2025-02-04 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 4 February 2025

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. SHADOW MINISTRY 1 SHADOW MINISTRY Presentation 1 12:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—I advise the Senate that I have been elected Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and I congratulate, following her successful election, Senator Ruston as the coalition's deputy leader. I'm also pleased to advise the Senate that Senator Duniam has been appointed Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate and that Senator McGrath has been appointed Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate. I would also, again, like to acknowledge former Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Simon Birmingham for his service to the Senate, to the Liberal Party of Australia and to the Liberal Party of South Australia. I also congratulate our senators on their various appointments. I welcome Senator Claire Chandler into the shadow cabinet as shadow minister for government services and the digital economy and shadow minister for science and the arts. Shadow minister for Indigenous Australians Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price will now take on additional responsibilities as the shadow minister for government efficiency. Senator Matt O'Sullivan has been appointed shadow assistant minister for education. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the coalition's shadow ministerial arrangements. Leave granted. The document read as follows— 25 January 2025 DUTTON SHADOW MINISTRY 12:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I congratulate Senator Cash on her election as Senate leader for the opposition. It is the first time we've had an all-woman team at the table—other than when you were acting, obviously. I've faced many leaders from the other side, but this is the first time a woman has had the privilege of this position. That makes this an historic day, and I wanted to acknowledge it. I also congratulate the other senators who have been promoted to the various positions outlined by the opposition leader in the Senate. 12:03 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, on behalf of the Senate, congratulations to you and to others who've been promoted. MOTIONS 4 MOTIONS Antisemitism 4 12:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I move: That the Senate— (a) deplores the appalling and unacceptable rise in antisemitism across Australia, including violent attacks on synagogues, schools, homes and childcare centres; (b) unequivocally condemns antisemitism in all its forms; and (c) resolves that all parliamentarians will work constructively together to combat the scourge of antisemitism in Australia. The antisemitism going on in this country has got to stop. It is not just hateful and hurtful; it's un-Australian, flat out. Seriously, this is not who we are. This is not who Australians are. Having a go at anybody because of the colour of their skin or their religion is totally unacceptable. The Jewish community have been living in fear for months in their own backyards. Their kids are afraid to go to school, and our Jewish communities and businesses feel like they are under siege. It is not fair. To the people who are doing this—spray painting hateful things on our childcare centres and on our cenotaphs, not to mention the vandalism of property that is going on in the Jewish community—I say: you people are at the bottom of the barrel. You seriously are Australia's scum, and I will call you out for that today. You are scum! All politicians in this Senate and the House need to work together and stand up against antisemitism and racism in all its forms. All politicians and leaders need to resist the urge to use these attacks for political purposes. We need to say in one voice, 'This behaviour is not on and we will not put up with it, not in this country, not in this nation.' Antisemitism has a 3,000-year history. Many of the Jews who came to Australia came here after World War II to build new lives for their families and to help us build this country to where it is today. They come here to be safe, to safely follow their religion, to safely raise their families and to safely prosper, like the rest of us. Some of our greatest Australians were Jewish, including General Monash, one of my heroes, who fought against antisemitism his whole life. Monash was born in Melbourne in 1865 to German Jewish parents. He went on to be a civil engineer, and when world war broke out in 1914 he became an officer in the Australian Army. At the time, some members of the military tried to block his appointment just because he was Jewish. I thought we would have learned the hard way, but some Australians apparently have not. In July of 1915 Monash was promoted to brigadier general, a move that was met with another antisemitic backlash. This antisemitic backlash was spearheaded by Charles Bean and Keith Murdoch, who conspired amongst themselves to see the dismissal of Monash. They said: We do not want Australia represented by men mainly because of the ability, natural and inborn in Jews, to push themselves forward. Eventually these lines reached the ears of Prime Minister Billy Hughes, who became convinced that Monash should be relieved of command. Thank God he wasn't. He went on to conduct himself with extraordinary bravery and become known as one of our greatest tacticians, not to mention one of our greatest military members. Following the war, Monash was appointed director-general of repatriation and demobilisation and became one of the principal organisers of the annual observance of Anzac Day. In short, Monash is now recognised as one of our greatest Australians. I can only imagine how horrified he would be that over 100 years later we still have people that think the way they thought about him. I hope every senator in this place votes for this motion. We need to send a strong message to the Australian Jewish community that we have their backs and will not tolerate this behaviour on our streets. We won't tolerate it with the Jewish community and we won't tolerate it with any community, because it is un-Australian. That's it. It's as simple as that. I would like to leave you with the words of Yvonne Engelman: 'The most important message I have to tell is not to be a bystander but to stand up and voice your opinion. Be a decent human being. And if you keep that in your mind you will always benefit from it.' This will only be a great Australia if we all stand up and we all put in. We've all got to do the heavy lifting. But being a coward and doing things out in the streets that are un-Australian is not Australia. It is not Australia. People are going through really hard times and tough times at the moment, and I can tell you they are not putting up with your nonsense anymore. There is only a small minority out there that's doing this. You are disgusting. Like I said, you are the scum of not only this country but the earth. There is no more tolerance. We have had enough. We will stand together as one. We will stand for the Jewish community and any other community that has this inflicted on them now and in the future and we will stop this, because it's not the Australian way and it's not Australian behaviour. 12:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise to speak in support of this motion moved by Senator Lambie—I thank her for doing so—and moved by the member for Wentworth in the other place. We have seen a devastating rise in antisemitism in this country. We have seen actions which have appalled us all—the vandalism and arson of a Jewish MPs office, the Adass Israel Synagogue firebombed, antisemitic graffiti, words of hate sprayed on cars and on buildings, a caravan laden with explosives, vile acts of hate, attacks on places of worship, antisemitic slogans and the torching of cars and premises. This has been so distressing for the Australian Jewish community—such a valued part of our pluralist nation. This has been so distressing for so many Australians, because we are a nation that welcomes different races. We are a nation that welcomes different religions. We are a nation that welcomes different views. We are a pluralist nation, united by respect for each other's humanity and united by respect for each other's right to live in peace. People in this country should not only be safe but feel safe. I've previously said these attacks are an attack on the Australian Jewish community, but they are also an attack on who we are as Australians. They're an attack on our values—the values of this country which has welcomed so many from so many parts of the world and which has a commitment to respect for one another's beliefs and one another's faiths. So it is important and appropriate that today, across the chamber, we stand together to unequivocally condemn antisemitism in all its forms, just as we should condemn hatred, in all its forms, directed at any group in our community. The scourge of antisemitism doesn't respect international borders, and we know it has deep roots across the world and a long history. Last week, I had the honour of representing Australia alongside Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus; the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal; and the Deputy President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Robert Goot, at the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The words of the Holocaust survivors that day will stay with me forever. They spoke of being stripped of their humanity, of feeling powerless and abandoned and of the desperate cries that still haunt their souls. Amongst the stories of destruction and depravity, Holocaust survivors implored us to remain vigilant about the horrific reality of where hatred—of where antisemitism and intolerance—can lead. Leon Weintraub was one of those survivors. He was only young when the war began. He and his family were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where his mother and her sister were both murdered. He's now 99 years old. This was his advice to all of us who were gathered: 'I urge all people of goodwill, and, especially, I ask of the young people: be sensitive to all expressions of intolerance and resentment towards those who are different, regardless of their skin colour, their religion or sexual orientation. At this time of worsening antisemitism here and around the world, it is more important than ever for us to stand together across beliefs and across politics.' To take Mr Weintraub's words to heart, to make practice of them in our lives and to insist, 'Never again,' let us all stand in defence of Australian values, values in which I believe so deeply and that I have articulated and advocated for all my life—values of respect, of acceptance and of inclusion—because they are the foundation of who we are, and we must defend them. 12:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise on behalf of the coalition to support the motion put forward by Senator Lambie. Let me make this very, very clear upfront: there has been one group of parties—the coalition—that has unequivocally, since October 7 2023, condemned the vile rise of antisemitism in this country. The Jews of Australia are currently living in fear. There are people who don't want their children to go to school on a daily basis. There are people who wake up every morning and wonder, 'Is it going to be me when I leave my house today?' There are people waking up every single morning and wondering, 'Is it my shop, my business, that is going to be targeted today?' On October 7 2023, when that vile act of terrorism occurred, the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, made it very, very clear to the Prime Minister of Australia that we would work with the government to address whatever needed to be done to fight antisemitism. Let's look at where, in February 2025, we are now at. I'm sorry, but ever since 9 October 2023, when, as I said, we saw the despicable pro-Hamas protest outside the front of the Sydney Opera House, just one day after the massacre of 1,200 Jewish people in southern Israel, the Prime Minister of this country has failed to lead us when it comes to antisemitism. Jewish Australians across Australia not only deserve our support but are crying out to the Australian government, 'Please don't just listen to us and give us words; give us concrete action that will show us you stand with us and you understand us but, more than that, you will put in place the necessary laws to fight the rise of antisemitism in this country.' Unfortunately, in the recent events in my home state of Western Australia, we saw the most vile display of graffiti: a swastika with 'F the Jews' inscribed on a person's home in the suburb of Dalkeith. This is actually getting worse, and I just wish the government would wake up and understand it. What is it going to take? A synagogue was firebombed in Melbourne. A Jewish childcare centre was firebombed in Sydney. A car was firebombed outside the recent address of a prominent Jewish leader. Then, of course, a caravan full of explosives was found in suburban Sydney with a map of Jewish targets, including the Great Synagogue. As we all know, had this attack actually come off, it could have been the most disastrous terrorist attack in Australian history. The list goes on. Synagogues have been sprayed with swastika graffiti. Homes—these are people's homes, where they live, their pride and joy, the places where they go home to for solace at night—have been sprayed with stars of David, reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator CASH I0M I don't know what more it's going to take for government to wake up and understand that we have a crisis of antisemitism in this country and they, by their lack of action, are enabling it. Let's have a look at what the Prime Minister of Israel himself, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu, has said. This is what he said in relation to the attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne: Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this reprehensible act from the extreme anti-Israeli position of the Labor government in Australia … That is the Prime Minister of Israel. Israel's deputy foreign minister, Sharren Haskel, has also criticised the Albanese government in the wake of the recent antisemitic attacks in Sydney. This is what she said: I note, however, that the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and other Australian ministers are refusing to accept any responsibility for the shocking recent surge in anti-Semitic terror in Australia. There is no doubt the rise in anti-Semitism in Australia has been caused in part by the Australian government's ongoing campaign against Israel. We see that campaign in the United Nations. This is what the chief rabbi of Perth Hebrew Congregation in Western Australia, Dan Lieberman, said in relation to the graffiti that I referred to previously: 'It's a turning point for the Jewish community of WA. People will get sick of this nonsense very quickly and they will make plans to leave. Jewish people have moved around for 2,000 years, and we will do it again. Australian society has to decide whether the people of Einstein, Salk, Freud and Monash are worth keeping around. If they decide that they are not then all they need to do is continue down this path and allow incidents like this to go unchallenged and unpunished. The Jewish community will move on, and Australian society will be the poorer for it. We have contributed and will continue to contribute so much to this country and to Western society, and we will continue to do so—but not if the society that we are attempting to benefit rejects us, either explicitly or implicitly, by way of silence and inaction in the face of antisemitism.' It's no wonder that Jewish Australians are feeling let down. Journalist Sharri Markson has said: 'Vulnerable is an understatement. This isn't the world any of us want to live in. Jewish Australians have only ever contributed in a wonderful way to this country, in every area of life, to help make Australia a better place to live.' The coalition completely supports the motion put by Senator Lambie today. But what I fear more than anything is that, even though the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister in 2023 that we would work with the government to tackle the rise of antisemitism in Australia, it is very clear in February 2025 that the Jewish people of Australia have been let down. This motion will pass the Senate, but, based on the government's track record to date, it's going to be mere words. Words, quite frankly, are not what the Jewish community or Australians need. They need leadership and they need action. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I thought you might have taken note that this debate is being heard in silence, but I had to call you to order. I was very reluctant to sit Senator Cash down. She is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. She is entitled to be heard in silence, as is every other senator. If you can't sit and not make interjections, then please leave the chamber. 12:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Antisemitic hate crimes and the recent spate of horrific hatred against Jewish people are deeply concerning. It is appalling, and there should be no place for that kind of hatred in this country—no place for that kind of hatred and racism against anyone living in this country. The Greens and I were calling out racism in all its forms before anyone in here was doing so. We've been calling out right-wing extremism and Neo-Nazism, which are a threat to everyone in this country. In my first speech in this very chamber, in 2018, I spoke about the threat of rising far-right extremism. We are seeing the consequences of it right here. That threat is converting into antisemitism and Islamophobia. We have seen a rise in hatred against Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians as well. Of course we need to tackle racism and hate, but we need to tackle it at its roots. And you know what? Racism is rooted in the colonisation of this country—the racism that, to this day, is perpetrated against First Nations people. When we talk about tackling antisemitism or any form of racism, we need to be serious about doing it for every single community that is targeted by racism and hate, whether First Nations people, Jewish people, Muslims—any race, any religion—or LGBTQIA+ people. We need to address all forms of racism and hate. The Greens have pushed for years. I have to say we are the only party in here that puts a high priority on antiracism, the only party that has an antiracism portfolio. We have pushed for a national antiracism strategy and framework for years, and it is now available for us as a road map. That road map urgently needs to be fully funded and implemented, because that road map talks about so many ways we can implement antiracism in this country; there's not one thing or the other that we need to do. We have to get really serious about tackling hate and racism in this country, and there is a road map right there for us. So I hope everyone in this chamber can support the urgent funding and implementation of the national antiracism portfolio. The Greens support this motion, but it would have been really good to see an acknowledgement of tackling and condemning all forms of racism in this country, not trying to weaponise antisemitism. We want to make it clear we support this motion—of course we have to tackle antisemitism—but we need to tackle every single form of racism. Senator Scarr 282997 On a point of order: the use of the phrase 'trying to weaponise antisemitism' in the context of this resolution—I think it should be withdrawn. It imputes an improper motive. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, I wasn't aware that that use of words was directed to any senator in particular. It's up to Senator Faruqi whether she withdraws the comment or not. I'm not directing her to, because it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. Senator FARUQI 250362 I've completed my speech, thank you. 12:27 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I too want to congratulate the member for Wentworth for bringing forward this motion in the House. Here in the Senate I congratulate you, Senator Lambie, for your strong voice. I acknowledge your position as a crossbencher endeavouring to do exactly what is in the third point of your statement, which is to endeavour to resolve 'that all parliamentarians will work constructively together'. I have this to say as the chair of the parliamentary friends of Israel, with a particular interest: antisemitism did not die in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, nor did it begin in Nazi Germany. It's a scourge that has afflicted the Jewish people and threatened their annihilation since their inception. This is an ancient and insidious evil that is not confined to history. Sadly, it continues to leave an ugly mark on humanity today. Speaking as a member of the Senate for New South Wales, I say the stain on Sydney is a disgrace. In mid-2024 I stood in this Senate and stated that the Jewish community of Australia had witnessed a shift from an uptick in antisemitism to an almighty surge. Now it has become a torrent. There should not be a race in this place to be the first ones to claim it. We only need to stand united to decry it. The horrific massacre of October 7 saw the largest killing of Jewish people since the Shoah. It unleashed and gave licence to those who are filled with hatred in their souls, allowing them to continue to torment a people who experienced a reopening of deep trauma in their collective psyche. I have continued to be shocked and disgusted. As Senator Lambie has asked of me, and of all of us in this place, I will not be a bystander. All people of goodwill in this place have not been bystanders. We should be united in our shared decrying of the kinds of behaviours that are manifesting themselves on the Australian streets. I never thought I'd see the day when synagogues were torched, cars were bombed and Jewish Australians woke to daily vile hatred sprayed on the walls of the neighbourhoods in their communities. Australia is the most successful multicultural, multifaith nation in the world. It prides itself on being home to the second largest cohort of Holocaust survivors after the State of Israel. It's an accomplishment that we proudly continue to offer to all refugees and persecuted people seeking shelter. Yet this achievement is not complete. Continual understanding, tolerance and vigilance are required to maintain the welcoming society that so many fled to join. I stand with all leaders of goodwill, not malign intent—all leaders of every community that acts in goodwill. As a government, we will continue to pour more resources into policing and supporting AFP Special Operation Avalite to coordinate the response, ensuring that the Prime Minister's strong words are realised. These thugs will be hunted down and locked up with no stone left unturned as they face the full force of the law. But now is a moment of united leadership. No-one can put themselves ahead of the real and pressing needs of the Jewish community right now. We stand united behind you. That is our task. That is my commitment. 12:31 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to speak in support of Senator Lambie's motion relating to antisemitism. Words are important. Words carry weight. Words do matter. But I foreshadow that I'm also proposing to move an amendment to this motion, because even more important than words is actions, and what the Jewish community has been asking of state and federal governments in this country for 15 months now is for action to accompany the words of condemnation. The amendment has been circulated in the chamber, but, for the benefit of senators, I'll read out the words: At the end of the motion, add: (d) calls on the Government to support: (i) strengthening the penalties for those who urge or threaten attacks against places of worship, (ii) strengthening the sentencing regime for terrorism by legislating for a mandatory minimum term of 6 years' imprisonment for all acts of terrorism under Commonwealth law, and (iii) the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months' imprisonment for the display of prohibited antisemitic and terrorist organisation symbols and related behaviour in public, and increase the maximum penalty to 5 years' prison. I firmly believe that Australia is the best country in the world. But, if we are being honest, we have not been at our best over the last 15 months. Ever since the 7 October atrocity perpetrated by Hamas against the people of Israel, it has been clear that we may have a problem in this country. If there were any doubt in our minds that we have a problem, I think it should have been removed on 8 October, when an impromptu rally was held in Western Sydney. The rally was addressed by Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun, an extremist preacher. At that rally he said it was a 'day of pride, a day of elation, a day of victory'. It can't be said that this rally in Western Sydney was held to commiserate with the tragic loss of innocent Palestinian life, which of course has occurred in the war in Gaza and which all decent people deplore, because, at that point, no Israeli defence force response had been organised; Israel was not in Gaza. This rally was a celebration of death, a celebration of hatred. This was a celebration of antisemitism. The following night, at the Sydney Opera House—again, before any IDF response was organised—a mob of young people were chanting hateful slogans about the Jewish community, in shameful and embarrassing images that were broadcast around the world and which besmirched our reputation as a country. At that point there were no excuses. At that point there could be no doubt that antisemitism had reared its ugly head in Australia and that strong action and leadership were necessary to tackle it. The Jewish community has been warning state and federal parliaments around the country that unless action were taken this would get worse and that, unless we quickly and decisively moved to address these issues, then real harm could come to the Jewish community. The coalition has been proud to stand with the Jewish community in echoing and amplifying those words, those warnings, and calling for action—like on 14 November 2023, when the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and first called on him to hold a national cabinet to confront and deal with the scourge of antisemitism and extremism. The Prime Minister, to this day, 15 months later, has not had the decency to respond to Mr Dutton's request, and, for those 15 months, he was full of excuses as to why a national cabinet wasn't necessary, why it didn't need to be called and why everything else the government was doing was sufficient to address antisemitism. He even said that one of the reasons he didn't call a national cabinet earlier was that 'people were on leave'. He said that people don't want more meetings; they want action. Finally, the Prime Minister agreed to call a national cabinet. He did so after the firebombing of a childcare centre in Maroubra. It shouldn't have taken the firebombing of a childcare centre for the Prime Minister to realise how badly out of control antisemitism had become on his watch and why coordinated national action, from his office down, was necessary. Regrettably, despite his admission that a national cabinet was necessary—after dismissing calls from Jewish community leaders like the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and his own hand-picked antisemitism envoy—the only action which emerged from the National Cabinet was a new database on antisemitism. Well, we already have databases that collect antisemitic incidents. The ECAJ publishes data every year, and it's shocking if you read it: there was a 700 per cent increase in antisemitism over the last year. A new database at the Commonwealth level is not going to change anything. It's not going to deter any of the people who think it's acceptable to firebomb a synagogue or a childcare centre or a car or someone's business. Being a line on an Excel spreadsheet is not keeping these people up at night. What might deter them are real consequences for their actions—real penalties for their behaviour. That's why the action which I propose in this amendment to this motion today is necessary; that's why mandatory minimum sentences are needed—to send a clear signal that what has happened in our country over the last 15 months is not acceptable. At a time when we needed moral courage, at a time when we needed moral clarity, at a time when we needed tough action, we have had anything but. We've had equivocation, we have had weakness and we have had ambivalence. And now is the time—it's not too late—for the government to act. They can agree to our proposal for mandatory minimum sentences and other strong measures to deter whoever is behind these attacks and ensure that, when we catch them, they face very serious consequences. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, the motion has now been circulated, so if you'd like to move— Senator PATERSON 144138 I move the amendment: At the end of the motion, add: (d) calls on the Government to support: (i) strengthening the penalties for those who urge or threaten attacks against places of worship, (ii) strengthening the sentencing regime for terrorism by legislating for a mandatory minimum term of 6 years' imprisonment for all acts of terrorism under Commonwealth law, and (iii) the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months' imprisonment for the display of prohibited antisemitic and terrorist organisation symbols and related behaviour in public, and increase the maximum penalty to 5 years' prison. 12:37 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I speak in support of the motion. I just want, from the outset, to remind everybody in the chamber of this. I know that we all shared that desperate feeling in our guts and our hearts and our minds when we saw those horrific attacks occurring across the country. One parent from Mount Sinai College in Maroubra said, after the attack had occurred: Today we have to walk our children into school knowing that people hate us and hate the children enough to create that kind of fear. She said: It's a horrible environment in what should be a beautiful day of my kids starting school and enjoying seeing their friends again. She went on to say: I think the fact that these things can still happen over and over and over again is scary given how much effort is going into this but I always think obviously there's more that can be done. Eleven arrests have occurred so far. The police and also the Australian Federal Police have carried out work. Of course, as many of us are aware, and as has been briefly mentioned, ASIO is investigating matters associated with these horrific attacks. At this time, with these examples of horrific attacks, and now, with Senator Lambie's resolution, the proposition is put forward that now is the time for us to say unequivocally that we stand together as one voice in this Senate. Yes, there's a time to have politics and there's a time to question arrangements and question the latitude and the appropriateness of actions and responses. The 11 arrests demonstrate the response that has occurred. They also demonstrate to the community out there that is fearful and worried that the Australian public are on your side. The Australian police are on your side. The police services across the states in this country are on your side. They're against the minority voice that has a minority view about making sure there's fear and loathing in this community. It's paramount on everybody in this chamber to make sure they don't feed that paranoia and fear but realise the real challenges that we have in our community. Sandy Hollis, Head of Education for Sydney Jewish Museum, said of antisemitism: From misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, I think it's all part and parcel of the same problem. As the head of the Islamic Council of New South Wales said so passionately in December: We totally sympathise and show solidarity with the Jewish community. Anti-Semitism is not acceptable, we will not see it rise or become normalised the way Islamophobia has become normalised. We think we're better off when we support one another. That's what this resolution is about. Yes, there are opportunities for people to play election politics, but there's an opportunity for Australia to come together and for this chamber to come together. And, to the credit of those on my right, this is the opportunity they've taken up. I say to those across the chamber: don't lose this opportunity. Don't feed the fear and desperation that is being peddled by these people that are intimidating the Australian community and Jewish people in the community. Call it out for what it is. It is horrific. And call out something else even more powerful—that we all stand together against the nature, aspiration and desire of those who want to do evil in this country. We are opposed as a community and in the Senate against their aspirations because we know they are wrong and fundamentally evil. 12:41 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to add the National Party and another voice from the coalition to the stand against antisemitism. Those listening in the gallery and at home would be shocked to hear the contributions around this chamber. If you had been here and listened in for the last 16 months to the contributions, particularly from government senators and from the Greens, you would have heard a very different tone. They could not say the word 'antisemitism' without saying 'Islamophobia'. Somehow it's going to be politicisation of this debate for me to even say that and acknowledge that fact here in the Australian Senate, but that is absolutely what is happening. I have said time and time again, as have people from the Australian Jewish community, that the Holocaust did not start with gas chambers or Jews in cattle trucks during the Second World War in Germany. It started with antisemitism becoming normalised on the streets of Berlin and other places throughout that country as they headed into World War II. That's what happened. It became normalised. Post October 7 that's exactly what has been happening here, whether it is Jewish kids being told by their gentile friends at school that they can't go to their birthday parties, because they are Jewish; or whether it is Jewish families being told, 'Do not go into the CBD of Melbourne or Sydney, because you and your family, with your yarmulkes on, are not safe in this country.' Do you think I'm making that up? That is exactly what has been happening for 16 months. The Prime Minister's own antisemitism envoy told him before Christmas that antisemitism in this country is organised, systemic and absolutely targeted. Let's not be surprised or start gaslighting the Australian public that everybody has been on this train since 7 October 2023, because they haven't. There's been a tacit approval—a wink and a nudge. There have been motions moved on the floor of the UN. At every juncture, the opportunity to stand up for the Jewish Australian community, to stand with Israel, our ally, has not been clear. So, if anyone is surprised that people, evil people, in our community, feel that they can somehow get away with it, that's exactly how that's occurred. Premier Minns, to his credit, has apologised for his lack of swift and strong action after what happened outside the opera house. He has apologised. Has our Prime Minister? No. When our Prime Minister was talking to his government MPs and senators in their first meeting back, following fire-bombings of synagogues and alleged terrorist acts throughout our country over the summer break, was this top of mind? Was it the first thing he talked about to his caucus? Was it in the top 3? No, he didn't even mention it. He didn't even mention it. He can't tell the country when he was briefed on this. He didn't even say it was an issue to his own government MPs. If the Australian Jewish community and those that care about this country and do not, like Senator Lambie, want to see it descend into the types of horrific behaviours that we're seeing, you'd think it would be in the top 5 from the Prime Minister and that this government would be making it very, very clear. But instead they wring their hands and say that antisemitism has no place in modern Australia. It's almost as if it was a talking point. If you were serious it would be on the National Cabinet agenda, because this is a joint issue between state and federal governments. State police forces have to enact state laws, and this would be something you'd be wanting regular updates from your premiers on, in terms of how they were dealing with this. It is absolutely shameful that it's not on National Cabinet and it's embarrassing globally that this country, which has been welcoming migrants from all around the world with open arms since settlement, is now seen as somewhere unsafe. Post Second World War, we opened our arms to so many of the European Jewish community to provide a safe haven where they could practice their religion. Now, 80 years later, their businesses are being boycotted, and Jewish Australians in workplaces are being bullied and harassed. I'm not making it up. I'm not politicising this. This is simply reporting facts that are occurring in our community. Our kids are terrified to go to school, and there are now actual acts of violence because aggressive protests weekend after weekend after weekend went undealt with. Stop gaslighting Australians that somehow you are now on board. If anyone's politicising it, I would say it is those who, over summer, had a real come-to-Jesus moment, because your rhetoric is the complete opposite of what it's been in this chamber and in the public sphere for the last 16 months. So, of course, on our side of this chamber we stand against antisemitism. We stand against it strongly, swiftly—from day one—and we would ask that the government step up to the plate, stop with the platitudes and actually give the Australian Jewish community something to hold onto. If you don't want to listen to us, at least listen to your own antisemitism envoy. 12:49 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria We have seen a rise in hatred in this country, including antisemitism in the community. This is horrible, and I support this motion. Antisemitism is a form of racism and white supremacy. That's how Nazis saw it and how they justified the Holocaust. They saw the white race as a superior race, and that's how Neo-Nazis see it. I have experienced this personally. In fact, I experience it every day from the Neo-Nazis and continue to experience it. These people see the white race as superior to all other races, whether they are black, brown, Jewish, Muslim or Asian. Of course, we must condemn racism in all its forms. There must be no place for it anywhere in our streets, in our workplaces or in our schools. I have an amendment to the motion that simply includes the word 'racism' in the motion and wish to move the amendment as circulated in the chamber. Most senators who have spoken have mentioned the issue of racism and antisemitism as a form of racism. My amendment is to reflect this. We know that the Liberal Party struck out 'racism' from that original motion. I don't understand why. Why aren't you calling out the white supremacists and their part in this? This country needs to take all forms of racism more seriously. Believe us; we've been subjected to racism since your boats arrived. For over 200 years we have been dealing with racism, and it's horrible. It's a disease that we can eradicate if we stand together. We've been speaking about this for so long—for decades, centuries, two centuries! The Liberal Party wants to ignore the racism component. I don't know why. I don't know what your relationship is with white supremacy, but it's totally unprincipled. Antisemitism, for the Liberals, Nationals and others who don't understand, is racism. Why don't you say racism? We must not separate these issues or people who are being discriminated against but recognise white supremacy in all its forms. They are targeting Muslim people, Jewish people, black people and First Peoples. The rise of racism in the last two months has gone through the roof, according to the Human Rights Commissioner. The antiracism framework in this country is totally unfit for purpose. We need to have a serious look at this. We don't have a human rights bill in this country, so where are people's human rights when it comes to being discriminated against? Where are our human rights? You fellas don't support a human rights bill. Why not? We have a Labor government which continues to oversee the abuse of human rights of people both here and abroad. It's being complicit in multiple genocides. When we normalise racism, violence and war anywhere, we give it permission to rear its ugly head. Yes, it gets used as a political football just like we do in this country when it suits you. If we don't tackle racism in this country—we see how divided this country is. Sometimes I wonder whether the White Australia policy will come back when you look at the policies and legislation that go through this place. If you want to stamp out antisemitism, you must include racism in all its forms. Why don't you stand up to that and ensure that all of our children going to school and our people going to work don't have to deal with any form of racism? That's what a united country looks like. I foreshadow that I will be moving that the motion be amended as follows: That the Senate: (a) deplores the appalling and unacceptable rise in antisemitism across Australia, including violent attacks on synagogues, schools, homes and childcare centres; (b) unequivocally condemns antisemitism and racism in all its forms; and (c) resolves that all parliamentarians will work constructively together to combat the scourge of antisemitism and racism in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 To be clear to the chamber, Senator Paterson's motion will be resolved first when we get to that point. 12:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Like my colleagues who have spoken before me today on this side of the chamber, I support this motion and the reason why we are discussing this issue today. The opposition is happy to consider a separate motion condemning racism in all its forms—we all abhor and condemn racism—but the principal motion that we are speaking to today is about anti-Jewish and antisemitic intimidation and violence in this country. Therefore, we support the motion, as amended by Senator Paterson, in its original form. We will not be supporting Senator Thorpe's motion. 12:55 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory To put the government's position on both of the amendments on the record: as I understand it, Ms Spender from the other place had sought to have a motion that could unify the parliament and that we could all agree on. As such, we committed to not amend the motion that had been circulated. We will not be supporting Senator Paterson's amendment, because it not only amends the motion but falls outside the motion Ms Spender sought to have passed. There are other places to discuss mandatory minimums, as is appropriate, but we would argue that this motion, as sought by the other place, is not the place for that debate. Similarly, with respect to Senator Thorpe's amendment, this place has spoken against all forms of racism on a number of occasions that I have been part of and has passed motions that have been put to this chamber for debate. We are very happy to support a motion like that. I would think every senator in this place is against every form, and constantly speaks out about any form, of racism. But this is a specific motion about antisemitism. Ms Spender has sought to have the motion considered in both chambers and, as such, we won't be supporting either amendment. 12:57 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I won't be supporting either amendment either, because I thought that this little bit of time we had today was to let the Jewish community know, without all these amendments, we have their back. You can go and criticise this side and you can do whatever—that was not the point of this. It's sharing the love with the Jewish community, saying: 'Hey, we are hearing you. And what we have and haven't done doesn't matter. What matters is this: we have your back.' That shouldn't come down to politics. It shouldn't come down to amendments. These people need to be shown the love. They are feeling the hurt and they are feeling the pressure, and, God forbid, their kids don't even want to go to school. This is not about politics. This is about saying: 'We are here for you. We have your backs. We don't always get this right, but we have you. You are in our sights and we love you. We will do everything we can to protect you and your families.' We don't need amendments here—today is about coming together on something so important, to let them know we all stand as one. That's what this is about. We are all here for you. To the Jewish community out there, to your kids: we are here and we are doing everything we can to protect you. If that job is not hard enough, we are working with everything we have got to give you those assurances. That is what today is about. I am not going to complicate this. I don't want any division in here. I just want the Jewish community to know that we are there for them. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll just inform the chamber that Senator Lambie was speaking to the amendments, so the debate is not closed. 12:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to thank Senator Lambie for bringing this motion in the terms that she did, seeking to unify the chamber and have us join together around a motion that deplores the appalling and unacceptable rise in antisemitism across Australia, including violent attacks on synagogues, schools, homes and childcare centres; that unequivocally condemns antisemitism in all its forms; and resolves that all parliamentarians work constructively together to combat the scourge of antisemitism in Australia. I want to echo and acknowledge the contribution from my colleague Senator Faruqi and those others around this chamber who have asked us to come together to support this, because I thought that was the purpose of this motion. I want to particularly note the third part of the motion, and we heard Senator Lambie speak to it just then, resolving that all parliamentarians will work constructively together to combat the scourge of antisemitism in Australia. For me, my hometown of Sydney has been particularly attacked—some of those attacks have happened within the stone's throw from where my kids went to school—and each time it has happened we've condemned it in the most unequivocal terms because it has absolutely no place in the country. We should unite and condemn it and oppose it, and we should support law enforcement and others trying to find the culprits to bring them to justice. Of course we should do that. I thought we might have had it there for a minute—being unified around this motion—and then I saw what the coalition brought. They must have had a strategy meeting to try to work out what they could do to ensure they could get a division on this. Taking this uniting statement, they had a strategy meeting and thought, 'What can we put to this motion that will ensure we get division on it?' And they decided they would do mandatory minimum jail terms, because they must have known the Greens will always oppose mandatory minimum jail terms regardless of the subject matter. Regardless of the horrific nature of the subject matter, we will always oppose mandatory minimum jail terms because they are wrong in principle, because they are deeply wrong in principle. They take away judicial discretion. They take away unjust outcomes. They attack the independence of the judiciary. We were always going to say that, and we were always going to oppose the amendment put forward by the coalition. They knew it, and that's why they brought it. The coalition also know the Labor Party has a platform commitment opposing mandatory minimum sentences for much the same reason, so they had their strategy meeting and thought, 'How can we take this moment where we could come together and throw some division into the debate?' They chose mandatory minimums and it does them absolutely no credit. I hope they rethink their position and withdraw that amendment in order to try and bring us together on this motion, as Senator Lambie asked. I want indicate that, whether Senator Thorpe's amendment passes or fails, it won't change our position on coming together in support of the motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 There being no further speakers, the question is that the amendment moved by Senator Paterson to Senator Lambie's motion be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 25 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 5 PAIRS Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy) Steele-John, J. A. Bragg, A. J. Sterle, G. Brockman, W. E. Green, N. L. Hume, J. Ciccone, R. McDonald, S. E. McAllister, J. R.

Question negatived.

 13:10 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move the following amendment: Paragraphs (b) and (c), after "antisemitism", insert "and racism". 13:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is now that the amendment as moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 14 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 14 Order for the Production of Documents 14 13:11 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in this chamber in continuing to reform the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released on 7 December 2023. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. The NDIS bill was the first legislative step, by this government, to ensure this annual growth target is achieved. Our government will continue to make changes to improve the NDIS by making sure that it delivers better and fairer decisions and protects the safety and upholds the rights of participants and that every dollar allocated to the NDIS participants reaches them and is spent in a meaningful way that makes a difference in their lives. In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Ministers representing the Treasurer have already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate, in addition to the aforementioned review. 13:14 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. Here we are again, at the start of a new parliamentary year, and we have had 18 months worth of the minister defying the will of the Senate and not providing the documents that the Senate requires on the NDIS. If only Labor had put in a fraction of the effort that they used to hide all of these documents from not only the Senate but Australians and NDIS participants, we may have got a much better outcome for the NDIS than what those opposite have delivered in the last 2½ years. They're a complete failure in this area, in terms of not just transparency but the mismanaging of this scheme. They're just trying to eke out their time after this terrible legislation was passed and after the hiding of the budget figures and all of these figures. They have just one strategy. It is a strategy to get them through to the next election. Then, surprise, surprise, whoever is the minister, whoever is in government, shock, horror, will have access to the documents they've hidden and will find out just what a farce they've been perpetrating. So now we've got a new minister, and have we got something new? Nope. We've still got the same old Redbridge research marketing lines that Bill Shorten, with his half-a-million-dollar speechwriter, was trotting out. What are we hearing again? We're hearing: 'We're cracking down on fraud. There are "green shoots". We're working with states and territories to deliver foundational supports.' Well, what a joke. What a joke, coming out here and repeating these lines yet again. I'll tell you what: this debacle that those opposite have perpetrated on NDIS participants and their families is so emblematic of the complete systemic failure of those opposite to govern and their complete lack of standards of effective governance. When it comes to real action on the NDIS, those opposite have done nothing. Remember, before the last election, when I was the NDIS minister, I came to this place and publicly said: 'This is a scheme in trouble. We have a sustainability issue. We have to tackle it.' I talked to the states and territories, and they were well on the journey to agreeing to having to do more. But Bill Shorten—'No, there's not a problem here. There's no sustainability problem. It's all Liberal lies.' And, three years ago, he refused to support proper legislative reform to put this scheme on a financially sustainable track for the future. Then he comes into government: 'Oh, my goodness me. I didn't understand what the budget documents said. I didn't understand any of this, and we've got a problem. We've got a sustainability problem.' Then what did he do? He did what Labor always does. They don't get in there and tackle the problem. He didn't say, 'Oops, I got it wrong.' He then had an 18 month-to-nearly-two-year review—another review—to tell us exactly what we already knew: this is a scheme in trouble. Now what have they done? They haven't come to an agreement with the states and territories, not a single one of them; yet they have pushed off billions of dollars worth of NDIS supports to states and territories in foundational supports. But guess what? The states and territories have not agreed to fund them. The states and territories haven't agreed to this at all. They haven't spent the last 2½ years doing new intergovernmental agreements with the states and territories. Now we hear—revealed on the weekend by the new minister, trotting out the same old lines—that they're now seeking a one-year pre-election bailout from states and territories to pay for the foundational supports that they should have been discussing with them! So this is it. We know from the figures that, despite all their talk of 'green shoots', this is still a scheme that is running out of control and well over the budget forecast. Total payments continue to increase due to two drivers of costs: participant numbers are still skyrocketing, despite everything those opposite have done, and the average payment per participant is still going up. Total payments are on track to exceed last year's total payments. Despite all of the rhetoric and all of the budget fudging that they have done, they're now coming to states and territories, saying: 'We 've stuffed this up. We couldn't get your agreement, but can you please give us enough money to get us through the next election?' Shame on you. (Time expired) 13:19 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Here we are in 2025. The Senate, on behalf of the disability community, on behalf of disabled people and our families, is once again asking this government to provide the community with the truth, with the documentation, with the actual agreement that this Labor government made with states and territories to cut our NDIS, and once again this Labor government refuses to come clean. Once again, they hide behind ridiculous arguments that have been disproven and which they have failed to back up with evidence. The Senate can now see, in real time, that the community is experiencing, in real time, the impact of this government, supported by the Liberals, cutting our NDIS. In the last estimates session—the last opportunity the Senate had to question the government directly—we were able to extract from them a couple of pieces of information. The government admitted that in the months of July, August and September of 2024 they performed no fewer than 11,500 eligibility reassessments upon NDIS participants. To place that in context, during the financial year 2023-24 a total of 8,000 eligibility reassessments were performed. Then there were 11,500 in three months! What was the result of those eligibility reassessments? The result was that 52 per cent of the disabled people who were reassessed were kicked off the scheme. How much money was ripped away from them? It was $125 million in three months. That is $125 million of support hours, of the ability to get out of bed, to go to the shops, to go and see your friends. Think of the pieces of assistive technology, think of the therapies, think of the supports that have been taken away from people because they have been kicked off the scheme by this government. Where are they meant to go? Labor says, 'Don't worry: there'll be something called a foundational support.' They've been saying that for years. What is a foundational support? The government still can't answer. Who will pay for it? Labor doesn't know. How will you get it? Labor doesn't know. What safeguards will there be? Labor doesn't know. None of these questions that keep disabled people and our families up at night have been answered by this Labor government, yet they continue to cut supports; they continue to kick people off their NDIS packages and supports. Then they have the audacity, whilst celebrating the establishment of the National Autism Strategy—something that has been called for, for many years, by advocates and experts—to say, 'Wow, look at us; we're so great for implementing this strategy and we are very excited about the good it will do for the community,' while at the same time kicking autistic kids off the scheme. How are we meant to implement the National Autism Strategy if, at the same time, thousands upon thousands of autistic kids are having their supports removed? Every single dollar that Labor, with the help of the Liberals, rips away from a disabled person or from their family member will be repaid to you in kind after election day, through the ballot box. A vote for the Greens is a vote to protect and save our NDIS. 13:24 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Senator Steele-John, I think we are at almost 18 months since this motion first came up, when we first asked for an explanation when it came to foundational supports. So we start our first day here in 2025 yet again—it's normally NDIS Monday, but we never miss an opportunity, so we'll do it on a Tuesday and we'll be here next Monday—looking for an explanation as to what the financial arrangement between the states and the federal government looks like when it comes to reform of the NDIS. Some people may have missed today's announcement on the NDIS with regard to eligibility criteria. When people were coming up for eligibility assessments, they were being given 28 days to put together documentation to prove that they still had a disability. Today, that has changed to 90 days, because someone in the NDIA has realised that it is nigh on impossible to get to your specialist and to those that they consider worthy to provide documentation that you still have a disability—a disability you may have been born with or that first gave you entry into the scheme because it was a permanent and lifelong disability. I love when people have to re-prove they have Down syndrome or cerebral palsy, or that they are a quadriplegic—these things occur. But it has now been accepted that 90 days is perhaps a slightly more workable timeframe to prepare those documents. Why is this important? Because it falls into every single part of the NDIS. We have worker shortages across the board. We have shortages when it comes to allied health professionals. In New South Wales we have just had almost all psychiatrists in the public health system walk away from the job. So we have a mental health crisis and a shortage of allied health providers and professionals, yet the NDIA is making it harder and harder for participants to continue with their plans, to continue improving their lives and to continue making their lives and their families' lives better. Senator Steele-John, you may also enjoy this: my son is currently up for review, and I am currently running around to paediatricians, occupational therapists, behavioural therapists and exercise physiologists to put together all of the reports. This isn't just about the meeting that we have with those specialists; we then have to pay them for their time to write the reports. My son has level 3 autism. Senator Steele-John, you talked about the National Autism Strategy, which is something my committee actually recommended—you were a participating member when we did a Senate select committee into the whole of life of autism and recommended a national autism strategy. But we didn't recommend a national autism is awesome strategy, a strategy to ignore people with severe and profound autism, or a strategy to ignore that it has a complete disabling effect on their lives. Unfortunately, we have seen a little bit of whitewashing with regard to how autism can be a superpower—how it's a different way of thinking and should be celebrated at all times. For people with severe and profound autism, it is actually very challenging for them. There are communication challenges, there is rigidity of thought and there is difficulty with all daily living skills. Things you and I take for granted are well beyond the capacity of these people. But these people are being let down, they are being excluded and they are not being part of the conversation. As I prepare for my son's review, I am feeling very anxious. I am very stressed about it. I am very uncertain as to what the future holds—and I am the deputy chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. So you can only imagine how the families of participants feel who don't have the same committee meetings, the mobile number of the CEO or the ability to just walk over to the ministerial wing and knock on the new minister's door. My heart absolutely breaks for those families that are going through this period of uncertainty, because this Labor government has refused to provide any transparency. There is no transparency to what the reforms of the NDIS should look like in full. We don't know what the foundational supports are, we don't know who is going to pay for them and we don't know how they are going to be rolled out. Now, we have a list of banned therapies. If you had told me equine therapy was a cure for autism, I would have told you that was rubbish, but riding for the disabled, and the associated programs that go with that, is incredibly helpful to people with intellectual disabilities and autism. Yet it is now on the banned list of therapies from the NDIS. 13:29 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Here we are, nearly 18 months after this came forward in this chamber. We are still here because this government, which stood to be open and transparent when it got in—I notice even the Guardian is questioning that, with claims this government has been more secretive than the previous government—would rather give a vocal piece for people to point out the errors in the NDIS and what's going on than to actually be honest with what it's doing. When the government chooses to put up with the punishment of people saying how bad this is rather than putting in a piece of paper, you know something is wrong. It is a sham that they won't put up the information demanded by the Senate. It just shows— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator; the time has expired. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x It is now 1.30 pm, so we will go to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 16 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Chung, Mr Grange 16 13:30 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales It's a pleasure to shine a light on a man who has dedicated his life to service, first in the Royal Australian Navy, then in the aviation sector and now as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Reid—Grange Chung. Just last week, Grange and I had the privilege of attending the lunar new year parade in Flemington, or Homebush West. It was a wonderful event organised by the local chamber of commerce and the Strathfield Council. It was filled with colour, energy and the spirit of togetherness, but, beyond the festivities, in speaking to small-business owners represented there and some of the local community, what we heard was clear: people are struggling under this Labor government. Under the Labor government, the cost-of-living crisis is hitting families hard, and small businesses are finding it tougher than ever to stay afloat. That's why the coalition is committed to getting Australia back on track, and that's why Grange, who understands the pressures facing everyday Australians, will help get Australia back on track. Grange was born and raised in Sydney, but his journey has taken him across Australia and beyond. After graduating with honours in electrical engineering from the Australian Defence Force Academy, he served our country in a number of leadership roles in the Royal Australian Navy. Later, as an airline captain, he continued to lead, train and manage critical projects all while maintaining his commitment to the Australian Navy Reserve. We are fortunate Grange has put up his hand to join and serve our party, and the people of Reid should look closely at his candidature. This is a person committed to the ethos of public service, the values of Australia, keeping our community safe and strong and keeping our economy working for everyone. Leader of the Opposition 17 13:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Ten billion dollars—that is how much Mr Dutton wants Australian taxpayers to pay for their bosses' long lunches. This is the Liberal leader who has opposed higher wages for Australians. This is the Liberal leader who has opposed tax cuts for all Australians. And he now wants to take $10 billion from Australian workers and give it to their bosses to go out for lunch. That is Mr Dutton's priority for Australia. That is his plan to lead our country, should he be given the opportunity. Our government has the right priorities for building Australia's future. Under our government, over a million new jobs have been created—the most by any new government on record ever. The majority of those jobs are full time. On our watch, we have got Australians' wages moving for the first time in a decade. That's our record. What else does Mr Dutton have for Australians apart from $10 billion of taxpayer funds for long lunches? Well, in addition to that he's already said he wants to cut $315 billion after the election, but he won't tell Australians what he is going to cut, so every Australian is left wondering what those cuts will be. Will it be cuts to Labor's largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history? We know how Mr Dutton loves to cut Medicare. What we have today is $10 billion in long lunches offered by Mr Dutton and a real plan to build Australia's future offered by our government. International Relations: Australia and the United States of America 17 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The election of Donald Trump is a threat to Australia and the world. His attacks on human rights, democracy and climate action; the toxic relationship Mr Trump has with the tech billionaires Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg; inviting Rupert Murdoch, the media billionaire, into the Oval Office to help him rule the world—this is scary stuff. It's terrifying, and it is not the type of politics that we want imported into Australia. Australia is not America. We have a deep belief in democracy, in fairness. We have a deep belief in looking after one another and the fair go. But Mr Dutton, wanting to be Australia's prime minister, wants to import this Trumpian style politics right here at home. He wants to be the mini-Trump. Of course, Gina Rinehart, Australia's own obscenely wealthy billionaire, wants to help Mr Dutton do this too. There is no place in Australia for the type of nasty politics that we are seeing play out in Trump's America. The nasty, far-right, neo-Nazi fanboys that make up the inner circle of Trump have no place here and need to be stared down. Ghost Rock Wines 17 13:36 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I'd like to give a shout-out today to a small business in my local patch in north-west Tasmania, Ghost Rock Wines, established by Colin and Cate and now run by Justin and Alicia. They had an extraordinarily successful Tasmanian Wine Show recently. They were successful in winning the Moo Brew Trophy for the best sauvignon blanc, which was their 2024 sauvignon blanc, and the AP John Coopers Trophy for the best pinot noir for their 2023 Ghost Rock Estate pinot noir, and that same wine also won the Wine Tasmania Trophy for the Champion Wine of the Show. So the best pinot noir in Tasmania, as judged at this year's Tasmanian Wine Show, is a very nice 2023 Ghost Rock Estate pinot noir. Can I add to my congratulations my recognition of the winemaker, Sierra Blair, and the vineyard manager, Izaak Perkins, and their team, because it's not just the owners or the winemaker; it's also those that manage and tend the vines through the season that go to make a good drop. We on the north-west coast of Tasmania are justifiably proud of the success of Ghost Rock. They have some really cracker wines available for our local community and for the rest of you if you would like to try a nice tipple of pinot noir. South Australia: Schools 17 13:38 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia In recent weeks, we've had tremendous news in my home state of South Australia, with the South Australian government signing up to the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which means that, after a decade of neglect in public education funding in my state, South Australian public schools will be fully and fairly funded. It will give South Australia public schools an extra $1 billion of investment over the next 10 years, representing the biggest investment in South Australian public schools by the Australian government ever. It's not a blank cheque, of course. It's tied to our year 1 numeracy and phonics check. It's tied to greater access to mental health professionals for students. It's tied to access to high-quality and evidence based professional learning for our teachers and initiatives to attract and retain teachers in public schools. At a practical level, for children in my state, this means more support in the classroom when they're struggling—more support when they need it most. For our teachers it will mean more support for them in the life-changing work that they do each and every single day for students in our public schools. This is a reform we are delivering hand in hand, in partnership, with the Malinauskas Labor government—two Labor governments working hand in hand to deliver on our shared mission of fairness and opportunity, which we know starts with a great education. This funding deal will mean that in South Australian public schools full funding can provide that great education for kids in my state. In contrast, when Peter Dutton published a list of his 12 priorities for government, do you think it rated a mention? It didn't even rate a mention. They tore up Gonski and they were too focused on culture wars in education to fund schools. We're turning it around. This is a tremendous outcome for my state. Small Business 18 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I spent all my time over Christmas talking to Tasmanians, especially Tasmanian small businesses—what's left of them—and boy, are they are doing it tough. When Senator Pocock and I voted for the second tranche of the 'closing the loopholes' legislation, the government agreed to, among other things, review the sustainability of the Fair Work Act's definition of 'small business'. The definition of 'small business' in this country is not only confusing; there are about 25 definitions of 'small business' in use in jurisdictions right across this country. Some of these definitions include the one in the Fair Work Act 2009, which has 'fewer than 15 employees'. The ATO has its own—a business venture with turnover below $10 million. The ABS has 'fewer than 20 employees'. So what's a small business? Somebody tell me. It's not defined. The current definition of 'small business' is not fit for purpose, and that means cafes, grocers, locally owned tourist shops, and homeware shops that local people own—to try to make a bit of a living out of risk—being treated the same as big multinational companies just because they are taking on a handful of casuals in response to seasonal demand, and that is not fair. We need a standalone definition of 'small business'. Let's keep it simple, stupid—that's all we're asking for. While we're at it, we need to raise the definition of a small business to one with fewer than 25 employees, not 15. That is so outdated. Senator Pocock and I were assured in good faith by the government that the government would get moving on this last year, and I haven't heard a peep out of them—just crickets. There is another broken promise. The government has delayed its promise to review the definition of 'small business' until after the next election. I'm presuming this is to avoid a sticky conversation with the unions, because you're waiting on their donations. By the way, back to promises to the crossbench: when more and more Australians are voting for Independents and micros, it isn't very smart. Can you please get this small business definition done? You seem to want electoral reform rather than helping small business. That's where you're at today. Kapterian, Ms Gisele 18 13:42 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Last month the New South Wales Liberal Party selectors made history in selecting Gisele Kapterian as our candidate for Bradfield in the largest democratic plebiscite the party has held. Gisele emerged as the clear meritorious choice, a testament to her intellect, experience and deep connection to her community. Born to Armenian migrants at Royal North Shore Hospital and raised in North Willoughby, Gisele has lived the story of aspiration and achievement that defines Bradfield. She excelled academically, earning honours in law at Macquarie University before receiving a Commonwealth trust scholarship to study at the University of Cambridge. Her career has spanned international law, trade and technology, working globally while always anchored in the values of her local community. Bradfield is a vibrant community of engaged Australians who care deeply about our nation's future. They know that shaping the country's direction requires more than just a voice in the room; it takes action, leadership and a government with a clear vision. That's what the Liberal Party delivers, and that's what Gisele will fight for. With the world facing economic uncertainty, geopolitical instability and rapid technological change, we need leaders who understand these challenges and how to navigate them. Gisele's experience in global trade and technology gives her a deep understanding of the forces shaping our economy and our security. She knows how to drive economic growth, foster innovation and ensure Australian businesses and families can be strong in an increasingly complex world. I congratulate Gisele and look forward to campaigning with her to ensure Bradfield remains a stronghold of Liberal values and a force for real progress in our country. Leader of the Opposition 18 13:44 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania There is a very clear choice to be made at the next election. It will be a vote about our country's future. It's about this government securing the prosperity of all Australians versus Mr Dutton and his plan to take Australia backwards. The Albanese Labor government continues to improve the lives of every single Australian, with cost-of-living relief and nation-building policies. Meanwhile, Mr Dutton and the Liberal Party have voted against cost-of-living measures at every single opportunity. They are not interested in delivering real outcomes. What they're looking for is a political jab. Energy bill relief, tax cuts, wage increases, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and more generous pay to low-income earners—none of those things were supported by those opposite. Under us there is extra paid parental leave. Urgent care clinics are being rolled out around this country. I know how beneficial that has been to my community in my home city of Launceston. If Mr Dutton was to have been the Prime Minister over the last three years, every single Australian would have been $7,200 worse off. What does Mr Dutton stand for? That's the question we should be looking at. The main policy he has already brought to the Australian people around energy is to 'make Australia great again' with nuclear power. He hasn't costed it and none of the experts actually support it, but that's his big plan. The other plan he has just announced, on Insiders on Sunday, is he going to make cuts to Australian services and the Public Service, but guess what? He's not going to tell us where until after the election. We cannot afford to see Mr Dutton elected as Prime Minister. We don't want to see bosses having long lunches that we have to pay for. That's the Australian people— (Time expired) Tasmanian Devil 19 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania As I always do each summer, I visited Marrawah, Circular Head and the Tarkine in January. I popped in to see a good mate of mine Alice Carson. A shout-out to Alice and her family, who are wildlife carers on the outskirts of Circular Head. I asked Alice how things were going. She expressed her sadness and frustration at scraping 287 Tasmanian devils off the road in her area in Circular Head, where a healthy population was believed to be only 600 individuals. She has formally documented this and has handed in that documentation to the authorities, You can stand at Alice's farm and literally look a couple of kilometres onto the horizon and there lies Robbins Island where there are plans to build one of the biggest wind farms in the Southern Hemisphere, including a causeway to the island. This island hosts one of the last, if not the last, disease-free populations of Tasmanian devils in Tasmania. The minister has before her on her desk a decision to approve or not approve this project. Robbins Island is irreplaceable and so is the Tasmanian devil. I asked Alice about the facial tumour disease, which has received no federal funding since 2017, by the way. That's nearly 10 years! She said there had been reports of diseased Tasmanian devils in her area. Tasmania and the country were devastated to see a report on the ABC just a few days ago that included a Tasmanian devil, which looked barely like a Tasmanian devil, that was suffering from facial tumour disease in north-west Tasmania, not far from Alice's farm. It's absolutely critical that we fully fund recovery plans for the Tasmanian devil, including for more research into their populations. Health Care 19 13:49 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Over the past couple of years I've heard from so many Canberrans about the cost of health care. Communities across the country are feeling the sting, but if you look at the statistics in the ACT, the situation is particularly bad. Here's what I've heard. Our public hospital system apparently just doesn't do scans. If you need one, you need a referral to get it done privately, and there's often no public option. If it's an ultrasound, that's going to set you back $146. That's one hundred and forty-six bucks in a cost-of-living crisis. Even if you need a critical scan while you're in hospital, you may not get it in the ACT. I've heard from one Canberran that their twin had to be ambulanced to Goulburn to get a scan and then ambulanced back to Canberra. If you need surgery, you're better off driving down the highway or getting on a plane. The waiting lists in our public system are prohibitively long. If you go privately instead, that will likely cost you two to three times more here in Canberra than across the border in New South Wales. Even worse is the ridiculous situation where public clinics will turn away patients if they don't bring the types of referrals that allow the state government to bill the feds. This happens at what are meant to be universal access clinics. It's such a waste of GPs' time, and it's even more frustrating for patients, who then have to book another appointment and take more time off work. The government has made some encouraging steps into fixing Medicare, but this is a system that has been broken for a long time, and there's so much more to do. People should not have to wait years for essential surgery, and it shouldn't be costing them thousands of dollars. If we truly believe in a universal healthcare system in this country, we need to actually deliver that for Australians. Western Australia: Environment 20 13:50 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Welcome to 2025. We've barely started the new year and the Albanese Labor government have already backflipped. You guessed it—I'm talking about the proposed nature positive bill. Classic Labor—weak leadership, empty promises and an attempt to completely sell out Western Australia. Their so-called nature positive laws were mining negative, jobs negative and economy negative. They would have slammed WA's mining sector with red and green tape and cost blowouts, and delayed major projects. Even the Premier, Roger Cook, the champion of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, said that these laws were a threat to WA jobs. But what did the Prime Minister do? He played both sides, telling industry one thing and the Greens another and hoping that no-one would notice. Last year, these laws were going to happen. Then they were off, and then they were back on again, and now Labor has dropped them once again. Let's be real: Labor isn't scrapping these laws; they're just stashing them away until after the election. And we know why—a vote for Labor is a vote for a Labor-Greens coalition, and the Greens have made it clear that they want these laws. They want to ban native forest logging, and they will demand even more extreme policies as their price for keeping Labor in power. Mr Dutton said it straight: if WA votes Labor, these laws will be back. That's the plan—a Labor-Greens minority government that will sell out Western Australian jobs to keep the inner-city elites happy. Don't be fooled; Labor have only backed down because there was a growing backlash in WA, not because they've had a change of heart. If they're re-elected, they'll roll this out again, and WA will be the one that will pay for it. The only way to stop them is to vote for the coalition. Energy 20 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Yesterday, Richard Forbes of Independent Food Distributors Australia told the Australian newspaper: As far as I am concerned, the government's energy policy has and continues to increase the price of food. Employers supplying food to major supermarkets and thousands of cafes, restaurants and pubs around the country have launched a revolt against the government's energy policies, urging more gas and coal-fired power to bring down electricity prices. The managing director of Western Australia's largest independent food distributor said his company's electricity bill had doubled in the past three years. This energy policy driving up food prices is called net zero. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton are completely committed to the net zero policies that are driving up the price of your groceries. As part of that net zero policy, coal and gas generators are told to turn off completely whenever wind and solar decide to turn on, which is unpredictable. The problem is coal-fired power stations are what's called base-load power; they're designed to run constantly, not to flick on and off like they're being forced to now. That abuse leads to higher maintenance costs and, in the worst case, power stations failing, blowing up. Even with this unsustainable switching-on-and-off situation, the coal burnt in a coal-fired power station costs just $21 a megawatt hour. This financial year, solar and wind capital South Australia's average power price has been $200 a megawatt hour, a bit under 10 times higher than a coal station's fuel costs. Instead of making coal stations flick on and off completely, run them continuously to provide base-load power, and electricity will instantly get cheaper and more reliable. Wind and solar can top up the rest, when they work, and households can keep using their own solar power—simple. Only One Nation will bring down power prices and grocery bills to put more money in your pocket. (Time expired) Taxation 20 13:55 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania One in three of the 100 biggest corporations in this country pays absolutely no tax whatsoever in Australia. Think about that. If you are a nurse, if you are a teacher, if you are a plumber, if you are a cleaner, you are paying more tax every year than a third of the 100 largest corporations in this country. The system is totally broken. Mark my words, you cannot keep voting for the same two parties that support this broken system and expect things to change. If you want change, you are going to have to vote for it. If you want people who will stand up and fight against the big corporations that are plundering our resources, that are cooking the planet, that are destroying nature, that are grinding millions of people into the dirt through their predatory price-gouging behaviour, the Greens are here for you. We have a plan to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax so that we can do things like put dental and mental health into Medicare, so that we can wipe student debt, so that we can ensure the fossil fuel subsidies that are so beloved of the Labor and Liberal parties in this place come to an end. We have a plan to end native forest logging, to protect nature, to ensure strong climate action. Change is possible. If you want change, vote for us. Energy 21 13:57 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Australia is considered one of the global leaders when it comes to rooftop solar, with approximately one-third of houses having solar installations. All this adds up to over 23 gigawatts of affordable renewable energy that citizens, households and residents have chosen to invest in. They didn't have this imposed on them; they chose to invest in this for their own electricity bills, for the planet. For whatever reason, they chose to do it. Now we hear that AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, is calling for powers to turn off rooftop solar energy, to deny what is clean, free energy to the rest of the NEM, the National Electricity Market. They are choosing to turn that off. It is kind of like AEMO woke up one day and looked over their shoulder and went, 'Where did all that rooftop solar come from?' Because they haven't been planning for it, it hasn't been part of their plans to get us through the transition to net zero. Then last week, AEMO talked about the high prices in New South Wales and that being the justification for large infrastructure network projects. They say the high prices were the reason. No, the high prices were because the coal plants shut down for maintenance. You can't solve unreliable coal by building more transmission. You can get rid of the coal and rely on your solar energy. But our market operator doesn't seem to plan for these things. It is time that they woke up and did so. Goldfields Basketball Stadium 21 13:59 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Last Thursday, along with the Western Australian Premier Roger Cook; the local member for Kalgoorlie, Ali Kent; the local mayor, Glen Wilson; and the president of the Kalgoorlie Boulder Basketball Association, Robert Tagliaferri, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of the redeveloped Goldfields basketball stadium in Kalgoorlie Boulder. I value the important role that sport plays in bringing communities, particularly regional communities, together, in improving health outcomes and in providing athletes, young and young at heart, with greater opportunities. This was a project that we can truly be proud of. It involved federal, state and local government as well as the local community and a local community of tradies who put this project together. It was my pleasure to attend this opening, and I commend it to the Senate. MINISTRY 21 MINISTRY Presentation 21 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—For the information of senators, I table a revised ministry list which reflects the changes to the ministry announced by the Prime Minister on 16 January 2025. I congratulate my friend and colleague Senator Gallaher on her appointment as Minister for Government Services in addition to her other portfolios, because she hasn't got enough work! This and the other appointments of ministers in the House are well-deserved. I seek leave to have the revised ministry list incorporated into Hansard. Leave is granted. The document read as follows— Each box represents a portfolio. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. Temporary Arrangements 23 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I advise the Senate of changes to ministerial arrangements for question time. Senator McAllister will be absent from question time this week on account of ministerial business interstate in her role as Minister for Emergency Management. I'm sure people will understand why she is doing that. In her absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with a letter from me circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators. Changes have also been made to arrangements concerning representation of ministers from the House of Representatives. SHADOW MINISTRY 23 SHADOW MINISTRY Presentation 23 14:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia by leave—With great fanfare, I would like to advise that, in addition to her existing ministry responsibilities as shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, Senator Kerrynne Liddle will take on responsibilities as the shadow minister for Indigenous health services. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 24 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Antisemitism 24 14:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said of the attack on the Adass synagogue in Melbourne: Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this reprehensible act from the extreme anti-Israeli position of the Labor government in Australia. Israel's deputy foreign minister, Sharren Haskel, recently made a public statement regarding her meeting with Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. She said: I expressed to him my disappointment with the shift in then Australian government's attitude towards Israel. I emphasised our deep concern regarding the shocking rise in antisemitism in Australia and the clearly ineffectual response from the Australian government … There is no doubt this has been caused in part by the Australian government's ongoing campaign against Israel. Minister, when will you acknowledge that the antisemitism crisis in Australia has been fuelled by the Albanese government's consistent actions against Israel on the world stage? 14:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Cash for her first question as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. I make the point to Senator Cash that the position Australia has taken in the United Nations and elsewhere reflects the concern that so many in the international community had and have. It reflects the position of countries like Canada, like the United Kingdom, like New Zealand, like Japan and like Korea. I presume that the senator would not be asserting some of the political statements she has just made about the Australian government in relation to all of those governments. I make that point first. Secondly, I say this: it isn't helpful to conflate Australian government concerns and Australian community concerns about the scale of loss of life in Gaza or UN votes with antisemitism. That is not helpful. Australia, like many countries, has advocated for a ceasefire, and we've expressed our concerns about the dire humanitarian situation. We want peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and we've taken a principled position in relation to the conflict. I appreciate that some may not agree with that position, but it is a position of principle and it is a clear position. In relation to antisemitism, as I said earlier today, we have seen a devastating rise in antisemitism in Australia and across the world, and that is unacceptable. We as a government, and I personally as well, have condemned and rejected antisemitism wherever it occurs, including in relation to some of the slogans outside the Sydney Opera House. Acts of hate have no place in this country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Over recent months, we've seen a synagogue firebombed, the former home of a Jewish leader vandalised, synagogues sprayed with hateful symbols, and even a Jewish childcare centre attacked in the middle of the night. Jewish Australians do not feel safe in Australia. This is a terrible indictment of the Albanese government. Why won't you admit your votes against Israel on the international stage are fuelling a culture of antisemitism in Australia? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again refer to my first answer: we don't want the conflict brought here. We do not want the conflict brought here, and I have repeatedly said that, and we have repeatedly acted in a manner that is consistent with that principle. There is no place in Australia for the sort of antisemitism we have seen. There's no place in Australia for the sort of violence we've seen, the graffiti we've seen and the attacks that we've seen, including on a place of worship. The point I have made over and over again—and it is consistent with the position I have expressed all my political life and, in fact, all my life—is that fundamental to who we are as Australians are values such as respect, acceptance and inclusion. We should all advocate for them, and those of us on this side have always done so and will always do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, will the Albanese Labor government commit that it will no longer support one-sided anti-Israel motions at the United Nations that fail to condemn Hamas or call for the release of the hostages? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We have consistently condemned Hamas. We have consistently called for the release of hostages. In fact, that question demonstrates the sort of misinformation that those who wish to bring the conflict here engage in. That is what that demonstrates. This government, on behalf of the Australian people, has consistently condemned Hamas and has been consistent in its call for hostages to be released. I would note that the person who is out of touch with the international community is Mr Dutton, because Mr Dutton opposed a ceasefire. That ceasefire was supported by President Biden and President Trump. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I'm sorry. I'm getting a lot of interjections from the new leader. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I've called for order. Senator WONG 00AOU So when she's finished interjecting—thank you. Senator WONG 00AOU The ceasefire that Mr Dutton opposed was supported by— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that comment. Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 25 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Bushby, Mr David 25 14:08 The 112096 PRESIDENT (): Before I go to Senator Sheldon, I welcome to the public gallery former senator David Bushby. Welcome. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 25 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Queensland: Floods 25 14:08 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator Watt. In recent days, we've seen the effects of ongoing flooding and severe weather on communities across North Queensland. I know many Queenslanders and other Australians are concerned about the impact this is having on their fellow Queenslanders and fellow Australians. Can the minister update the Senate on the current situation? 14:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Sheldon, who I know continues to do good work in his role as the Special Envoy for Disaster Recovery. I think all senators will have seen much of North Queensland being hit by significant and widespread rainfall in recent days, leading to flooding across an area spanning over 400 kilometres. This has led to many communities being cut off and many more being flooded. While North Queenslanders are famously tough, this is a big event, and I know that all of our hearts go out to people going through these floods right now. Many have come together to deal with the impact of the floods, and I want to acknowledge the work of Senator Green over the last couple of weeks. She is actually representing the government at an official event in Queensland today. I also particularly want to acknowledge Minister McAllister, who's been heavily involved at a personal level in the planning and preparation for these floods and is actually in Townsville today, meeting with the Queensland Premier, Queensland state and local government officials, and emergency management agencies to mobilise federal support. There are currently five national helicopters supporting state emergency services in North Queensland—one from our national aerial fleet and four from the ADF. This is the first time a national aerial asset has been deployed outside of bushfires. In addition, locally based ADF personnel have been assisting and continue to assist, and we thank them for their efforts. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the woman who died in floodwaters in Ingham over the weekend and the rescuers who were with her at the time. I want to express the government's gratitude and, I think, all Australians' gratitude to our first responders and emergency management personnel, as well as those from industries such as energy and telecommunications who continue to focus their efforts on supporting these communities. While the rain is easing today, the risk to communities and the level of response remain. The situation is constantly evolving, so people should continue to monitor for updates and warnings. We know this is a big flood, and our government will be there to support Queenslanders through it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, you made to Minister Watt the exact same comment that I asked you to withdraw in relation to Minister Wong. Could you please withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 You made a reflection on his character, so please withdraw it. Senator Ruston 243273 In the interests of the chamber, I'll withdraw, but could I ask, President, if you could provide me with some information as to the comments? The PRESIDENT 112096 I will, outside of the chamber. As you are well aware, when I ask senators to withdraw, I don't repeat the comments they've made. But I am more than happy to speak to you after question time. Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:11 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales With these floods affecting such a widespread area, I know communities will have a long recovery ahead. How will the Albanese Labor government work to support the communities impacted by this crisis as they recover? 14:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Supporting these communities in North Queensland is, and will remain, a priority for the Albanese government. Over the coming days, as local governments commence their damage assessments, we'll get a clearer understanding of the full extent of the damage caused by this event. Already, we've activated personal hardship payments for communities on Palm Island and in Hinchinbrook, the Cassowary Coast, Burdekin and designated areas of Townsville and Gordonvale. These support measures include $180 grants for individuals and up to $900 for a family of five or more to cover the costs of emergency essentials like food, clothing and medicine. We're also supporting a number of local councils in their clean-up, recovery and response efforts. We know families have been impacted by this disaster, and we have declared a period of emergency for childcare services in North Queensland. In the Burdekin, Cairns, Palm Island and Townsville regions, extra support is available, including gap-fee waivers and additional absences, so families won't have to use their annual allocation of allowable absences. We'll continue to work with the Queensland government to provide support. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:12 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales We know Australians are facing increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters. How is the Albanese Labor government working to improve the way Australians can prepare for, respond to and recover from significant events like the flooding we've seen in North Queensland? 14:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Obviously, as well as it being vital that the federal government supports state and local governments when disasters hit, we're also working with state and territory governments and authorities, as well as industry and communities, to help Australia better prepare, respond and recover. Ahead of this season, we conducted the largest ever disaster preparedness program across the nation, bringing together over 2,500 people to get ready for this summer. We've committed an additional $35 million over two years, increasing our aerial capability with a national large air tanker and three heavy-lift helicopters, and our flagship Disaster Ready Fund has already invested nearly $750 million of joint Commonwealth and state funding in over 350 projects around the country. That includes building cyclone shelters, improving drainage systems to better prepare communities against flooding and trialling AI for early fire detection in remote places. We'll keep on preparing, because we know there will be more natural disasters, and we'll continue supporting communities to be ready. Antisemitism 26 14:14 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. When was the Prime Minister first briefed on the discovery of a caravan in Dural, New South Wales, that was packed with explosives allegedly intended to target Sydney's Jewish community? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Paterson, in answer to your question, I think the Prime Minister has responded to that on numerous occasions. I would refer you to that answer. I know that this is a very important investigation. I know that it is very important that, regardless of people's political positions, the police be empowered to do their job. What we want is for all those responsible to be identified, to be apprehended and to face the full force of the law. The approach we will take to this issue will be to observe the appropriate protocols, and we will continue to support the police in the job they are doing. I would say that I understand why members of the Jewish community are feeling distressed and feeling unsafe, given what we have seen. I hope that the parliament today indicating its position together and the police continuing to pursue those who are responsible will be of some comfort. But the most important thing is for Australia as a community to come together and to show solidarity with the Jewish community but also to make clear how unacceptable this sort of hatred is anywhere and certainly on Australian streets. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:16 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The minister is right that the Prime Minister has addressed it; he just hasn't answered it. When was the first time that a minister in your government was briefed on the caravan incident? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again refer to my earlier answer and say again to Senator Paterson that I understand why the opposition has tried to keep political focus on this. I, for one, think the political focus should be on making sure people are apprehended and making sure people face the full force of the law, because the safety of the community is most advanced by ensuring that that is what occurs. Certainly that's the approach the government will take. We don't comment on operational matters regarding national security. You would know that we take a mature, considered approach to these matters. We are regularly briefed by national security agencies. We don't think it's helpful for anyone to be undermining the good work of the police by playing politics with this investigation, or any investigation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:17 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Justin Bassey from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote in the Australian on Monday: … 'operational details' cannot be a catch-all excuse to deflect legitimate scrutiny or hide truth. Why is it that your government is unwilling to disclose when you were briefed on this issue while the New South Wales Premier has been happy to do so? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We take our advice from national security agencies, not from former Liberal staffers. Dental Health 27 14:18 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to Minister McCarthy, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, we know from tax data that one in three big corporations pay no tax. When a nurse or a teacher is paying more tax than megaprofitable companies like Chevron, you know that something's wrong. If big corporations paid their fair share, we could fund the things we all need, like adding dental care into Medicare. When the Greens were in minority government with Labor in 2010 we got dental for kids added into Medicare. We want to finish the job and make sure that every Australian can see the dentist using their Medicare card, not their credit card. Will the Albanese government tax big corporations and fund bringing dental into Medicare? The PRESIDENT 112096 Just before I call Senator McCarthy, Senator Waters, I will say that that question is predominantly about tax and so should go to Minister Gallagher. But I am happy to call the minister and ask her to respond in whatever manner she sees fit in relation to your question. 14:19 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, President. I'm always happy to talk about Medicare, but, as you have rightly pointed out, in terms of the tax side of things I will refer to Senator Gallagher. When we came to government in 2022, it had never been harder or more expensive to find a doctor. As you know, President, bulk-billing was in freefall after a decade of cuts and neglect to Medicare, and that's why strengthening Medicare was a key focus of our election platform. In just two years we have delivered more doctors and more bulk-billing, and opened 87 Medicare urgent care clinics. Senator Reynolds 250216 It's gone down— Senator McCARTHY 122087 Have you been to any of the urgent care clinics? I'd be interested to know if anyone opposite has actually been to any of the urgent care clinics. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 Just a point of order— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! I've got Senator Waters on her feet. Senator Waters 192970 I was specifically asking about dental care. The PRESIDENT 112096 You will recall that the substantive part of the question was about tax. You did reference Medicare. I've invited the minister to respond, so she is free to respond in that way. Minister, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I do appreciate that the senator's question is in regard to the dentist, but let's also point out that that is also in reference to Medicare and the use of Medicare. I think it is important to point out that in November 2021, six months before the last election, the financial viability of general practice was in serious trouble after the coalition's six-year freeze on Medicare rebates. That started when Peter Dutton was health minister—$6.1 billion invested to strengthen Medicare in the 2023 budget. Senator Ruston 243273 Point of order: the minister must not mislead the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, that's a debating point, and you know that well. Minister McCarthy, please continue. The PRESIDENT 112096 I didn't hear, Minister Wong, but I will ask her— Senator Wong 00AOU You can't say that. I know you might be trying to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. Senator Ruston, I didn't hear the comment, but in the interests of the chamber I ask you to withdraw. Senator Ruston 243273 In the interests of the chamber, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston, I appreciate that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! If there was more order in the chamber I would hear these things. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Just let me finish there. In the last two years we have delivered the two largest increases to Medicare rebates in 30 years and we have increased Medicare rebates by more in just two years than the former government did in nine long years. Our government is working in partnership with states and territories to develop a new national oral health plan for the next 10 years. This will include goals to improve the oral health status of Australians and reduce inequalities. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland It sounds like you didn't really want to talk about dental care there. But in the cost-of-living crisis that we're all in, last year two million Australians couldn't afford to go to the dentist. Last time I checked, teeth are part of the body and so dental care should not be considered a luxury. Why is the Albanese government excluding from Medicare dental care for adults? 14:23 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory This government is doing everything it can to reduce the cost-of-living pressures on all Australians, unlike those opposite. Our government is providing $215.6 million over two years from 2023-24 to state and territory governments to support public dental services for adults. State and territory governments are responsible for delivering public dental services, including managing waiting lists and determining who is eligible for the services as well as the types of services provided. We are also continuing to fund the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, CDBS, which has provided $3.1 billion in benefits and delivered 51 million services to 3.5 million children since it commenced in January 2014. The PRESIDENT 112096 Second supplementary, Senator Waters? 14:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Last year 80,000 people ended up in hospital because they couldn't afford preventive dental care, according to a report released by AIHW. That adds to the pressure on our underfunded hospitals as well as adding to people's pain. The Greens will keep pushing to add dental into Medicare, not just kick it off to the states and territories. Why won't the Albanese government do that? 14:24 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We certainly support access to private dental services through the private health insurance rebate, which is estimated to provide $7.5 billion in 2024-25 and $38.6 billion from 2023-24 to 2027-28. We recognise that private dental services can also be expensive in Australia, and we've set the fees for private dental services. Private dentists set their own fees for services. Our government supports access to dental care through providing funding to states and territories, and I know you might not agree with that, but that is our process to support access to public dental services. We also support access to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, as I've already outlined in my answers, and the National Health Reform Agreement, NHRA, funding for public hospital admitted and outpatient services. Cost of Living 29 14:25 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister explain how the Albanese Labor government is delivering cost-of-living relief for all Australians without adding to inflation? 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for your question. Labor understands that Australians are under pressure, and that's why the Albanese government has been focused on delivering cost-of-living relief while bringing down inflation, and we know that there is more to do. Under this government, every single Australian taxpayer has received a tax cut. Under this government, child care and medicines are cheaper, and we have boosted bulk-billing. We've opened 75 free Medicare urgent care clinics across the country, delivered energy bill relief for every household and small business, introduced fee-free TAFE and reduced HECS debts. We're expanding paid parental leave to six months and adding superannuation to it. Under this government, you've seen increased wages for millions of Australians in aged care, child care and other industries. When we came to government, annual inflation had a six in front of it and was rising. Now, it has a two in front of it and is falling. Mr Dutton, Senator Cash and those opposite voted no to every single cost-of-living measure. What cost-of-living relief would be on Mr Dutton's chopping block? He's confirmed he wants to make huge cuts that will leave Australians worse off, but he won't tell Australians what they are until after the election—a whopping over $350 billion in secret cuts! And we know that he wants to spend up to $10 billion a year of workers' money on long lunches and billions of dollars forcing nuclear power plants into peoples' backyards with the great result that their power prices would go up. Unlike him, we are focused on cost-of-living relief. Mr Dutton is focused on cuts, conflict and culture wars. Australians would be worse off under Mr Dutton. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I note that the Albanese Labor government's careful management of the economy has brought inflation down to its lowest level in more than three years. Can the minister please inform the Senate how the government will continue to help Australians with cost-of-living measures? 14:28 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Our focus every day is on how we can work to bring costs down, get wages up and keep inflation where it should be; cracking down on dodgy pricing and unfair charges, whether it's online or at the supermarket; and delivering new rights and better bargaining for workers across the country—something I'm sure Senator Cash would be happy about! And, if we are re-elected, we will slash student debts by a further 20 per cent. By contrast, Mr Dutton and those opposite have no positive plan. But he does have a lot of secret cuts. That's because the Liberals and the Nationals have spent every day saying no to cost-of-living relief. They are arrogant enough to think that they got nothing wrong during their wasted decade in government and they're reckless enough to inflict it on Australia all over again. This isn't a time for cuts, but that's what Mr Dutton would have in store for Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Senator Wong. You've highlighted today tax cuts for every taxpayer, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and fee-free TAFE, which are making meaningful differences to families in my state of New South Wales. Can you please outline any risks to the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living measures that would leave Australians worse off? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The biggest risk to household budgets, the national budget, the broader economy and Australia's cost-of-living relief is Mr Peter Dutton. Whether it's cheaper power bills, cheaper medicines, Medicare urgent care clinics, cheaper child care, HECS debt help or tax cuts for every taxpayer, Mr Dutton has opposed them all. What does he support? He supports tax breaks for bosses' lunches. He's opposed to cheaper medicines and Medicare urgent care clinics, he's opposed to cheaper child care, he's opposed to HECS debt help and he's opposed to tax cuts for every taxpayer, but he supports tax breaks for long lunches. This is a plan that could cost the budget up to $10 billion a year, as Treasury costings have revealed. Mr Dutton is also in favour of cuts, though to what services he won't say. Australians will be worse off under Mr Dutton. (Time expired) Cybersafety 30 14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Minister McCarthy. In November 2023, the government announced a review of our online safety laws. On 1 November last year, Delia Rickard PSM handed the government the report of her review into online harms. Can the government explain the reasons behind Ms Rickard's recommendations for a digital duty of care? 14:31 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Pocock for the question. I can say from the outset that the Albanese government is committing and committed to keeping Australians safe online. This has been an important area, especially for the minister, Michelle Rowland, who has done a tremendous job in this role over the last couple of years in terms of this area of legislation. We know that keeping Australians—particularly young Australians—safe online is absolutely imperative. As recommended by the review, we have already legislated increased penalties for breaches of the act, from less than $1 million to $50 million; we will legislate a digital duty of care to put the onus for protecting Australians on the platforms; and we are engaging with industry and the community to ensure it does meet community expectations. We're certainly working through the remainder of the recommendations to ensure we deliver reforms that protect Australians. The review makes clear the importance of balancing and depoliticising our response to online hate. It recommends that attacks against a person's religion or race should be captured but not ideas, concepts or institutions. We are determined to get it right. We're determined to get our response right, to prevent the spread of antisemitic and homophobic material without impeding free speech in our country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. On 21 November, Minister Rowland stated in the other place: …harms don't simply switch off on a child's 16th birthday. That is why the government has taken the decision to bring forward a key recommendation … to legislate a digital duty of care. Today there are reports that the government now has no timeline to legislate it. Is the government still bringing it forward as was stated last year, or has the government yet again capitulated to industry pressure? 14:34 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We are certainly not sitting idle. We have legislated increased penalties, as I referred to in my previous response, and we will legislate a digital duty of care. This is on top of the Albanese government's legislation to put a minimum age on social media, the AG's legislation criminalising the sharing of deepfakes and our world-leading dating service industry code. We haven't sat still here. We have been working on this from the get-go. We're working through the remainder of the recommendations, as I've said, to ensure we deliver reforms that do protect Australians. The report does not make any recommendations to allow eSafety to remove content from overseas. We make laws for Australia and Australians, and we're not contemplating changes to the law to allow eSafety to remove content in other countries. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Minister. That certainly doesn't sound like bringing it forward. I take it that there is no timeline anymore. Ms Rickard recommends fines for platforms that breach their duty of care, of five per cent of their global annual turnover—potentially billions of dollars. Will the government commit to implementing this recommendation in this term of parliament and actually hold social media companies accountable? 14:35 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The minister is doing exactly that, with her constant communications with those companies, with big business and with telcos; and with the fact that she is taking and showing great leadership in this country in terms of the care that's required for our children under the age of 16. We are definitely embarking on it. I urge Senator Pocock to also reach out directly to the minister. Insurance: Genetic Testing 30 14:36 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I think the minister would agree with me that removing the barriers for individuals to undertake genetic screening is worthwhile to implement as a preventive measure against various diseases such as heart disease and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The Assistant Treasurer has been working on a bill to bring before the parliament to stop any discrimination against those using such tools. Can you outline if any further steps have been taken on this front, please? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Van for that question. It's an important question because, as Senator Van outlined in his preamble to the question, the benefits and opportunities that can come from scientific knowledge and people being able to have genetic risks identified are huge and are only going to continue to grow as medical diagnostics and screening tests continually improve. There are also some risks that come with greater access to data and knowledge about an individual's health. That's why the Assistant Treasurer announced in, I think, September 2024 that we would be looking to introduce legislation as soon as possible to make sure that predictive genetic test results are not able to be used to discriminate in the provision of life insurance underwriting. This recognises the benefits that come with health technologies. We know people have greater access to genetic testing, and it will become increasingly important as technology evolves. It's also important to provide some protection and to make sure that people will not be discriminated against on the basis of an adverse genetic test result through their life insurance. That's the work that's being done now. I'm advised that the Assistant Treasurer has been working through some of the technical detail of this work since announcing that decision in September, and soon Treasury will undertake consultation on the design of the proposed draft legislation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Can you update us as to the timing of that consultation? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Van for the supplementary. The only advice I have before me today—and I'll see if there's anything further I can provide you with outside the chamber—is that soon there will be a consultation process on the design of exposure draft legislation to enact the ban of the use of adverse genetic testing results in life insurance. I'll see if I can narrow that down from 'soon' to something more tangible. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, second supplementary? 14:39 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Without wanting to stretch the point, given the importance of this that you outlined, can Australians be confident that this legislation will come before this parliament? 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Van for the question. The advice I have is that we were doing a consultation process on the design of an exposure draft piece of legislation. That indicates to me that it would be difficult to get legislation passed through this parliament before the federal election is due in May, as an exposure draft usually takes some time. But if that's incorrect, I will come back to the chamber. As I understand it, there's going to be a consultation process. There's going to be advice going out about the design of the proposed approach to feed into an exposure draft. There are only a short number of weeks left, in February and March. I don't have the sitting calendar in front of me, but it would seem that, if we're to have a proper consultation process on an exposure draft, that would prevent that— (Time expired) Campbell, General Angus, AO, DSC (Retd) 31 14:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and concerns her appointment of Angus Campbell as Australia's next ambassador to the kingdom of Belgium and his nomination for ambassador for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the European Union and NATO. Retired general Campbell was in positions of very senior command, the highest position being the Chief of the Defence Force, where much of the worst, offensive abuse and systemic weaponisation of administrative processes took place and took out veterans. He can't claim to be ignorant of what was occurring on his watch. I would also remind the minister that Campbell was the CDF when Defence, frustratingly, refused to pass over documents and refused to do the right thing by the operation of the royal commission, a fact which is publicly known. Minister, I would like to know the terms of Ambassador Campbell's appointment and his annual salary. It would also be good to know what other benefits he will receive. 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia General Campbell was appointed to the role because he has the experience and skills to advance Australia's interests in the role, which includes engagement with NATO, which is obviously particularly relevant at the moment. In relation to the details you ask for, I will see if I can obtain them before the end of question time. If I can't, I will make sure that we provide you with those. My recollection is that the terms of his engagement are as is standard for that particular post. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Given former general Campbell's responsibility for billions of dollars of failed projects and waste in Defence, the mismanagement of ADF disciplinary issues and the failure to achieve recruitment goals, what additional economic, financial and human resources expertise will DFAT employ to ensure our Brussels embassy functions effectively? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't anticipate there to be any particular changes to our post in Brussels. Obviously, it's a significant and substantial post. Whilst not our largest, it is a post with some resources, given both the roles that the mission there play and the engagement with NATO. If I have anything further on that, I will provide that to you, but I don't have any other information I can assist you with. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Given the importance of trade relations with the European Union, it's puzzling that you didn't want to appoint a DFAT trade professional to this important post. What measures have you or DFAT taken to manage the damage to Australia's already damaged reputation from appointing an ambassador who served as a commander in Afghanistan while alleged war crimes were apparently taking place? 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to that last point, Senator Lambie, you would be aware—because you follow this so closely—that a number of ministers have taken action in relation to those allegations and have undertaken appropriate process in relation to the Brereton report. In relation to the trade issue, it is the case that one of the issues that we would like to progress is obviously a free trade agreement with the European Union. I think that's been a bipartisan position. Obviously, that hasn't yet been achieved. I would say to you that trade negotiations are not generally undertaken by heads of mission, by ambassadors; they are led by DFAT trade negotiators, who do a very fine job. Economy 32 14:45 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Tackling the inflation challenge while supporting Australians with cost-of-living pressures, including by tax cuts for all taxpayers, energy bill relief and cheaper medicines, has been a core focus of the Albanese Labor government since taking office 2½ years ago. The government's approach is in stark contrast to that of the Liberals and Nationals, who have opposed cost-of-living measures at every opportunity. Can the minister please update the Senate on the government's work to fight inflation and how this is strengthening Australia's economy? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question and really welcome a question on cost of living, as it is the most important issue facing every Australian. The Albanese government has been working since being elected to office to turn around the mess that we inherited from those opposite. We have brought inflation to almost a third of what we inherited. Senator GALLAGHER ING I know you don't like hearing this. I know you don't like hearing that living standards were sliding, living standards were going back, inflation was going up, wages were stagnating and people were being left behind. What we have now is inflation coming down, wages going up and low unemployment, which is a fantastic outcome—to keep people in work, earning wages and having those wages grow for the first time in over a decade, because we know that those opposite sought to restrain any wages growth. Nothing made them happier than people not getting a pay rise. Nothing made that lot happier than making sure the working people in this country didn't get a pay rise. It was a key feature of their economic architecture. We've brought inflation down. We've grown jobs by 1.1 million jobs in this term of government. We have delivered surpluses. We have lowered the Liberal debt we inherited by $177 billion, and we have lowered interest payments on that debt by $70 billion. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know they're shouting because they don't want to hear it. They don't want to acknowledge that we have cleaned up the mess that we inherited from them. We have cleaned up the budget. We have improved the debt position. We've lowered the interest costs on that debt. And we have, at the same time, found room for cost-of-living help for every Australian. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Albanese Labor government's economic strategy has seen Australia navigate a narrow path of keeping Australians in jobs while fighting inflation and continuing to provide the cost-of-living relief that Australians need. Can the minister please outline the benefits of having more Australians in work, earning better wages and keeping more of what they earn? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh and acknowledge the long career that she has had in making sure that workers get fair pay rises and good wages growth, because it's important for the economy—again, something that those opposite sought to ignore and keep a lid on. We've made substantial progress on inflation. I know those opposite hate hearing that as well. We've got wages growing again. Those opposite hate hearing that. They really hate hearing that! In fact, they hate it so much they've already told us what they would do if they got into government: they would make sure that wages growth slowed. We've got unemployment with a four in front of it, and we've seen the creation of more than a million jobs. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, the running commentary needs to stop! Senator GALLAGHER ING Now, there was a time in this country where the opposition and government would acknowledge the importance of work and would acknowledge the importance of people being in work. One point one million jobs—never achieved in one term of government before. And those opposite can't stand it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:49 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Albanese Labor government delivered tax cuts, strengthened Medicare, supported older Australians and invested in the energy transition, but the Leader of the Opposition has confirmed he has a plan to deliver $350 billion of secret cuts if elected. Why has the Albanese Labor government taken a different approach? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We've seen a bit over the summer of what Mr Dutton offers the Australian community, haven't we? We know that he's going to break the budget with $600 billion nuclear reactors, dotted around the country; we know he's going to make $350 billion worth of cuts in order to part-pay for those nuclear reactors around the country; and, in addition to that, apart from cutting Medicare, cutting pensions, cutting veterans' affairs and cutting veterans getting access to compensation, he's going to ensure that every employer can take themselves, their family, their friends, their potential clients, their clients and their clients of a friend out to lunch and claim that back off every taxpayer in this country. Every taxpayer will be paying their taxes to fund Mr Dutton's long free lunch policy. That is the choice at this election—a crazy scheme that will break the budget— (Time expired) Energy 33 14:51 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The members of Independent Food Distributors Australia have said, 'The government's energy policy has and continues to increase the price of food.' Minister, if cost-of-living relief is the Labor Party's policy, why do food distributors say your energy policy is increasing the cost of food for everyday Australians? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I first make the point to Senator McKenzie that the policy that she is advocating, as the alternative to the policies that this government is putting forward, is a policy which would require some $600 billion worth of spend on the budget and will result in more expensive energy. I just want everyone to be really clear, when Senator McKenzie talks about the costs to consumers and when she talks about the increase of costs passed through to consumers, that she is advocating a policy position which will, in fact, increase energy prices, which would result in a worse position for consumers. Senator Ruston 243273 Why are you talking about us? Senator WONG 00AOU I heard Senator Ruston saying, 'Why do you want to talk about us?' The point is we are at a point where you are offering yourselves as the alternative government, and you should be held to account for the policies that you are putting forward. You should be held to account for the policies you are putting forward. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on direct relevance. It was about the impact of the government's energy policy on food prices—nothing else. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's correct. That was your question, Senator McKenzie, and there have been a lot of interjections from other opposition senators, which Minister Wong is entitled to address. So I would suggest, rather than me constantly having to call people to order, that, if you want your question answered, you stop your senators behind you from interjecting. Senator WONG 00AOU The reality is the cheapest form of new energy is renewable, and I know that fact— Senator Ruston 243273 That is so wrong. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Ruston is somehow more of an expert than the market! Isn't that amazing? She's more of an expert than the market and more of an expert than those from the energy markets who advise us! She's more of an expert than those who invest! The reality is you pursued a set of policies in government which meant no-one invested. We are cleaning this up, but you're proposing a more expensive policy for the Australian people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Brisbane based MOCO Food Services chief executive Mike Peberdy has said: Very simply, our customers are paying more, and they then therefore have to charge more to their customers. …   …   … We used to be a low-cost power country, now we're high. It seems like a crazy destruction of wealth across the Australian population. Minister, why have Labor's energy policies increased MOCO Food Services' energy costs by 50 per cent when Labor promised before the last election cheap energy for every Australian household and business? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, it's pretty galling, isn't it, to see someone who voted against energy bill relief for small businesses talking about energy prices. It's amazing that Senator McKenzie could actually come in here and feign support for small business when she voted against energy price relief for small businesses. Everyone can remember that Senator McKenzie is against energy bill relief for Australian businesses and Australian workers. Let's all remember that any time she asks a question about it. Let's also remember what Senator McKenzie is proposing, along with Mr Dutton. In order for him to try to get to the Lodge, he wants to put in place a nuclear plan which would require households to pay $1,200 extra. So they want more expensive power, and they voted against bill relief. That's the reality. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:56 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Let's try to get an answer for Damon Venoutsos of New West Foods in WA. It's the largest independent food distributor in Western Australia. He says his electricity bill has doubled in the past three years. Minister, why has New West Foods' energy costs doubled when three years ago the Prime Minister told Australians that under an Albanese government energy would be cheaper? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, this is the coalition who voted against energy price relief of $3 billion for millions of Australians. Second, let's remember their policies and why we are all living with the consequences. It is true that energy prices are far higher than we would like, and it is a consequence of what you did in government. You failed to invest; you failed to provide certainty. Senator WONG 00AOU The facts are problematic, aren't they, Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on direct relevance again. The minister is filibustering, rather than actually addressing the issue of my three questions on the government's policy impacts on energy prices and, therefore, food costs. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. As I said when you rose on a point of order previously, if there are interjections, the minister is entitled to answer those interjections. There was so much disorder in the chamber, I have called a number of senators to order. In fact, at one point during the minister's answer, I called the whole chamber to order. I believe the minister is being relevant, but if you want your question answered, get your coalition senators not to interject. The PRESIDENT 112096 It's not a debate. You are not in a debate with me, Senator McKenzie. Senator Gallagher ING A point of order: I was simply going to say that Senator McKenzie was debating the point of order. There was no point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 I've ruled on it. I've indicated. Let's see if we can get your question answered, Senator McKenzie, but that will require silence. Senator WONG 00AOU It is the case that energy prices are higher than we would like, and that is as a consequence of those opposite failing to do what should have been done in government. Your only approach to the energy markets was to hide the massive price increase before an election. That was your response. How cynical! Now you cynically put to Australians that you care about energy prices when you vote against bill relief. I think we all understand what is occurring here. Wages 35 14:59 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Albanese Labor government's secure jobs, better pay changes passed the parliament in December 2022 and were designed to help more Australians into secure, well-paid jobs. Noting that the independent review into the secure jobs, better pay legislation was passed yesterday, what did the review tell us about getting wages moving again, and why are secure jobs and better pay so critical to helping Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Albanese government was elected nearly three years ago on a platform to get wages moving again, and we are delivering. It's great news that the independent interim review into our secure jobs, better pay laws that was released yesterday has found that these laws are already starting to deliver for Australians. I thank Emeritus Professor Mark Bray and Professor Alison Preston for their very thorough interim report, which finds that since our secure jobs, better pay laws were passed there has been a 'remarkable' increase in workers covered by collective agreements, delivering better pay, and that wages and other indicators of workers' economic circumstances are starting 'to improve'. What they found is that, since our laws were passed, workers' wages are starting to improve. In fact, full-time workers in Australia are now earning, in median terms, an extra $213 a week compared with 3½ years ago; real wages have gone up by four quarters in a row; the gender pay gap is at a historic low; and the unemployment rate remains historically low—and this is all happening while we continue to bring inflation down. We know that things remain tough for many Australians, and the Albanese Labor government will continue working hard to take pressure off Australian families. But this is encouraging news, and it shows that Labor's workplace laws are relieving some of that pressure. Of course, it wasn't always this way, because you might remember that the coalition deliberately kept Australians' wages low for a decade when they were in government. It was a deliberate design feature of their economic plan. Now I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that the review also found that 'the economic situation of Australian workers declined' from 2012 to 2022. Now I wonder who was in government over that period of time. Oh, that's right: it was you lot. It was the coalition who were in power— (Time expired) The 10000 Senator Darmanin, first supplementary? 15:02 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Thank you for the update. I note that Mr Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals opposed the secure jobs, better pay legislation every step of the way. How are the Albanese government's reforms helping Australians with the cost of living, and why is it so important that Australian households earn more and keep more of what they earn? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, before I call the minister, I remind you, when referring to those in the other place, to use their correct titles. Minister Watt. 15:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Under the Albanese Labor government, inflation is down, wages are up and unemployment remains low. Let's remember: under Mr Dutton and the coalition, they did everything they possibly could to stop that from happening, including by voting against our workplace laws. Senator Cash, with her usual extreme and reckless approach, said that Labor's secure jobs, better pay laws would close down Australia and take us back to the Dark Ages. Remember that one, Senator Cash? I can show you the film of you saying it, if you'd like me to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, refer to the chair with your answers. Senator WATT 245759 because we remember it. Funnily enough, I haven't seen Australia go back to the Dark Ages, and nor did the independent review of our laws. Mr Dutton claimed that our secure jobs, better pay laws were radical and that he was deeply concerned that it was going to result in higher wages—what a terrible thing that would be. Mr Dutton didn't want to see higher wages. Well, our laws are delivering higher wages. That's exactly the way it should be, and you voted against every move we did to make it happen. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Darmanin, second supplementary? 15:03 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Given that the opposition leader and the Liberals and Nationals have committed to making targeted repeals of the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations changes and that Senator Hume has claimed that adding more rights for workers is unreasonable, what are the key barriers to creating jobs and getting wages moving, and why is the Albanese Labor government so committed to delivering well-paid, secure jobs for Australian workers? 15:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland All the way along that bench over there are the key barriers to creating jobs and getting wages moving again. As you mentioned, already Mr Dutton has promised to axe many of our workplace changes, even when the independent review found that they are making a positive difference to Australians. While our government wants to see Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, we know that the coalition had an antiworker agenda when they were in government. They voted against every single one of our changes when they were in opposition and now, as the election approaches, they're promising the same low-wages policy they had last time they were in office. Already, they've promised to wind back protections for casual workers and scrap the right to disconnect, and they have opened the door to weakening unfair dismissal protections and getting rid of our same job, same pay laws. At a time when Australians are doing it tough, Mr Dutton and the coalition want to make things worse. There is no doubt at all that, with the wage cuts from Mr Dutton, you will be worse off under the coalition. We'll certainly be reminding people of that in the next few months. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Campbell, General Angus, AO, DSC (Retd) 36 15:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I was asked a question by Senator Lambie in relation to the appointment of General Angus Campbell. I'm advised that General Campbell is employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade at band 3 level. It is the usual practice with most head-of-mission positions that appointments are for an initial term of three years, and I'm advised that this is the case for General Campbell's appointment. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Antisemitism 36 15:06 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Cash) and Senator Paterson today relating to antisemitism. Both are very important questions, and I do want to again reiterate what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the attack on the Adass synagogue in Melbourne, as was raised by Senator Cash: Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate this reprehensible act from the extreme anti-Israel position of the Labor government in Australia. Senator Cash also raised the deep concerns of Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Sharren Haskel, who said in relation to her meeting with Attorney-General Dreyfus: I expressed to him my disappointment with the shift in the Australian government's attitude towards Israel. I emphasised our deep concern regarding the shocking rise in antisemitism in Australia and the clearly ineffectual response from the Australian government and state governments. There is no doubt this has been caused in part by the Australian government's ongoing campaign against Israel. This is what it is: an ongoing campaign against Israel, which has fuelled antisemitic hate and division in our country through a weakness of leadership from this weak and incompetent Prime Minister. It is unbelievable that, since 7 October 2023, we have seen our country deteriorate— The DEPUTY 10000 Senator Henderson, there's a point of order. Senator Urquhart 231199 I would ask Senator Henderson to withdraw that reflection on the Prime Minister. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It wasn't necessarily a reflection. It was a criticism and wasn't a reflection on the Prime Minister's motives, but I'd ask, Senator Henderson, that you be measured in your language in this difficult debate. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Thank you very much, Deputy Prime Minister—I mean, Deputy President. I've just promoted you! As I say, the condemnation that we have seen from the Prime Minister of Israel and Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister is a shocking reflection on this weak Albanese Labor government. What are the consequences? The consequences are horrific. Over recent months, we've seen a synagogue firebombed, the former home of a Jewish leader vandalised, synagogues sprayed with hateful symbols, and even a Jewish childcare centre attacked in the middle of the night. Jewish Australians are frightened. Jewish Australians are living in fear. Jewish Australians' homes are being targeted with horrific antisemitic graffiti. High-profile Jewish Australians are waking up in the morning and seeing horrific slurs against Jewish Australians on their fences. It is shameful that this government has been so weak. This government could not even support the coalition's senators' bill here in the Senate or Mr Leeser's private member's bill to legislate a judicial inquiry into campus antisemitism. The hate and incitement on university campuses is out of control, and we saw that again just last week at Queensland University of Technology, again fuelled by Labor's weak leadership. The education minister, Mr Clare, has failed to call for the encampments to be shut down, failed to condemn extremists like members of Hizb ut-Tahrir protesting on university campuses and failed to take this seriously. The government have failed to listen to their own appointed antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, who backed the coalition's call for a judicial inquiry along with every leading Jewish organisation, and the Zionist Federation of Australia have again backed this in. This is, as I say, intolerable. Senator Paterson also raised very important questions about what the Prime Minister knew and when he was first briefed on reports about the discovery of the caravan in Dural. It is shocking that we know so little about this and that Australians were kept in the dark. Australians deserve answers on the handling of what could have been one of the most catastrophic acts of terror seen in Australia. A week on from the breaking of this report, we still remain none the wiser, and that is a disgrace. 15:11 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I begin by saying that the government utterly condemns antisemitism in all its forms. Hate and extremism have no place in Australian society, and we've established a special operation, Avalite, to investigate threats, violence and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community. Earlier today in this chamber we had around an hour and 30 minutes debating a motion put forward by Senator Lambie. The motion passed in this house; it also passed in the other place. I would have thought that, as leaders of our communities, our roles both here and in the other place would be to bring people together and stamp out this behaviour from our society—and working together to do that. I do note that law enforcement are taking the investigations on the Dural incident seriously, and they do not believe there is an ongoing threat. The matter is being investigated by the joint counterterrorism teams, so there is an investigation under way. It's a bit rich for people to say that they're not getting any information and that we're not doing anything. There is an investigation under way. ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess said that Australia's terrorism threat level remains at 'probable', and, obviously, there are investigations going on into these matters. The government is committed to protecting the community from those who promote extremism, who promote hatred or who seek to incite violence. That is not the type of country that we want to live in, and we are acting to condemn all these forms of antisemitism. We believe that no Australian should be targeted because of who they are or what they believe in. No Australian should be targeted because of who they are or what they believe in. The Albanese Labor government has introduced legislation to create new criminal offences and to strengthen protection against hate crimes. People might say we're not doing anything, but that is actually not correct. There's a bill that will create new criminal offences for directly threatening the use of force or violence against a group or a member of a group. That bill will protect groups or members of groups distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, national or ethnic origin, or political opinion. The bill is long overdue and represents very significant reform to Commonwealth offences. We hope that the parliament will unanimously pass this bill to bring together Australians. There is no place in Australia for the kinds of antisemitism, hatred and violence that we've recently seen. I think that's something that we all agree on; we all agree that there is no place in Australia for that. It's despicable and it won't be tolerated. That's why we're taking a series of actions to crack down on antisemitism. Here are some of the measures that we've taken. As I mentioned earlier, we've established Special Operation Avalite with the AFP to combat acts of antisemitism. We've put a landmark ban on Nazi salutes and hate symbols, a ban which came into effect in January 2024 with penalties of one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $16,500. We've criminalised doxxing—the malicious release of personal information—which the opposition voted against. We're working with states and territories on a national database to track and coordinate on antisemitic incidents. We've brought legislation to appoint Australia's first National Student Ombudsman. In the weeks following the 7 October terrorist attack, the Albanese government committed $25 million for improved safety and security at Jewish sites across the country, including schools, and an additional $32.5 million for security measures for schools and synagogues. Legislation now before parliament is to criminalise hate speech, including the urging or threatening of force or violence against individuals or groups because of who they are or what they believe. There is more that I could go on with, but instead I'll say we believe that antisemitism has no place in this country whatsoever. 15:16 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales It's clear, from the answers given to my colleagues Senators Cash and Paterson, that, regardless of what we hear from those opposite, the government is not taking the issue of antisemitism seriously. They often say the right things, but their actions do not match their rhetoric. Ultimately, government is about priorities. It's about what you choose to address and what you choose to ignore. For too long, this government, this Prime Minister and senior ministers within this government have chosen to ignore, diminish, discount or even insult people who have called out the rise in antisemitism in our community. What have we seen in Australia these past 16 months? We have seen a sustained campaign of harassment, intimidation and vitriol targeted at one specific Australian community in a way that, to my mind at least, is unprecedented in our history. It has taken on undertones and manifestations of a terrorist campaign in the last several months, and the targeting is being done solely on the basis of the religion these people observe or the faith that they uphold. Two days after the worst terrorist attack in Israel's history—the equivalent of like a dozen September 11 attacks being inflicted on a nation; the largest single loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, in a single day—we saw the opera house protests erupt, where we saw the most hateful and vile slogans being uttered at Jewish Australians—not at Israel but Jewish Australians. We saw Israeli flags being burnt. Since then, we have seen a slow but sinister and inexorable descent of this campaign into lower and lower depths. It has gone from slogans, chanting, protests and doxxing to harassment, graffiti, campus intimidation and, in recent months, property damage and the torching of vehicles. Most recently, there was the firebombing of a synagogue, the firebombing of a childcare centre only last week and now the discovery of a caravan laden with explosives designed to cause a mass casualty terrorist attack targeted at a Jewish institution. This is shocking, in Australia. We had the intent, the ingredients and the capability to stage a mass-casualty terrorist attack in Australia, directed at one specific part of our community. And what have we heard from our Prime Minister on this? He will not even tell us whether he was aware of this plot. He is not able to say whether he was briefed on this plot. He is not able to reassure us that he has convened the National Security Committee of cabinet, our security and intelligence chiefs, to get to the bottom of this plot. Chris Minns, the Premier of New South Wales, knows what's going on. As soon as this became public, he fronted the media. He told them what he knew. He told them the steps he was taking to reassure the community of their safety, as well as the Jewish community of Australia. Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, has been AWOL. This is not about revealing operational details or compromising intelligence or methods; it's about reassuring all of us that the person in charge of the country, in charge of the government, is on top of their game, that they are taking the issue seriously. Where is the Minister for Home Affairs on this? He's missing in action, he's in hiding, he's AWOL, because he doesn't want to confront and tackle this issue, because of his own local, domestic political imperatives, if you like The Prime Minister has form here. You will recall that, after the 7 October terrorist attacks, Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, asked Anthony Albanese to convene the National Security Committee of cabinet to consider what the security implications would be for Australia. Anthony Albanese refused to do so. He refused to call Prime Minister Netanyahu for several weeks to express condolence at the largest loss of life in a terrorist attack that Israel has ever experienced. He refused to convene the national cabinet after his own special envoy to combat antisemitism recommend he do so. He was forced to do so only under pressure. Even addressing caucus this week—his own party—he didn't take this issue seriously. This tells you everything you need to know about this government's approach to this issue. 15:21 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I rise to contribute to this debate on the really important issue of antisemitism. It is a real shame to see it politicised in the way it has been during this question time. When there are so many in our country who are hurting, who are afraid for their lives right now, to see it weaponised by the opposition in this way really tells you something about who they are. Instead of working with us to keep the community safe, they continue to politicise it, and that is a real shame. The Albanese Labor government has absolutely taken steps to combat the rise of antisemitism across the country. We've seen some really abhorrent things happen in the last little while that have made our Jewish brothers and sisters feel unsafe, and no doubt they are existing in a constant state of worry and anxiety right now. That is really an unacceptable way for anybody in the country we are in today to live. To not have to teach your kids to experience hate and harm because of who they are is a real privilege. It's not one that's been extended to First Nations people, in the same way that it hasn't been extended to Jewish people. It is common for us to have to teach our kids, when they go to school, to experience hate and harm because of who they are, and that is what our Jewish brothers and sisters are having to do right now. The constant weaponising of this conversation is really unacceptable. We have taken measures that are similar to those of other countries, like Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Japan and Korea. I'd be interested to know if the opposition are also criticising the positions of those countries. It's certainly not helpful to the Australian community, when we are trying so hard to unify people here. One of the things you have seen our government immediately do is inject a bunch of money for social cohesion across the country. To then see leaders in this country try to inflame debate is really entirely unhelpful. What we're trying to do is bring people together, like we saw in this very Senate chamber earlier today. We have seen the Senate chamber come together to condemn antisemitism. That is what we should be doing to help Australians to feel safe. We have seen a devastating rise of antisemitism across the country and across the world, and that is entirely unacceptable. We have condemned and rejected antisemitism wherever it has occurred. It has absolutely no place in this country. We stand in this country for values such as acceptance and inclusion. We should always advocate for them, just like we on this side have always done. We should be encouraging a tone of conversation that allows people to come together and have empathy and care for our fellow Australians and not try to inflame the debate and bring it to our front doors. That is the experience of so many of our Jewish brothers and sisters right now. We have seen it politicised by those opposite. I want to encourage us, while the hurt and trauma is real and alive right now for so many people, to be really careful and considered about the language we use in this place, because it matters, especially while people are traumatised. The language that is used in this place can retrigger. 15:27 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Language does matter, but so does action. I pity Senator Stewart that she has to come into this place and defend the Albanese Labor government, who have just been too slow to act in relation to the reign of antisemitism we are experiencing in this country. Senator Urquhart referred to the hate crimes bill. I am the deputy chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I sat on the inquiry that looked into the hate crimes bill. Consider this: the hate crimes bill improved some of the key pieces of legislation in our Criminal Code dealing with hate crimes. Most of it is an absolute no-brainer. In fact, my additional comments in relation to the bill were 2½ pages. I proposed an amendment but agreed with the bill, as does the opposition. Tell me this, Senator Urquhart—through you, Deputy President—why was it that the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 was referred to my committee on 12 September last year, 2024, to report on 14 November, two months later, but the hate crimes bill, dealing with, in my view, a very easy amendment, was referred on 19 September to report by 12 December. Why was the AML bill, the bill dealing with anti-money-laundering, referred to my committee on 18 September, about the same time as the hate crimes bill, but its report was due on 13 November, a month before the hate crimes bill, when the AML bill was dealing with far more complicated matters? Why was it that the Family Law Amendment Bill was referred to the legal and constitutional affairs committee on 12 September, to report by 31 October, less than two months later, when the hate crimes bill was referred on 19 September, to report by 12 December? We didn't even get the chance to debate the hate crimes bill during 2024. That could have been in place now. It should have been in place over a year ago. This is the issue with the Albanese Labor government: it's too slow to act. It's having devastating consequences for our Jewish community. You can't tell me that introducing anti-money-laundering red tape on our real estate agents, lawyers and accountants was more important than protecting our Jewish community in the face of this torrent of antisemitism. Was it more important to introduce the statutory tort of privacy, which has been kicking around for over a decade, than it was to protect our Jewish community? Was it more important to introduce amendments to the Family Law Act dealing with the custody of pets than it was to protect our Jewish community? But these are the priorities of the Albanese Labor government, so don't come into this place accusing the opposition of weaponising this issue. We are doing exactly what we were elected to do—that is to keep the government to account, especially in circumstances when there is a very vulnerable minority in this country, our Jewish communities, who are suffering this outrageous explosion in antisemitism. I want to read to you an excerpt from the additional comments I made in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill, which should have been passed 18 months ago. It should have gone through this place 18 months ago—an absolute no-brainer. I want to tell you the story of Dr Max Joseph. He was actually in Berlin during Kristallnacht—the night of broken glass—which occurred on 9 and 10 November 1938. He was in Berlin when the synagogues were attacked, burnt to the ground, and Jewish businesses were attacked. Some 91 Jews were murdered. He was actually in Berlin and then found refuge in Australia. He brought with him a foundation stone from a synagogue that was burnt to the ground in Berlin and placed it in the foundation of a synagogue in Sydney. He passed away in 1971. I wonder how Dr Joseph would feel to know that in 2024 and 2025 Jewish synagogues and childcare centres are being attacked in the country in which he found refuge. That is why we are so strong on this issue, and we make no excuses for it whatsoever. Question agreed to. Dental Health 40 15:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to take note of the answer to my question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to dental care. I asked about dental care because, as people might know, two million Australians last year could not afford to go to the dentist, and 80,000 of those folk ended up in hospital because they hadn't taken a preventive dental action that would have prevented them going to the hospital. So I ask the government: when are you finally going to recognise that the teeth are part of the body and that going to the dentist should be the same as going to the doctor? You should just be able to show your Medicare card and not your credit card in order to get that important health care that you need. The minister initially talked about going to the GP—not that people shouldn't be able to go to the GP for free, I might add; that's what the Greens would like to see—but didn't actually address the issue of dental care at all. In answering my subsequent question, the minister rattled off some small amount of support for the public dental system that she said was basically the problem of the states and territories. In answer to the final part of my question, the minister said, 'Well, we support private dental by doing a private health insurance rebate, and what dentists charge is up to them.' Well, what is covered by Medicare is up to the government, which is why the Greens are pushing for dental care to be included in Medicare. In 2010, when this Labor Party last needed the Greens to form government, we insisted on including dental care for kids in Medicare, and that's been such a successful program ever since. So many families are grateful for that and are getting their kids the preventive dental care they need. But we want to finish the job. We want to see everyone in Australia able to get the dental care that they need, and, in a cost-of-living crisis, it's probably the first thing that drops off everybody's budget. On the point of budget, one in three big corporations pays no tax. We know that from the annual tax transparency disclosure statement that the ATO issues. We know that one in three big corporations pays no tax, and we know that a nurse or a teacher pays more tax than those one in three big corporations, which is obscene. Those massive corporates are raking in millions and billions of dollars worth of profit, and this government, just like the last, is letting them get away with avoiding paying their fair share of tax. If we made the big corporations pay their fair share of tax, you could actually afford to fund the things that people need and expect from their government, like decent health care and putting dental care into Medicare. Don't stop there—you could put mental health care into Medicare. Don't stop there, either—you could make seeing the GP free. You could get rid of that bulk-billing co-payment and make sure that consumers can actually get health care, because, as I said, in this cost-of-living crisis it's not just dental care people are foregoing; they're also foregoing visits to the GP. They're not taking that preventive healthcare action that might actually keep them out of hospital in the long run. If we made those big corporations pay their fair share, it's not just the healthcare system that we could improve; we could fully fund our public schools. We could make sure that every child, no matter where they live in the country, gets a top-quality education. We could even pay teachers and nurses more, like the Greens think they should be. They're overworked. They're underpaid. Multinationals are paying less tax than teachers and nurses. We look forward to keeping a Dutton prime ministership out. We don't want to see that side of politics. We are going to work to keep Dutton out, and we're going to work to force Labor to act on the things that actually make a difference in people's lives. Part of that is making sure those big corporations pay their fair share of tax, precisely so we can fund things that make people's lives easier and protect the planet: fixing dental care and putting that, along with mental health care, into Medicare; people seeing the GP for free; fully funding hospitals; fully funding schools; and fully funding the climate transition so that every household can afford to have solar and battery power to not only address the climate crisis but to keep their energy bills down. This is the kind of vision that I think people want from their representatives. And, if we made those big corporates pay their fair share, this is the sort of thing that we could fund for people. I'm baffled that no government wants to have the vision and the courage to do those things, because it would actually help people, it would help the economy, it would help the climate, and it would make sure that people are not just getting screwed over by the inequities of the current system, which sees big corporates dictating policies—making generous political donations to boost their profits—and everybody else getting screwed. Question agreed to. NOTICES 40 NOTICES Presentation 40 Presentation 46 15:37 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for 13 sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Regulations 2024. COMMITTEES 46 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 46 15:38 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, those matters are dealt with. BUSINESS 46 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 46 15:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Green for today, on account of parliamentary business; and (b) Senator McAllister from 4 to 6 February 2025, on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 46 CONDOLENCES Sercombe, Mr Robert Charles Grant (Bob) 46 15:39 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 12 January 2025, of Robert Charles Grant 'Bob' Sercombe, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Maribyrnong, Victoria, from 1996 to 2007. DOCUMENTS 46 DOCUMENTS Non-Disclosure Agreements 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 15:40 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to amend the motion in my name by omitting paragraph (c) on motion No. 728. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I move the motion as amended: That— (a) the Senate notes that order for production of documents no. 694 (the order) agreed to by the Senate on 25 November 2024, requiring ministers to table, by midday on 27 November 2024, revised answers to questions on notice nos 3633 to 3679 (excluding questions on notice nos 3634, 3635, 3643, 3645, 3646, 3648, 3649, 3652, 3660, 3661, 3663, 3668 and 3672), placed on notice on 3 October 2024, that provide the information sought by the questions, has not been complied with; (b) requires the ministers to comply with the order by no later than 3 pm on 7 February 2025. Question agreed to. Department of Employment and Workplace Relations 47 Order for the Production of Documents 47 15:40 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than midday on 13 February 2025, all correspondence, meeting briefs and meeting notes held by the minister, his office or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations concerning the following companies and/or employees, owners or representatives of these companies since 29 July 2024: (a) Sarina Russo Group; (b) Salvos Employment Plus; (c) APM; and (d) AimBig. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 731, standing in the name of Senator Allman-Payne, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 18 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Department of Education 47 Order for the Production of Documents 47 15:47 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on 13 February 2025, the 2024 National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy and the student and school summary reports for each school in Australia. 15:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government won't be supporting this motion. Neither the Minister for Education nor the Department of Education hold the NAPLAN student and school summary reports. This motion calls for the tabling of reports that name each school in the country and that identify individual students, using their initials, against each student's results in each of the 2024 NAPLAN tests. Student and school summary reports help schools identify students' strengths and areas for additional support—they are not distributed to parents and carers. I note that ACARA released an update on the My School website in December 2024 which provided details on schools' performance in NAPLAN 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 732 standing in the name of Senator Henderson be agreed to.  

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

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. 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. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 6 PAIRS Birmingham, S. J. (Vacancy). Green, N. L. Brockman, W. E. Gallagher, K. R. Cadell, R. Watt, M. P. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hume, J. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McAllister, J. R.

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 48 MATTERS OF URGENCY Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 48

Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024

Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024

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

15:55 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Duniam has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Nature Positive bills to be withdrawn from the Notice Paper and for the Prime Minister to guarantee that this legislation will never be returned to the Parliament." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing order having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:56 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Nature Positive bills to be withdrawn from the Notice Paper, and for the Prime Minister to guarantee that this legislation will never be returned to the Parliament. The reason this is an urgent matter for consideration in the Senate is that we need certainty, and we need a government that actually backs our private sector, backs investment and provides a certain environment for those who seek to invest in our community and country. But, at the moment, that is something sadly lacking. It's lacking because you cannot take this government at their word. Sadly, too many times over the course of the last 2½ years in this term of parliament, the term of this Labor government, we've seen where that word, that bond, that has been provided to the Australian people has been broken, and this is a prime example of that. We had a promise from this Labor government that they would bring in new environmental approval laws to replace the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 by the end of 2023. Of course, we never received them. The one measly little piece of legislation we received was legislation to set up a new giant green bureaucracy—the Environment Protection Authority, or EPA. That's all we've had to show for three years of work behind closed doors and secretive consultations where nondisclosure agreements were signed by parties participating in this discussion and consultation. All we're talking about here is the environment—a public good that Australians should have some ownership over. We've had no overhaul of the laws. The laws were never presented to parliament. What was presented was so bad that it had no friends in this place. The government were on their own. They weren't willing to work with us on amendments to the legislation. The last offer of suggested amendments we put to the government went unanswered. There were sensible suggestions like removing the water trigger—a great idea to ensure that investors would be able to come here with some certainty and not have another front of green 'lawfare' opened up on their projects—and being able to overturn that ridiculous decision on the Blayney gold mine and fix those laws that allowed that terrible situation to come about. Of course, all of those went unanswered. That meant the government had to try to do a deal with the Greens. Let's think about the history of this. It was late last year, in Western Australia, and the Prime Minister had dragged his entire cabinet over to Perth to try to convince the mining industry that they had the mining industry's interests at heart—that they had their back. There was a lot of chatter over there, especially after the Western Australia Labor government tried to kill the economy through those silly cultural heritage laws which went too far, so Labor was very sensitive about the perceptions of Labor governments and the laws they were bringing in. So he took them over there, and he made it very clear in Western Australia on 2 September 2024 that the role of the EPA under their proposed laws would be scaled right back and it would have no teeth or capacity to do anything of real value, according to many. He also ruled out that there would ever be a deal with the Greens on this legislation. But coming back to the east coast of Australia, it's funny: the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, said that she was still negotiating with the Greens to get this legislation through parliament, just one week later. Who was running the show? Who is dictating the legislative agenda? Is it the Prime Minister or his environment minister? It's interesting. We weren't aware that this was happening, but, when a deal couldn't be done at the end of last year, the Prime Minister said, 'No, we're not going to proceed.' What triggered that action by the Prime Minister was a secret deal done up between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens party. We have proof of it here, in an email that was sent to the Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, who I'm sure we'll hear from very soon, about the terms of the deal struck between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens to get this legislation through. It reads: Dear Senator Hanson-Young I write further to our recent discussions about the Nature Positive Bills currently before the Senate. The Nature Positive Bills will deliver— There are—one, two, three—four pages of blacked-out information. The email concludes: I would be grateful for your confirmation that the Australian Greens will support the bills, including— to guillotine them. They don't want Australians to know what secret, dodgy, dirty deal was done. This is why it is critically important this bill and everything related to it is expunged from the Notice Paper and does not ever come back to this parliament. It's bad for Australia, it's bad for jobs and it's bad for the environment. 16:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I rise to say, on behalf of the government, that we will not be supporting this urgency motion today because, again, this is just another sad attempted scare campaign from the Liberals and Nationals—Senator Duniam, in particular. Looking at Senator Duniam's record on this, I'm sure he wakes up in the morning confused about which scare campaign he's running today, because all he's been doing in opposition is running scare campaigns. No matter what the issue is, we can rely on Senator Duniam to run a scare campaign, and we've seen a really, really good example of that. We also see from Senator Duniam faux concern about the environment. He comes in here and tries to act like he's concerned about the environment, but, since he's taken on that shadow portfolio, we haven't actually seen any positive action when it comes to the environment. Yes, he wants to run scare campaigns, but, when it comes to actually doing anything about the environment, they have been completely missing in action. We've been clear, and the Prime Minister has been clear, that we will not progress these bills, which is why we've lodged a motion today to discharge it from the Notice Paper. That will come up for a vote tomorrow. We also know that the Liberals and Nationals have a record, when it comes to the environment, of teaming up with the Greens to block action. We wanted to pass bills that would mean faster environmental approvals for business, easier access to the latest environmental data for business and the fast-tracking of work with the states on critical minerals, housing and other energy projects. That's what this government wanted to achieve—that's what we wanted to consult on and do—but we had no support from those opposite. Indeed, all we've seen is opposition—and where they can they run a scare campaign. We want to provide that certainty that state governments and proponents want. That's what we've been working diligently on behind the scenes to get done. So it's really disappointing, at a time when we need these projects that are going to generate opportunity, jobs and income for this country, that those opposite cannot work constructively with government to get these things done. It really goes to show that they have learnt nothing from their time in opposition and that they cannot possibly put the national interest first. They are incapable of putting the national interest first. Let's be clear about the record of those opposite in this space when they were in government. Last time they were in charge of the environment department, they cut resourcing by 40 per cent, and we know they're going to set out to do that again if they're successful at the election. But that has real consequences for these sorts of projects. Businesses across Australia were impacted because it meant that less than half of environmental decisions were made on time. That is the consequence of their decision. When they say 'cuts', this is what it means. It has a negative impact on businesses who are trying to create jobs and economic wealth in this country. The average federal decision for a new project under the coalition government was 116 days behind schedule. When they did get around to making a decision, 80 per cent of those decisions were either non-compliant or full of errors. These delays hurt business and slowed down projects across the country, and that is what this government has been trying to fix. We inherited a complete mess from those opposite. They take no accountability for that. They don't own up to it. And they've learnt no lessons from their time in government, from the mess that we've been trying to fix. What they should have done is come to the table and work constructively to fix these issues, knowing that these projects help generate jobs and opportunity in this country. Our government has turned these delays around. We have doubled average on-time approvals to 84 per cent and invested around $420 million to boost approvals processing. The truth is that Australians would be worse off under Peter Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals, who, again, refuse to rule out cuts to the environment department, which will result in continued delays to critical projects which impact on business in this country. What the Australian people can do is rely on us to act in the national interest, to not fall for silly scare campaigns that those opposite want to run and to do the right thing by the environment at the same time. That has been the record of Labor governments in this country for a long period of time. So I urge you to reject this urgency motion from Senator Duniam and work with us constructively to get proper legislation done that is going to improve approval times in this country and ensure that we can get these projects done for benefit of this country, for jobs and economic opportunity. 16:06 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia These are some of the headlines over the last 48 hours: 'Miners rejoice as Albanese shelves environmental watchdog', 'Albanese kills off nature positive laws' and 'Albanese abandons environment reforms'. We can all see what has happened here—that the Labor Party has caved in to the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry and the likes of Gina Rinehart. Rather than standing for what is right, protecting nature and putting in place laws that would stop the destruction, look after our environment and stop our koalas from going extinct, the Labor Party has gone weak; the Labor Party has caved in again. The Greens have been working hard to try and get meaningful reform that would protect our ancient forests, that would stop our wildlife from going extinct. We worked hard with the government to try and get a sensible package agreed. We even put aside our policy and demands for a climate trigger, because we were told by the government that they couldn't do it because the miners wouldn't let them. So we said, 'Okay, we'll compromise, we'll be pragmatic, we'll stand up for the forests, we'll put the climate trigger aside until after the election and we'll look after the forests and the koalas today.' But they couldn't even come at that. The Labor Party has abandoned the environment. And if you want change, if you want protection, you're going to have to vote for it. 16:08 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Everyone knows that I'm not a very sporty person, but my children were gymnasts. They would have had no hope of competing against the Prime Minister's ability to backflip, forward somersault and finish with a triple pike without breaking a sweat. That's what we've seen here. We saw the nature positive bill go through the lower house, with the support of the teals—sorry; apparently they like being called 'community independents' today—and the Greens. We saw it listed for debate in the Senate. Then we saw it withdrawn from the listings, and we saw it brought back, to be debated this week. I was asked last week, when I was doing a TV interview: 'What is the opposition's position on this? Has the opposition changed their mind?' I said at the time, 'The only person that I'm aware of who's changed their mind on bringing this bill forward again for debate is the Prime Minister.' And—lo and behold!—he's changed his mind again. Now, when it was listed last year, we heard from the Premier of Western Australia his opposition to the bill, calling out the immense damage this legislation would have on that state's mining based economy. Make no mistake—Western Australia would not be the only state impacted, but at least their Premier is honest enough to have called it out. The new year must have been a really good one for the Prime Minister, because he forgot that he'd withdrawn the bill last year and it appeared on our Notice Paper again. To bring back this bill was a slap in the face for Western Australia. It showed that Western Australia had been held in total contempt by this government. I want to commend Mia Davies, the Nationals' candidate for the seat of Bullwinkel, for her tireless work in calling out not only this bill and the damage it would do to Western Australia but also this government's appalling live sheep export ban. So the bill was relisted, but the phones must have been burning with calls between Western Australia and the Lodge, because over the weekend the Prime Minister yet again shelved this bill. We heard today from Senator Chisholm that they've lodged a motion to withdraw this bill—to discharge it from the Notice Paper. And yet they're not supporting this motion. Do you know why they're not supporting this motion? Because this motion also asked for a guarantee that the legislation as it stands will not be returned to parliament, and the Labor Party will not make that guarantee, because the Labor Party want to leave the door open to do another dirty deal with the Greens and to make an alignment with the teals—or community independents, or whatever you want to call them. If they are voted into a position where they can form a minority government, they will do dirty deals with the Greens and the teals and reintroduce this appalling bill, irrespective of the impact on the people and the economy of Western Australia and on the economy of Queensland, and, indeed, on the economy of New South Wales, where there are also large-scale mining applications in for things like critical minerals, which we'll need if we're going to see a net zero future. This government doesn't want to close the door of opportunity on a Green-teal minority deal. And that's what we are facing. That is why the Labor Party are opposing this motion, which, in all other aspects, they support. It is because they know that they cannot get this bill through before any election, so they're willing to discharge it from the Notice Paper, but they're not willing to commit to not bringing back this bad bill that does nothing to improve our environmental laws and does everything to balloon the size of the bureaucracy even more and duplicate state agencies that are already in existence and are already there to do the job this bill is proposing a new bureaucracy to do. 16:13 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The nature-positive bills align with the international Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted in 2022 at the UN Biodiversity Conference. Once again, the Anthony Albanese Labor government is demonstrating fealty to international agendas over the interests of everyday Australians. The Labor Party has not seen a problem that it did not want to institutionalise through the creation of a new bureaucracy to milk yet more taxpayer money while not actually achieving anything—unless one counts rank stupidity as an achievement! The Roy Hill mine was fined $18,000 for the offence of not providing a fauna spotter to walk in front of their bulldozers—in front of their bulldozers, which breaches state occupational health and safety rules! The federal law had primacy. The larger the federal government, the more overreach like this occurs and the more we see conflicting state and federal laws. The regulatory environment in 2025 is strangling the life out of our productive economy, and this government wants to add more. The motivation for this bill is an ideology that says, 'Mining's bad, dams are bad, farming's bad and anything that provides wealth and opportunity independent of government is bad.' The fact that the government would consider a new watchdog shows that existing laws have not worked. One Nation can agree with that. The UN green agenda is killing the environment to save it. It's killing the planet to save the environment, with the enthusiastic support of Minister Bowen and Prime Minister Albanese. It is not nature positive to blow the tops off hills and mountains to install massive wind turbines which create in their wake a five-kilometre environmental dead zone where birds can't fly, destroying once-thriving bird habitats. It is not nature positive to bulldoze 75-metre-wide scars thousands of kilometres long across national parks, state forests and farmland to carry power from these wind turbines back to the cities. It is not nature positive to carve the sides off mountains to widen and straighten roads to take 100-metre-long wind turbine blades to the construction sites. It is not nature positive to cancel dam construction, as this government did when they cancelled the Hells Gate Dam, only to stand back just three years later and watch as water flooding from the Burdekin River devastated cities in North Queensland. Nothing in this bill will help the natural environment. It will be used for political green activism, getting Greens party preferences, killing mining, killing dams, killing mountains and forests and killing the environment in the name of saving the planet. It will be used to promote the failed green climate fraud. One Nation support Senator Duniam's motion. The nature positive bills will make farming, mining and industry harder. They will take jobs, wealth and opportunity from everyday Australians while providing no noticeable benefits to the natural environment. 16:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Before the last election, Labor said our environment laws were broken and they promised to fix them. Well, they have broken that promise and abandoned reform to better protect nature. Why have they done that? Because the big polluters, the big fossil fuel corporations, told them to break their promise, and Labor did. So, instead of better protection for nature, our forests keep getting logged, our rivers and oceans keep getting poisoned and our ecosystems keep collapsing. The Greens are here to fight to defend nature. We are here to end native forest logging. We are here to crack down on corporate polluters. We are here to bring in environmental laws that do what they say on the tin: protect nature. Labor won't protect nature; they will protect their political donors. The Greens will protect nature. 16:17 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The nature positive bill has nothing to do with protecting the environment. It is another step in government overreach, controlling people's lives and our country. At the end of the day, this is just another extension by the Labor Party, taking from the states control of their constitutional responsibility to look after the environment. It is not the role of the federal government to look after the environment. That role was usurped by Bob Hawke in 1983 with the Franklin dam decision. It is all very good talking about the environment, but the fact of the matter is that we do not want an independent statutory authority without any parliamentary oversight or ministerial oversight making decisions that aren't accountable to the Australian people. That's what this nature positive bill is all about. It's all very well dressing it up and saying, 'We want to protect the environment.' We all want to protect the environment. But, at the end of the day, if you want to protect the environment you need to have proper levels of accountability. What this will do is take control of the environment from the federal environment minister—by the way, as I said before, they shouldn't even have any control over the environment—and give it to independent statutory authorities. Just like we have seen with our monetary policy, just like we see with the ABC and just like we see with the TGA, we're going to have another radical bureaucratic department created who can drive their own agenda without any form of feedback or transparency to the Australian people. So I strongly urge that this week all members of the Senate oppose any attempts at bringing in legislation that will undermine the democratic process of this country. 16:19 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Picture this scenario. I want to have pizza for dinner from a bougie place in Fremantle where the woodfired pizza cost $39 but I only have $25. I ask my friends to pitch in, and they agree on one condition—that they get a slice. Outrageous, I think. I refuse, they walk away and I go home hungry. Now, the people watching at home may think this sounds stubborn. Well, it is. And it's exactly how the government handled the nature-positive bills, refusing to compromise, rejecting support and leaving the environment and economy worse off. The Albanese Labor government drafted the laws that neither industry groups nor environmental groups were happy with. We should call this what it is: a failure of political will. Instead of standing firm and delivering real environmental reform, Labor buckled under pressure and left us with laws that satisfy no-one. This is the same tired game we see across so many critical issues—political calculations over policy, short-term survival over long-term solutions. While they stall, delay and water down reforms, WA is missing out on the investment, certainty and job opportunities that should be flowing into renewable energy, environmental restoration and sustainable industries. The world is moving forward but this government is standing still, caught between its promises and its political fears. By refusing to negotiate and insisting that it's their way or the highway, we are stuck with the current environmental laws that the Samuel review found took too long to assess projects for industry and could not achieve good outcomes for the environment. Well, we shall see the product of this Blairite, Third Way fence-sitting at the election. 16:21 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on this very important urgency motion. What we've seen throughout the entire term of this Albanese government is that, time and time again, their priorities do not lie in the best interests of Australians. They certainly don't lie in the best interests of Western Australia, my home state. For the past three years, we've watched on in horror as they have continually misjudged the signs of the times. Again, here we are: this out-of-touch government is being forced to backpedal yet again on their industry-killing, Orwellian-named nature-positive agenda. At a time when people across the country continue to fight against the biting cost-of-living crisis that is impacting every household and every business, Mr Albanese thought it was appropriate to push this nature-positive bill not once but twice—a nature-positive bill that the recent ACIL Allen report states would push WA's wholesale electricity prices up by 38 per cent while Labor harps on about reducing energy costs. It is estimated that the nature-positive bill would also increase the cost of residential land in WA by an estimated 10.6 per cent and reduce housing availability by 25 per cent while Labor reassure Australians that they are doing everything they can to address this housing crisis. They are completely out of touch. Senator Chisholm comes in here and acts like we are playing a political game, yet it was them who put it back on the Notice Paper. They actually had it listed to be debated later this week. Now, we understand there is a motion to have it removed from the Notice Paper tomorrow, yet they've got an opportunity to vote with us right now, today, on this motion to say that this is urgent and that it needs to be dealt with. Australians are hurting because of the decisions of this government. There is nothing that tells Western Australians that this government is against Western Australians more than this nature-positive bill. We know in Western Australia the chilling effect that it will have on the mining industry. We know the chilling effect that it will have on investment in the resources industry. The cost that it would impose upon businesses and resource projects across Western Australia would be astronomical. And do you know what that means? It means jobs will be lost. It means projects will be unviable. It means we will not see projects continue and we will not see new projects go ahead because of the decisions of this government. That will cost Western Australians. This is the price that will be paid if this government have their way. They are going to take it off the Notice Paper, so they will say: 'Nothing to see here. It is now off the Notice Paper. The scaremongering can go away because it is no longer an issue.' Why won't the Prime Minister categorically rule out that it will not be brought back in the next term of government, should they be able to cobble together a minority government? We know it will be a condition of support from the Australian Greens. It will be a condition of support for minority government, for the Australian Greens to back in the Greens-Labor coalition. It will be a condition and will be something that will have to happen under an Adam Bandt-led government, because that is what we will see. This is not something Australians can afford. It is certainly not something Western Australians can afford. They know. That is why even Roger Cook, the champion of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, no less, called this out as ridiculous policy. Even he called this out as something that cannot happen for Western Australia, because he knows it will cost jobs. Mr Albanese does not seem to care about that, and that is why he is hiding away until after the election, thinking he can pull the wool over the eyes of Western Australians. Well, Western Australians are going to wake up. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 7 PAIRS Birmingham, S.J. (Vacancy) Green, N. L. Brockman, W. E. Farrell, D. E. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. McDonald, S. E. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. Gallagher, K. R. Paterson, J. W. Watt, M. P. Ruston, A. McCarthy, M.

Question negatived.

United States of America 54 16:34 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the election of President Trump is a threat to Australia and the world, including his attacks on human rights, democracy and climate action; that the toxic influence of billionaires and corporations in political decision making must end; and that we must do everything we can to stop Trump-style politics coming to Australia." Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:34 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the election of President Trump is a threat to Australia and the world, including his attacks on human rights, democracy and climate action, that the toxic influence of billionaires and corporations in political decision making must end, and that we must do everything we can to stop Trump-style politics coming to Australia. When governments serve the interests of billionaires and corporations, when those elected to positions of power spread hate and play on fear, when so many in a community struggle so hard to access health care, when the cost of groceries is so high and when it is so difficult to find a safe roof over your head to call home, the conditions are created where individuals can come to power willing to do and say things that have not been done before and willing to take those pieces of hate-filled rhetoric spoken in quiet spaces where nobody thinks anyone will ever find out and turn them into action. We observe in the election of Donald Trump one such individual taking office again in the United States, and so many in our community are so worried by that, because our government—this Labor government—has decided to continue with the Liberal policy of closely binding us to the United States through the AUKUS agreement. Many in our community do not want to see our foreign policy set by Donald Trump. They do not want to see Australian men and women potentially put in harm's way to serve in a war that that man might start. Many here in our community are wondering how we ensure that such an individual is never able to take power here in Australia. The answer—the action—that is being demanded of this parliament at this moment is that we address these causes and take bold action to ensure that people can get the health care they need, affordably access the food they need, and have a house—a home—to call their own; that people in this place call out hatred and those who play on fear each and every time; and that no man in a position of power is ever allowed to get away with speaking about a woman in the way that Donald Trump has been able to in past generations. (Time expired) 16:38 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to speak on this motion from the Australian Greens and highlight that President Trump has been elected as the 47th President of the United States by a functioning system of democracy. It is different to ours, granted, but it has checks and balances that keep executive power in check. At the end of the day, it is the choice of the American people as to who they wish to be their president. The Greens have just said that he will say things that have never been said before. I noticed that a lot of people gave him grief about his comments on America wanting to buy Greenland, as though he'd somehow gone off the reservation. If you look at history, there have actually been negotiations before between Denmark and the US about Greenland, and they actually agreed a price. The US Congress opted not to pay the money, so it didn't go through, but he is hardly the first person to talk about this issue. What is important to remember is that the US has overwhelmingly, under whomever has become the president, been a force for good in the world, and that is to Australia's benefit. We benefit from the rules based order. We benefit from the influence of the people of the United States, through our security relationships, economically and in the people-to-people links. If the Greens want to look overseas and be critical—and here they have said that President Trump is a threat to Australia and the world because of his actions on things like human rights et cetera—they could at least be consistent. I note that on Insiders, on the ABC, the Deputy Leader of the Greens refused to say whether Hamas should be disbanded. Given that Gaza has not been a democracy for a long time now, and they're a terrorist group with an awful track record on human rights, you'd think that the Greens could at least be consistent. If they want to look overseas in a more positive sense, perhaps they could look at Finland, where Tea Tormanen, of the Greens party in Finland, led the movement to preference science, engineering and economics over ideology when she moved her party to support the introduction of nuclear power in Finland. What was the result? Finland now generates power that is 98 per cent emissions free, and its power prices have dropped to the equivalent of A$0.12 per kilowatt hour, compared with my home state of South Australia, where we pay 45c per kilowatt hour and sometimes even higher. If President Trump is such a danger to the world, why do his policies agree with those of the Greens in Finland and President Biden, his Democratic predecessor? Both are supporters of nuclear power because it provides lower cost, lower emissions and more reliable power. And that's not just the executive order signed by President Trump or the IR Act passed by President Biden. If you look at groups like the OECD, the IEA, engineers and economists, such as economists at Frontier Economics, the studies and modelling from these independent expert bodies highlight that, unlike the ideology of the Greens and Labor, which is driving up the cost of living and the cost of power here in Australia, the decision to consider the science, the engineering and the economics will put a nation on a trajectory to lower power costs. If you are questioning whether we have a problem, just read the reports today from Independent Food Distributors Australia, who highlighted that under the approach the Greens and Labor have taken, ideologically driven, the Godden Food Group, for example, as their power contract expired, faced an increase of 238 per cent to renew it. So, Australians should be asking, in the next month or two, whether they are better off now than they were 2½ years ago. Do they want more of the same? Do they want to see an alliance between the Greens, ideologically driven, and Labor? Or do they want to see economics, engineering and science underpinning a policy that has been proven globally to drive down the cost of electricity, which will drive down the cost of living? If they want the latter, they need to vote for the coalition, who will get Australia back on track. 16:43 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also rise to speak very briefly on the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim here today. And well, well, well: 2025 has started, and the Greens are already up to their old tricks again. It is so typical to see this type of juvenile behaviour occurring, when we started on a positive note earlier today here in Canberra. The types of motions that we typically see from some of the crossbench really are disappointing—to waste the Senate's time debating these types of motions. But here we are. What we saw in the United States in the presidential election last November was the very essence of the democracies that we all take for granted and are very proud of around the world. We must respect the democratic processes and outcomes that took place in the United States. These democratic values that we share form the very basis of the very strong relationship Australia has with the United States—that is, adhering to the rule of law and respecting those fundamental freedoms and free and fair elections, regardless of the result. The American people have spoken, and we must respect their right to determine their own future for themselves, just as the Australian people will at our own federal election this year. Regardless of the results, we will have fair and free elections, and, if need be, there will be an orderly transition of power. That is the best way we can conduct any democracy. It's also fair to say that President Trump is like no other president we've seen before. From what we saw when he was last in the Oval Office and from what we will see over the next four years, it's fair to say that his approach is always not very conventional. Having said that, we need to respect the outcome of the election last year. President Trump has also made it very clear that he's going to do things very differently. We shouldn't be surprised as he implements his 'America first' agenda. As two nations, the United States and Australia have so much in common. But we are also two very different sovereign independent nations with our own ways of how we conduct business. Just as we respect the rights of American citizens to determine their own future, we have those same rights here in Australia. Equally, as Australians we are confident in our values, in our place in the world and in our ability to deliver on our national interests. So, contrary to what the Australian Greens are arguing in the motion, it's not all doom and gloom. My message to everyone, particularly those on the crossbench, is to keep calm and carry on. If anything, we should be more concerned about some of the rhetoric that is occurring from the crossbench and from the Greens. Words and actions do matter in this place, and, unfortunately, what we have seen over the course of the last 18 to 24 months is quite alarming, particularly around issues of antisemitism and other issues affecting our community right now, causing instability in social cohesion. We've debated and discussed how important it is to make sure that we continue to embrace and invest in our very proud multicultural and diverse community here in Australia. It is also interesting to see that the Australian Greens, despite the motion before us, have a track record on foreign affairs and defence which I think is quite alarming. They have consistently used divisive tactics to get a message across solely for short-term political gain. They want to slash defence spending and withdraw from the AUKUS trilateral security partnership, which is much more than just submarines; it is about industry and jobs and manufacturing. It's also about investments in critical minerals, which will help us get to net zero, and I think that is a real positive for this country. The Greens have always believed that we should have no relationship with the US. If it were up to them, Australia would cut ties with most of the world. Our relationship with the US is fundamentally important, and we'll continue to strengthen this alliance. It is one that is based on enduring friendship and shared values. In fact, Australia was one of the very small number of countries to receive an invitation to the recent inauguration, and that is a true demonstration of our alliance. We'll also work cooperatively with the US and the administration regardless of who that might be, as America's success is our success, and I know that Australia looks forward to working with the Trump administration over the next four years to advance our country's interests and to deliver prosperity and security for all in the region. (Time expired) 16:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria How infected by Trump derangement syndrome must some in this place be when they want to spend valuable time not debating the important issues but arguing that a democratically elected president is a danger to Australia and to the world. Well, let's have the argument. President Trump has insisted that there are only two genders—male and female. Well, he's right. Is this a threat to the cosmos, or is this basic common sense affirmed by biology? President Trump has insisted that sovereign nations must secure their borders. Is this a threat to the free world? If I were to visit any of the homes of the woke Left of this country tonight, would I find their front doors wide open so anyone can come through? Of course not. They double-lock their front doors while bleating on about secure national borders being immoral. What has President Trump done? He's promised to crack down on government waste. Imagine a world where faceless, nameless bureaucrats are held accountable! 'But President Trump is a danger to the free world,' they will still screech. Is ending the Left's obsession with DEI in the military a danger? I would have thought that prioritising niche sexual fetishes in the military over strength and competence would have been considered the real danger. The Left's hysterics over President Trump only demonstrate how dangerous the Left really are to the world and to democracy. They complain about President Trump being a populist. What's wrong with that? What is populism? It's doing what the majority of people want you to do; that's populism. When the Left complain that Trump is a populist, they're really just admitting that their own policies and their own ideas are so extreme and so nonsensical that nobody wants them. Then they claim that their lack of popularity is a virtue somehow. It would be hilarious if it weren't so silly. Donald Trump is not a threat to Australia—he's not. He's only a threat to the progressive Left in Australia and all across the world. Those people are trashing this great country and their own, wherever they might be, with their extreme ideas that nobody wants, nobody believes and nobody can afford. Do you know what Donald Trump is? He's exactly what the world needs; that's what he is. 16:51 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The election of Donald Trump last year struck fear into the hearts of millions in the US and across the world—particularly people of colour, women, LGBTQIA+ people, disabled people and those who care about our climate. This fear was justified. On just his first day in office, he exited the US from the Paris climate treaty, repealed measures that supported racial equity and that addressed discrimination against trans and intersex people, issued orders to increase deportations, expanded the death penalty, removed sanctions on violent Israeli settlers and so much more. Every one of these actions was catastrophic. This is a man who is deeply unfit for any public office, let alone the most powerful one. This is a man who belongs not in the oval office but behind bars. For Trump, every tragedy is turned into a new front in a culture war. Every calamity is an opportunity to play politics and attack marginalised communities. We saw that with his despicable response to the recent plane crash in Washington, which he baselessly blamed on the Federal Aviation Administration's diversity push and hiring of air traffic controllers with a disability. How utterly contemptible to attack a community that is already underrepresented in the workforce and discriminated against! Trump's actions have legitimised and emboldened racist, ableist, homophobic filth everywhere. Immigrants, trans people and other minorities have been less safe since Trump came to power. We must do everything we can to keep Trumpian hate, science denial and billionaire-loving politics out of this country. The most urgent task in that regard is to keep Dutton's mini-Trump Liberals out at this election. Disturbingly, Dutton has already started mirroring the culture warfare with his recent attacks on the Public Service's culture, diversity and inclusion workforce. Another urgent task is to fearlessly call out Trump's dangerous agenda, but so far only the Greens have had the courage to do that in here. The Albanese government must stand up to the US empire, rip up the cooked AUKUS deal and condemn Trump's policies in the harshest terms possible. That's what needs to be done. 16:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania If you can't see the slide into fascism that's currently happening in the United States, you are simply not paying attention. At Donald Trump's inauguration, as the billionaire oligarchs lined up to pay their obeisance, the biggest of them all with the highest profile of them all, Elon Musk—the person with probably the biggest social media reach in the world, in part because he owns one of the biggest social media platforms in the world—literally gave a Nazi salute. For people who are going to try to argue that it wasn't actually a Nazi salute, I'll say this: if you're one of the highest-profile people in the world and a massive global debate erupts about whether or not you gave a Nazi salute and you don't come out and say, 'It wasn't a Nazi salute,' then it was a Nazi salute. The United States is sliding into fascism under Donald Trump, and it is marginalised communities who are going to pay the price: black skinned and brown skinned people, migrants in the US, women in the US, and transgender and queer folks in the US. They're going to be persecuted, demonised and blamed for all the problems of the day. And do you know what else is going to pay the price? Nature is going to pay the price under his 'drill, baby, drill' policies of destroying nature. The climate is going to pay the price, as we're already seeing a withdrawal from global climate action. President Trump is a disaster for humanity. He belongs behind bars, not in the Oval Office. 16:56 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I was fortunate enough to spend some time in the States back in the 1990s, when I did a shared service implementation down in Sarasota in the great state of Florida. I was invited to go fishing one afternoon with the husband of one of the female staff who worked for me at the time. His name was Woody, and he had a mullet down to his shoulders. He had a big mo, and he drove an F-150. I said to Woody: 'What's the go with guns in this place? Why are you guys so mad about guns?' He just came back at me with one line straight off the tip of his tongue. He said, 'We don't trust the government.' I often reflect on that statement, because back in the 1990s the biggest political scandal in the US was Bill Clinton engaging in improper sexual relations with a female half his age, and somehow I don't recall the Left having too much of an issue with that. That spirit of Woody reflects the spirit of the American Revolution in 1776, and that spirit is very important because it was the manifestation of the European Enlightenment, the ideal that power will no longer belong to those above us but will come from the grassroots movement. That's what the American Revolution was all about in 1776, when they sought to overthrow the tyranny of the Currency Act of 1763, where the British and King George III stopped the American colonies from printing their own currency. There was also, of course, the principle of no taxation without representation, with the Boston Tea Party. It's very important to understand that what Trump represents, regardless of whether or not you like the person, is the fact that people wanted to drain the swamp. They are sick and tired of the deep state. The great American people are sick and tired of seeing billions of dollars get wasted on foreign wars and on protecting other countries and not their own. So I welcome Donald Trump and wish him all the best. 16:58 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria The US election was scarier than previous ones. Why? Because both major parties here in Australia have handcuffed our country's sovereignty to a bunch of white elephant nuclear submarines to the tune of $368 billion. We have to accept the result of the American election, but we have a responsibility in this place to protect our democracy from oligarchy, billionaires and climate deniers. Right now, a disinformation machine with close ties to the Liberal Party is throwing millions of dollars at a campaign to fight the Greens. Advance is using the same divisive language and campaign strategies as the Trump campaign. This Liberal Party aligned group wants to pit groups within our community against one another and keep us distracted from prospective prime minister Dutton's real agenda. Why is Advance attacking the Greens? Because we threaten the profits of the big fossil fuel corporations who are their corporate mates and donors. Why would a fossil fuel backed lobby group attack the Labor Party? They've approved 32 new coal and gas projects. The fossil fuel sector isn't going to attack the Labor Party; they just tap on the minister's shoulder and—oops!—there go the nature positive laws. We know things would be worse under Dutton, but emissions have risen under Labor, and that will be the unforgivable legacy of this government. The Greens in this place have a job, and the people at the ballot box have a job too. Our job is to push one of these sad, old, dying major parties to cancel AUKUS. Trump is a danger to democracy, and we can't keep contracting out our foreign policy to the US. The job of those at the ballot box is to keep Temu Trump out of office and to vote for protecting the environment, for real cost-of-living relief, for taxing the corporations to fund full dental into Medicare and for the things that genuinely improve people's lives. Bring on the election! 17:00 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Yesterday, Senator Cash told us that Peter Dutton will take 'exactly the same attitude as President Trump' if he gets to be PM. What a chilling prospect. Donald Trump has appointed Nazi-saluting billionaire Elon Musk to take a hatchet to public services. He started by shutting down, with immediate effect, the US agency for international aid. I've had development experts in my office today telling me that this means kids in Timor aren't getting breakfast and women across the Pacific have lost access to reproductive health care. That's Trump, that's DOGE and that's Musk at work. What does a Dutton government offer? The same attitude and 36,000 jobs gone out of the public sector. But he doesn't say who, he doesn't say what and he doesn't say that he will instead direct billions of public dollars in a massive stream of profits to his big corporate mates, the consultants and the labour-hire companies, at three times the cost, dripping with conflicts of interest. Instead of a climate department, we'll have the big four writing climate policy while servicing the world's biggest fossil fuel producers. We've already seen it—we spent two years criticising it in the Senate—and the coalition want to bring it back in Trump's image. To coalition cuts in Trump's image, we say no. There's no place for it. There's no place for giving public resources to the billionaires and the big corporations. (Time expired) 17:01 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The election of President Donald Trump was certified in every American state, by Democrats and Republicans alike and in Congress. The 2024 election was a textbook application of the United States' republic model of government. In his first two weeks, President Trump has secured the border against illegal arrivals, overnight adding Mexican and Canadian troops to police their side of the border and lifting threats of tariffs. President Trump has prevented the Chinese takeover of the strategic Panama Canal, and his team have made a huge stab at putting the cleaners through US government waste, some of which appears criminal and seditious in nature. President Trump has withdrawn the USA from the World Health Organization, from the World Economic Forum and from climate change tyranny and fraud. These are moves One Nation has advocated for 20 years. Executive orders have destroyed woke DEI and transgender ideology while reaffirming support for gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans. Again, this is One Nation policy. President Trump is not a threat to democracy here or in the United States. He is a threat to the Greens, who are watching the pushback to their neo-Marxist identity politics. Their toxic ideology is rightly being dispatched to history's sewers. President Trump did not start the pushback against woke ideology; Australia did when everyday Australians rejected the Voice proposal, and the Irish did when they rejected the fragmentation of their families in a referendum there. President Donald Trump's actions are in accord with One Nation policies, and of that we are very, very proud. Trump puts America first; One Nation proudly puts Australia first. 17:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales In just two weeks in power, Donald Trump has already threatened to invade Greenland and Panama, created a global trade war, celebrated and emboldened the far right, empowered billionaires and abolished US aid. Instead of distancing ourselves from the US, Labor and the coalition are in lockstep, trying to handcuff us to them. Donald Trump's bizarre threats to use military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland should have been a red line. Instead, when the Minister for Defence was asked if Australia would join an invasion, he said he looked forward to working with the US. He congratulated Trump and he waffled. He couldn't bring himself to say, 'We would never join a US invasion of Panama or Greenland.' So, if Canada keeps pushing back on Trump's tariffs, will we join the US in invading them too? Surely, saying we won't join the US in its next illegal war is the bare minimum we can expect from this government. After following the US into Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, this lot can't even rule out an invasion of Greenland. Instead, the Albanese government wants to be Trump's little loyal puppy, because they want AUKUS; they want a handful of nuclear submarines. And they're even more desperate to avoid a fight with the coalition. It makes one thing very, very clear: AUKUS has nothing to do with keeping Australia safe and everything to do with being a loyal, unthinking servant of the United States. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question is that the motion moved by Senator Steele-John at the request of Senator McKim be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:09]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Pratt)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 59 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 20 of 2024-25 59 17:12 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This is a remarkable report card from the Audit Office on the Department of Defence. Every time I think Defence has reached its ultimate disappointment, it is able to do it again, with Secretary Moriarty asleep at the wheel, Minister Marles asleep on the tiller, and the whole thing going in the wrong direction. And when the Audit Office has a look at it, get this: the 21 major projects at the Audit Office looked at are collectively 37 years behind schedule. Like, people die waiting for these things to happen. Entire careers begin, blossom, fade and end in the Department of Defence before any of these projects ever actually come to fruition. Not only are they taking forever, with 442 months of delays for these projects; because of the delays and because of the utter incompetence in Defence procurement, these projects have ballooned by $81.4 billion. And $40 billion of that is just pure cost blowout—$40 billion! What other part of government can piss $40 billion up against the wall and have both Labor and the coalition come together and give them a big bear hug and say how amazing they are? They love all their gold glint, so can we give you another medal? It is only in Defence, because the oversight of Defence by the war parties in this place is pathetic. It's like having a poodle in charge of its owner. It is utterly pathetic. Let's just look at one of the projects—the Hunter Class Frigate Program. That was meant to be a $25 billion project; it's now blowing out. We don't know the exact figure, but I think, to get 2½ of them—maybe it's 2½; maybe it's three—it's like $25.9 billion. It's $25.9 billion, and you get like 2½ boats! In any other navy, spending $25.9 billion on 2½ boats would lead to court martials. It would lead to national investigations. The US is outraged that their frigates, which are the equivalent of Australia's Hunter class frigates, are going to cost about A$2.5 billion a pop, and we're spending more than $10 billion or so on each of them. Pound for pound, these will be the most expensive machines on the planet. And what does Labor do? They give everyone a promotion. What does the coalition do? They say they want more of it. If you want to destroy Australia's capacity to defend itself, build more Hunter frigates. You're just washing the Defence budget down a never-ending drain to produce a handful of boats that, actually, most defence experts say are woefully undergunned at the end of the day. As they keep tacking new things onto it—at one point, they were going to capsize in a high sea. Ten billion bucks for a boat that's years behind schedule, might capsize in a high sea and is undergunned at the end of the day—who does this? I know! It's Minister Marles and Secretary Moriarty and the same bunch. I have been waiting for a response from the NACC about a referral that I sent in about the utterly corrupted process that actually gave us the Hunter frigates project in the first place. I think it has been more than a year that we've been waiting for a response from NACC, because they're grinding their way through the endless documents, and we're still wondering where the secret documents are that were shredded and that failed to record who made the key decisions on the Hunter frigate projects. We're still waiting for an outcome from the NACC on our corruption referral, and, of course, it should be subject of a referral. They have other projects—things that don't even rate a mention normally in a defence budget, like the Growler, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Triton drones, which all had budget blowouts between $1 billion and $10 billion. This government is spending more than $1 billion buying three or four drones. They're being chewed up in the Ukrainian conflict. It's like a thousand a week, and we're buying four for over $1 billion? What is wrong with the defence department? What is wrong with Labor and the coalition that they just give Defence this sea of money? It's utterly wasted. It doesn't make us any safer. It creates a dangerous culture of non-accountability in Defence, and that's even before you suck another $368 billion out of the Defence budget. What a disaster, what a scandal, what a disgrace and what a disgrace Labor and the coalition are. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Consideration 60 COMMITTEES 60 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 60 Government Response to Report 60 17:18 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory In respect of the government response to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report into the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I was very grateful to the Senate for supporting an inquiry into my first private senator's bill, which seeks to establish a duty of care and protect young people and future generations from climate harm. I would like to extend my thanks to everyone who was involved in the inquiry. Thank you to the 43 people who gave evidence at the public hearing. Doctors, nurses, young people, scientists and lawyers all clearly articulated just how this bill would help protect children and future generations. Thank you to the 403 organisations and members of our community who took the time to write a submission to the inquiry, and thank you to the hundreds of people who wrote to the committee in support of the bill. Thank you to the 25,000 people who signed a petition in support of this bill, and thank you to the committee secretariat for the huge amount of work that went into this inquiry. I would have liked to thank the government for the response to the committee report, but I can't. In fact, it's probably another contender for this government's 'Weak as Piss' award. It's a two-page dismissal of the thousands of pages of submissions and the hundreds of people and organisations who supported this bill. It's a two-page dismissal of young people who are saying, 'Our futures matter.' When we saw the coalition, when they were in government, argue that they did not in fact have a duty of care to young people, we thought Labor would do better. But we were sorely mistaken. Of the 403 submissions, just one opposed the bill outright—the Institute of Public Affairs, the think tank that has awarded Gina Rinehart an honorary life membership and has peddled climate change denial for the past several decades here in Australia. What we have here is the government siding with the IPA rather than listening to experts, academics, doctors and even unions. More than that, it's the government siding with the IPA ahead of the young Australians and their parents who are calling for our future to be protected. In this critical decade, the disrespect the government shows to young Australians and their parents is astonishing. The disrespect does not end there. This response shows a lack of respect for the Senate. Procedural resolution 44(3) of the Senate requires the government to respond to recommendations contained in minority reports. My dissenting report has two recommendations. The government responded to neither. The response only adds to the long list of ways this government has failed to tackle the root causes of some of the big issues we face. Instead of acting to protect children and future generations, Labor has approved over 30 new or expanded coal and gas projects since taking office. This is a complete betrayal of the young people we should have a duty to protect—and the government know it. They know it. Go on their social media. There's nothing when they approve a fossil fuel project. When they approve a renewables project or knock back a fossil fuel project, there are posts—lots of Instagram posts telling the world how great they are on climate. On the one hand, they want to talk about the transition; on the other hand, they want to continue expanding the fossil fuel industry, against all expert evidence and advice, and beyond that—against the pleading of climate scientists, who've studied this their whole life and are saying: 'We are heading towards disaster.' Our current path leads us towards and past three degrees of warming by the end of the century. For most people in this Senate, that's just a date in the future when we won't be around. But for a young person born today, that will be their old age; that'll be the life of their children and their grandchildren. I find it really hard to cop that we have two major parties in Australia that believe that they do not have a duty of care to young people on climate—the issue that future generations will look back and judge us on. You don't have the moral courage to actually stand up against fossil fuel companies and against some in the media who have shares in fossil fuel companies, and you bow to them and you still take their donations. We owe our children and our grandchildren far better than this. On our current trajectory, we'll be saying goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef, parts of northern Australia will become uninhabitable and our cities will become heat sinks. This is not alarmist; this is what the experts are telling us. And yet Labor is pretty happy to keep heading in that direction. They've got all the talking points about the transition, to be sure, and they're better than the coalition on genuinely heading towards the transition, but they are not willing to let go of fossil fuels; they're not willing to get on with a genuine transition where we actually use the fossil fuels we have while we transition to renewables. They're wanting to expand them, and they're saying to Woodside and Santos: 'What do you need from us? Do you need legislation? Here's the sea dumping bill.' It's disgraceful. It is so disgraceful. And future generations and young people are going to judge us. So I'd say to the Senate: which side of history do you want to be on when we have an opportunity to legislate a duty of care to young people? We can no longer say to them, 'Everything's going to be okay.' But what we can say to them is: 'We're going to do everything we can from here on in, here in Australia, and then show international leadership.' We owe our young people a duty of care. I want to thank the many young people who have put so much time and effort into the campaign to have a duty of care—to have a government that actually says: 'Your future is important to us, and, beyond just saying it, we're actually going to set this up in legislation where we have to consider the impacts on you.' Thank you to all you young people out there who've got involved, who've raised your voice, who've come to parliament and who've met with parliamentarians across the political spectrum, and thank you to the many parliamentarians who have met with them. I see it as totally inevitable that, at some point in the future, we'll have a parliament that actually recognises this. Clearly, we do not at the moment, with this duopoly running the show. But that's going to change, and I would urge young people not to lose heart. There is much to do, yes, but keep staying involved. Keep pushing your local representative. And, if you are 18 or over at this election, actually find someone who doesn't just believe that they have a duty of care but is willing to actually put that into our laws and hold decision-makers to that. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 62 Additional Information 62 17:29 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I table additional information relating to the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 [provisions] report. 17:29 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The Albanese Labor government, at the end of last year, teamed up with Peter Dutton's coalition to push through the most extreme anti-migrant and anti-refugee policies Australia has seen since the White Australia policy. They made this law even before the report into this bill was tabled and they used the guillotine to avoid debate in this house. The bill is part of a race to the bottom on migration that we are seeing from both Prime Minister Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton, and the bill builds on the cruel regime of offshore detention and processing that they started together over a decade ago, deliberately subjecting thousands of people to torturous conditions. It allows the government to bribe foreign governments to take people who Australia is forcibly removing from Australia. Someone can be removed to a third country when they are without a visa or are on a bridging visa and cannot return to their country of origin. That is tens of thousands of people—over 80,000 people, the department told us. The law cannibalises parts of Labor's earlier failed Trump-style travel ban which they then picked up and passed. In particular, it allows the government to force people to choose between indefinite detention or forced removal to a third country where they will have no rights and no protection. On past practice, we know where Labor and the coalition want to send people. They want to send them to Nauru, PNG or even Cambodia, which have very poor human rights records and where it can even be a criminal offence to identify as LGBTIQ. Many countries point to Australia to legitimately criticise our human rights protections when we do things like this. Once people are deported to that country under Labor's laws, there will be no protections. The country doesn't even have to be a signatory to the refugee convention. It will be lawful under the bill for people to be deported to that country and then jailed straightaway, with no work rights and no medical rights—just straight to jail. In fact, the only protection in the bill is for decision-makers, who can't be held liable for sending people to third countries even when they know it's likely to cause serious harm or death, protecting themselves as they deliberately harm refugees. You know the government are about to do something extremely cruel when a large part of the bill is dedicated to making sure that, when they harm people, they can't be held to account. We've already seen in the context of Nauru and PNG that Australia bribing third countries to commit human rights abuses on our behalf causes lasting damage to the people we send, often corrupting those governments' own processes, and to political and moral standards here as well. I went to PNG at the end of last year and I saw just some of the people who have been so brutalised by Australia's deportation. I went to Port Moresby and I saw the appalling state of health that they are in. Australia is working with PNG to withdraw even their bare level of health cover now and, for many of them, throw them into homelessness by withdrawing the medication and any access to health. It's a death sentence being delivered as we speak by Home Affairs officials in PNG, working with the PNG government. It's appalling. This bill has also given this government or a future coalition government the power to share people's criminal records without their consent with any other government to help facilitate their removal once they've bribed that government. That means you may well have a situation where someone has, say, fled Saudi Arabia because they were being persecuted or feared persecution because of their gender identity or maybe homosexuality only to have the Australian government force them into a third country that also criminalises them for their identity and then share their criminal record from Saudi Arabia with them to see them persecuted and prosecuted. When this was pointed out to Labor in the inquiry, they just brushed it away as if it didn't matter. These people don't matter to Labor, and they certainly don't matter to the coalition. When someone commits an offence in our country, they are meant to go to court and a judge is meant to decide what happens. That's how the law is meant to work. Everyone is meant to be treated the same and equally. But, instead, Labor and the coalition have joined together to create this new pretend legal space which lets politicians and bureaucrats punish people outside of the courts. It's obviously a threat to the rule of law in Australia. If you think it will end there, if you think the likes of Peter Dutton will end it there, with just applying bureaucratic and political imprisonment on refugees and migrants, you haven't been a student of history. Under this bill, a person who has fled a country fearing persecution and has maybe lived here for a decade and had kids, worked here and paid taxes can now be literally forced to choose between detention forever, away from their kids, or forced removal, breaking up families, to countries like PNG or Nauru. The government actively demonised and dehumanised migrants and refugees when it pushed this bill, and it joined with Peter Dutton to do it. But make no mistake: the people who will be punished here are our neighbours, our friends and often our loved ones. The Greens keep asking Albanese and Labor to work with us to protect multicultural Australia and stop the fear and division around migrants and refugees, but instead Labor have handed immigration policy to Peter Dutton's coalition, using people who migrate to Australia as political scapegoats to distract from their own major failings to deal with the housing crisis, fairness and properly funding Medicare. I don't think the public will fall for this, and I think this Prime Minister has shown that he cannot beat Peter Dutton on this issue, but I know the Greens and millions of Australians can join together and do that. We want a multicultural Australia where everyone is treated fairly and migrants have the ability to build their lives here with their families as part of the community, and that's a country that I and the Greens know is worth fighting for. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 63 Report 63 17:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the report of the committee on Australia's efforts to advocate for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee 63 Additional Information 63 17:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the chairs of respective committees, I present additional information received by the committees on inquiries as listed at item 16 on today's Order of Business. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 63 Report 63 17:36 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the 507th and 508th reports of the committee, as well as executive minutes relating to other reports of the committee. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 63 Report 63 17:37 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to take note of the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on an inquiry that I had a privilege of serving on as Deputy Chair. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Few issues go as directly to the core of human rights and justice as the abolition of the death penalty. The right to life is fundamental, and Australia has long upheld the position that capital punishment has no place in a just, humane and civil society. Yet, while our nation abolished the death penalty decades ago, it remains entrenched in many parts of the world, including in many neighbouring regions. This inquiry reaffirmed what we already know: the death penalty is an irreversible and deeply flawed punishment; it is applied disproportionately to the poor and the vulnerable; it is often imposed in legal systems where due process is absent or unreliable; and, as wrongful convictions throughout history have shown, once it is carried out, there is no remedy, no reversal and no second chance. Australia has a longstanding commitment to opposing the death penalty, but opposition alone is not enough. This report highlights the importance of active and consistent advocacy, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, where countries such as Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia continue to impose capital punishment. And it has to be said how disappointed this parliament is at the execution of a Taiwanese citizen just last month, Taiwan's first execution in five years. The committee's recommendations provide a clear path forward. First, we must embed opposition to the death penalty in Australia's diplomatic and trade relationships, ensuring that abolition remains a key human rights priority. Second, we must review our law enforcement corporation agreements, ensuring that Australian intelligence or assistance is never used in cases that could lead to an execution. Third, we must continue building international coalitions, using our voice to push for reform at every opportunity within the United Nations, through bilateral engagements and in regional forums. These are, of course, not abstract principles. We saw firsthand the human cost when Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed in Indonesia despite repeated appeals for clemency. Their deaths sparked national debate, reminding Australians of the moral imperative to oppose state sanctioned killing. We cannot afford to be complacent. The international trend is clear: the world is moving away from capital punishment, with over 70 per cent of nations either having abolished it or no longer carrying out executions. Australia must ensure that progress continues and accelerates. I commend this report to the Senate and urge my colleagues to reaffirm Australia's unwavering commitment to abolition, not just in words but through action. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 64 Report 64 17:40 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Review of administration and expenditure no. 22 (2022-2023): Australian intelligence agencies. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I also have some remarks in relation to the report I've just tabled—theReview of administration and expenditure no. 22 (2022-2023): Australian intelligence agencies. This review is one of the key functions of the intelligence and security committee, set out by section 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, and is undertaken on an annual basis. The committee is empowered to review the administration and expenditure of six of the 10 agencies that form part of Australia's National Intelligence Community, known as the NIC—they are ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD and ONI. In conducting its administration and expenditure reviews, the committee examined a large volume of classified evidence. For that reason, much of the detail of the review is not able to be publicly reported. The committee's report to parliament and my comments to the Senate today provide an unclassified, general overview of the committee's key findings. Having reviewed the administration of the six agencies for the 2022-23 financial year, the committee is satisfied that they are administering their outcomes and outputs effectively. In reviewing the expenditure of the agencies, the committee is similarly satisfied with their financial integrity, with their efforts to achieve value for money for the Australian taxpayer and with their management of budget and expenditure over the reporting period. The committee notes that the 2022-23 financial year continued on a trajectory of growth and change for several agencies, with the ongoing implementation of significant initiatives commencing the previous year, including ASD's REDSPICE program and the development of the National Security Office Precinct. The committee's monitoring these major projects, including by receiving regular briefings from relevant agencies on their progress and administration. In this review, the committee identified some specific focus areas for discussion with the agencies, including artificial intelligence, machine learning and bio-intelligence; the agencies' efforts to attract and retain staff with native language proficiency; and the agencies' use of external contractors. The committee was satisfied overall with the evidence it received on these areas of focus, while identifying some matters on which improvement could be made. The information provided by the intelligence agencies in relation to their engagement with AI and machine learning was detailed and useful. The committee was also pleased to see the agencies thinking and planning carefully to ensure the appropriate and effective use of these complex technological tools. The committee welcomed the agencies' engagement with the issue of attracting and retaining diverse staff with native language proficiency. Regarding the use of contractors by the intelligence agencies, the committee did not identify significant concerns, and noted efforts by some to review and rationalise their use of external consultants. The committee encourages the agencies to continue their endeavours and their transparency in this regard. The review of administration and expenditure remains an invaluable function of the committee, helping to provide the Australian public with confidence in the effectiveness and efficiency of Australia's intelligence agencies. These reviews form one key part of the comprehensive oversight of the intelligence community undertaken by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and by other bodies. The committee extends its appreciation to the six reviewed agencies for their engagement in the process and their candour in classified hearings of the committee. In addition, the committee would like to thank the Office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and the Australian National Audit Office, for their contribution of useful evidence to the committee's considerations. On that note, I commend the report to the Senate. I seek to leave to continue my remarks later, in case any other senators would like to make a contribution. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 65 Government Response to Report 65 17:45 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I present a government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee on its inquiry into the review of the Defence Industry Security Program. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government December 2024 Update to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report: The Defence Industry Security Program Review of Auditor-General Report 4 of 2021-22 Annex A: DISP Contracts Data Caveats, Data Sources, and Methodology Annex B: DISP Caveats, Contract Manager Data Sources, and Methodology Annex C: DISP Contracts and Contract Manager Data Future Improvements Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 71 Additional Information 71 17:45 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Thank you to my colleague and Australian Greens spokesperson for immigration Senator Shoebridge for your work on the Migration Amendment Bill and on this inquiry. Let's call out this legislation for what it is. It is punitive, unnecessarily cruel and a threat to multiculturalism in Australia. In the final hours of parliament in 2024, when we could have been working together to act on gambling reform, to pass nature laws or fix the housing crisis, Labor teamed up with Peter Dutton to push through draconian and cruel legislation designed purely to punish refugees, legislation that allows other countries to take up to 80,000 people currently in our community without any safeguards. Under this law, refugees who went to offshore detention but who are now in Australia can be sent literally anywhere in the world without regard for their safety, without any guarantees they won't be deported back to the very countries from where they fled persecution. These people are lawfully here contributing to our community, paying taxes and doing their best to take care of their families during a cost-of-living crisis. They are our neighbours, they are our work colleagues and they are our friends. Now they fear for their lives and loved ones, not knowing when they will be ripped from their community. But this vile legislation is only one part of the brutal antimigrant and refugee package Prime Minister Albanese teamed up with Peter Dutton to pass last year. Four years ago, the coalition government put forth a proposal to ban phones from people in migration centres. Four years ago, the public and Greens protested and advocated against this decision. And four years ago, Labor joined our cause. Labor recognised at that time this legislation was inhumane and unnecessarily cruel. They knew there was no cause for denying fundamental rights of communication to people trapped in the hell of mandatory detention, for people who came to Australia looking for safety. They recognised that this bill went against their values and their principles. Now, four years later, in government, Labor turned the exact same revolting proposal into law, stripping refugees and people seeking asylum in mandatory detention of their right to communicate, of their ability to contact their loved ones, to see their children's faces, connect with their home countries or to connect with their lawyers. Dutton and Albanese's anti refugee unholy trinity was completed with a final bill that included— Senator Ayres 16913 I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the senator's contribution but it would assist, I think, and be consistent with standing orders if people in the other place were referred to by their proper names or titles. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I'm sure Senator Hodgins-May understands that. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Opposition leader, Mr Dutton, and Prime Minister Albanese's anti refugee unholy trinity was completed with a final bill that included a Trump style travel ban that allows the government to prevent anyone from certain countries coming to Australia. The government did not even have the decency to tell the public who they were going to ban, but we suspect this will target countries like Iran and Sudan, placing permanent barriers between diaspora communities and their extended families and communities. This is what Labor are capable of when they team up with the coalition, ramming through laws that betray the very multicultural communities that voted them into power. Refugee and migrant communities were promised a different kind of government and leadership, one that protected social cohesion, quashed vilification and defended our proud multicultural Australia. Those dreams now lay in tatters. Prime Minister Albanese, what a disappointment you've turned out to be. What happened to your election promise to leave no-one behind, to hold no-one back? What happened to the light on the hill? It's quite clear that Labor and the Prime Minister do not care. They don't care to keep their election promise nor to protect human rights and refugees. To multicultural Australians—to anyone who came here as a refugee, to anyone who is part of a diaspora community: the Greens see you. We hear you, and we will continue to fight for you in this place. We'll continue to call out the major parties for their hypocrisy and disregard of human rights. We'll continue to fight any legislation that unnecessarily persecutes refugees, migrants or people seeking asylum. The election around the corner is a real opportunity to see change. We can elect more Greens into parliament and deliver meaningful reforms that protect refugees and human rights, reforms that celebrate diversity and put people over division. Australians are sick of voting for the two same parties and getting the same results. This election is their chance to draw a line in the sand and say: 'Enough of the fearmongering and dog whistling by the two major parties in this country. Let's embrace multiculturalism and respect the right of law and human rights.' I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Economics Legislation Committee 72 Additional Information 72 17:51 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to take note of additional information related to the Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 and Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 and move: That the Senate take note of the documents. This is a bizarre priority when the nation is very focused on housing issues, whether you are a younger person or an older person. To have a government in Canberra, for almost three years, prioritise giving a tax cut to foreign entities, foreign corporations or foreign fund managers—it could be BlackRock or Vanguard, or it could be a sovereign wealth fund—so that they can purchase Australian houses and construct houses in this country that Australians will never ever own is beyond bizarre. This model of perpetual renting is underpinned by this government. This government has decided that it will prioritise the interests of foreign fund managers over the punters. That is the reality, and that is why it passed—through a guillotine last year—a bill that prioritises the interests of foreign fund managers. This, of course, suits the foreign fund managers, but it also suits the great benefactors of the organised Labor movement today, the super funds. It suits them down to a tee. In fact, in the public hearing into this bill I was able to ask the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia what they thought of the idea. I asked, 'Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund?' Mr Clare, who was the official from ASFA, said, 'I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property.' I think that Mr Clare is wrong, and I think the government has a warped set of priorities because it is a government for vested interests, underpinned here by this agenda. Cameron Murray, who's an independent economist, has said that most houses in Australia today are owned directly by Australians: 67 per cent are owned by homeowners and over 30 per cent are owned by private individuals. Then there is public housing. The whole idea of build-to-rent is to turf the individual out and to bring in the institution. That's what you do when you run the country for three years for a few vested interests. When we had an opportunity to talk to the people on the front line of the housing crisis, the Housing Industry Association, we asked them: 'Where would this priority—build-to-rent—sit if you were going to try to solve the nation's housing crisis? Would it be in your top 10 issues?' They told the committee examining this bill that it would not be in the top 20 or 30. Of course, the reason that housing is such a major issue and the reason that younger Australians in particular feel the Australian dream is getting further and further out of reach is housing construction has collapsed under this government, it takes longer than ever to assemble a deposit, and the government's solutions do not work in the main. If you look at the data going back into the last few parliaments, the former government built almost 200,000 houses in each year on average. It went as high as 220,000 houses— Senator Ayres 16913 You didn't build any. You didn't build any homes. Senator BRAGG 256063 He's very sensitive about this, isn't he? We've gone from almost 200,000 houses built in Australia per year under the coalition to 170,000 on average under this government. Despite all the huffing and puffing, the bureaucracies, the Housing Australia Future Fund and all the other garbage policies of this government, this government has built bureaucracies and not houses. That is the reality. The government is embarrassed, and Senator Ayres is embarrassed. I'm sorry that he's embarrassed, but the numbers don't lie. We are down to 170,000 on average, and we need a quarter of a million. Housing construction has collapsed, and then we have the issue of the never-ending deposit time extending and extending. Under this government, most Australians will now have to wait another 14 months until they get a deposit. Depressing, isn't it? Then, to make matters worse, Labor's solution, Help to Buy, won't get you a house in almost every capital city. In fact, in my home state, just 14 per cent of houses in Sydney are eligible for this scheme, and only six per cent are eligible in Western Australia. So it's quite depressing. I'll say, before wrapping up and giving other people a chance to say something, my main point is that advancing an agenda around giving a tax cut to foreign asset managers is a warped priority. I think, when the government are able to look at this in the cold light of day, they will also admit that they would have been better off working on trying to get houses built and trying to help people bridge the deposit gap rather than running the government in favour of their favourite vested interests—which, generally speaking, are the super funds. But, in this case, they have been trying to tilt the scales in favour of foreign asset managers and foreign sovereign wealth funds by allowing them to become the perpetual landlords to Australians. Most Australians would say that is a sick distortion of the Australian dream, and this is why housing is in such a terrible mess under this government. Question agreed to. Energy Planning and Regulation in Australia Select Committee 73 Report 73 17:57 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria In respect of the final report of the Senate Select Committee into Energy Planning and Regulation in Australia, I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I'm pleased to share the findings of the energy committee, which was established on 16 December last year to examine the governance, planning and regulation of Australia's energy system. The final report was tabled immediately prior to Christmas on 20 December. The committee's objective was straightforward—that is, to inquire whether our energy frameworks are generally fit for purpose, capable of hitting decarbonisation targets, while continuing to deliver reliable and affordable electricity. Despite the very tight time limit it was given, just three short months, the committee managed to examine one of the most technical and complex parts of our economy and certainly one of the most important. This was possible because the committee enjoyed intense expert interest and participation, and I thank everyone for their time. The inquiry received more than 80 submissions, with testimony from over 35 expert witnesses drawn from academia; industry bodies; market bodies; and government, energy and environmental think tanks. I thank all the participants, the secretariat and my fellow committee members for their support. Our energy system, the national electricity market, as an engine that is simultaneously the largest contributor to our nation's productivity and to our carbon emissions. Through the inquiry, it became evident that the governance and planning of our system are not keeping pace with that system and particularly with the rapid technological shifts that are going on, industry energy needs, consumer cost-of-living pressures and our urgent decarbonisation goals. The inquiry revealed that Australia's energy market has critical weaknesses in governance, which have allowed planning ineffectiveness and economic inefficiency and have meant that the market has not kept pace with our needs. Those weaknesses are historical in origin—that is, what may have been sufficient in a largely coal fuelled system is completely inadequate for the revolutionary transition we need to achieve to power our economy and honour our international agreements. The energy committee report highlights the disconnect between what is needed to decarbonise swiftly and cost-effectively and what is actually happening in practice. It underscores how our historical frameworks cannot adequately deliver a modern, clean energy system. It has been broadly acknowledged that the inquiry was neither created nor conducted in order to seek or find fault or to score political points. Instead, it provided an opportunity to kickstart genuine reform. Unless it is ignored for paltry political reasons, it should serve as a catalyst to drive important governance and planning change that will set up our economy to be strong, clean and efficient for decades. The report lays out 22 practical recommendations for reform that address the gulf between what is needed for a swift economic transition and what is actually happening. It underscores how our historical coal focused frameworks cannot adequately deliver a modern, clean energy system. The inquiry found that the development of that energy system has only a gossamer-thin cloak of governance, with only an appearance of oversight and little genuine accountability. This is particularly true of the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO, the organisation that has been given enormous powers for the energy transition via its biennial Integrated System Plan, the ISP. That thin veneer of governance gives those charged with the transition just enough cover to maintain the status quo, leading to change at a glacial pace but with accompanying galloping costs—costs that are not borne by governments but passed straight through to energy consumers. By the echoing of the myth that true governance exists, Australians are being asked to keep believing that we are rapidly transitioning to green electricity generation, which, if true, is, I believe, due to households democratising energy, separate from what's happening in the NEM—that is, by making their own choices and installing rooftop solar at world-beating rates. Governance is not just a word; it is a recognised system of checks and balances to identify, manage and mitigate risks. Why? Simple: to ensure that what should occur is actually what is being done. The argument that governance of our energy system is adequate simply because AEMO says so is a nonsense. The private sector has learnt this the hard way through many failures, numerous royal commissions and government policy eventually catching up. We see the planning phase persist because there is no effective oversight, leaving AEMO effectively unaccountable and given a kind of papal infallibility on what they put in the ISP. AEMO wields considerable authority to plan the enormous amount of capital needed to transition our system, and surely it should be subjected to far more rigorous scrutiny, not less. It is noteworthy that, after four ISPs since 2018, there is little to show for it. Instead the ISP has, in effect, delivered very little of what AEMO has said was required. While they may have started out under different names, megaprojects such as VNI West, HumeLink and Marinus Link have not even started. Even Project EnergyConnect has only been built to the South Australian border, leaving most of the line yet to be built through New South Wales. Questioning of these projects has got louder and louder as the capital costs and timelines continue to grow exponentially. We all know that megaprojects of all types have a poor track record of both timeline and budget. Current ISP project cost forecasts have blown out to such an extent that surely, at some point, the projects should be withdrawn or alternatives sought. Instead, each ISP argues the case for them to proceed, regardless of whether they still make economic sense. At some point, sense should prevail and alternatives developed. That point may have already passed. But without appropriate oversight and accountability it is not possible to know. If the increased costs are deemed acceptable by those guiding the NEM, perhaps they should be transferred to government's balance sheet and be subject to the scrutiny and oversight that budgetary processes in parliament require. Greater oversight would mean that transmission and other decarbonisation projects would undergo transparent evaluation using consistent and reliable economic methodology. I want to be very clear. I'm not against building transmission. We will need a great deal of it. However, the current focus on interregional interconnectors brings significant opportunity costs. It incorrectly frames the problem as geographic—that is, moving power from one state to another—when the real challenge is a temporal mismatch, a mismatch between midday supply peaks and late-day demand surges. Expensive interconnectors do not solve that timing mismatch. For example, one of the simplest ways to make better use of our existing energy generation is by shifting electric hot-water heating to the middle of the day, when we've got a surplus of solar power. But only one or two states have even sought to address that. The first recommendation of the committee was for a comprehensive review by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission last did a review in 2013, so it's very much time that it did one again. It could rectify misplaced priorities and re-energise investment signals in areas such as storage and demand management. A more equitable model would drive innovation in storage and demand-side management, spurring faster decarbonisation while controlling costs. In conclusion, I look forward to the government's response, where we see a genuine acknowledgement of the problem, a genuine desire to resolve Australia's energy market challenges and real action taken to develop a relevant and futureproof energy system. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 18:08 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland At the outset I want to congratulate Senator Van for pursuing this initiative. It's a very timely review. I think Australians want answers as to why they are paying so much for electricity in a land blessed with so many energy resources. We should have if not the lowest then some of the lowest energy prices in the world, given the high-quality coal, the gas, the hydro in some parts of our country, and the solar and wind assets we have, too. We have all this stuff, but we now suffer some of the highest power prices in the world, certainly much, much higher than in like countries, like the United States and Canada, who have similar resources to our own. I didn't mention uranium. I will mention uranium later. We've got lots of that, too. So, I congratulate Senator Van. It's a shame the inquiry was not done earlier in this parliament's time. It's a shame it did not go for longer. I think we could have asked more questions and had more hearings on this—lots of follow-up questions. While, as I said, I think Australians want answers on this topic, I'm not so sure we got the answer about why we're paying so much for energy in this country from those who are running the system today. I support the recommendations Senator Van has gone through in his report. It's timely to do some more reviews on this. Certainly the so-called integrated system plan needs some reform, and I want to add further to that. I had some additional comments in the report that cover a range of topics, but I would sayat the outset that the integrated system plan—the ISP, as it's become known—is broken. It is broken, and either it needs to be radically fixed or we scrap it all and start again. The ISP is a relatively new phenomenon. It's not something that's been with us from time immemorial. It effectively came out of what became known as the Finkel review, which followed the statewide blackout—the 'black event'—that occurred in South Australia in 2016. The Finkel review recommended some kind of coordinated planning document. We've done stuff like this before, but the idea was to plan our transmission network in a coordinated way to reduce costs for Australians. Well, on that measure of reducing costs, the ISP certainly hasn't done that. Of course, we're getting up to nearly 10 years since 2016 and the South Australian blackout, and all that's happened is that our power prices keep going up and up, and every summer—and winter too—we seem to have an increasing number of blackout warnings. Sometimes there is loss of power to people. We do not have a reliable or an affordable system, and it's not working for Australians. One of the reasons why the ISP, or this planning process, is failing is that it has been corrupted and co-opted by politicians. It was meant to be somewhat independent, with just a bunch of engineers—boffins—running the numbers and presenting them to their political masters. Instead, what's happened is that the ISP now operates under a number of severe constraints imposed on them by the politicians, which effectively makes their results useless in comparison to other policies. If you follow the public energy debate, you'll now quite often see and hear people like Minister Bowen and even some of the energy regulators, who seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid, saying that the ISP shows that the current proposal, to move to an almost exclusively wind and solar renewable system, is the 'least cost pathway'. They often use that exact term: the 'least cost pathway'. The average Australians listening to that, along with senators from all the sides involved in this debate, seem to operate under the confused belief that somehow that means the pathway the regulators have chosen, the ISP that the politicians have decided to pursue, is the least costly of all options—that it actually has the lowest costs of all the options. In my report, I quote Minister Bowen in his press releases where he baldly says, 'The ISP shows that my plan for wind and solar is the least cost pathway.' That's not what it means at all. If you read the footnotes of the report—and as all the regulators admitted to Senator Van's inquiry—that's not what they do at all. What they do is assume that in 2030 we'll have 82 per cent of our grid powered by renewable energy. They shoot first and then go back to ask questions about how to get to that 82 per cent. It would be right and correct for Minister Bowen to say, 'It's the least cost pathway to get to my target of 82 per cent.' That's what they're trying to show. It's not right or correct to leave off those words, to say 'it's the least cost pathway' and leave it there and put a full stop after it—as Minister Bowen and Mr Westerman, the head of the Energy Market Operator, regularly do in our nation's media. I didn't make it a formal recommendation, but my first finding was that it would be good if those in positions of authority in our energy debate accurately described to the Australian people what they do. These are misleading statements at best. They are misleading to the Australian people, and what is clear from the evidence to our committee is that people like Mr Westerman know they are misleading, yet they continue to put out there the idea that somehow the work they are doing shows that 82 per cent renewables by 2030 is the right idea and that net zero emissions by 2050 is lower cost than coal. It does not show that at all. My second recommendation is that we do a proper report. Let's do it. Let's change the ISP, so that we do evaluate what it would look like if we removed the 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target. What would the costs be if we did that? What transmission lines would need to be built? What trees would need to be bulldozed? What people's properties would have to be run through? Let's look at that, and then we can have a proper comparison between two different alternatives. Let's run a scenario with nuclear. That's not done under the ISP. The CSIRO does not do that. They do not do a total system cost analysis of nuclear power. Let's do that in the ISP. What is the government afraid of? If they're so confident in what they say regularly in this place and out in the media—that nuclear's so expensive—then run the numbers. What have you got to be afraid of? Let's make that reform. On that, we should remove the nuclear ban. I've only got a few minutes left, but it is absolutely nonsensical for the country with the largest uranium reserves in the world to continue to ban a form of power that the rest of the world is rushing towards. They're rushing towards it, so why are we banning it? Senator Watt 245759 But you said it was a political tactic! Senator CANAVAN 245212 Minister Watt, I'll take that interjection. I just want everything, mate. I want everything. I'm one of the few voices in this debate to say that I support solar and wind. Let's build some of that. Let's build coal. Let's build uranium. Let's build nuclear. Let's build gas. Build it all! If you want lower energy prices, let's have it all. We've got it all; let's use it all. We're happy to export it to other countries. We export our uranium to other countries, but we ban it for ourselves. We export our coal to other countries; let's use it ourselves. The other thing I'll say in response to Minister Watt's objection is that we need to get over the idea that one form of power is going to solve every problem. This idea that it's one and nothing else—that it's renewables and nothing else or that it's nuclear and nothing else—is ridiculous. We have a complex, detailed industrial economy. We still have one—just! And different types of industry need different types of power. Some need coal-fired power. Those aluminium smelters up at Gladstone that Minister Watt and his government are trying to subsidise, when we just used to run them without subsidies, need a certain type of power. If you want to have data centres—data centres are not even in the ISP; that's another thing that needs to change—then data centres need a very reliable form of power. They're not going to be run on solar and wind. We can have different horses for different courses. We do not have to tie our star to just one naive set of power solutions. We should get rid of the target of 82 per cent renewables in 2030. That is a constraint that we're not even going to meet, and, clearly, that's coming out now in the public domain, so let's remove that constraint. We should move to a technologically neutral capacity investment scheme, which goes to what I was just saying. That was the recommendation of the Energy Security Board a number of years ago, but, again, it was co-opted by the political process through the ministerial council on energy. Ministers have removed the ability for us to use our coal and gas to firm up the system because they're ideologically opposed to this, and that is making everything more expensive. That's the core reason why we're all paying more for power—we're removing parts of our electricity system which are cheap, which are reliable and which can serve a purpose, for those varied demands that people have, and we're left with something that doesn't work. And, when things don't work, things start to break. It starts to become more costly to try and gaffer tape things together. People have to run diesel gen sets all over the place now. It is absolutely absurd for a country like us to do that. Finally, we should have a proper review of the net zero emissions goal. Why haven't we done that? New Zealand did it. They actually published it. They still went with it for some reason. They published it. Their own studies, as a New Zealand government who supported net zero, showed that wages would fall in New Zealand by eight to 28 per cent. If that were in Australia, that would be $7,000 to $28,000 a year. That's the cost of net zero. That's their figure. We've never done it. Why don't we do it? Again, what have people got to be afraid of? If you really support this stuff, do these reviews and show the Australian people the figures, and they might be able to understand why we're suffering under high power prices. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Economics References Committee 76 Report 76 18:20 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I want to address the Economics References Committee's report on the Australian taxation system. I thank everyone that made a submission. Yet again, there seems to be a dearth of interest from the two major parties in reforming Australia's taxation system. The Labor Party are only ever interested in increasing the subsidies that are funded by the taxpayer, and the Liberal Party have gone missing. They actually went missing on any significant, serious tax reform nine years ago when they were in government. It's way overdue. So far, they've stuck their toe in the water by giving a $20,000 tax deduction for entertainment to small business with a turnover of less than $10 million. It's only a temporary measure, for two years. This sort of tinkering and playing around the edges, rather than getting serious about tax reform, is one of the reasons why I decided to leave the party—apart from the corruption inside the Senate preselection. I spent 5½ years trying to get tax reform underway within the coalition. They are not interested in doing anything. The Australian people, as we saw by their submissions, are crying out for tax reform. So, get busy. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 77 COMMITTEES Consideration 77 DELEGATION REPORTS 77 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Brazil and the United States of America 77 18:21 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Brazil and the United States of America, which took place from 14 to 27 July 2024, and I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document. Leave granted. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This report gives an account of the Senate community affairs committee's parliamentary visit to Brazil and the USA in July 2024. The parliamentary visit aimed to support the committee's ongoing work in the policy areas of health care and affordable housing. On behalf of the delegation, there are a number of people that I wish to thank. First of all, the delegation developed the program with the assistance of the International and Parliamentary Relations Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the staff of the embassy of Australia in Brasilia, the staff of the embassy of Australia in Washington DC and the staff of the Australian Consulate-General in New York. The delegation is greatly appreciative of the work that was undertaken to develop an engaging and pertinent program to support the committee's work in the areas of primary healthcare models, First Nations health, rare cancers research, Lyme disease, menopause and affordable housing. During the visit to Brazil, the delegation was accompanied by officers from the embassy of Australia in Brasilia, led by Her Excellency Ms Sophie Davies, Australia's Ambassador to Brazil. In the USA, the delegation was accompanied by officers from the embassy of Australia in Washington DC, led by His Excellency the Hon. Dr Kevin Rudd AC, Australia's Ambassador to the United States, and by officers from the Australian Consulate-General in New York, led by Consul-General Ms Heather Ridout AO. The ambassadors, the consul-general and their staff provided comprehensive briefings and logistical assistance throughout the visit. Again, the delegation is greatly appreciative of the effort made to accommodate its needs and ensure a successful visit. There are some people the delegation would like to thank in particular: Mr Grant Morrison, Deputy Head of Mission and Ms Antonella Zugliani, policy officer, who helped develop the program in Sao Paulo and Brasilia and provided ongoing support. I say a special thanks to Ms Laura McKenna, the visits manager, who was very helpful in finding alternative accommodation for us when the delegation was stranded in Atlanta for three days due to the CrowdStrike outage, and also to the embassy staff in Washington DC, who located our luggage after we were separated from it. I'd also like to thank Mr Chris Munro, the director of public diplomacy and chief of staff to Consul-General Ridout, who developed the visit program for New York and provided visit support, and Mr Cameron Hunter, senior trade research officer, who developed the visit program for Washington DC and provided support during the visit. I particularly want to thank those people who were part of the delegation—Ms Apolline Kohen, the committee secretary; Senator Pratt; Senator Kovacic; and Senator Askew. I couldn't have picked a better group of people to have travelled with through Brazil and the USA. It was particularly apparent, I think, when we were stuck in Atlanta for three days, where we had some really challenging experiences, and I was very grateful to be travelling with such a wonderful group of people. Maybe it was because we were an all-women delegation—something that surprised some of the people who we were visiting overseas—but it was a great group to travel with, and I want to thank you for the way in which you conducted yourselves on that trip. I really enjoyed your company. One of the things that really stood out for me on the visit was the health system in Brazil. Brazil has a system where health care is a human right, and it really struck me that, in their attempt over the last 40 years to provide comprehensive, free health care to everyone in their country, they have a system that is working. It's more basic than the one we have here, but everybody in Brazil has access to a primary healthcare centre where they can see a doctor, a nurse practitioner, a dentist, a midwife and allied health professionals. The maximum waiting time—we said to them, 'What's it like on a really busy day?' and they said: 'People could be waiting a really long time. They might be waiting 90 minutes.' For a country that's only had a universal healthcare system for 40 years, it was impressive. It didn't matter who we spoke to. Whether we spoke to a health worker in a basic healthcare unit, someone in a secondary healthcare centre, the people in the city of Sao Paulo who are responsible for the department of health, or the people in the health ministry, every single person we spoke to understood the mission of that system, which is to provide universal health care to every citizen in Brazil. I think we've got something we can learn from this. They have dental care. We should have dental care in Medicare here, too. Thank you very much to everyone who was on the delegation. 18:26 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I also rise briefly to speak to our delegation report. It was a privilege to participate in this delegation. Without wanting to take too much of the chamber's time tonight, I'll commend to it the remarks of the head of the delegation. I also want to add my thanks to Apolline Kohen, who helped and supported us through some arduous moments when our travel was interrupted. There is no doubt about the value of these kinds of parliamentary delegations. As Senator Allman-Payne highlighted, they give you a chance to reflect on and gain insights into issues in our own jurisdictions and that we confront in Australia. You have a chance to have your eyes opened to how other people manage universal health care, cancer care, dental health, cancer research and how they work with First Nations populations—and a great many other issues. So, if you ever get a chance to go on a committee delegation, colleagues, I would recommend it, and I would also recommend the senators I travelled with as being terrific colleagues to go with. I give my thanks to Senator Kovacic, Senator Askew and Senator Allman-Payne, and may the almighty Atlanta Braves thrive into the future. 18:28 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I also rise to speak on the report of the delegation and I associate myself with the comments of both of my colleagues and the wonderful work that we all did, which wouldn't have been possible without Apolline Kohen and the consular teams in both Brazil and the US. Whilst we had some challenging times on the delegation, including being stuck in Atlanta for a number of days, I think we workshopped how an airport should work in a crisis—and, if they need our assistance, we'd be happy to provide that same assistance to them! I will be very brief in my further comments, which are that the one thing I specifically took away was the absolute desire of every official in every organisation that we met to share their knowledge with us and to find out what they could learn from us. It is an invaluable process. I am very grateful, particularly to the President and to the Senate, for the opportunity. 18:30 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I apologise for not being here for the contributions of my colleagues, but I would like to associate myself with them because I'm sure they were absolutely brilliant. I want to add my thanks to Apolline Kohen, the committee and the committee secretariat for making that trip such a wonderful trip for us and for ensuring that things ran so smoothly despite the hiccups along the way—especially in Atlanta. I want to thank the President and the Senate for the opportunity given to the community affairs committee. It's a real privilege for us, as committee members, to be given that opportunity. While we were there, we met with so many wonderful organisations, departments, individuals and not-for-profits, and each and every one of them were so welcoming and so giving of their time and their experiences. It was a real opportunity for all of us across a wide range of issues and topics, and it all reflected the work that we're doing back here, in Australia, within our committee. I'd also like to express my thanks to IPRO—the International Parliamentary Relations Office—and the embassy contacts in Brazil and the United States. They were fantastic and they stepped in when we needed them to help out, especially regard to urgent accommodation and travel. It was a great honour for all of us, I think, to have the opportunity to travel and to represent the Senate on this trip. I thank my four travelling companions—Apolline, in her absence, and the three in the room—and thank everybody for making it such a worthwhile and memorable trip. Question agreed to. BUDGET 78 BUDGET Proposed Expenditure 78 18:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table particulars of proposed and certain proposed additional expenditure for 2024-25: Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2025. Particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2025. Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2025. I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees. Leave granted. Senator WATT 245759 I move: That the documents, together with the final budget outcome 2023-24, be referred to committees for examination and report. Question agreed to. Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 79 18:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 2024-25 for portfolios and executive departments as listed on the Dynamic Red. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office. DOCUMENTS 79 DOCUMENTS Not-for-profit Sector Development Blueprint 79 Order for the Production of Documents 79 18:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I also table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the not-for-profit sector development blueprint. COMMITTEES 79 COMMITTEES Appropriations, Staffing and Security Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities—Select Committee, National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee, Procedure Standing Committee 79 Membership 79 18:32 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 18:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Appropriations, Staffing and Security — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Ruston Appointed—Duniam Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees — Discharged—Senator Chandler Appointed—Senator Sharma Participating member: Senator Chandler Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities — Select Committee — Appointed— Participating members: Senators David Pocock and Thorpe. National Disability Insurance Scheme — Joint Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Sharma Appointed—Senator Askew Procedure — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Ruston Appointed—Duniam Question agreed to. BILLS 80 BILLS Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2024, Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024, Navigation Amendment Bill 2024 80

Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2024

Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024

Navigation Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 80 18:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 80 18:35 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech es read as follows— FUTURE MADE IN AUSTRALIA (PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2024 Today I am proud to introduce the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This Bill is another major step in implementing the Albanese Labor Government's Future Made in Australia agenda, to deliver our country's next generation of prosperity. The net zero transformation is a golden opportunity for Australia. We have been dealt the most incredible set of cards as a country to make ourselves the primary beneficiaries of the net zero economy. We have a unique combination of geological, meteorological, geographical and geopolitical advantages. And we know it would be an egregious breach of our generational responsibilities as a government if we didn't play this winning hand. This legislation is part of how we make the most of that opportunity—but it's not the only part. It builds on the two other pieces of Future Made in Australia legislation that have already passed the House and will embed into law the disciplined and rigorous approach that will govern this agenda. It also builds on the significant and substantial progress we've made in delivering cleaner and cheaper energy since coming to office: Unlocking $67 billion in private investment through the Capacity Investment Scheme, introducing a new vehicle fuel efficiency standard, providing low-cost finance for household energy upgrades and reforming the safeguard mechanism. Our Future Made in Australia agenda is all about making Australia indispensable to the global net zero transformation. It recognises we'll do that by attracting and enabling private investment—not replacing it. Well-targeted public investment is an important and substantial part of our plan. But it is only a sliver of the private investment needed to transform our economy. The most important role for public investment will be to help unlock the vast amount of private sector investment we will need to deploy - An additional $225 billion by 2050 to transition the energy system and realise net zero opportunities in heavy industries, by one estimate. That's what this legislation and our production tax credits are all about. This Bill does three main things: Firstly, it will establish a hydrogen tax incentive worth $2 for every kilogram of renewable hydrogen produced by eligible projects that have reached a final investment decision before July 2030. Secondly, it will establish a critical minerals tax incentive worth ten per cent of the value of relevant mineral processing and refining costs for the production of any of Australia's 31 critical minerals. Both incentives apply for hydrogen or minerals produced between 2027-28 and 2039-40 and for up to ten years, per project. Thirdly, it will expand the role and remit of Indigenous Business Australia to help support more investment into Indigenous communities. These communities have some of the most to gain from the transition to net zero—and this legislation will help unlock these benefits. Renewable hydrogen and critical minerals are both essential to the world's path to decarbonisation. The government sees them playing a central role in Australia's net zero future and these tax incentives make that clear. This legislation provides industry the clarity and certainty it needs to invest in Australian renewable hydrogen and critical minerals projects with confidence. But it is not a free-for-all. The incentive is only provided once projects are up and running, producing hydrogen, or processed critical minerals for things like wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles. Renewable hydrogen will open the door to create green metals, like iron, steel, alumina and aluminium, and decarbonise other parts of industrial supply chains. Our world class renewable energy resources make us one of the best placed countries globally to produce green hydrogen at internationally competitive prices. Some of our biggest trading partners have already expressed a significant appetite for importing renewable hydrogen from us, including through trade in products that are produced from green hydrogen like green ammonia or green metals. Our unique combination of geology, meteorology and geography all play a role here. The tax incentive enabled by this legislation will complement our Hydrogen Headstart program. Hydrogen Headstart is helping early movers invest in the industry's development, and these tax changes provide broader support to projects that reach the production stage. Critical minerals are the building-blocks for our clean energy future. From manufacturing to transport, and medicine to telecommunications, so many industries rely on critical minerals to function. Some scenarios estimate global demand for critical minerals will increase by around 350 per cent by 2040 to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Australia is in a strong position to supply these minerals, with some of the world's largest reserves of lithium, cobalt and rare earths. But we don't intend on just digging them up and shipping them overseas. We want to capture more value onshore by refining and processing the minerals here and that's what this tax change will incentivise. It will encourage more Australian critical mineral companies to create more value on our shores and create more diverse, resilient and sustainable global supply chains. It will help critical minerals miners become critical minerals refiners and processors. The final part of the Bill expands the role and remit of Indigenous Business Australia by amending the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005. We know that Indigenous communities have some of the most to gain from the transition to net zero, and the growth in our renewable hydrogen and critical minerals industries. The community benefit principles in our other Future Made in Australia legislation are about ensuring those benefits flow to those communities. And we want to make sure they're well-placed and well-prepared to embrace the benefits—that's what this change is about. Indigenous Business Australia promotes First Nations economic self-determination through lending and investment in areas like home ownership and business support. This change will allow Indigenous Business Australia to raise capital to support investment in more First Nations individuals, communities and businesses around the country. It will support more First Nations people to start, grow and sustain businesses, purchase homes, and invest in commercial ventures. This change will give Indigenous Business Australia the flexibility to pursue a range of opportunities with Government and private partners to support First Nations economic empowerment. This Bill has been developed through a detailed and comprehensive consultation process. We released a public consultation paper on the design of the production tax incentives in June. It attracted more than 130 submissions from industry groups, companies and community organisations. We took their feedback seriously and worked through it methodically and diligently—taking those views into account in the final design of the legislation. I'd like to take this moment to thank everybody for their time and contributions to this Bill. I'd also like to particularly acknowledge Chris Bowen and Madeleine King for being two of the driving forces behind the production tax incentives, along with Ed Husic and Tim Ayres for their ongoing and substantial role in the entire Future Made in Australia agenda. I'd like to acknowledge the former Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, for her important and tireless work on our changes to Indigenous Business Australia, now being taken forward so ably by the current Minister, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. Our production tax incentives are the biggest part of our $22.7 billion Budget investment in the Future Made in Australia agenda. But it's only a fraction of what we need. Public investment will show us the path to a Future Made in Australia but private capital will pave the way. That's why our agenda is an investment strategy and a growth strategy. To provide investors with the clarity, certainty and the cooperation they need. To build and grow new industries in Australia, and make sure those benefits flow to communities all over the country. The time to act is now. The world is changing with or without Australia. The golden opportunity in front of us will start shrinking if we take any longer. To seize the vast economic and industrial opportunities which come from the global energy transformation to net zero we need to engage and invest not protect and retreat. And that's exactly what this legislation does. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. HEALTH INSURANCE (PATHOLOGY) (FEES) (REPEAL) BILL 2024 The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) (Repeal) Bill 2024 relates to the fees imposed on the pathology sector for certain categories of pathology applications. This Bill provides reforms for the current charging arrangements imposed on the sector for categories of accreditation applications. Under the Health Insurance Act 1973, pathology services must be rendered by or on behalf of an Approved Pathology Practitioner (Approved Practitioner), in an Accredited Pathology Laboratory (Accredited Laboratory) operated by an Approved Pathology Authority (Approved Authority,) to be eligible to receive Medicare benefits. Practitioners (pathologists) are required to sign an undertaking to the Minister that they will comply with the requirements of the legislation and certain administrative arrangements. They must pay an acceptance fee to become an Approved Practitioner. Similarly, the proprietor of a laboratory must sign an undertaking and pay an acceptance fee to become an Approved Authority. Laboratory premises may be approved by the Minister as an Accredited Laboratory following the submission of an application and relevant supporting documentation. This includes an accreditation assessment and payment of the accreditation fee once the premises are provided with an in-principle approval. The accreditation requirements impose obligations on Approved Practitioners, Accredited Laboratories and Approved Authorities to undertake to meet, or demonstrate compliance with, quality assurance standards for pathology services provided under Medicare. The Health Insurance (Pathology) (Fees) Act 1991 (Pathology Fees Act) specifies the fees which must be paid for the acceptance, and approval of, applications for the Approved Practitioner, Approved Authority and Accredited Laboratory. This allows approved providers to be identified in the Services Australia billing system of Medicare eligible services. These fees were arbitrarily set to be between $500 and $2,500 in 1991. The 2022 Health Portfolio Charging Review identified that the fees set against each of these application categories have not been reviewed or changed since the Pathology Fees Act came into force. Further, when investigated, the fees were found to exceed the administrative cost of processing these application categories. As such, this arrangement does not align with the Australian Government Charging Framework (2015). Removing the fees applied to the three categories of applications through the repeal of the Pathology Fees Act will resolve this misalignment with Government Charging Policy. It will provide fee relief in addition to reducing the administrative burden for the pathology sector. The consequential amendments included in this Bill remove all references to the payment of fees for these application types from 1 July 2025. However, to preserve the high level of confidence in the accuracy of pathology testing in Australia provided under Medicare, the administrative requirements including accreditation obligations will remain unchanged. HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MODERNISING MY HEALTH RECORD—SHARING BY DEFAULT) BILL 2024 Since Medicare was introduced 40 years ago, technology has advanced immeasurably. Back in 1984, "cutting edge" meant a Sony Walkman in your pocket, an Apple Macintosh on your desk, and a fax machine in your office. Walk into so many health settings today, you'll find a smartphone in your pocket, a fitness tracker on your wrist, and in the corner where the fax machine used to sit is another fax machine. That's right: a technology first invented in 1964—20 years before Medicare—is still frustratingly, maddeningly, all too common in Australian healthcare settings. When we came to government, My Health Record was in dire need of an upgrade. It was still using the old PDF format that Labor installed when we were last in government. It was cutting edge then, but it is beyond clunky now. For almost ten years, nothing was done to upgrade the technology that underpinned it. While the broader economy went through a digital revolution that reshaped industries, My Health Record sat there, gathering dust. Without investment, My Health Record remained little more than "a shoebox of PDFs". Unsurprisingly, there isn't much confidence in such an outdated system. In the most recent Health of the Nation survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners, 31% of GPs said they rarely, or never, use My Health Record. Even fewer specialists use it: half of them haven't even registered with it. We have to do better. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, which brought together clinicians, consumers and experts from right across the health sector, called on us to do better. In the 2023 Budget, we announced almost $1.1 billion in funding to modernise digital health infrastructure and upgrade My Health Record to a data rich platform. This Bill gives effect to recommendations made by the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce. The Taskforce recommended that My Health Record should be modernised to significantly increase the health information available to individuals and their health care professionals, including by requiring the sharing of health information by default. It also called for significant improvements to the way that patients' information is shared across the health system. Consumers expect their healthcare providers to have access to the information they need. Far too often, they do not. When we announced the Government's intentions to introduce these reforms, just one in five diagnostic reports in radiology were being shared. The other four disappear into the digital ether. And only one in two pathology reports were shared. Patients find this so frustrating, because every lost test result means another day off work, another waiting room, another procedure and yet another gap fee. What a waste of time and money. For patients and for the health system. If a patient gets a diagnostic scan or pathology test, then those results should be shared to their My Health Record. This was happening by exception. It was not the norm. Implementation and Engagement with the sector Last year, the Government announced that we intended to make it the norm. Australians are accessing their My Health Record in unprecedented numbers. In September this year, individuals' views of their health information via My Health Record are up 70% on the same time a year ago. These numbers highlight that consumers are crying out for better access to their information. In the past year, the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Australian Digital Health Agency have worked tirelessly to support the pathology and diagnostic imaging sectors to uplift their systems and staff, in readiness for sharing tests and scans by default. This has already seen results. Many labs that were not sharing, or sharing only in limited circumstances, are now routinely making patient results available to My Health Record. In May last year, just one in five diagnostic imaging reports were being sent to My Health Record. A year later, and one in three reports are now being uploaded. While this is an improvement, it is still too low and too slow. Framework for sharing to My Health Record The reforms I introduce today introduce a framework that will require key health information to be shared to patients' My Health Record. We are starting with pathology and diagnostic imaging. However, this framework will position the My Health Record system to deliver access to key information, and become a routine part of the health system. Medicare provides universal access to healthcare for Australians. Today we are enhancing the My Health Record framework to provide better access to Australians' health information to reduce the fragmentation and duplication that currently exists and to deliver better health outcomes. The Bill will establish requirements so that where Medicare rebates are claimed for key services, there will be a requirement to share information about that service to My Health Record. And the Bill will require healthcare corporations to share health information about their patients to their patients' My Health Record. This complementary framework will not affect a patients' Medicare benefits. It will however empower patients to actively engage as partners in their own healthcare. Patient controlled The Bill complements the existing consumer-controlled nature of My Health Record, and continues to put patients first. Patients will have access to their information so they can have informed discussions with their healthcare providers, if they choose to. The Strengthening Medicare Taskforce told us that when people can access and are supported to use and understand their health information, they are better able to actively participate in their care and make informed decisions. The Bill will not change the patient-controlled nature of My Health Record. Individuals can continue to choose not to have a My Health Record. Or they can choose for certain records not to be shared. Patient choice will remain under these amendments. Whether or not a patient chooses to engage with the information in their My Health Record, under the changes this bill introduces, they can expect information will be available to their healthcare team. Patient safety The framework puts patients first and is designed with patient safety in mind. We heard during consultation that it will not always be in an individual patient's interests for them to access their information before discussing with their healthcare team. If a healthcare provider is concerned that it may not be in a person's interest to access information via My Health Record without the support of a qualified healthcare provider, a healthcare provider can elect for an individual record not to be shared. Electing not to upload should not be the norm. But where a healthcare provider has a reasonable concern for an individual's safety or wellbeing so as to warrant not uploading, this exception will provide an appropriate safeguard so that the right supports are in place for patients when needed. A Clinical Reference Group, chaired by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and the Australian Digital Health Agency, was established to advise on this proposal and ensure the safe implementation of these reforms. This Clinical Reference Group, with representatives from government, peaks and consumers, will also develop guidance materials to support healthcare providers with the new framework for sharing to My Health Record. Support for providers to connect The Australian Digital Health Agency has invested to support providers to connect to My Health Record. However, notwithstanding that investment, we understand some healthcare providers have not made the decision to connect to My Health Record. The framework I announce today is not designed to be punitive. It is designed to bring about a culture of sharing. For those providers that require assistance to connect, they will be able to make formal application to request time to put the necessary technical settings in place to enable them to engage with the My Health Record System. While this formal extension period is in place, they will be able to continue to claim Medicare, while working with the Australian Digital Health Agency to set up the necessary connections so that eventually all patients will be entitled to the same levels of access to their information. Enforcement I said the Bill is not designed to be punitive. However, if organisations do not do the right thing by their patients, this Bill will provide the powers necessary to ensure compliance with the requirement to upload. Patients will not have to wait for uploads to get their Medicare benefits. And patients will not lose benefits if providers fail to share to My Health Record. Where Medicare is payable, if uploads do not follow, providers will be liable to repay the cost of the benefit. Conclusion Let's be clear about why our government is so committed to this. Yes, it will make healthcare professionals' lives easier, by helping them to be more efficient and effective. Yes, there will be flow on benefits across the system, helping to ensure that every precious dollar in the Medicare system goes to patient care. Sure, those are important. But the reason we are driving so hard toward that digital future is not provider benefit or system benefit, but patient benefit. Patient benefit is—and always will be—our North Star. Patients desire and deserve access to their own health data, and agency over how it is used and shared. Patients should not have to rely on the goodwill or good management of private providers to be able to access their own health data. Digital health technologies should empower patients to monitor and take charge of their health and wellbeing, so they can interact confidently with healthcare providers and build their health literacy. This is what drives our government's efforts, in the year of Medicare's 40th birthday. As well as being better for patients, this is also better for the bottom line for healthcare providers. Because every dollar that goes to a needless or duplicate test or scan, is a dollar that doesn't fund lifesaving medicines or our hard-working doctors, nurses and health professionals. Every minute a GP doesn't spend searching through My Health Record for a result that may or may not be stuffed into "the PDF shoebox", is a minute they can spend with a patient. Every minute a practice nurse doesn't have to spend manually entering a patient's data into their My Health Record, is a minute that they could be administering a childhood vaccination. The Productivity Commission estimates more than $5 billion a year could be saved by reforming Australia's digital health infrastructure. Beyond the savings, it is—quite simply—what patients expect and deserve. By the time Medicare reaches its next milestone birthday, we can confidently expect that the humble fax machine will no longer clutter the offices of health settings. Like the Sony Walkman or Apple Macintosh, the fax machine will finally become little more than a museum relic. I'm sure I speak for patients everywhere when I say: that day can't come soon enough. NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 2024 This Bill makes minor amendments to the Navigation Act 2012 in order to give effect to an amendment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974, known as SOLAS. Specifically, the Bill amends the definitions of passenger,seafarer, industrial personnel and industrial personnel vessel within the Navigation Act 2012, as well as providing a specific regulation-making power for industrial personnel vessels. The SOLAS convention commenced in 1980 and Australia signing the convention in 1983. SOLAS is administered by the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, a specialised agency of the United Nations. The IMO's Maritime Safety Committee is responsible for updating SOLAS and related codes. The main objective of SOLAS is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of ships, to ensure their safety. In Australia, the Navigation Act 2012 implements our obligations under SOLAS, including regulating international ship and seafarer safety, and protecting the marine environment. In November 2022, the Maritime Safety Committee adopted resolution 521(106) to amend SOLAS to insert a new chapter, Chapter 15, titled Safety Measures for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel. This chapter includes a requirement to comply with the International Code of Safety for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel. The carriage of industrial personnel differs to that of other passengers, as the vessels used are primarily offshore support vessels, and the transfer of industrial personnel often occurs in challenging environments. This requires specialist skills and control measures not required in usual passenger operations. The SOLAS amendments provide minimum safety standards for ships that carry industrial personnel, as well as for the personnel themselves, and addresses specific risks unique to these operations. Such personnel may be engaged in the construction, maintenance, decommissioning, operation or servicing of offshore facilities, such as windfarms, as well as offshore oil and gas installations, aquaculture, ocean mining or similar activities. On 20 March 2024 the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties resolved that binding treaty action be recommended to give effect to the SOLAS amendments. This Bill gives effect to the SOLAS amendments and ensures Australia's compliance with its international obligations under the convention, and will allow foreign vessels in Australia to rely on the newly established International Code of Safety for Ships Carrying Industrial Personnel. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024, Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024, Family Law Amendment Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 86

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024

Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024

Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023

Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Returned from the House of Representatives 86 Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Scheduling) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023, Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024, Cyber Security Bill 2024, Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024, Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024, Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024, Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024, Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024, Aged Care Bill 2024, Migration Amendment Bill 2024, Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024, Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024, Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024, Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024, Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024, Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024, Crown References Amendment Bill 2023, Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Family Law Amendment Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, Help to Buy Bill 2023, Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024, Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024, Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023, Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024, Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024, Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024, Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024, Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024 88

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reserve Bank Reforms) Bill 2023

Better and Fairer Schools (Funding and Reform) Bill 2024

Cyber Security Bill 2024

Intelligence Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Cyber Security) Bill 2024

Security of Critical Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Response and Prevention) Bill 2024

Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Bill 2024

Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) Tax (Imposition) Bill 2024

Commonwealth Entities (Payment Surcharges) (Consequential Provisions and Other Matters) Bill 2024

Aged Care Bill 2024

Migration Amendment Bill 2024

Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024

Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024

Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024

Crimes Amendment (Strengthening the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence) Bill 2024

Crown References Amendment Bill 2023

Customs Amendment (ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Second Protocol Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Charges) Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Guarantee of Origin Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024

Help to Buy Bill 2023

Help to Buy (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Amendment Bill 2024

Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024

Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024

Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023

Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024

Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024

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

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

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (2024 Tax and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024

Wage Justice for Early Childhood Education and Care Workers (Special Account) Bill 2024

Assent 88 COMMITTEES 88 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 88 Reference 88 18:36 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2024 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 April 2025. With this motion, the Greens are calling for this bill to be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee because it must be scrutinised. This is one of three bills where Labor joined up with the coalition at the end of last year, literally in the dying hours of parliament just before Christmas. It's never been considered by a committee. They guillotined the bill without debate and just rammed it through as part of Labor's attack on refugees, migrants and multicultural Australia. Now, it is dreadfully unfortunate that this bill has passed as part of that package of three bills, with some of the most extreme changes we have seen in migration law since the abolition of the White Australia policy. As that happened, as it played out in the chamber last year, we saw the coalition openly bragging in this chamber, out in the media, about how they were 'running the immigration system for the government'. It was Labor running to whatever nasty, intolerant tune the coalition played on migration, and this bill was perhaps one of the worst aspects of it. This bill proposed to actually allow the minister to ban any item in any immigration detention centre. It could be phones—a phone-ban bill. It could be essential medication. It could be literally anything, but it's really a mobile phone ban that's at the core of this. It would let the minister ban mobile phones in detention centres. It would allow those operating detention centres to put dogs into people's living quarters without a warrant to do searches. And what is extraordinary about this is that, when in opposition, Labor voted down the coalition twice on this. In 2020, then minister Dutton brought forward almost this exact same bill, proposing phone bans in immigration detention centres, proposing these kinds of search powers, and then Labor—because maybe it had more of a spine in 2020—acknowledged the human rights abuses, acknowledged that people are in immigration detention centres not because they've committed a crime but because of their visa status, and said it would be cruel and inhuman to prevent people in detention centres from having access to a phone so they could talk to their lawyer, talk to their family and keep in touch with their community. Back in 2020, Labor recognised that people in these immigration detention centres weren't criminals; they were there because of their visa status. Back in 2020, Labor listened to human rights groups who said that having mobile phones, which can take photos and videos in immigration detention centres that are run by global multinational bottom feeders like Serco, is actually a really important accountability measure. They can take videos of the abusive behaviour of corporations like Serco—for example, when Serco decided to turn fire extinguishers on people in an immigration detention centre as their form of so-called crowd control, because they didn't like people pushing back on unfair practices. Labor in 2020 realised that was important, but Labor in 2024 and now in 2025 under the current Prime Minister thinks that none of these human rights should exist. Far from opposing these laws, they joined together with the coalition to ram them through without even a debate or any scrutiny. That's why we say that this bill should go and be referred to the committee, because we need that independent scrutiny. We need the independent scrutiny from organisations like the ASRC. When a similar bill from the coalition actually came before an inquiry in the Senate, they pointed out that none of these search powers were required because the minister and those in control of detention centres could already search if they had reasonable suspicion. They had the search powers if needed, but they couldn't just put the dogs in whenever they chose. We should be hearing from groups like the Australian Human Rights Commission, which pointed out in 2020 what an abuse this is of people's human rights and that people in these immigration detention centres who have not committed a crime should have a right to communicate with their community and their lawyer and need to have accountability measures. That's why this should go to an inquiry, and that's why I endorse the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge to refer a matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be agreed to. Time flies! Your submissions were so seductive that I missed the 6.30 hard marker, so we'll have to defer the division until tomorrow morning. Environment and Communications References Committee 89 Reference 89 18:43 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Askew, I move an amendment to the business of the Senate order of the day No.1: Omit "18 December 2024", substitute "21 March 2025". 18:43 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I think what we're seeing here, once again, is the Liberal and National parties determined to create fear, to posture and to act without substance in relation to the future of the salmon industry in northern Tasmania. The government's position could not be clearer. It could not be clearer. The Prime Minister has made it very clear indeed. The Albanese Labor government backs salmon workers. The Albanese Labor government backs blue-collar jobs in northern Tasmania. The Prime Minister has been down there himself, and the position has been made abundantly clear. I have to say that, in addition to that, there is a $33 million commitment from the Albanese government in relation to the maugean skate and the water issues in that harbour. I'll tell you who else has also been really clear: Senator Anne Urquhart, Labor's candidate for Braddon. A former food industry worker who's worked on the production line is absolutely the right person to represent blue-collar workers in northern Tasmania. They can have confidence in her, because Labor backs the aluminium industry in Tasmania—a $2 billion commitment opposed by the people over here. Labor backs the salmon industry in a sensible way that will mean we will achieve the proper environmental objectives and also secure the interests of those workers and their jobs. And we will do so in an orderly way. As fascinated as I am by the political timetable and the partisanship of those opposite, Labor will not approach these issues in the chaotic way of the old Morrison government, or in the way a future—heaven help us—Dutton government might, if ever it graces these benches. We will do it in a sober, considered and deliberate way that will protect the interests of workers and, of course, the Tasmanian environment. I move: That the question be now put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We have three questions. One is that the question be put. The second question is that there be an amendment to the report— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Order! I'm setting out the questions. The question has been put that the question be put. There was also an amendment by Senator Kovacic seeking an extension to the reporting date and setting a new date. Then there's the original motion. I intend to put those, but I point out that we cannot have divisions at this time of night. I put the question that the question be put. A division having been called, that question will be put tomorrow morning or whenever it suits the Senate. BILLS 90 BILLS Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 90

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Second Reading 90 18:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024. In commencing this debate, it's almost amusing, quite frankly, because this is the Attorney-General of Australia's third attempt at making adequate legislation to abolish the AAT and replace it with the ART. That's right, ladies and gentlemen: the Attorney-General of Australia couldn't get it right the first time, he couldn't get it right the second time, and this is now his third attempt, in terms of the legislation. In terms of the first attempt, there was a set of two bills introduced in December 2023, almost a full year after he announced that he didn't like the AAT anymore and he was going to abolish it. Fast-forward two months to February 2024, and, as I said, we're onto the Attorney-General of Australia's third attempt—due to his sloppy drafting—at getting this bill right. Either way, as we know, the legislation has passed. As a result, we have transitioned from the AAT to the ART. What has been put to me now by so many people who understand what this is all about is that it is a transition which might unkindly be compared, as somebody said, to a smouldering dumpster fire. That person also said to me: 'Hey, hold on. That is actually unkind to dumpster fires, because dumpster fires do not smell as bad as this sloppy drafting by the Attorney-General.' But, leaving operational issues to one side, the reason we are here right now, as I said, for the third time, talking about this issue is that, yet again, the Attorney-General of Australia, despite having a department full of legal brains, unfortunately settled legislation in which, in the first instance, there were mistakes. In the second instance, there were still mistakes, and, as Senator Scarr has said, this might be the third attempt, but I wouldn't put a fourth attempt past it. That is basically how we now get to this bill. It's called a 'miscellaneous measures' bill, but really it is legislation that, as I said, corrects errors the Attorney-General made in his first and second attempts at getting the legislation right to establish what is now known as the ART. What are the unintended consequences of this sloppy drafting that we are fixing? What are the pressing issues in this bill on which the Attorney-General wants us to legislate? Well, to quote from the explanatory memorandum: The Bill would make further amendments to 52 Commonwealth Acts (including the ART Act), to update references to the AAT in legislation that has passed or been introduced to Parliament since the introduction of the ART Act and to make technical amendments to support the efficient conduct of Tribunal review and ensure the legislation operates as intended. Hmmm, yes: 'operates as intended'. So, this bill makes changes to 52 acts. But the dead giveaway is in those last few words. The bill is meant to 'ensure the legislation operates as intended'. In other words, the Attorney-General of Australia needs to pass this legislation because right now we have a tribunal in place and legislation that isn't operating as intended. We all know why, though, because for the first 18 months of the Albanese Labor government the Attorney-General wasn't focused on good legislation; he was focused on and completely distracted by working on the government's disastrous and divisive Voice campaign. In fact, at the time it would appear to have been his only interest. His work in every other area of his portfolio was incredibly sloppy. So here we are, as I said, at not the first attempt, not the second attempt but now the third attempt to get a piece of legislation right. What are the unintended consequences that this bill is addressing? The first is in relation to the migration system. It's well known—it's a fact—that Labor governments can't manage migration and can't defend our borders. That is of course why more than a million people have arrived on our shore in less than two years, massively overshooting even Labor's own target for net overseas migration. The initial indications are that Mr Dreyfus's new Administrative Review Tribunal is now compounding that issue, because we are now seeing a massive blowout in the tribunal's case load. In fact, despite Mr Dreyfus saying on his first attempt that is what he was seeking to address, the situation is now far worse under Mr Dreyfus than it was in May 2022, when Labor were elected to office. But let's look at the statistics. If you take the statistics from 30 June 2022, just after the coalition left office and before this parliament sat for the first time, and compare them with the most recent information from the ART, from November of last year, the picture these statistics now paint, considering that the cost of this bill to the Australian taxpayer was a billion dollars, is grim. When the coalition left office there were 37,025 refugee cases on hand. By 30 November last year, despite the Attorney-General's attempt to spend a billion dollars of taxpayers' money, there were 42,997 protection cases—not a decrease but an increase. When the coalition left office there were 19,104 migration cases before the AAT. That number has risen quite extraordinarily, to 35,898, under this Attorney-General—an 88 per cent increase. In fact, across the whole tribunal, when the coalition left office, there were 67,720 cases on hand. Now let's have a look at what's on hand under the Attorney-General's $1 billion 'let's change the middle letter from A to R' tribunal: 90,000 cases on hand, including 6,000 new migration and protection cases—6,000—in just the first six weeks of operation. To say that that is extraordinary growth, quite frankly, is an understatement, and it is entirely unsustainable for any tribunal. What it also shows is that Labor's approach to migration isn't working and that, as this tribunal gets more and more bogged down and the backlog grows, as shown in the statistics, our migration problems will get worse. You might say, 'That's all very well, but what's that got to do with a miscellaneous measures bill?' Well, the answer is actually in the explanatory materials for this bill, because one of the things that this bill does is to amend the ART's jurisdiction to review migration and protection decisions. This item repeals and replaces section 348(2) of the Migration Act—a provision that was inserted by the Attorney-General when he did his deal with the Australian Greens to push this billion-dollar piece of legislation through—to explicitly state that the tribunal must not review an application made under sections 347 and 347A of the Migration Act that is not properly made. The effect of this amendment is that the tribunal will not have jurisdiction to review an application made under part 5 of the Migration Act if it is not properly made. Together, these provisions put beyond doubt how the tribunal is to deal with applications for reviewable migration decisions and reviewable protection decisions. Now, that's all pretty technical, so let's break it down into plain English for those who aren't lawyers. What these changes are doing is making it clear that the tribunal is not required to hear a case if there is no proper application. You've then got to say to yourself: 'Well, hey, hold on. Why would the Attorney-General of Australia need to make that clear? You don't clarify things if they are working as intended.' You see, this is the problem with the sloppy drafting. It's because mistakes in the Attorney-General's legislation inadvertently created a loophole. Can you believe it? At a cost of $1 billion to the taxpayer, they could not get the legislation right on the first go. What this meant was quite serious. It meant that the tribunal could potentially be required to go through the hearing of a case even if there is no proper application. I bet the Australian taxpayers love that loophole! That would mean forcing the tribunal to deal with vastly more cases than it was ever intended to deal with. What it also meant, potentially, is creating a pathway for people to remain in Australia while their case is resolved, simply by lodging an incomplete or incorrect application, even if they have no lawful entitlement to actually remain here. One might say that perhaps the Australian Greens were alive to this issue and that's the reason that they agreed to Mr Dreyfus's deal in the first place. Perhaps this sort of error is the reason. You look at the increase in case load. The new tribunal had 6,000 new migration and protection cases in just its first six weeks. We'll never know, but it clearly now falls upon all of us in this Senate to clean up the Attorney-General's sloppy drafting and the unintended consequences. But the unintended consequences don't stop there. This is very serious, and the Attorney-General hasn't been upfront with the people of Australia in relation to the second example of the type of serious issue we are fixing, which was again created entirely by the Attorney-General's sloppy drafting. It relates to women's safety in child support matters. Perhaps he needs to talk to Mr Bill Shorten about what occurred here. Because of the initial passage of the administrative review tribunal legislation—get this—Services Australia is now inadvertently in a position where it is forced to manually review each customer file that is before the tribunal every 28 days. This is a requirement that was introduced by the Attorney-General of Australia. It is incredibly intensive. It involves reviewing thousands of documents, applying redactions to protect from family and domestic violence risk and then sending the documents out to thousands of parties. Anyone who has dealt with the child support system knows what a sad and difficult area this is, particularly when you are talking about disputes that are before a tribunal for a resolution. The sad fact is that, in about 40 per cent of matters where there is no family and domestic violence indicated on the file, there is a need to seek a nondisclosure order because of the inherent risk of either parent reacting adversely to the content of those documents and then triggering a family and domestic violence incident. They are worried about a very real risk of violence. Services Australia staff must be terrified that they will miss something, that they will make a mistake in going through this incredibly inefficient monthly process that the Attorney-General has imposed on them and then that they will trigger a domestic violence event. This, quite frankly, is sloppy drafting at its worst. It is bureaucracy at its worst. It is quite frankly a stupid and unnecessary requirement that is actually having adverse consequences for women's safety in child support matters. To be clear, though, this wasn't the Attorney-General's intention. It was actually a mistake. He wanted the president of the tribunal to be able to deal with this issue by issuing practice directions, but, because of the mistake and the sloppy drafting, the legislation did not give sufficient power to the president to do just that and, again, for the third time, we are now here in the Australian Senate fixing up what in this case is a very dangerous mistake by the Attorney-General. There is a real concern that, unless we pass item 2 in schedule 4 on page 47 of this bill to fix the legislation, women and children around Australia will be exposed to an increased risk of family and domestic violence. Again, this isn't an issue that we raised; this is a genuine and very real concern that was raised with the coalition late last year by multiple areas across government. The government knows about this problem. It has known for months about the risk it created when it rammed the legislation through—$1 billion to establish the ART. We accept their advice that they have, indeed, created a safety risk—which is shameful—for women and families using the child support system. We will, of course, pass the bill and fix the problem that the Attorney-General of Australia has created. But certainly we would hope that, despite our experiences to date—as I said, there was a first attempt and a second attempt and we are here on now the third attempt to get this legislation right—there are no other egregious errors created by what is quite frankly a rolling debacle of a process. 19:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 as a result of amendments that will be moved by the government in committee. This bill came before the Senate last year, and we were told at the time that it was effectively a 'rats and mice' provision, dealing with modest amendments of an administrative nature to the ART bill. By and large, that's what this bill actually provides for. It is the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, and the great bulk of the amendments are of a genuinely modest administrative nature. Some of them are needed to deal with some unforeseen stressors that have occurred within Services Australia with the provision of documents, and we think it's important that those amendments get made. But hidden in this bill were two proposed amendments to sections 347 and 348 of the Migration Act which sought to deal with a High Court decision not on the ART bill but that interpreted certain provisions in the coalition's previously drafted AAT bill. The High Court said that, when there is a challenge to an application being made because there are minor defects in the application, provided an application is genuinely put before the tribunal, the tribunal has an obligation to deal with it. It doesn't matter if a name is missing or if there is a small piece of information missing. If it's an application in relation to someone's migration status, their refugee status, provided there's a substantive application there, the tribunal has to deal with it. Of course, that is a beneficial interpretation. It can be absolutely critical that someone's application, once it's filed, is valid. There are so many unfair timeframes and hurdles and prohibitions relating to migration and refugee claims when they're sought to be filed or lodged with what was the AAT and is now the ART. If an application was filed but was found to have some administrative defect in it and therefore was rejected, that person might have lost all their independent review rights, and they might have been stuck with a deeply unfair determination from Home Affairs, as happens thousands and thousands of times a year. So, to deal with that decision and that interpretation from the High Court on a mirror provision in the former AAT Act, the government proposed amendments to sections 347 and 348 of the Migration Act to provide that an application to the ART in relation to migration matters—that includes refugee matters and people desperately seeking asylum, needing protection—is only properly made where it's made within a specified period, being seven days for those in immigration detention, and is accompanied by the prescribed information and whatever prescribed documents the government sets. Then it says that, unless that information is provided, the ART would have no jurisdiction and therefore must not review an application that isn't properly made. I want to thank all the NGOs and human rights organisations who reviewed this piece of legislation and belled the cat, saying, 'This is incredibly dangerous.' I want to thank the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Refugee Legal, the refugee and immigration national community law coalition, the Refugee Council of Australia and the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, who all raised what an unfairness this was and raised how some of the most vulnerable people in the country would have their applications rejected with no capacity for the ART to even consider them. It would just be as though they were never made. And that could be because they misspelt their name in the application, got their date of birth wrong or didn't include one of the five documents that were required. This legislation, as initially drafted, as drafted now before amendment, would have meant that those applications would have all been rejected with no discretion. It would have been like they'd never been made. Of course the coalition jumped onto this and loved it. They like cruel processes. They like unfair, cruel processes that apply to people seeking asylum. They like unfair, cruel processes that apply to people who are seeking to migrate here or bring their family here. They actually specialise in cruelty, so of course the coalition grabbed these amendments with both hands. They love that kind of stuff. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 A point of order, Senator Kovacic? Senator Kovacic 306168 Senator Shoebridge is reflecting on the motives of the opposition—that they are intending to be cruel and unfair. I don't think that's appropriate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I'm sure the senator will address that in his remarks. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Because that's what the coalition specialises in—they specialise in meanness and division and cruelty. So they absolutely celebrate— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Kovacic, a point of order? Senator Kovacic 306168 Acting Deputy President, I don't feel that Senator Shoebridge has taken your advice onboard. He continues to make remarks that— Senator Scarr 282997 He's doubled down! Senator Kovacic 306168 Yes, he has. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I'm sure that Senator Shoebridge is going to get to his point soon. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I'll follow any ruling that's coming from you, Acting Deputy President. There's no valid point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Feel free to continue, Senator Shoebridge. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you. That's what the coalition does. It likes cruelty. It likes nastiness. They specialise in it, and these provisions of the bill were designed to be nasty to people. I know the coalition doesn't like it when we speak the truth about their motivations on particular bills. I know it's uncomfortable. I know the history of being mean to people, to refugees—being deliberately cruel, having intentionally cruel policies—is awkward for some members in the coalition, and I accept that their own personal values are sometimes challenged by what they have to vote for. I accept that on a personal level. But the institution of the coalition specialises in this cruelty. They actually deliberately inflict cruelty on refugees and migrants as part of the coalition's DNA. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 A point of order? Senator Kovacic 306168 If that is not impugning the motives of the opposition— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I'll seek some advice from the Clerk. Senator Shoebridge is not reflecting on any particular senator, so he's in order and these are effectively political debating points. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I know the coalition are very touchy about this and would like to shut down criticism of their long history of cruelty in this space, and I understand why the coalition want to stop this debate, because it's awkward actually looking the coalition's decades of cruelty in the face. It's awkward. As I said, I understand that some individual senators find it really personally challenging when they have to join in with these attacks on refugees. But they keep voting for this stuff, they keep electing leaders who produce this kind of cruelty and they were doubling down and backing in these changes. We heard it from the Leader of the Opposition here in the initial contribution—that they actually want this to be mean and nasty. But, again, I want to go back to those NGOs, those human rights organisations— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Kovacic, a point of order? Senator Kovacic 306168 I note that previously Senator Shoebridge did not reflect on any individual member of the opposition, just the opposition more broadly, but he has now directly attempted to impugn, or has impugned, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, in his remarks. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I remind Senator Shoebridge not to impugn the motive of any member of the House, and I invite you to proceed in making your remarks. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 To be clear, my comments were not in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, who I don't think has spoken on this today, in the other place, but the Leader of the Opposition here in the Senate and the comments that were made, and I'm echoing back those concerns. But, again, I want to thank the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Kovacic? Senator Kovacic 306168 Just to clarify, I misheard. I just want to clarify that my statements reflected the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, not the House. That was my error. Thank you. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Again, I want to thank the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Refugee Legal—all of those NGOs that have come in. They engaged with the inquiry and asked the government to be better, to pull this part of the bill. It is so obviously not necessary, because, the High Court has made it clear that these applications should be able to be considered, that there should be a discretion and the ability in the tribunal to consider these applications. I want to give credit to those organisations and also give credit to the government, who has, over to break, further reflected on the submissions that have been made and said that in fact the law as it exists currently, without this bill, should stand and that these provisions will be removed from the bill in the committee process. I want to commend the government, the AG's office, for listening, for taking on board the concerns and seeing those provisions removed in the committee stage. It's a modest but real win for decency and for fairness, so that the tribunal can actually consider the merits of claims and they won't be struck out on the kinds of legal technicalities that bring the law into disrepute. The other aspect of this bill that I think is important—and, again, it will be reflected in the amendments—is that this was an opportunity to remove some of the systemic unfairness, the two levels of justice—one for people challenging migration and refugee matters and one for the balance of people—because there were so many unfair timeframes that applied to challenges, reviews of migration decisions. Often, it's just seven days that people have to bring an application, and, if you're in immigration detention, you don't have access to a phone, you don't have access to a lawyer and an adverse decision is made against you, how can you seriously bring an application within seven days? We heard again from those organisations that that doesn't work, and it can't work, and it's unfair, and it only applies in migration. We would love to see all of those unfair time limits removed. Everybody should have access to the 28 days in which to review a decision, and there should be a discretion to extend it. I commend Senator Pocock, who's bringing amendments to that effect, but I will, again, give the government some credit. They have listened to those NGOs. They've listened to concerns that we have repeatedly raised on behalf of the Greens, and there will be amendments to move the minimum time from seven to 14 days. Again, it's still not the same as applies in non-migration matters. There will still be active discrimination against people challenging migration decisions, but I think it is much better, and it is clearly a significant improvement. The advocates and the NGOs in this space that we've spoken to absolutely want the Senate to support that amendment and to see at least that improvement happen. Again, I just want to acknowledge that this is a significant improvement for people in detention, to give the government credit and to give those NGOs credit for the ongoing campaigning and advocacy in that space. It is a win. It's something the Greens have been asking for, for over a decade, and it's a significant win. There's one amendment from the coalition, seeking to ensure that there will be a minimum of at least one ART registry in each state and territory. This is something that my colleague Senator McKim has been regularly asking for in Tasmania. I know he's on the record repeatedly as saying the AAT—the ART now—should absolutely be guaranteed to have a registry, and the people of Tasmania are entitled to a registry. And that should be written in the law. We agree. We absolutely agree. Small states, large states and territories should all have a minimum of at least one registry. We understand, from our discussions with the government, that that is their current intent, and, for that reason, I understand the government also will not be opposing that amendment, and we actively endorse it and support it. We are also putting forward amendments proposing a credible pathway for permanency for those who have been subjected to the coalition's cruel and unfair fast-track system. Everybody agrees that the thousands of people who were rejected under the fast-track system were rejected in an unfair process—everyone, of course, except the coalition, who still can't accept that their cruel and nasty fast-track process was unfair. There have been some people who came to Australia before 2013 who have been given a possible pathway to permanency by the government, but, for those thousands of people—some 7,000 people—who were unfairly rejected by the coalition's unfair fast-track process, there is no pathway to permanency being offered by the government. All the government says is that they may consider them at some point, one by one, as individual ministerial discretion cases. How could any minister seriously get their head around 7,000 cases? It's a ridiculous proposal from the government. They know it's not fair. They know it's not true. This would put a pathway in for those who have been unfairly rejected by fast track to have their application fairly reviewed before the ART—to be able to bring their application, bring the original documentation, add fresh documentation and finally have a fair assessment of their claims before the ART. I commend those amendments to the Senate. While I'm speaking to those, I want to give credit to those people, particularly from the Tamil community, who have been consistently asking for this—not just the Tamil community but also the Bangladesh community and the Pakistan community. But the reason I raise the Tamil community is that they were here in parliament today. They were here in parliament today, again advocating for a fair process for fast track and again advocating for the Tamil people's rights to be respected, for their genuine concerns about the human rights abuses and the ongoing attack against Tamil culture to be recognised and for their asylum claims to be accepted. They were here today. They're doing it not just for the Tamil community but for communities across the board. I want to commend them for their work, for their advocacy and for their strength. We don't say that our amendment is the only way. There are perhaps better ways to do it—just, on class, accepting their claims—but this is a credible, fair and available pathway for fast track to be resolved, and we commend those amendments to the chamber. 19:19 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I will certainly not be mean in my comments. Senator Shoebridge was happy to call those on this side mean and use other pejoratives on a collective basis. I would like to stick to the substance of the issue. There are a number of issues which cause me deep concern. First, I want to talk about process. The process we go through to pass legislation in this place is important. There needs to be adequate time for scrutiny and review of legislation that has a great impact on the lives of Australians. From the start of this process, I and others have raised our deep concern that, in relation to extraordinarily complicated legislation—hundreds and hundreds of pages long—there was insufficient time for adequate scrutiny and to make sure that this legislation, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, was correct and fit for purpose. We have just heard Senator Cash refer to some deeply disturbing consequences arising from the haste with which this legislation was pushed through this place. Just to recap: this is in the context of women's safety in child support matters. Because of the passage of the administrative review tribunal legislation, Services Australia is now inadvertently in the position where every 28 days it is forced to manually review each customer file that is before the tribunal. It's a new requirement and an incredibly intensive requirement. It involves reviewing thousands of documents and applying redactions to protect Australians from family and domestic violence risk. In this context, it is absolutely an indictment on this process that we have a situation where, for 40 per cent of the matters where there is no family and domestic violence indicator on the file, there is still a need to seek a nondisclosure order because of the inherent risk of this botched legislation to cause either parent reacting adversely to the content of those documents, which could thereby trigger a family and domestic violence incident. This is serious. I must say, I was absolutely mortified when this was raised with me by Senator Cash. I'm sure Senator Shoebridge, to give him credit, as a member of the committee, would also be deeply concerned and mortified that this was not picked up through the scrutiny process, because we didn't have enough time. The agencies themselves didn't have enough time to consider it. We've got this amendment, item 2 of schedule 4, which, on the face of it, is reasonably benign: Omit "came into the possession or under the control of the decision-maker", substitute "came into the possession or under the control of the decision-maker, or within a longer period specified in the practice directions— to give the president an opportunity to issue practice directions so that the department doesn't have to go through this cumbersome process in order to mitigate this inherent risk of either parent reacting adversely to what's on the file. It is astounding stuff—deeply disturbing. Throughout this process, the warnings were there. I quote from the Law Council of Australia in this regard, who were at the forefront in terms of warning that, because of the abbreviated nature of this process, these sorts of things could happen: On 14 December 2023, following a referral from the Commonwealth Attorney General, the Committee commenced an inquiry into the Bills, calling for written submissions by 18 January 2024. Whilst the Law Council is pleased to have obtained an extension to 2 February 2024 to lodge its submission, it remains very concerned that the Committee's truncated inquiry period will undermine or diminish the democratic and proper scrutiny of the Bills. And that's what we have. I feel deeply for those public servants in the department who have had to deal with this issue because of the sloppiness of the process and in particular the Attorney's fixation on trying to push this bill through so quickly. This has had a real and negative consequence upon the Australian people, and the Attorney should be held accountable for that. It's an absolutely shameful state of affairs. I'm on the record as saying, with respect to the ART Bill, that I believe that the administrative review system in this country could have been improved, that it could have been bettered, simply by reforming the existing bill instead of replacing the AAT with the ART. Secondly, the objective evidence did not support the need to abolish the AAT, and I frequently spoke in this place about the key performance indicators of the AAT, in particular in relation to appeals, and that the members of the AAT consistently performed to such a level that they met their targets with respect to successful appeal rates. I also, in this place, referred to the satisfaction with the AAT from both the legal practitioners and the users and how that did not justify the abolition of the AAT and its replacement with the ART. There was also a strain of vindictiveness in this legislation, which I also commented on—that the Attorney decided to depart from the independent remuneration advice and guidance of the Remuneration Tribunal with respect to those members who were terminated through the abolition of the AAT and the replacement of it with the ART. There was a streak of vindictiveness embedded in the legislation which I think was unbecoming of the Attorney-General. I raised that independent organisations had raised that from a governance point of view, from a public policy point of view, but the Attorney was not for moving in relation to that vindictive streak embedded in the legislation. So here we are, debating the third iteration of this bill, trying to get it right and having to address the consequences of the Attorney's rushed process. In that regard, I would like, as I did in my additional comments on this bill, which the coalition supports—we're also putting forward an amendment with respect to registries, and I think it's appropriate that we do so—to quote from the Hon Paul Fletcher MP's comments in the second reading debate in the other place. In doing so, I would like to place on record my deep respect and admiration for the Hon. Paul Fletcher MP for the service he has given to this parliament over an extended period of time. I think that should be noted in the Hansard as we debate this legislation. I think it is fit and proper that it is referred to in the Hansard as we look at this legislation. When he commented on this legislation he pointed out that we were coming here for the third time, that amendments were being introduced to this bill before the bill had even taken effect. That's the situation we were in. Amendments were being introduced to the bill before this bill even came into effect. That was in the context, as I noted in my dissenting report considering the bill, where the government forced the early tabling of the committee report on the bill. We were meant to report by 24 July 2024, and then a deal was done between the government and the Greens. Senator Shoebridge was probably not involved at all in relation to that deal. I can't imagine he would be involved in a deal which would shorten the scrutiny of such an important piece of legislation. I can't imagine he would be involved in that. It must have happened without Senator Shoebridge's knowledge. But the deal was done such that the committee report had to be tabled more than two months before it was meant to be tabled. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 96 ADJOURNMENT Ovarian Cancer 96 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Ovarian cancer, often called the silent killer, has subtle symptoms that are easily mistaken for less serious conditions, making early detection challenging. By the time most women are diagnosed the cancer is already in the later stages and has spread. February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, and I want to highlight the impact of ovarian cancer and the significant steps the Albanese Labor government has taken to address this issue. Awareness is a powerful tool in the fight against ovarian cancer. Public awareness campaigns, educational programs and community outreach efforts play a crucial role in spreading information about ovarian cancer and its symptoms. Advocacy groups tirelessly lobby for increased funding and support for ovarian cancer research. Back in my home state of Tasmania, the fantastic JackJumpers are rallying the community for the fourth time in their annual teal round, proudly supporting their local charity partner SHE—Support, Hope, Education. This event aims to raise vital funds and awareness for gynaecological cancers. Since the inception of the teal game initiative in 2022, the JackJumpers have raised over $150,000 for SHE through the incredible support of their fans and community. Funds from this year's teal round will contribute directly to SHE's mission to build a world-class cancer wellness centre in Hobart, Tasmania. Ovarian cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers amongst Australian women. In 2023 it was estimated that 1,786 women would be diagnosed with ovarian cancer and more than a thousand of those women would lose their lives to this disease. The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains alarmingly low, with only 49 per cent of the women diagnosed surviving beyond five years. The greatest challenge in combating ovarian cancer is its late detection. Symptoms such as bloating, pelvic pain and changes in menstrual patterns are often mistaken for less serious conditions, leading to delayed diagnosis. Approximately 70 per cent of ovarian cancer cases are diagnosed at stages 3 and 4, when the cancer has already spread. Early-stage diagnosis, on the other hand, dramatically increases the survival rate to 90 per cent. Recent studies have revealed a concerning link between endometriosis and ovarian cancer. Women with endometriosis are four times more likely to develop ovarian cancer, and those with deep infiltrating endometriosis are almost 10 times more likely to develop the disease. The connection underscores the importance of targeted screening and prevention strategies for all women. The Albanese Labor government have taken significant steps to address ovarian cancer. Our government announced a $24 million investment in health and medical research focusing on women's health. This funding includes projects aimed at improving early detection, treatment and survival rates for ovarian cancer. One of the key projects funded by this investment is the development of a new radio-imaging agent designed to enhance the accuracy of ovarian cancer diagnosis. Additionally, research on drug repurposing has identified existing medications that may be effective in treating ovarian cancer. As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Pain Management, I have the privilege of supporting numerous organisations and foundations dedicated to improving women's health in combating ovarian cancer. The efforts of these organisations have led to significant advancement, including the development of new tests for detecting high-grade ovarian cancer and the discovery of several other new cancer markers. What we really need to do is continue to shine a light on this cancer, and the great news out of what Breast Cancer Australia have done in raising awareness is the additional services provided by nursing for all forms of cancer, which will go a long way in supporting those on this journey. Small Business 97 19:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Over the last few weeks, I've been out doorknocking, standing on listening posts and visiting small businesses right around the country so that I can hear the concerns of businesses and ordinary Australians, and the truth is that Australian households and businesses have been doing it really tough over the last few years. Despite Labor's crowing about 'mission accomplished' on inflation, the cumulative effect of price rises and declining standards of living mean that people are still doing it tough. In fact, last week, on the day that the CPI figures were released for December and we found out that, while there had been a drop, the trimmed mean inflation was still above band even though it's dropped below band in other countries, I was in Sydney and I was visiting a business with our candidate for Bradfield, Gisele Kapterian. It was a fantastic small business called Dynamic Office Supplies in the electorate of Bradfield. I was joined by Angus Taylor and the current but retiring member for Bradfield, Paul Fletcher, and we met with Cesar, the owner, to hear about these very tough economic conditions that have affected his business. He said: 'Chatting to staff, it certainly doesn't feel like anything is getting cheaper or making it easier to do business. People are hurting, and to do what you were doing last year you've got to work twice as hard.' That's something I'm hearing everywhere I go, whether it be Sydney, Adelaide, inner-city Melbourne or regional Victoria. Our small businesses are being smashed. They're being pummelled by Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Under the Albanese government, more than 27,000 businesses have gone under, including around 1,300 businesses in the hospitality sector in the last six months alone, and the number and rate of business failures are accelerating. The December 2024 quarter was the worst quarter for business insolvencies on record, but Labor seems to have no plan to help. The coalition understands that small business is the lifeblood of our economy and that small businesses need to be supported, which is why Peter Dutton has announced that the coalition government will provide small businesses with turnover up to $10 million with a tax deduction for up to $20,000 per year spent on food at local clubs, pubs or cafes and restaurants. This supports small businesses who want to invest in their staff and their clients, and it boosts our hospitality sector by increasing spending in local cafes, restaurants and other venues that have really been at the pointy end of Labor's cost-of-living crisis, where they have shrinking margins but are unable to raise their prices. It's about ensuring that businesses can recover and thrive, not just survive. It's been so well received by a small business owner whom I have been discussing it with: a man named Joel Drysdale, an experienced publican and brewer and also the Liberal Party candidate for Scullin at the next election. Joel knows firsthand how tough it is for small-business owners in Victoria right now because he is one. He opened his first business back in 2015. He'll be celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. I was out at Joel's business in Pascoe Vale and asked why he wanted to run for parliament. His answer was terrific. He said: 'As a small-business owner, I got sick of paying taxes and watching them being wasted by government. We spend so much time working and putting into the system, and then just to see it all disappear without any results. It's really tough.' He's absolutely right. It's incredibly tough watching the dollars of hardworking Australians go to waste, and there is so much waste coming out of Labor. I then went to Campbellfield to meet Steve Antoniadis, who is a proud owner of the Australian owned and operated manufacturing business Dreamaster. He spoke to us about the challenges facing local manufacturers, including high energy and import costs as well as red tape. Businesses like Dreamaster are vitally important to their local communities. They support the economy and they create jobs. Business owners like Steve, Cesar and Joel himself work incredibly hard. We cannot understand why Labor is so hell-bent on implementing policies that create more harm than good for people like this. Why do they want to make small-business owners' lives harder rather than easier? It makes no sense. The coalition is committed to practical solutions to support small businesses. We understand that businesses don't need more bureaucracy; they need real and tangible relief. Joel Drysdale is standing for Scullin because he believes in supporting small businesses, fixing local infrastructure and ensuring that families get ahead and get the services they deserve. He's a successful small-business owner himself. He's backed himself. He's worked incredibly hard. He'll make an extraordinary contribution to the party room and to the small-business policy development process. The people of Scullin deserve a representative that will stand up and deliver for them, and that's exactly what they're going to get in Joel Drysdale. Climate Change 97 19:40 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I speak today for the increasing number of Australians who are having to endure relentless heatwaves that are increasing and impacting on their safety and wellbeing. The capacity of our hospital system to meet this increasing demand and to support them and their wellbeing is truly at the brink of breaking. The year 2024 is again our hottest year on record, and yet our government has continued to subsidise, extend and approve new fossil fuel projects. Not only does the burning of fossil fuels impact our water and food resources; air pollution from these industries now kills more people than smoking. For many people, it is increasingly making their living conditions unliveable. Over summer, Perth has struggled through 25 days above 35 degrees, with back-to-back heatwaves breaking records again. In WA we are seeing temperatures of over 45 degrees cooking large areas of our state. The poor folks in Geraldton experienced a whopping 49.3 degrees for the second year in a row. It may be difficult for those on the ministerial benches, existing in the air-conditioned and cooled corridors of this parliament, to imagine what it is like to experience these conditions. But, for many Australians without access to aircon in their homes or in their workplaces, these summer temperatures are incredibly stressful. For those experiencing poverty or homelessness, these conditions can be downright critical. Older Australians, disabled people and those with chronic health conditions are all at risk of exacerbated health challenges. Climate hazards like heatwaves and bushfires are putting further pressure on our emergency departments and on our hospitals. A study from Curtin University in Perth found a strong link between bushfire smoke and hospital admissions for heart and lung problems, particularly in disadvantaged areas and those who are at much higher risk. In December, paramedics in Perth responded to the most heat related emergency call-outs they have ever received, leading to over 1,000 hours of ambulance ramping in Perth hospitals in just one week. Our hospitals are already strained and, in many cases, over capacity. Thirty per cent of patients remain waiting in emergency eight hours after their arrival. In WA, it takes on average 14 hours for 90 per cent of people to be admitted from the ED. This is not down to a lack of compassion, skill, willingness or expertise from our excellent WA healthcare workers. They are so committed to our community. This is down to a lack of resourcing and poor decision-making from government. This situation is why the Greens have recently announced an investment of over $30 billion into local public hospitals across this nation, with $3 billion alone going to Perth and its 88 public hospitals. I have heard from so many nurses, so many doctors and so many family members who have desperately needed health care—so many people who have needed help. They are so sick of politicians praising those in health care, praising the healthcare system and happily turning up to cut the ribbon on an ED, only to then walk away when money needs to be committed. Let's get this right. Let's fund these hospitals properly. Let's put people before private institutions. Maryvale Paper Mill, Forestry Industry 98 19:45 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria This evening, I rise in support of the 308 pulp and paper manufacturing workers who've been brutally stood down without pay at the Maryvale mill in Victoria's Latrobe Valley. The workers were locked out by Opal Australian Paper—owned by a very large multinational, Nippon—after just seven workers undertook protected stop-work action, as was their right under our industrial relations system. Following this single, limited action, over 300 employees and their union, the CFMEU Manufacturing Division, were given just one hour's notice that they would be locked out of work, denying employment and pay to all the production workers. Hundreds of other workers and contractors adjacent to the mill have also been stood down. This adversarial move by Opal comes after years of cooperation from the workers, the union members, to financially secure the mill during very difficult times. This included the employees agreeing to reclassification and wage resets, as well as a five per cent pay cut back in 2016. In return for their cooperation, Opal has shamefully offered its workers a choice between a real cut to wages and workplace conditions or an indefinite lockout from work and income. I can tell you that a lot of them are relying on that income to support their families. The Maryvale mill is one of Latrobe Valley's largest employers, manufacturing brown paper and cardboard for the packaging industry—something that we all take for granted. These products are critical to ecommerce and helped to keep us connected during the pandemic. The mill has been an integral part of the community since 1937, and the supply chain has empowered the community and the local economy for so long. In fact, there are multiple generations of families that have been working there. These men and women who have families to support now have no job security and no income. I hope the company is watching. These 308 workers deserve much better than this unjustifiable lockout, and I call on Opal to return its employees to work and to engage with them and the union in good faith, for the sake of their families and the local community. I stand in solidarity with the pulp and paper division, the Maryvale mill workers and every Australian that is fighting for secure work, for secure jobs and for better pay. While I'm on my feet, I also want to address a number of challenges that are faced by our forestry industry. Australia's forestry industry is world-class. It employs around 80,000 people directly and supports another 100,000 indirectly across the supply chain, particularly in regional Australia. Our country's forestry industry contributes around $24 billion to our economy every year. Much of this imported timber also comes from countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, whose environmental laws fall significantly short of our own standards. Unlike Victoria's sustainable hardwood industry, which has harvested just four in every 10,000 trees in the state's native forests, trees in both Malaysia and Indonesia are cut down with scarce regard for forest ecosystems. But, prior to regulation by the Australian government, 10 per cent of this imported timber was logged illegally. Illegal logging undercuts our world-leading sustainable timber and has devastating environmental consequences. The Albanese government is very proud to be introducing legislation to combat illegal logging, and next month, when they come into effect, our new laws will actually target the illegal timber trade, increasing our reputation as a nation committed to sustainable forestry. Sadly, our efforts risk being undercut by a tax on our forest industries by some of our state governments and large businesses—something I will have more to say about in this place in due course. Housing 99 19:50 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The Australian people are wondering why housing has gone so badly off track under this government. I believe that, when people come looking for answers, it's important that we are able to give authoritative information as to why the Labor Party has run the housing system into the ground and the Australian dream is further away than ever before. The first key datapoint here is the rate of construction. Under the former coalition government, we saw an average of 192,000 houses being constructed each year. Under this government's reign, we've seen just 174,000 houses being constructed on average. If you want to try to solve the housing crisis, you need to build more houses, not fewer houses. Labor has constructed bureaucracies, not houses. It has built organisations, like the Housing Australia Future Fund, which don't build houses. That is the first area where the government has gone wrong here. It has gone for a bureaucratic, government-centric approach which has resulted in fewer houses being constructed compared to under the last government. The second area is in the scope of the difficulty facing people trying to get a deposit. Under this government, it is now taking a younger Australian 14 more months than it would have under the past government to get a deposit together for a first home. In Sydney, the largest city in my home state, it is now taking a young person 13 years on average to bring together a deposit for a first home, so people are relying more and more on the bank of mum and dad, if they are lucky enough to have that. The third key datapoint here is in relation to what I call a cruel hoax by Labor: the Help to Buy scheme. The majority of freestanding houses in Australia's capital cities are not eligible for the Help to Buy scheme. Just 14 per cent of the houses in Sydney are eligible for Help to Buy. In Adelaide it's six per cent, and in Perth it's seven per cent. Think about that number. Six per cent of the houses in Adelaide are eligible for the government's only solution for people in a housing crisis. And then, if you look at the social media of the housing minister, Ms O'Neil, you see pictures of freestanding houses and text saying, 'This is what Help to Buy can get you.' It is a cruel hoax, but it is a very good snapshot of the terrible position we are in. We have fewer houses, longer times to get deposits and callous schemes in which Australians wanting to buy houses cannot achieve access. That is why at this juncture it is so important that we learn the lessons from this bad government's mistakes. I'm not sure it was a deliberate effort, but it will ultimately result in them destroying the Australian dream. The lesson is that bureaucracies don't build houses. You need to find a practical solution to support the development of last-mile infrastructure—water, sewerage and roads. Then you need to find practical ways to tilt the scales in favour of first home buyers, which we are doing through our superannuation deposit policy, and, furthermore, be realistic that reducing foreign demand for Australian housing is a very good idea. Why should Australians have to compete with foreign residents and temporary foreign residents when they want to buy their first home? It is wrong, and that is why banning foreign residents and temporary residents from purchasing existing Australian houses is a very important part of the overall policy solution, alongside allowing people to use their own superannuation money. Supporting the supply of new houses through last-mile infrastructure is going to be the only way to get housing back on track, because Labor has virtually killed the Australian dream in their last three years. Tasmania: Grocery Prices 99 19:55 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania What would you do with an extra $900 in your pocket every year? It would mean your son could finally play on the football team because he could finally afford the uniform and membership fees. Maybe you could afford to keep your heater on in the freezing Tassie winter. It might pay for your car rego or a month of rent. That's what bringing Aldi to Tasmania will do for struggling Tasmanian families. The national competition watchdog says that bringing Aldi to town saves people, on average, $890. For any family I know, that money would be life-changing. Tassie is stuck under the thumb of the two major supermarket giants: Coles and Woolies. If we want better prices, we need more supermarket options. We have 78 independent grocery stores, compared to 32 Woolies stores and 32 Coles stores. The big two keep saying, 'There's nothing to see here,' but it's all smoke and mirrors. It's not about the number of stores they have but where they put them. Tassie has the highest density of Coles stores compared to any other state or territory. The average Coles store is 2.5 kilometres from any other Coles store, so when a new Coles opens up they're not giving more people access to a supermarket; Coles are just stacking stores on top of one another and competing with themselves. Why would any business spend all that money in operating costs just to eat into its own profit? Coles and Woolies do this to stop other supermarkets from setting up shop in prime areas. They would rather lose money than let a competitor come in. It's like a school bully saying, 'You can't sit with us at lunch,' only in this case Coles and Woolies are shutting out the other supermarkets from coming to Tasmania. Competitors like Aldi won't be viable here while this duopoly keeps getting away with this very bad behaviour. Public pressure is a big part of calling out the big two on their 'mean girls' attitude. That's why I have a petition in Tasmania to bring Aldi to Tasmania. More than 1,000 Tasmanians have already jumped on board to show how keen they are for cheaper groceries. As with any good idea, there are plenty of people who think it just won't work. Let's rule out some of the reasons Aldi might not come to Tassie. One is that we're too small. Tassie has a pretty small population of only half a million people, but the ACT is the same size as us, and they have 14 Aldis. The town of Yass, just outside the ACT border, has a population of just under 7,000 people, and guess what? They have their very own Aldi. It is like Georgetown or New Norfolk having an Aldi. This proves that Aldi can survive and thrive in smaller regional towns. Here's another argument: the freight costs are too high. The huge cost of freight across the Bass Strait is enough to scare any business off. That's why I headed up a Senate inquiry into the federal government's freight scheme. It found that the system was broken and failing Tasmanian businesses. There's a final report with heaps of recommendations on how the scheme can be better and fairer for businesses. It's on Labor and the coalition to take those ideas and get them moving. It's also a chance for Aldi to open itself up to new supply chains with local suppliers. After all, if you visit Tassie, you know we have the best produce going around. A third argument: why support a German company over local retailers? I'm the first person to back in my local retailers—they're amazing—but if we want lower grocery prices Aldi is the one at a scale large enough to pressure Woolworths and Coles. We have evidence to show lower grocery prices when Aldi comes to town. We don't have the same evidence for when IGA moves in. Tasmanians are desperate for cheaper grocery prices. Family budgets are too tight. I remember what it was like as a single mum, trying to cover all the essentials. There were times when I had to pick and choose which bills to pay on time. For the ones I couldn't pay, I begged companies for a payment plan. When it came to groceries, I tried to use home brand and cut back where I could. But it would always leave a gaping hole in the budget, and I remember how much it wore me down. The constant worry about whether I'd be able to pay my bills and afford to feed my family was a heavy weight on my shoulders. That's why I'm doing everything I can to bring cheaper grocery prices to Tasmania. We deserve to have what every other state in the country has. So come on, Aldi; throw us a bone. Broadband 100 20:00 Senator 296331 South Australia GROGAN () (): The internet is no longer a luxury; it is a fundamental utility in this country and across the world, as essential as your water, electricity supply and roads. But far too many Australians don't have reliable internet. It still remains out of reach. Unfortunately, due to almost a decade of neglect under the coalition, we're well behind where we intended to be when Labor started this and well behind where we actually should be. We know the coalition's history with the NBN. It's no secret. People have lived it. We've watched it play out. They opted for slower upgrades and even slower internet speeds, and they all but demolished the NBN system that the Labor government had started building. Given the chance this election, it would be no surprise to see Mr Dutton and the coalition likely privatise it, make cuts to it or slow down the speeds just so they can save some money because their rich friends can afford to purchase whatever is required for their own needs—and anyone else be damned. The coalition have made it clear that they're not afraid to cut vital services that everyday Australians rely on—services like Medicare. We've seen announcements that there are going to be huge cuts, billions and billions in cuts, but they don't think anyone needs to know what they're going to be; that's a big surprise for later, as to what's going to be cut. But we only have to look at the history of the coalition. We only have to look at the history and the facts rather than listen to all the rubbish we hear being spouted over there. Their target will not just be the NBN, that vital service that we need for prosperity and to grow our economy. It'll be the cost of living. It'll be tax. It'll be education. It'll be our healthcare system. Let's not forget, particularly after an awful lot of wittering on today from over there, what they tried to do to the Racial Discrimination Act and section 18C. These are all facts. These are all things that the coalition government did when they were in government for almost 10 years. These are the things that they actually did, not the things they're telling you they're going to do now. There's a huge disconnect between those two things. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on its commitment to complete the NBN rollout. We are delivering on that. We have committed to an investment of $3 billion to upgrade the remaining fibre to the node—the essential aspect of the NBN—to serve all households, not just some. It's not just about the infrastructure; it is also about affordability. That's why we're investing additional money into a really critical program to extend the School Student Broadband Initiative. That program provides access for families who need it most but maybe cannot afford it. Targeting that support to those children who need it and those families who need it is a huge part of our cost-of-living measures. As I've said, the internet is not a luxury; it is essential to engage in all the services we need for employment and for education. We need the internet for work and for the NBN to work as designed. It is now on catch-up following 10 disastrous years under the coalition. Labor is getting the NBN back on track for those students, for people in regional and remote areas and for all those people who are still struggling with poor internet speeds. So don't listen to the rubbish that's being spoken over there. Just look at the history. Look at the facts. Look at what the coalition did when they were in government. Look at the facts and make appropriate choices. Only Labor will get the NBN on track and provide those essential internet services to Australians wherever they may be across our country. Energy 101 20:05 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland In the last few years lots of us in North Queensland have heard Labor politicians promise us that there will be a utopia of new hydrogen jobs coming through for us within years. Indeed, two years ago almost to the day, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, came up to North Queensland and said: Renewable hydrogen can be used as a transport fuel, for energy, and in manufacturing. Producing it here will help Australia become a renewable energy superpower, exporting power to the world. A lot of people in Central Queensland and other parts of the country where these promises have been made are now asking: where are these hydrogen jobs? Just two weeks after the Prime Minister made that comment two years ago, the New York based company Plug Power pulled out of Fortescue's Gladstone hydrogen project, citing higher costs. It was an early warning sign. Since then, six other major projects in Australia have failed. There was the ATCO clean energy project in WA. Origin's Hunter Valley hydrogen hub has ended. There was the HyEnergy project in Gascoyne in Western Australia. The Kawasaki Gippsland hydrogen project is gone. Just the other day BP announced it is ending its $1 billion Kwinana hydrogen project. Kansai pulled out last year from the Central Queensland hydrogen project, a project backed by Stanwell. Just this week, the Queensland government has also put another nail in its coffin, saying it won't chuck in the $1.2 billion that Stanwell need to continue. When are we going to get some reality here? People are sick and tired of being fibbed to and having misleading statements and fairytales sold to them as reality. This was never going to happen. Either the Labor Party knew it wasn't going to happen and still told people these fairytales or they were silly enough to believe it would happen when all the evidence showed that hydrogen was not ready for prime time. When we were in government—and I say all this as the resources minister at the time—we launched the nation's first hydrogen strategy, but we took a much more measured approach in our strategy. We outlined that we didn't expect any exports of hydrogen from Australia, or nothing of a major note, until 2030 or well after 2030. It was clearly the evidence then, and it is now, that the cost of producing hydrogen is nowhere near the level such that there will be large buyers of it any time soon. In our national hydrogen strategy, we concentrated on investing in research activities, as you would do with a technology that is still developing—trying to lower the cost of that. We invested $146 million. I would say that was a fair investment but nothing close to the astronomical $14 billion that this government has put towards these white elephant hydrogen projects, wasting taxpayer dollars, wasting people's time and giving people false hope to hide its broader plans to pull support from the coal industry and walk away from the jobs there. They sold this on a promise. Why would politicians run around spruiking these fairytales which were clearly untrue? It doesn't make a lot of sense except if you remember that, at the time the Labor Party adopted this policy, they were under huge political pressure over the fact that they couldn't support the coal industry in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, walking away from those jobs because they were too much in bed with the Greens. So they instead deserted coalminers, people who have supported them for years, an industry that's supported them for years and deserves better, and ran around telling this fairytale, saying: 'It's okay, guys and girls. You will get a job in hydrogen if you vote for the Labor Party.' The hydrogen promise has proven to be a whole lot of hot air. It is not happening. We must reinvest in our traditional strengths as a country. We have huge energy resources. There is no reason we have to kill one industry to grow another industry. I've got nothing against developing our hydrogen resources. We don't really have hydrogen resources, but we could potentially make hydrogen. I don't have anything against trying to do that, but we do not need to walk away from a successful industry which is exporting record amounts of product and has been bringing in record revenues for this country in the last few years. We should back our coal industry and be proud of it, as it funds our nation. We should not go down garden paths which just give people false hope. Johnston, Hon. William Joseph (Bill) 102 20:10 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia The combination of longevity and sustained achievement in a political career is a rare thing. For more than a quarter of a century, Bill Johnston has been a central figure in the election and success of Labor governments in Western Australia. He's also been a friend and a political mentor during my time in the Labor Party. He retires this year from the Western Australian parliament. It is no easy thing to try to provide a snapshot of a career that has encompassed decades of service to the union movement, the Labor Party, the Western Australian parliament and the people of Western Australia. As a state secretary for the Western Australian Labor Party, Bill applied his enormous capacity for hard work, his attention to detail and his deep well of common sense to the conduct of election campaigns. He ran the election campaigns that elected Geoff Gallop as Premier in 2001 and re-elected Dr Gallop in 2005. Those were governments that ended old-growth forest logging across the state, improved water security in Western Australia and built a railway line to Mandurah, among other things. In 2008, Bill was elected as the Western Australian member for Cannington, and the electorate has benefited from his energetic advocacy since. On road safety, he's fought to fix black spots, upgrade intersections and replace level crossings, and, in education, he's secured significant upgrades to schools in the electorate, including a major upgrade to the Lynwood Senior High School. Bill has always been a policy wonk or a nerd. As a person who came up through the organisational wing of the Labor Party, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and the party office, this has sometimes surprised people, but it has never been possible to catch up with Bill without hearing about the latest technology or policy initiative that could benefit the people of Western Australia. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once said that arguing with John Maynard Keynes felt like taking his life into his own hands. Those on the other side of policy debates with Minister Johnston must have felt something similar when facing someone with his depth of knowledge, strength of purpose and withering sense of humour. Bill served in the cabinets of the governments of Mark McGowan and Roger Cook and was one of the pillars on which each of those governments was built. Through his leadership as the Minister for Industrial Relations, he secured nation-leading reforms that made industrial manslaughter illegal in Western Australia. That is, he outlawed the preventable workplace deaths that were caused by employer negligence. Under the legislation he passed, insurance could no longer be obtained to cover penalties incurred for preventable workplace accidents and deaths. Bill's roots in the trade union movement and his policy acumen secured this vital reform and ended the lack of accountability for those workers and for those people responsible for workers not returning home at the end of the day. As Minister for Energy, Bill Johnston tackled the challenges arising from integrating higher volumes of rooftop solar into the grid in Western Australia and was involved in developing and implementing the early stages of the economic transition of the town of Collie away from coalmining by attracting new industries and clean technology to the region and investing in training programs for workers. As the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Bill was a steward of the engine room of the Western Australian and Australian economies. When he announced his retirement from the ministry, Australian Energy Producers Western Australia Director Caroline Cherry observed: Mr Johnston … has contributed significantly to the prosperity and development of the Western Australian resources sector over the past six years. Bill was also Western Australia's first ever Minister for Asian Engagement, an appropriate role for someone whose love for our region and for one of our most important neighbours, Indonesia, has always been a feature of his outlook on public life. That outlook traces back to his time as an exchange student in Bandung, in the West Java province of Indonesia, in 1981 and 1982. It speaks to another aspect of Bill's character that he has retained his links with his host family and friends from that exchange for more than 40 years. Building Western Australia's links with Indonesia has been a labour of love for Bill. These achievements and others speak to Bill's enormous horsepower and capacity as a minister. He was also asked to take on the toughest jobs in the government and brought his trademark rigour, tenacity and focus to those jobs. They were jobs that, in political terms, might be described as difficult—jobs that Sir Humphrey Appleby might have described as 'courageous' ones to undertake—but Bill never shirked those decisions and he has never wanted for courage. The Premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook, described Bill on his retirement in these terms: 'He is easily, by far and away, the most technically proficient cabinet minister that I have, and was always able to make an important contribution to the discussions in cabinet.' When asked about his seeming penchant for difficult roles, Bill spoke to the higher purpose of politics and his own role in it. He said, 'I was asked to do some complex jobs, and if people thought that that was because I was competent then that's a great compliment to me, but, in the end, politics is more important than the individual.' Despite never taking a backwards step politically, Bill retires with an enviable reputation. He is respected across a cross-section of the West Australian community, and, in a political climate that often elevates contumely and vitriol, Bill remained committed to bringing thoughtfulness, candour, inquiry and integrity to his tasks. He leaves behind the legacy of a builder. At every stage of his career, he has brought people along and built them up. Many within the Western Australian Labor Party and the labour movement, including me, have benefited enormously from Bill's generosity with his time and advice. For as long as I can remember, whenever anyone has asked Bill, 'How are you?' his unfailing if mischievous reply has been, 'All the better for seeing you.' After his more than four decades of service to the people of Western Australia, our state is all the better for having known Bill Johnston. Antisemitism 103 20:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Eighty-five years ago, the world learned a terrible lesson about what happens when hatred is ignored. In 1938 the streets of Germany and Austria were littered with the broken glass of Jewish businesses, synagogues were burned as fire brigades stood idly by, and the first violent blows of what would become the Holocaust were struck. It was not sudden; the signs had been there for years, but the world had looked away. We vowed it would never happen again, yet here we are. In recent months, Australians have watched in disbelief as Jewish schools have been graffitied, a synagogue and a childcare centre have been set alight, homes and businesses have been vandalised and antisemitic threats have escalated to outright violence. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a disturbing pattern, one that history has shown us before. On 30 January, a Jewish school in Sydney was defaced with antisemitic graffiti. It was the first day of school, and Jewish children had to walk past messages of hatred—a modern echo of Nazi Germany, where Jewish businesses were marked and defaced to warn others to stay away. We all remember the firebombing of a Melbourne synagogue late last year. It was a haunting parallel to Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass, when, in 1938, synagogues across Germany were set alight while authorities turned a blind eye. Just last week, it became known that a caravan packed full of explosives—along with a note to 'kill the Jews' and the address of a nearby synagogue—had been uncovered by police as early as 19 January. On multiple occasions, cars belonging to Jewish Australians have been torched, homes have been marked with threats, and swastikas—symbols of a genocide that should have been left behind in history—have been scrawled across Australian neighbourhoods. These are not just criminal acts. They are premeditated attempts to instil fear—or, worse, to cause severe harm—in a community that has already suffered so much. This crisis hit home—quite literally—this past weekend in Perth. In the quiet suburb of Dalkeith, a family woke to find their front wall defaced with a swastika and vile antisemitic slurs. It was a chilling reminder that this hatred is not at a distance; it is here in our own streets, amongst our own neighbourhoods. It is an undeniable fact that we are witnessing the normalisation of antisemitic hate in Australia, and, if history has taught us anything, it is that indifference allows evil to flourish. What does it say about our nation when Jewish Australians no longer feel safe in their own homes, in their own schools or in their own places of worship? We also know where this path leads. The lead-up to the Holocaust was not just about violence; it was about the gradual erosion of protections, the normalisation of Jew hatred and the silence of leaders who should have spoken out. First, Jews were blamed for economic downturns. Today we see the resurgence of conspiracy theories about Jewish influence in business and politics. Two weeks ago, at the Queensland University of Technology, an antiracism symposium, an event supposedly dedicated to tolerance, became a platform for overt antisemitism. The event featured a grotesque caricature labelled 'Dutton's Jew' which portrayed Jewish coalition supporters as racist villains. This was not a crude misstep or a bad attempt at satire; it was a calculated effort to stigmatise Jewish Australians who hold certain political views. Despite incidents like this, excuses remain abundant. We hear arguments that antisemitism is complicated, that graffiti and vandalism are just protests and that hatred towards Jews is somehow different from all other forms of hatred. For decades, Australia stood united in its rejection of antisemitism. Governments of all stripes condemned hatred without hesitation, ensuring our Jewish communities felt secure and protected. Yet today we have seen a concerning shift, one where political opportunism has been allowed to cloud moral clarity. The Albanese government's inconsistent and at times tepid response to rising antisemitism has only emboldened extremists. When members of the government fail to unequivocally condemn antisemitism, or engage in moral relativism, they send a dangerous message—that this is a debate rather than a clear-cut issue of right and wrong. We saw this when Labor members failed to call out antisemitism in their own ranks. We saw this when the government hesitated to support a full adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. We saw this when Labor chose political gamesmanship over moral leadership, delaying a strong bipartisan motion condemning antisemitic attacks in Australia. This should not be a partisan issue. The rejection of antisemitism should be a cause that unites us, not divides us. The safety of Jewish Australians should never be subject to political calculations. If we are to be serious about combatting this rising wave of hatred, it requires true bipartisanship and a return to principled leadership that puts national unity before political advantage. Of course, antisemitism does not exist in a vacuum. It is never just a problem for the Jewish community. It is a national problem. When antisemitism rises unchecked, history shows that it is soon followed by wider social decay. Antisemitism thrives in societies where courage is absent, leadership is weak and animosity is indulged. We cannot afford to be weak. We must be clear. The time for vague condemnations has passed. Jewish Australians do not need sympathy; they need action. This means full enforcement of hate crime laws with no excuses; stronger security measures for Jewish institutions, including synagogues, schools and community centres; zero tolerance for antisemitism in our universities, where Jewish students are facing growing hostility; firm political leadership; and refusing to legitimise organisations and figures that glorify antisemitic violence. Let me also be clear about this: antisemitism in Australia is not only coming from fringe extremists; it is now coming from mainstream voices, from those who should know better, from elected officials who tolerate hatred in their own ranks. It is being excused, rationalised and dismissed by those who refuse to see antisemitism for what it is—a dangerous, insidious cancer that threatens not only the Jewish community but the very fabric of our democracy. At last month's International Holocaust Remembrance Day event in Perth, Judith Lawrence, the Director of the Holocaust Institute of WA, posed a question that should haunt us all: how was the Holocaust humanly possible? The answer was sobering. The Holocaust was not the product of one moment nor of one man. It was the result of a world that allowed hatred to take root unchecked until it reached its most horrific expression. It started small. Words, propaganda, exclusion, discrimination, violence, extermination—it was gradual until it was sudden. This is the warning history gives us, and today we see those same warning signs all around us. We failed to heed them in the 1930s. We failed again in the 1940s, when nations like our own turned away Jewish refugees fleeing genocide. Let us not fail again. We must act swiftly and without hesitation. The history books will record whether we stood up or whether we stood by. Australia—its government, its leaders, its everyday citizens—must now choose wisely. ADVANCE, Youth Justice 104 20:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales So-called Advance Australia is just the Liberal Party's most extreme faction. ADVANCE is a front group for the most conservative and divisive elements inside the coalition. It was started by people who were literally Tony Abbott's faction allies and mates. They want Prime Minister Dutton so the grift can continue. We hear from them that it's all grassroots and common sense, but it's literally billionaire climate change deniers trying to overturn our democracy to line their pockets. They are lining up against the Greens, and to that I say good. If this lot don't like you, then you're doing the right thing by the planet and you're doing the right thing by ordinary folks. ADVANCE claims to be powered by grassroots donations; that's their social media spin, but AEC donations data shows this is far from the case. Some of the wealthiest Australians are recorded as being ADVANCE's big backers, having funnelled hundreds of thousands of dollars through shady holding companies to keep ADVANCE's campaigns to destroy climate action, to defeat progressive social policy and to stop justice for First Nations. They are the richest people in Australia drawing their battlelines to protect their wealth and their privilege. They hated the Voice because it could have challenged their pillage of natural resources of this country. And they're attacking the Greens because we don't just roll over and have our bellies tickled by billionaires. In fact, we want to tax them back to Earth. ADVANCE was, in part, founded by Dr Maurice Newman, a Liberal Party insider and climate science denier, who, bafflingly, is apparently holding out for global cooling to chill his drinks. How Liberal is this block? Well, John Howard appointed him as chair of the ABC. He remains a close friend of John Howard, and he was chairman of Tony Abbott's Business Advisory Council. You might have heard about him in 2023, when Mr Newman wrote an article where he attributed the loss of the Australian cricket team in India that year to Australian cricketers being 'too woke'. Unfortunately for him the Australian cricket team then turned around and won the Cricket World Cup that year, beating India in the finals and, in fact, won the Ashes. It turns out his takes on cricket are about as good as his takes on politics and climate. Even more tellingly, the Liberal Cormack Foundation has given ADVANCE half a million dollars. It's an investment, they see, in the Liberal Party's political future. But they keep trying to hide it and pretend it's an independent group. What? An independent group of billionaires spruiking Liberal policies? That's what it is. ADVANCE wants to bring Trumpian far-right politics here so that billionaires profit while communities and the planet suffer. It's no coincidence that ADVANCE and its Liberal Party backers are sounding distinctly Trumpian right now. In fact, the people who set up and funded ADVANCE also set up and funded a bunch of other think tanks and astroturf groups around the world that are members of the US based Atlas Network. In fact, Atlas has hundreds of these organisations active around the world, many here in Australia and including one you might have heard of recently: the Heritage Foundation, which literally wrote Project 2025 for Donald Trump. It is the same playbook everywhere these billionaire funded junk tanks and their astroturf groups operate. ADVANCE and these other groups want to pit people in our community against one another. They want to misinform and divide and conquer for their own interests, and we reject their division. The first ever federal inquiry into youth justice and incarceration held its hearing yesterday, and it was a powerful moment of advocacy for those working hard to reduce the harm of what is often a racist and criminogenic so-called criminal justice system for young people in this country. I want to thank the chair, Senator Scarr, for his work, his time and his devotion yesterday in the inquiry; I want to thank the secretariat for their incredible work in pulling together an extraordinary number of witnesses; and I particularly want to thank those witnesses who came and gave their evidence to the inquiry. But it was deeply unedifying to see the failure of leadership by the federal government and the Attorney-General's Department being exposed as it was yesterday. Again and again, witnesses came and told us how broken the system was—how it's failing children and routinely abusing their rights. We heard from SNAICC about a young Aboriginal boy so seriously mauled by police dogs that he required multiple surgeons. We heard from the National Justice Project that 90 per cent of children in WA's Banksia Hill children's prison had a neuropsychological disorder. We heard from the South Australian children's commissioner that in her jurisdiction 90 per cent of the kids in detention—nine out of 10 of the kids in detention—had a disability, and the Northern Territory Children's Commissioner was literally in tears as she spoke about what was happening in the NT, where up to 100 per cent of the kids in jail every night are Aboriginal. Shine for Kids, who work with kids and families, trying to connect them in jail, told us that when kids get out of prison they often get no access to programs—nothing at all. In fact, the National Children's Commissioner told us one of the most tragic stories, about kids being sent out of prison in Queensland and given a tent because they had no home to go to. Again and again, witnesses told us that it's actually getting worse and becoming more brutal and that states and territories are increasingly abusing kids' rights. In fact, there are more protections when you buy a toaster in this country than there are for kids who are being put in jail cells. Think about that: there are more protections for us when we buy a toaster than there are for kids who are thrown in jail cells and, in Queensland, thrown in watch houses, sometimes for weeks and weeks on end, with nothing—no services, no access, nothing. This is cruelty at its most extreme. The Queensland children's commissioner told us that children in Queensland now have even fewer legal protections than adults, and the Queensland government has admitted this multiple times. We heard from the New South Wales children's commissioner that these children who are trapped in the system in New South Wales have been let down from birth. Witnesses came to the Senate and literally said that they are yelling and screaming on behalf of the kids who don't seem to have a voice. What did we hear from the federal government? Well, when the government came and gave their evidence, we moved away from the evidence based policy that we had from the NGOs and the commissioners, we moved away from the understanding that something had to change, and we moved away from those who were obviously sitting with children and bringing their voices to parliament, and it descended into farce. The officials told us that they had road maps and plans for raising the age and for bail reform, but they said they were explicitly not intended to change anything. They create these road maps, but they never intended to change anything. They told us that it's fine that the Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria have gone backwards and kids are less safe in those jurisdictions. They said that's all fine; it's not their business. That's not leadership; it's a farce. We heard again and again from these bureaucrats about justice policy partnerships, implementation road maps, strategic frameworks, criminal responsibility working groups, sub-working groups and bail and remand working groups that are ignored by the states and territories—just ignored and treated as verbiage and rubbish. None of this stuff, none of this pretend activity at a federal level, is keeping a single child out of prison for a single day. It's worse than a farce. What is the point of it if it keeps producing documents and working groups and meetings that never change anything for the better and are never intended to? I'll finish with the words of the Western Australian children's commissioner, in the hope they're heard in this place: 'The things these kids in detention need are the same things that your kids need'—support, love and education. 'We need to stop blaming them for the circumstances they were born into.' Last year I visited Papua New Guinea, and while I was there I met with the West Papuan diaspora. In a meeting with West Papuan refugees they told me that even as we were speaking there were people fleeing across the border into PNG and the homes of West Papuans were being destroyed, often to pave the way for illegal logging and mining. One of the region's most catastrophic human crises is occurring literally on Australia's doorstep, and our government is not doing a thing, not lifting a finger. West Papuan refugees told me that because of the legal limbo they're often subjected to in PNG their kids can't even complete an education and often can't work if they haven't got the right paperwork. What shocked me was that what the West Papuan diaspora were asking the Australian government to do was so little—just offer some support: at least a few pathways for people to seek asylum in Australia. In a letter that one West Papuan sent me afterwards, they said: 'Most of us spoke on behalf of our people, our families and loved ones, even those who have long departed from us. We just want to be treated fairly and equally as normal human beings.' I was lucky enough to also meet with journalists, intellectuals, business leaders and even a few of my PNG Greens comrades as part of the West Papuan think tank MeLAWAN. And I've got to tell you that the depth and breadth of their knowledge was genuinely inspiring—seeing West Papuans advocating so clearly for their right to self-determination based on peace and justice. This place needs to hear a lot more of that. Australian Eritrean Community, Karen New Year, Universities: Antisemitism 106 20:36 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland On 17 and 18 January, just last month, the Australian Eritrean community held its inaugural Eritrean Australian Community and Youth Festival in my state of Queensland. I was delighted to attend, along with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Milton Dick MP, an event hosted by the Eritrean Australian community at the Polish Club in Darra. This was a great celebration of Eritrean heritage and culture and the vibrant contribution of Eritrean youth in our country. Whilst it was a celebration, very deep concerns were raised with respect to foreign interference occurring in our country on behalf of the Eritrean dictatorship. Concerns were raised that members of the Australian community are being harassed and intimidated. Those who are speaking for democracy and freedom in Eritrea are being targeted in this country by the Eritrean regime, a dictatorship. I want to say to the Eritrean regime, to put on the record here in the Australian Senate, what I said at the event, which is: we have laws in this country against foreign political interference. Any attempt to intimidate, to harass, to silence members of our Eritrean community exercising their democratic rights in this country is unacceptable. It is intolerable. It is reprehensible. Any attack on our Eritrean community exercising their democratic rights in our country is an attack on this institution and its values. Any attack on them is an attack on me as a Queensland senator. Our Eritrean community is a great blessing for our beautiful country, and you will always have my 100 per cent support. I was delighted on Saturday 11 January to attend a celebration of the Karen New Year. This is the 2,764th Karen new year in accordance with the Karen calendar. I want to quote to you from the speech which was delivered by Mr Sanlwin Y Shwe, who is the vice chair of the Australian Karen Organisation. I am going to quote it at length because it was a beautiful, heartfelt speech and made a number of key points. He said: 'I would also like to share some positive stories from the community. Arriving here with nothing as refugees, we have witnessed significant progress over the past 18 years. A significant number of community members have acquired their own transportation and homes, run and owned a commercial business and engaged in diverse industries and sectors. It is important to note that many of our youth have graduated from university and some of our young men and women are proudly serving in the Australian Defence Force. Some of them have been assigned to overseas missions to safeguard Australian interests, promote democracy, uphold human rights and fulfil Australia's commitments to the international community. We are truly proud of these achievements and would like to express our gratitude to everyone for your hard work and dedication in giving back to the Australian community.' But there was a sadder note that was expressed in the speech, and that was in relation to the ongoing cruel military junta regime in Burma. He said: 'I think it is important for me to mention that while we, the Karen community here, are enjoying and celebrating this significant cultural event, hundreds of thousands of our Karen brothers and sisters who have been left behind and are trapped in the deep jungle of Burma, fleeing for their safety from the brutal Burmese military attacks, do not have the opportunity to observe and enjoy their time to celebrate Karen new year.' We in this place need to reflect on a number of matters as to how the Australian government can support the democratic aspirations of the people of Burma. We need to consider how we can best deliver medical aid to the millions of Burmese who are internally displaced due to the conflict in Burma. We need to consider increasing Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals and companies connected with the military junta. That should include looking at sanctions targeting, in particular, aviation fuel, which is used in air strikes which are conducted by the military junta, including against civilians. We should not tolerate any supposed election occurring under the junta's regime. We should not recognise any election unless it is conducted on a free and fair basis and is inclusive, transparent and accountable and where all the members of the Burmese community have a chance to fully participate in that election. I would like to make some comments in relation to a vile event which occurred at QUT, the Queensland University of Technology. I note that Senator Lambie is in attendance in the chamber. I would like to congratulate Senator Lambie on the motion she moved earlier today in relation to the scourge of antisemitism. I associate myself with every single word that Senator Lambie said in moving that resolution. I congratulate her on that. I want to quote from an article that appeared in relation to this event that was labelled a national symposium on unifying anti-racist research and action. I note, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, that you're an alumnus of the Queensland University of Technology, so no doubt you're particularly horrified by this. Indeed, you have stated publicly how horrified you were by this event. I'll quote from an article by Natalie Brown and Frank Chung from January 2025: The university this week hosted the National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action, an event that has outraged Australia's Jewish community after attendees were shown an image titled "Dutton's Jew" at a "comedy debate" hosted by executive officer of the pro-Palestinian Jewish Council of Australia … One of the things that particularly concerned me about this event—and there was lots to be concerned about—was the targeting of University of Queensland Associate Professor Yoni Nazarathy, who attended the event: "It was a co-ordinated humiliation. All I could do is sit there and try to exit respectfully,' Professor Nazarathy, a lecturer in artificial intelligence, said. He became emotional when speaking to The Australian about his "public humiliation". "Maybe it was a lesson in racism,' he said, fighting back tears. "So maybe I got my money's worth. Since that event, Associate Professor Nazarathy said this in relation to the coverage of the event provided by the ABC and the SBS—and I want to place this on the record: 'My plea is about omissions of reporting of antisemitism events by the ABC and SBS, and I'm hoping for help in getting the ABC and SBS's attention for this. In particular, over the past two weeks there has been over a dozen media reports dealing with racism at QUT. While the broad Jewish community is outraged, the ABC and SBS have ignored these news items, fully. As such, a broad chunk of the Australian community is left unaware of the broad picture. It is important for the Jewish community that all antisemitic events be covered.' I asked Associate Professor Yoni Nazarathy whether or not the ABC and SBS had even bothered to contact him after the events on QUT's campus. He said they had not. Our national broadcaster hadn't even bothered to reach out to give him an opportunity to tell his story, but, at the same time, they gave a platform to the executive officer of the so-called Jewish Council of Australia to appear in prime time to give her version of events, and the only contrition she displayed was to say that she regretted that the event was filmed. That's all you got from the executive officer of the Jewish Council of Australia. Well, maybe at the ABC the journos should pick up the phone and ring Associate Professor Nazarathy and get his version of events. Westbrook, Eden Jayde 107 20:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It has been almost 10 years since much-loved 15-year-old Eden Westbrook was found hanging in a park in St Helens, Tasmania, 10 years since the police told her family that she had taken her own life and 10 long years that the Westbrook family, fighting through their grief, have searched for answers. The police said it was suicide, but the evidence that Eden was murdered just keeps stacking up. As I stated in my speeches in July and November last year, this whole case stinks to high heaven of incompetence. The ongoing failure to provide the autopsy photos to Amanda and her husband, Jason Westbrook, so that we can have them independently scrutinised is frankly shocking—what are they trying to hide?—especially in light of evidence from Eden's sisters, who applied make-up to Eden before she was cremated, that she had facial bruising and shattered teeth, evidence which flies in the face of the comments by the chief magistrate of Tasmania in 2022. There were no signs of trauma to Eden, according to her. Jesus! Then, some month's after Eden's death, there were the inquiries by the Bridgewater police of the key witness, Kim Woodcock, as to whether she had noticed marks on Eden's wrists. It was apparently suggested that Eden's hands may have been tied behind her back. That makes it very difficult to hang yourself. Then there is what appears at this stage to have been the complete failure to secure and preserve the evidence—I've never seen anything like it in my time. I'm talking about the rope that Eden supposedly used. In any case like this, the body and the rope are the two most crucial pieces of evidence. Repeated requests to the Tasmanian police and the police minister have failed miserably to provide any information about the location and status of the rope. The right-to-information forensic documents suggest that police quickly decided that Eden's death was a suicide—nothing to see here—because she had rope fibres in her hand. Seriously! Go and do your investigations properly. Amanda Westbrook said that the rope was from the cray pot at their home—except that Amanda said she never said this and it's not in the statements, although she may have commented that it was of a similar colour to the ropes at their place. And couldn't rope fibres in Eden's hands also be an indication of struggle and murder? The police never followed up on this issue of the rope with the Westbrooks, nor did they distil the evidence. They didn't go across the road to the wharf where all that rope is. They never even crossed that road. They didn't do the evidence properly! Her mum and dad said that, until 12 days after their daughter's death, it appears they didn't check the nearby wharf, which, as I said, was straight across the road—ropes everywhere. Eden's case, the death of a child, a young and intelligent woman, in what should have been considered highly suspicious circumstances involves an unbelievably flawed police investigation like nothing I have ever come across in my life. There was poor use of intelligence and multiple forensic failures, including unaccredited forensic services, inadequate investigative reviews. There was a review by a St Helen's police officer following a formal written referral from the commission of inquiry into sexual abuse in early 2023, after a whistleblower nominated a person of interest and an actual suspect in Eden's death, and no written statements were taken from that person either. The Tasmanian Coroner's Act 1995 is simply not fit for purpose. It's not even possible for our Attorney-General, the first law officer in Tasmania, to intervene in extraordinary circumstances like this and direct an inquest into this case. We are the only state that does this, by the way. We are bloody miles behind. We have a compromised and corrupted coronial system with a dishonest paedophile cop involved, who was a coroner's associate and who had regular direction and oversight of the matter. For Australians who may not have been following Eden's story, please go and listen to the Our Little Edey podcast, which now has had five million listeners, and I am sure that after tonight it will get a lot more. Reynolds was a paedophile policeman who groomed and abused children across Tasmania for over 30 years. He was in your uniform, Tasmania Police, and you had your eyes closed for 30 years. You want me to trust you've done this properly? Oh, you can't be serious. Despite the damning evidence of criminal behaviour, Reynolds was given an official state funeral only in the last few years, with all the trimmings, including a glowing eulogy from the then police commissioner. What an absolute shocker. In 2023 the Tasmanian government commissioned the Weiss report, but, despite detailed submissions from the Westbrooks and their former lawyer and the matter clearly falling within the terms of reference, Eden's case and family concerns about Reynolds' official role were not mentioned in the final report. It absolutely blows me away. It's like you don't want to deal with this down there. Well, deal with it, because I am here and I'm dealing with it. I want to know if any of the seven current or former Tasmanian police officers referred by the Weiss review for investigation concerning child sex abuse or grooming ever worked in that St Helen's area. I want to know. Surely you can answer that by breakfast. I want to know if someone has been allowed to get away with murder. In the recent decision of Coroner Robert Webster in the Helen Bird case in Tasmania, it was found during the inquest that Helen died from asphyxia due to hanging. This is the same coroner that made the decision about Eden's case—incompetency. But further pressure brought by Helen Bird's family found that, in fact, Helen was murdered—that's right—and her death was staged to make it look like suicide. Helen Bird's case had the same forensic officers as Eden's, and they failed to take any measurements of the rope or the ladder from the Bird case, samples from the rope for DNA testing or fingerprints. That's where we are at. This is a botched investigation at the very least. The police had clearly decided from the start that Eden had hung herself—nothing else to see. That was it, end of story. You didn't even look to see if it was murder. You made your mind up: 'She has hung herself. That's it. Everything is off the table.' They didn't interview critical witnesses and persons of interest. They didn't ask for Eden's mobile phone or check her social media accounts to understand her state of mind, or check whether she was being groomed or abused. Regarding the ongoing saga around autopsy photos, there is now the critical issue of the missing rope. In the absence of the coronial file and a relevant statement, not much is publicly known about the rope in Eden's case. You didn't bag and tag it, and you didn't take forensics. That we know. You failed. I've written to the chief magistrate asking for access to this critical documentation. Police must be out there going around in circles about this rope. The rope has to be there somewhere. It is also not mentioned in any detail in the chief magistrate's decision not to reopen the investigation in 2022. In fact, it is stated that there is no available evidence as to the origin of the rope. That rope has got to be there. The emphasis is on the available evidence, which makes me think that the rope had not been secured by the coroner's associate, Paul Reynolds, or by investigating police as an exhibit. You failed to pick up an exhibit. It was the most important exhibit in the case, and you failed to bag and tag it. The rope is said to be green and 10 or 12 millimetres in diameter. Bag and tag. Bag and tag—you didn't do it. The RTI information reveals the rope was not secured by police as an exhibit. The only exhibit—yes, the only exhibit—recorded was a set of 10 fingerprints from Eden. Amanda Westbrook denies that she advised police on 18 February 2015 at the scene that the rope was a craypot rope from their home. The right to information documents that my office has received do not show any corroborating documentary evidence that Amanda Westbrook said that, and, if she did say that, you didn't take samples of the rope from the Westbrooks either. You failed to even go and do your job at the Westbrooks. You failed to try and match the rope. You failed miserably in this investigation. This is really bad. Eden's younger sister, Sky, and her brother Dontay are speaking at a gathering for Eden on the lawns of Parliament House in Hobart. Sky is in her third year of law at UTAS. She's taking law to fight for her sister. You go, girl! She should be concentrating on her studies, but instead she, like her parents and siblings, is still fighting for truth and justice for poor little Edey. Imagine that: your own sister has gone back to do a law degree to say, 'I don't believe this.' If you can't do it, she'll do it herself. That's where she is. This is the ambitious side of this family. One of their kids has gone to study law, and she's in her third year, smashing it like you wouldn't believe. This is where we're at. We're all coming for you. We're all gung-ho. I've got her back, and I will not stop until the family has answers. The Attorney-General of Tasmania—I want to have a talk with you, Guy Barnett. You promised me before Christmas that you would change the law. You said you would make changes to this law in the first sitting weeks in Tasmania, which are in March, so we can get those autopsy photos. I want to make sure Tasmanians understand that that is a promise that I was given from the Attorney-General of Tasmania and so were the Westbrooks, the family. I want to see that legislation going through in March. I want to see those autopsy photos. As I've said to the police commissioner—I've said it out loud very clearly—if I'm wrong in this case, I'll apologise. By the way, she hasn't said the same thing back. I would expect that, if I am right, she and her counterparts will resign effective immediately. We have a problem with policing in Tasmania. It's not much different from the military when it comes to that, to be honest. I can assure you the leadership in there has a lot left to answer for, not just 10 years ago but today. You might want to go and speak to your own cops out there because they're not really impressed with you. I can assure you, there are plenty of them thanking me for what I'm doing because they're not happy with the leadership there. You're on very, very thin ice here, and I intend to prove what I've always been out to prove—that young Edey was actually murdered and that she did not hang herself. Gender Dysphoria 109 20:57 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to address the attacks we've witnessed on our young trans people and their families in recent days, fuelled by Trump's harmful attacks in the US and by those here in Australia who feel emboldened by them. Trans issues are being weaponised at present to divide us, to foster fear and more than anything else to distract us. That is what is happening when the Queensland Premier shuts down gender-affirming care. That is what is happening when Senator Canavan and Mr Barnaby Joyce say Australia should follow Trump's lead, weighing in on the health care of our trans kids. This weaponisation has a particular purpose: to create a political distraction from the very real challenges affecting our communities, like access to health care, the cost of living and access to housing. Trans folks and their families need the best medical and healthcare advice in calm, considered spaces, evaluating the best evidence, not kneejerk political decisions to suspend care based on untrue claims. On the other side of these claims are real people—carers, families, young people—who do not need uninformed political weaponisers deciding on their health care, putting their treatments and certainly their health and in some cases their lives on the line. When some years ago one of my adult children, Indi, told me that they were transgender, I did not need the advice of politicians. I did not give my local senator a call. I was a parent on new terrain, facing a new challenge. I looked for help and support, but the last person I needed was my local MP. I needed to build my understanding based on the evidence of expert caregivers and those living the experience, and I had a lot to learn. Indi and the trans community and many people in South Australia who know a lot and provide extraordinary care and support were up for teaching me. The most important thing our trans folks need, alongside the best clinical care and the same rights, protections and services as every other Australian, is freedom from hatred, judgement and bigotry and to be free from having their decisions used as political footballs by politicians. Every parent has critical moments with their kids: a scary midnight fever, a new school—so many things. What we need in those moments is not judgement and not misinformation but well-informed advice and support from trusted experts who know the score—exactly the sort of thing I needed, for example, when another of my children, Jake, was diagnosed with a brain tumour in his 20s. Once again, we did not need the help of politicians. We needed a really good neurosurgeon with excellent knowledge of the latest clinical guidelines and lots of experience operating on brains. We needed experts who actually know things, backed up by a good public health care system that gave us quality, accessible, affordable care. It worked. Jake is here with us tonight. Thank you, Dr Bhadu Kavar and Professor Andrew Lee. Of course, a brain tumour is nothing like being transgender. The point, however, is that we don't politicise brain surgery. Senators don't weigh in with an opinion on treatment. In the same way, we must not politicise gender-affirming care. Last week, 491 young people on the waiting list for that care in Queensland were denied that help, thrown into panic and fear because of a harmful political decision. An enormous amount of careful work will surround being on that list. With their families by their side, people will have been through or faced thorough medical assessments by multidisciplinary teams. Australia's gender-affirming care regime is well established, widely supported and evidence based. Its supporters include the AMA; the royal colleges of GPs, physicians, psychiatrists and pathologists; the Endocrine Society of Australia, the Australian Psychological Society; the World Health Organization; the World Medical Association; and many other bodies. Of course, all medical treatments change over time and must be subject to evidence based review by scientists like those at the National Health and Medical Research Council—treatments like brain surgery protocols and gender-affirming care. The appropriate care of our trans youth should not be a political issue, a weapon used to distract us from the real challenges that threaten our economic and social wellbeing—issues like inequality, poverty and the climate crisis. No-one should misuse the wellbeing of young trans kids like the 491 kids on that waiting list in Queensland, many of them at the most critically vulnerable moment in their lives, to advance their political fortunes. There is no room in those decisions for politicians any more than there's room for them in the operating theatre for brain surgery. I have sat in this chamber too many times, at least five since the last election, listening to horrible, ignorant, judgmental speeches about trans people. We heard it today from Senator Roberts and Senator Babet, endorsing Trump's attacks on our trans folks. That talk fosters bigotry. It aims to increase fear. Fortunately the great majority of Australians, almost 80 per cent, believe trans people deserve exactly the same rights as anyone else. Ninety-three per cent of those who know a trans person believe trans people deserve the same rights as anybody else. No trans person or their family or community deserves the judgement or uninformed medical opinions of politicians who simply have no idea. Such judgement makes every aspect of life for trans people and their loved ones harder, more dangerous, more fearful and more unsafe. These debates exact a price in health and in life. Transgender kids between 14 and 25 years are 15 times more likely to attempt suicide than the rest of the population of this age. Uninformed bigotry affects the mental health of some of our most vulnerable citizens, and, as a trans person recently said to me: 'These attacks are also just bloody inconvenient. They take such an enormous effort to deal with, and they make life so unnecessarily complicated.' Our kids have done nothing to deserve that bigotry, and their families have done nothing to deserve ugly buckets of angry, ignorant rubbish. It's these buckets, these people and the licence they aim to create for trans hatred in our communities which inflict the high mental cost and loss of life in our trans communities. Being trans is not the problem; being subject to ignorant judgement and prejudice is, and shame on any politician who plays a part in fuelling it. Shame on those politicians who have done so in recent days, milking the vulnerabilities of our kids for a few votes. Is there anywhere lower for a politician to go? What price for those votes? I've thought of the trans community so much in recent days when hearing these stories. They want something simple but profound, something most people take for granted: the right to live freely as they choose. This bigotry is being wielded on a new scale by Donald Trump, and some Australian politicians are following his lead, emboldened by him. He wants us to be frightened, afraid and angry with trans people. Some people in this chamber want the same. But I say to every parent and all the young people affected out there that there are plenty of us who will fight to make sure you get the advice and support you need from those you trust, informed by the best evidence and experience we have. You are loved. You belong. Be yourself. Trans people are everywhere. They are doctors, mechanics, gardeners and politicians. They don't seek to be heroic, but they are heroic—utterly heroic in their steady insistence on being who they are, no more or less—and they have a thing or two to teach the political performers in this place who attack a tiny minority, many of them young and vulnerable, to distract us from the true challenges of our time: inequality, the extraordinary power of the super-rich and the climate crisis affecting the future of our young people. Using a small, vulnerable cohort of young people, our trans kids, to distract us from the real game in town is simply wrong—truly ironic, truly horrible, utterly unacceptable and wholly un-Australian. Climate Change 111 21:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland For the last 30 years Australia has been hostage to the supposedly green movement's great climate fraud, designed to create an all-purpose excuse to do whatever the government wants—an excuse that's reusable, recyclable and fungible, not only for the government's benefit but for the benefit of their donors, stakeholders, bureaucrats and associated carpetbaggers, such as Bill Gates and BlackRock's Larry Fink. We know who these people are from watching the meetings Prime Minister Albanese has and refuses to explain. Nothing says, 'I'm doing dodgy deals behind the Australian people's back,' like refusing to publish detailed records of what was said and agreed in these meetings. This evening I'll examine the green climate fraud and make a major One Nation policy announcement. Let's start with the war on farming. The climate scam seeks to replace fresh, healthy, field-grown Australian produce from family farms with fake foods in near-urban intensive production facilities—synthetic meat-like products cultured in bioreactors in a process that mimics the way cancer cells grow, with just enough artificial nutrients added to pass as food. Fake meat from plants remains on life support, with 18 ingredients, now including cocoa, and they still can't make people eat it. Billionaires can't make money out of conventional farming; they can make money, they think, out of industrial food. Who owns vegetarian meat supplier Beyond Meat? Surprise, surprise! Predatory global wealth funds BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street lead their share registry. Both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California Davis have found the environmental footprint of these Frankenfoods is worse than that of naturally grown pasture raised beef. Bill Gates has declared cattle an existential threat because of their methane farts. Rubbish. Cattle have been on this earth for two million years. Leading methane producer India domesticated cattle 9,000 years ago, and nothing has changed. Another leading methane producer, the United States, had bison for 150,000 years. Three hundred years ago, there were 50 million bison, or buffalo. Now they're gone, the USA's 28 million cows are suddenly causing 'fartageddon'. There's no science to justify this nonsense. As the University of California Davis explains: After about 12 years, the methane— from cattle— is converted into carbon dioxide through hydroxyl oxidation. That carbon is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being consumed by an animal. It is recycled carbon. Cows don't harm the environment. The methane cycle they perpetuate has been with us for two million years, at times in greater quantities than now. Plants are more powerful than scientists admit. The US government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory recently found: Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought. Climate scammers refuse to talk about the role of forests and crops, especially hemp, in sequestering carbon. Australia is already carbon neutral. Our forests and crops sequester much more carbon than Australia produces. So let's stop chopping down trees for industrial wind and solar access roads and transmission lines, and we can stay that way. The next lie is that global boiling will kill us. Fact check: it's false. Between 1998 and 2023, global temperature variation oscillated between minus 0.4 degrees and 0.6 degrees as carbon dioxide, CO2, levels in the air rose from 0.036 per cent to 0.042 per cent. Then the Tonga eruption occurred, and temperatures rose by 0.7 degrees centigrade more. I'll share a link on this topic when I post this speech on my website. It includes some excellent gifs of the fraudulent data tampering and fake temperature stations that have concocted warming where none exists. Japanese data, which is not tampered with, shows no warming in the last 50 years. Next, carbon dioxide levels do not drive temperature. CO2 levels are a result of temperature changes. There has been a lot of obfuscation on this aspect of climate fraud. I urge anyone who actually believes nature's trace gas can change the world's temperatures to look more closely and more carefully. The seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 correlates very well with the temperature, not with the human production of carbon dioxide. CO2 does not drive temperature. Temperature variation drives CO2 levels. It's the reverse of what the UN is claiming. Global temperature itself is a product of atmospheric pressure, albedo, cloud cover and many other factors. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the UN IPCCC—computer models downplay the factors, especially cyclical variation in solar radiation, which the UN assumes to be minor as compared to changes in CO2. Unvalidated UN IPCCC climate models replace the most powerful modes of heat transfer—conduction, convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation—with just radiation. In other words, UN IPCCC climate models are rigged to blame CO2 because the real factors are minimised in the construction of these models. No wonder these fake models have already been proven comprehensively wrong. The next lie is that the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Great Barrier Reef coral cover was the highest on record in 2024. The reef is healthy, yet the scare stories continue. Every time the green scammers claim the Great Barrier Reef is losing coral to scare you, the phones start ringing in North Queensland with tourists cancelling their bookings. Tour operators and the communities they support suffer, staff lose their shifts and their livelihoods, and businesses close, all for a political lie, a fraud. The reef covers 344,000 square kilometres. That's five times the area of Tasmania. There will always be an area on the reef where an unusually low tide on a hot day causes localised bleaching with still winds. That damage repairs naturally and quickly, as it has for 14,000 years. There will always be a flood dumping fresh water onto the reef and killing the saltwater coral polyps. It's happening right now in Far North Queensland. So stay tuned for scare stories, just about coral bleaching blamed on climate change when the cause will actually be these floods, in time for the election. The next lie is that the sea levels are rising. Since the end of the mini ice age, 200 hundred years ago, ocean levels have risen a tiny amount. In 1914, the mean sea level at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour was 1.11 metres. In 2014, 100 years later, it was 1.12 metres—one centimetre; 10 millimetres. That is natural variation. The next lie is that the polar ice is melting. In Antarctica there will always be an area of unusual warming associated with underground volcanos and hot springs, of which the earth has thousands. Pressure builds up and they let off heat. They melt the ice above, and then they go dormant again. In 2009, John Kerry predicted, 'In five years scientists predict we will have the first ice-free arctic summer.' It didn't happen, along with the other failed scares. The arctic ice cap floats and moves with natural varying wind and ocean current directions. In fact, after 40 years of unprecedented man-made global boiling, there's more Antarctic sea ice now than there was 40 years ago. It's time to acquit carbon dioxide. The great climate scam is about submitting to the world's predatory billionaires delivering up our agriculture, transport, energy, manufacturing and industrial base, food and property rights in the name of saving the planet. In reality, it's just greed—less for you and more for them—and it's control. One Nation saw through this scam in 1996, and we've opposed the agenda ever since. We have opposed the $200 billion wasted so far on net zero measures. Bloomberg now puts the cost of completing Australia's transition to net zero, including the electrification of cars, homes and appliances, at $1.9 trillion. That's a terrifying figure. The few hundred billion dollars spent so far have added so much to our electricity costs that bills are doubling or tripling. The pain is only just starting. The lie that solar and wind are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supported with evidence; to the contrary, the more that solar and wind are added to the grid, the dearer our electricity becomes. The reason is simple. While the wind and sun are free, wind turbines, solar panels, back-up batteries and 15,000 kilometres of extra transmission lines and access roads are very expensive to make, transport, install and maintain. While a modern coal or nuclear power plant lasts 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and back-up batteries only last 15. The $1.9 trillion will only get us to 2050. After that, solar and wind will need to be replaced every 15 years at a cost of hundreds of billions more. Enough of this madness, this fraud. If elected, One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change and all their related agencies and programs, including all net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, forming part of One Nation's pledge to reduce $80 billion in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will return billions of dollars a year into the pockets of homeowners and businesses, making everything you buy cheaper and more affordable. That's how to solve the cost-of-living crisis. It's time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will end the net zero scam. Senate adjourned at 21:16