, with members of the local multicultural community and representatives from the Multicultural Council of Tasmania coming together to celebrate this significant achievement. The energy in the room was incredible, full of pride, joy and a shared sense of belonging. The recent upgrades, supported by $100,000 in federal government funding through the multicultural affairs and citizenship grants program, included the installation of a state-of-the-art commercial kitchen. This new upgrade will elevate the hub's role as a centre for cultural exchange and community connection. The kitchen will facilitate catering for cultural events and activities and education, and it offers a venue where the preparation and sharing of food can unite individuals, allowing them to celebrate, explore and share their diverse culinary and cultural heritage. Food is more than just nourishment; it's a universal language that tells stories, builds understanding and brings people together. With this new kitchen, Tasmania's multicultural communities now have even greater opportunity to share their traditions, celebrate their heritage and connect with the wider community. Before the Albanese Labor government was elected, I recognised the importance of this project and strongly advocated for its funding. After our election in May 2022, we delivered on this commitment. That's what Labor government do—we listen, we act, we deliver on the priorities that matter most to our communities. The upgrades wouldn't have been possible without partnerships at every level, with in-kind support from the Glenorchy City Council, who played a critical role in managing the project to ensure its smooth delivery. The Tasmanian Community Fund also contributed $62,260, demonstrating the power of collaboration in achieving meaningful outcomes. The opening of the upgraded hub was the perfect example of what can happen when governments, organisations and communities come together with a shared vision. It was inspiring to see so many members of the community and the Multicultural Council of Tasmania celebrate this achievement together. Sharing a meal prepared by members of the multicultural community with Assistant Minister Hill was a highlight of the day. It was a vivid reminder of how food can bring people together, breaking down barriers and fostering mutual respect and understanding. Migration has been central to Australia's identity. In Tasmania our multicultural communities contribute so much to our society not only enriching our cultural fabric but also strengthening our economy and communities. The Albanese Labor government is deeply committed to supporting multicultural communities. The Multicultural Hub is a shining example of how we are delivering resources that create opportunity for inclusion, understanding and connection. The Multicultural Hub is a place where connections are forged, cultures are celebrated and traditions are preserved. I want to commend the Multicultural Council of Tasmania for their outstanding work supporting migrant and refugee communities, promoting cultural exchange and building a stronger, more inclusive Tasmania. The upgraded kitchen is a testament to their dedication and vision. Looking ahead, the multicultural hub will continue to thrive as a place of celebration, connection and opportunity. As a proud member of the Albanese Labor government I'm delighted to have been part of this moment. The hub reflects the values we hold dear—diversity, inclusion and community—and reminds us of the incredible things we can achieve when we work together. (Time expired) Energy 4975 19:45 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I want to briefly pay tribute to the work of Chris Uhlmann, who last night had a desperately needed investigation of the real cost of net zero aired on the Sky News channel. Chris is one of our nation's most intrepid, serious and considered journalists, and he's gone where very few people have been willing to tread in the last few years and actually investigated in a detailed way why Australians are all paying so much for energy when we live in one of the corners of the world most blessed with energy resources. I think many Australians are perplexed as to why their power bills keep going up and up and up to the point that they are some of the highest in the world even though we have all of this coal, which we continue to export to other countries to use, we have all of this gas, and until recently we were the world's largest exporter of liquefied gas, and we have the world's largest uranium reserves as well, which of course we also export but ban for use by Australians themselves. It's a crushing story for many Australians, no more highlighted than by the tragic story shown by Chris of the pensioner who lives here in the ACT who struggles now to pay her bills because of her power bill. The ABC kind of kicked Chris out because he wanted to look at this stuff. The ABC is not doing it. Other media aren't doing it. Sky News have done it. Unfortunately of course they're a company that has to make money. They don't get public funding. So this documentary will set you back $5 to watch. Just sign up to the Sky News stream service. But I would encourage all Australians to check it out. It's a small proportion of your bill. In fact your average bills these days are about $2,000 a year, so this is just 0.25 per cent of your bill to watch an investigation of what the hell is going on. At the core of what is going on is that the people making decisions about our very complex modern energy system have no idea what they're doing. It's as simple as that. They have no idea what they're doing. I remember being in a ministerial council meeting on energy, a subcommittee of the COAG group, just after the South Australia blackout. I was actually in Adelaide the night that happened, and it made me appreciate the wonders of modern street lighting. The whole city was black. I felt a little trepidatious walking out on the street. It was pitch black. The whole place had gone off. After the first meeting of the state and federal ministers, the then head of the Australian Energy Market Operator was explaining to all the ministers about how the lights that we were sitting under at the time in that conference room—these ones here too—are actually flickering on and off all the time. You just can't see it with the naked eye. But they're actually going on and off all the time. They're going on and off at a sine frequency of 50 hertz. It was pretty clear to me that, for almost everybody in that room, officials and ministers, it was the first time we were hearing this particular bit of information. Yet ministers have been taking it on themselves to tinker with this complex engineering system and say stupid things like: 'The sun is free. The wind doesn't send a bill.' That's a direct quote from our energy minister at the moment. Therefore investing in solar and wind will be cheap. It's the most juvenile analysis you've ever heard, and we're all paying the price because of its childish nature. Of course, as Chris showed in great and understandable detail last night, the wind and sun may be free but the solar panels aren't, the wind turbines are not and the transmission lines you have to build to go there are certainly not free. Of course probably the biggest issue of them all is that, when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, you need something to back it all up to keep the lights on. All of those factors mean that the average costs of providing electricity to Australians are going up and up and up, and it's the average Australian suffering. It's not just them. I also want to congratulate the likes of Cadbury, who had the guts to come out and call out the surging power costs that they face. It's flowing through of course to the cost of food, but it's also threatening the viability of manufacturing in this country. We have to deal with this. I encourage people to watch Chris's investigation, but most of all I encourage those ministers and officials who remain ignorant to watch this documentary. The government should finally commission a proper cost-benefit study of the goal of net zero emissions. It should have been done before. It shouldn't have been left up to Chris Uhlmann. But it's not too late to correct the errors of this insane policy. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 19:50