2025-02-06 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 6 February 2025

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) 1

Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2)

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to continue to speak to the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2). I last rose to speak on this private senator's bill in July 2024. At that time, I spoke about the fact that history gives us a clear map of where things can go. History tells us the inevitable result of failing to stamp out antisemitism and condemn it in the strongest terms. I said that if we fail to stand up then we are not learning from history. Since I said those words, the Albanese government have had months to learn and to take meaningful action, yet they have not. Since then, we have seen antisemitic ideologies spill over into antisemitic violence right across this country. In the last three months alone, we have seen cars set on fire, buildings and cars covered in antisemitic graffiti, synagogues defaced with antisemitic rhetoric, people's homes and properties being sprayed with graffiti and terrorist symbols, and a childcare centre and synagogue being set on fire. We also saw the preparation of what could have been one of the most catastrophic attacks of terror in this country. All the incidents were pointing towards Jewish people here in Australia as the targets. Those were only the events of the last three months. It is deplorable behaviour. It is absolutely no wonder that Jews in Australia now live in fear. It's no wonder that Jews in Australia no longer feel like this is a country where they are safe and protected. The places where any person, any Australian, deserves to feel they're most safe and protected are their homes, their places of worship and the places where they leave their children while they go to work. The targeting of these places sends a clear message—a message of terror. It should never be happening in our democratic, free, western nation of Australia. Sometimes I wonder if we can ever truly come back from this or if things have gone too far. One of the worst parts of the situation that we find ourselves in now is that I believe it was largely preventable. The fact is that people only do what they know they can get away with, and the Albanese Labor government's lack of action and weak leadership has told people that they can get away with this kind of behaviour. Anthony Albanese left a glaringly large question mark over our country's loyalty to and solidarity with the State of Israel. He left a question mark over the value and the worth of Jewish people in Australia by failing to protect them from this national crisis. He was ambiguous. He refused to take a strong position. He walked both sides of the street on an issue that left no room for that. Then we had our Minister for Education, Mr Clare, who had the audacity to suggest that terrorist slogans like 'from the river to the sea' mean different things to different people. That is the man who is in charge of our educational institutions at a national level in this country. That ambiguity from the Prime Minister and his government allowed people in the community to know that they could get away with things. Little by little the hatred grew and became more pronounced. People became unashamed of their antisemitic views, and there's no question that what went on in our educational institutions following the October 7 attacks was a significant factor in the crisis of antisemitism we are now trying to deal with. We had student protests that defied orders and threatened the safety of their fellow Jewish students on university campuses mere weeks after the attacks of October 7. Those protests, against alleged genocide by Israel, were going on when hostages had not yet been returned, when loved ones were still to be found or their fates known. It was allowed to fester, and now we are seeing and hearing of university faculty members expressing antisemitic views—the ones we leave our young people with to educate, not to indoctrinate with hatred. This is why urgent and serious action must be taken. The Albanese government has not done enough to combat antisemitism in this country, and that is why I wholeheartedly support this bill. We must launch an inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities because these institutions wield enormous power. They shape the thinking, the attitudes and the behaviour of the next generation, and if we don't have this inquiry then the next generation is on a fast track to learning hatred that will lead to destruction. Again, the Prime Minister has utterly failed Jews in Australia. Opposition leader Peter Dutton wrote to Mr Albanese in May last year asking that he establish this inquiry as a matter of urgency, and one has to wonder how different the situation might be if the Prime Minister had actually agreed to hold the inquiry back then. We need a judicial inquiry because it is the most authoritative form of inquiry. For a start, it would be independently led. It would also have full investigative powers and would be assisted by skilled cross-examiners. It would be able to hear evidence confidentially without witnesses having to live in fear of retaliation—and this is an incredibly important point. If Jews in Australia are becoming more reluctant to even attend their places of education or their workplaces simply because they exist then why on earth would we expect them to feel comfortable testifying about antisemitic hatred in a public forum? The power of a commissioner to take evidence in confidential sessions is absolutely necessary. The leadership of this country and the Albanese government have already betrayed the Jews in Australia. That is why the coalition must and will do everything we can to support Jews in this country including by giving them the confidence to make the truth known. Further, the inquiry that this bill would establish would differ in important ways from the Albanese government's racism study being conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission. That study is absolutely inadequate if it is going to go any way to improving or stamping out the prevalence of antisemitism on campuses. It is not specifically investigating antisemitism; it is being run by an organisation which has failed to condemn the Hamas terror attack. It does not have the independence, powers or personnel to adequately deal with campus antisemitism. The Jewish community does not have any faith in the Australian Human Rights Commission. Many Jewish peak bodies were opposed to the suggestion of the Human Rights Commission leading an inquiry into antisemitism. The groups were, however, in favour of an independent judicial inquiry, such as the one that this bill would establish. We must remind ourselves of the gravity of what we are dealing with here. As I said before, the issue of antisemitism is not one that anyone can afford to be on the fence about. This is not about a few instances of racism, which would be bad enough; this is a situation of people openly and publicly advocating for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth. This is terror. Our response to antisemitism on university campuses must be swift, strong and comprehensive. It's caused too much destruction already and it demands our full attention. We must prove that as a nation we stand with the Jews who live here. Jewish Australians, we stand with you. We must prove, through action, not words, that we are committed to their protection and that we will learn from history and never, never, ever let it be repeated. 09:12 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I, too, rise to speak on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024, and I do so with a very heavy heart. I find it almost inconceivable that in this day and age this bill is necessary. I commend my colleague Senator Henderson for her leadership in this area. I participated in the hearings of this bill, and I was utterly dismayed to hear some of the responses of the chancellors, but particularly the Australian Human Rights Commission, who were completely blind to this most ancient and wicked form of discrimination. I start by making this observation—that there can never be security or safety in appeasement, where there is appeasement of dictators or antisemites or others who wish others harm. There is no peace and there is no security in appeasement. In fact, I have before quoted Winston Churchill, who in 1940 observed that—this is appeasers: Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their time comes to be devoured. In recent years, it's been shortened to 'An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last.' Sadly and almost unbelievably, today in our nation this is what we are now getting from our Prime Minister. Whether it is standing up with our democratic allies and friends to fight back against dictators who hate us, who hate democracy, and who have formed an axis of evil to support each other's activities—Russia in the Ukraine. Remember, a decade ago, the West appeased him, Putin, and what did he do? He was emboldened by it and came back for more, and much more, of Ukraine. Today, here in Australia we are witnessing the most extraordinary acts of hate against Jewish Australians. Not only are we seeing it across the nation; we are now seeing it—and arguably it started—in our universities with the radicalisation of our students and the complete failure of leadership by a number of vice-chancellors, who turned to mush in the face of this. Whether ideologically it wasn't their flavour or whether they were just afraid, they appeased the voices of hate and hatred and the accompanying acts. So, as the university students return for this academic year, everybody in our universities has the right to be safe. I had the great privilege of attending the Holocaust 80th commemorative service in Perth. I thank and commend the Australian Jewish community. It was a most powerful service. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition attended. Sadly, it looked like the Prime Minister was in witness protection, flanked and protected by the Premier of Western Australia, but I was so proud to see so many Liberal colleagues there, along with the Leader of the Opposition. Amongst the many moving speeches, we heard from Western Australian students about the impact that this has had on their mental health, on their sense of security, on their sense of identity here in Australia. The director of education at the Holocaust Institute of Western Australia, Judith Lawrence, made an astonishing speech, and she's given me permission to read some of what she said. I, in my own words, can't do justice to what she said. She said: 'How was the Holocaust humanly possible? The question haunts us still. 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.' To pause there, all of those things, bar the ultimate expression of that in terms of extermination, are things that, until now, for 18 months or more, have gone unchecked. And, as she said, it was gradual until it was sudden. She said, as we reflected on this year's theme, which was for a better future: 'As Australians, we all ask ourselves: what have we learnt from history? Change does not happen overnight. It is gradual, insignificant in a single act but transformative over time'—and that is, sadly, exactly what we are seeing here in Australia today—'with the small but powerful consistent choices we make daily to challenge hate, to open conversations and to foster understanding.' We on this side of the chamber understand that, but we need everybody in this chamber to stand up, to call it out and to stamp out hate. Judith Lawrence also said this: 'Eighty years later, the lessons of the Holocaust remain painfully relevant. Here in Australia we are witnessing a rise in blatant antisemitism. Swastikas smeared publicly, verbal attacks on Jewish individuals, doxxing of the arts community—it is gradual until it is sudden. The Adass synagogue in Melbourne burnt to the ground, firebombed cars and daycare centres in Sydney, attacks on private homes, violent rhetoric and intimidation of Jewish communities—it is gradual until it is sudden.' She made this observation, which, sadly, is also very true: 'The Holocaust was not an aberration in history; it was a warning. And, since then, as we have seen, there have been far too many other genocides over the past 80 years. The patterns of hatred that led to Auschwitz did not begin in 1933, nor did they end in 1945.' As she said, the antisemitism we see today is not new, but it has morphed. The same deeply ingrained Jew hate has been repackaged through modern narratives—and, I would also add, through social media—and adapted to fit contemporary political and ideological movements. But today the same rhetoric of dehumanisation, of blood libels, of conspiracy theories and of scapegoating is being used against Jews globally. It is an indication of broader societal decay. The failure to combat it undermines our social cohesion, and, sadly, that is very true today. I will finish with these comments by Ms Lawrence: 'If we are to truly create a better future, we must recognise these patterns of hate and refuse to allow history to repeat itself. The Holocaust teaches us what happens when prejudice is left unchecked, when silence allows bigotry to grow, and when moral leadership fails to take a stand.' Again, as I said, I find it inconceivable that here in Australia today these attacks, this violence, this antisemitism has been allowed to grow unchecked by state and federal governments. What does that mean? It means that somehow we need to find a way to come together in this chamber, in this place and in this nation to say that all Australians, regardless of religion or background, have the right to be safe in this nation—safe from hatred, freedom from ancient enmities repackaged. The fact is that today we are facing challenges in this nation that we have not seen since the end of World War II. We have a four-nation axis of dictatorship and authoritarianism that has a single shared enemy, and that is us and democracy. They don't respect compromise. They don't respect appeasement. They exploit it—and exploiting it they are. China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are working together in new ways to support each other's ambitions, and still, as a coalition of democracies, we have been slow to see this, we have been slow to react and, even worse, we have allowed the hatred, the antisemitism and the discord in our nation to grow unchecked. It is like our national leaders in government think that, if they keep feeding the crocodile, they will get eaten last, but the consequences of that in this nation are deadly. Let's remind ourselves what has been going on at our campuses and what has then been more widely fermenting. Since the shocking attack on 7 October 2023, our Jewish communities have faced one of the most difficult periods in their lives. Holocaust survivors who came to Australia and thought they would be safe have been shocked to discover that they are not. The events of that day, the unprovoked attack, resulted in 1,200 innocent people being murdered, which sent shockwaves around the world, including in Australia. That day of depravity was the greatest loss of Jewish life on a single day in 80 years, since the Holocaust. It awoke and exposed a shocking antisemitic rot in Western democracies, including, sadly, here in Australia. This has resulted in an over 700 per cent increase in antisemitic incidents on Australia's soil since October 2023. Australians have witnessed an unchecked and unprecedented spike in antisemitic activity across our country, in our streets, in our synagogues and outside of people's homes. A synagogue was firebombed in Melbourne. A Jewish daycare centre was firebombed in Sydney. A car was firebombed outside the address of a prominent Jewish leader. Then, of course, a caravan full of explosives was found in suburban Sydney, with a map of prominent Jewish targets, including the Great Synagogue. As we know in this place and as we debated yesterday, had this attack occurred it would have been the most disastrous terrorist attack on Australian soil in history. The list goes on and on. Synagogues are being sprayed with swastika graffiti. People's homes, where they live and have the right like any other Australian to feel safe, have been attacked. Sadly, in my own home state of Western Australia, just last weekend there were incidents of disgusting antisemitic graffiti sprayed across walls, roads and street signs. According to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, there were 116 anti-Jewish incidents in Western Australia alone. Our community leaders have been left abandoned and disappointed with the lack of response from the Labor government. The Jewish Community Council of Western Australia Vice President Steve Lieblich said that the weak stance from the government emboldens those hate mongers and agitators who are stirring up the people prepared to take violent action. In conclusion, as we reflect on the immense loss of six million Jewish lives and countless other minorities during the Holocaust, one of history's darkest periods, unfortunately the lessons of 80 years ago must be relearned and we must find a way to stand together in this place to make sure that it does not happen again. 09:27 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Just yesterday we saw that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities heard evidence from the vice-chancellor of Macquarie University, who refused to unequivocally agree that a staff member's social media post saying, 'May 2025 be the end of Israel,' was antisemitic. They refused to convey a university position on this matter. If that doesn't prove that this committee is inadequate, I don't know what will. It is absolutely obscene that we are once again having to have a look at academic grants and have a look at Dr Abdel-Fattah and her behaviour, which has included doxxing Jewish Australians. She has encouraged young children to chant hateful terrorist slogans. She has absolutely demonstrated antisemitism at an Australian university. She encouraged those children at an encampment on Sydney university campus and she has promoted Hamas on her social media accounts. They are a recognised terror group. If anyone, anywhere, any place, was inciting the support of a terror organisation, they would be called out but not at Australian universities and not when it's hatred of the Jews, it would seem. That is a different type of incitement according to many people who sit on the other side of this chamber and in the left-wing halls of academia. Australian universities should be moulding young minds. Instead, this same academic, Dr Abdel-Fattah was just invited to another university. She is up at the Queensland University of Technology for another antisemitism platform. She was there under the guise—and this is where we see the Greens and their rhetoric play out, they do these events under the guise—of fighting racism. They're antiracists, but they are antisemites. It's about time, certainly, that the Labor government had the guts, the wherewithal—we know the intellectual fortitude is lacking in many of their offices, but perhaps someone with some needs to step up and point out that, when you are inciting hatred, when you are talking about the annihilation of a country, when you are talking about support for recognised terror organisations whose sole mission is the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, that is antisemitic. If you don't understand that that is antisemitism, just think about it in terms of the racism that you talk about. If anyone was calling for the destruction of any other race of people based on their religion—say the destruction of all Christianity: 'We want all Christians gone'—that would be seen as antireligious. Say we talked about the destruction of—I'll use my own race—all Caucasians. Sam Kerr may take a note out of this book. It is racist to attack white people. So if someone were to say, 'All white people need to be annihilated,' that would be seen as racist—God forbid I should use another example! Why is the destruction of Jews not antisemitic? Just understand it for what it is. It's what it is. Universities should be places where young minds are taught to question and to debate. You don't send your kids to university to be indoctrinated. You send your kids to university—and quite often at great expense to families—not to learn basketweaving and gender studies; you hopefully send them to university to learn how to expand their mind, to question, to look at things objectively, to look at different arguments and to be able to present a view or a position on something with a well-put-together argument. Instead, what people are getting at universities now is nothing but an indoctrination. And we know it has always been left-leaning. I enjoyed my days at university, where I very much never wavered, even after four years. My former university professor commented to me that I was still wearing the pearl earrings that I wore on day one of my university degree and that it showed some strength of character that, within five minutes of turning up to my university, I hadn't adopted the flowy skirts and become a left-wing Marxist but went into university voting Liberal and came out still doing the same. Unfortunately, young minds can be susceptible. They're looking to fit in, to be part of the culture—the culture that has been allowed to fester at universities across Australia, and particularly at the universities that like to think they're better than all the other universities: the universities of the Group of Eight. They like to think they're a little bit more elite. Yet they have become absolute hotbeds of antisemitism, which is racism. And that has been allowed to continue to grow. So I am incredibly pleased to be here to speak in support of Senator Henderson's bill, the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2). I think it's the right thing to be done. I hope that the Labor Party takes a good hard look at what's been happening in our great country, where a community now no longer feels safe, and changes their position and does support this bill. To the Labor Party: you can't move away—one in, all in. There are people in the Labor Party who do understand antisemitism, who do support Israel, and I am sorry that you are having to sit in a party room, in a caucus, that does not support you. I'm sorry that one member in particular, a Jewish member, Josh Burns, has been, quite clearly, hung out to dry by his own party in the way that he has been supported—or, more to the point, not. So perhaps it's time for a bit of moral courage from those opposite to actually put a bit of pressure on the leadership. The boss is away; he's on a plane up to Townsville. He doesn't want to talk to the Australian people through the parliament today. He's up there. It's convenient timing, some may say, but he's gone up there. The boss is away. Come on! Let's get some of your other guys up there. Senator HUGHES 273828 I'm sorry, Senator Watt? You? I've lived through floods, and I know how terrible they are. And the flood's still going to be there after today. Senator HUGHES 273828 Senator Watt thinks he can start these sorts of smears. Just start me, because we're talking about antisemitism and the fact that you and your mob are continuing to play politics with antisemitism. See what the Jewish community says about you. Go and see what the Jewish community says about you and the weakness. I think we all know why the AFP didn't tell the Prime Minister about the caravan with the explosives. You, on that side, cannot be trusted with information to keep Australians safe, because your racist ideology that is antisemitic would bar you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Senator Watt? Senator Watt 245759 Senator Hughes has made a number of imputations against various members of the government, and she should withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Your interjection is not required. Senator Hughes, would you please withdraw those comments. Senator HUGHES 273828 For the ease of the chamber and for you, Madam Deputy President, I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Thank you. Senator HUGHES 273828 Antisemitism that this government is supporting—because they cannot say 'antisemitism' without putting in antiracism, racism, Islamophobia, 'Let's walk both sides of the street, because God forbid we do anything to upset our voters in south-west Sydney; we've got to protect those, so we'd better not go out in support of Jewish Australians.' Jewish Australians have guards out the front of preschools. It is unbelievable that people are too afraid to identify themselves with a kippah for fear of being attacked in our country. Yet this government stands by, stands idle, refusing to stand up for Jewish Australians, and will pop by a domestic terrorist attack only once the tennis match is over. What a disgrace! What is now very apparent is a break from normal traditions in national security, because the Prime Minister can't be trusted, and his office can't be trusted when it comes to antisemitism. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Hughes, I'll ask you to temper your comments. Senator HUGHES 273828 Well, I'm sorry; the truth hurts. That's why Chris Minns, who's actually shown some leadership—the Premier of New South Wales—went out and very clearly stated it, when he was briefed. There's not a problem there, in an operational sense. But it's funny that there is over here, and we know why that is. How embarrassing, but how disgraceful, that this is the state of leadership in this country or—as the Jewish Australians know—no leadership in this country. So I absolutely call on the decent members of the Labor caucus—and I know that's you, Senator Ciccone, Senator Farrell and Senator O'Neill, who are very strong supporters of Israel, who have always stood up for the Jewish community, who have done the right thing—to support this bill. We are seeing antisemitism not only allowed to fester but actively encouraged at universities. It is being actively demonstrated, encouraged and accepted by vice-chancellors at universities that this is an appropriate way for people to behave, that this is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not free of consequences. When you support terror organisations—if that is not the point that someone stands up and says no, when is it? Labor must support this bill if you are to have any face left to the Jewish community. The fact that you all stood in here—I felt sick listening to some of the ridiculous syrup coming out of mouths in this chamber on Tuesday in the face of Senator Lambie's motion. The fact that Senator Faruqi got up on behalf of the Greens was not only ridiculous, given her own performance standing next to antisemitic posters depicting that Jews must be put in the bin— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Hughes, I'll just ask you to be mindful of where you're going with this in terms of making accusations against senators in this chamber. Senator HUGHES 273828 The fact that the person who has stood next to a poster that said 'Put Israel in the bin' was also the person who stood up and spoke on behalf of an antisemitic motion in support of Jewish Australians is an insult and a slap in the face to everyone of any decent mind—an absolute slap in the face. And then we hear, 'We must not allow racism, but what we will allow is people to support terrorist groups that like to kill Jews.' That's what universities are allowing to occur. That is what is happening to the young minds of our nation—the young minds who should be put into a situation where they are encouraged to question and grow and learn. Part of that should be that they can actually intellectually understand, when they say 'From the river to the sea', which river and which sea, because I bet most of those children who are out there protesting wouldn't know which river and which sea. They are indoctrinated. It's like a cult. Families are having to deal with these universities putting this rubbish in their children's heads, turning them into activists, not academics. These universities are turning students into activists, not people who will contribute to our community. They'll spend a life in perpetual university politics and filled with hatred. It must be exhausting for them all to hate everybody so much. Live and let live, people. Why do you just want to hate on the Jews all the time? And the Jewish community knows it. The Holocaust didn't start with the gas chambers; it started with the sort of behaviour we're now seeing on the streets of Sydney, in Dover Heights, in Maroubra and in Dural. Dural is all acreage. It's like semi-rural farmland. It's insanity. How can the Labor government sit there and say, 'Nothing to see here, don't worry; we'll do a half-baked little inquiry'? You can't even get a witness to acknowledge that calling for the death of Israel in 2025 is antisemitism. What is wrong? This is why there must be a judicial inquiry. This is a no-brainer. What is happening in this country has to be stopped, and it has to be stopped before people are indoctrinated into this hatred. These vice-chancellors are on their million-dollar-plus packages, yet they're allowing this kind of hate to fester. I hope some of them, when they move out of their homes, try to move back to some of the suburbs where this is occurring and can witness it for themselves rather than in the cloistered halls of universities where they hide and fester in this hatred and where they hide and support the terror organisations through their inaction. It is appalling. It is shameful, and I call on the decent members of the Labor Party to— (Time expired) 09:42 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put.  

The Senate divided. [09:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. 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. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. 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. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

09:51 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The issue that is the subject of the bill before us, the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), is something that I know is close to the hearts of a lot of speakers, including mine. As a Victorian senator, I know all too well, sadly, the impact that antisemitism is having in our communities and on my friends. It is a scourge on our community. Good friends of mine are distraught about what is occurring in Melbourne, in Sydney and in other parts of the country, but particularly in our two main cities. I would have thought that, in 2025, people in our society would have learnt the lessons from the past and understood that any form of hate speech is just not acceptable in today's society. But the level of hate that is being directed towards the Australian Jewish community is just abhorrent and quite frankly needs to be called out. It is good to see that, despite some of the other contributions that we heard before and from others in the other place, there is a general bipartisanship on stamping out antisemitism in this country. What the government has also been committed to doing—and has done for some time now—is to try to work with the Jewish community, members of this place in the parliament and our state governments and police, both at a federal and state level, to have a coordinated approach to educating people about why it is not right, why it is not appropriate and why it is having a detrimental impact on the lives of many people in our society. We have seen protests. We have seen people voicing opposition to events that are currently occurring, and have been occurring for some time, over in the Middle East, particularly in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and we, as a government and as parliamentarians, need to balance that fine line between free speech and the rights of individuals in our society to feel safe and secure, especially when they just want to go about their own lives with their families every single day. The Albanese government has stated on multiple occasions that there is no place for antisemitism. Any kind of racism, vilification or hate speech needs to be called out, and it needs to be stamped out. That includes in our universities. I can't remember a time when such intense antisemitism and abuse has been directed towards members of the Jewish community. We're a very proud multicultural society where people are currently hurting. It does go to the fabric of our multicultural society and the fantastic policies that I think both sides of politics have embraced for many, many decades—having people come from overseas to call Australia home. So it cannot be left unaddressed. Just like our schools, universities are places where people from all backgrounds and experiences go to learn, study, teach and strive to make a positive difference in the world, and this includes Jewish students and staff. I know the Jewish community are hurting, because I speak to a lot of them. I speak to many in the community, and I know that they are deeply concerned. It is also of great concern that I and others have heard from members of this community that they feel unsafe on our university campuses. All students and staff have a right to feel and be safe in Australia. It's also worth reminding the Senate that, as a government, we have established a parliamentary joint committee that is currently conducting an inquiry into antisemitism, and last October the government also referred antisemitism at Australian universities to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for inquiry. Guess who it's chaired by: Mr Josh Burns from the other place, the member for Macnamara, who is a leading example on this issue, which I know is very close to his heart. I know the committee is going through a very thorough process. As part of that inquiry, the committee is considering the prevalence, the nature and the experience of antisemitism at universities, including the frameworks and policies to prevent and respond to it and to support students and staff. I really hope that vice-chancellors and other university leadership are also looking at this very carefully and taking seriously the processes that this parliament has set up, because it really does start to get to people when, time and time again, they see stories in the media about people making some ridiculous and, quite frankly, stupid comments that are directed towards the Jewish community. The Jewish community in our country are very proud Australians, just like many others who have migrated here and who call Australia home. They have every right to live their lives without intimidation and prejudice. As political leaders in this place we have an obligation to deal with these very sensitive matters in a very calm, respectful and civil way. We have a responsibility to calm any fears that people have in our society, not to inflame tensions. Australia is a very diverse and multicultural nation, and we should celebrate this every single day. It is a nation where everyone should be able to live without fear of being discriminated against or vilified because of who they are or where they originated from. The government wants people in the Middle East to live harmoniously, and we also want to advocate for peace and stability in that region. That begins right here in our own backyard. I'd also like to place on the record again my enduring support for the people of Israel and the Australian Jewish community, because it saddens me that there are some who have sought to cause division and who continue to cause division. Language of division or language of hate has a very real effect outside of the walls of the Senate and the other place. So I condemn in the strongest possible terms the rise of antisemitism in our country and those who encourage it. It breaks my heart that the Australian Jewish community have been and continue to be subjected to very hateful prejudice, particularly those in my home state and in my great city of Melbourne. I vividly recall one particular attack where a Jewish school, Mount Scopus Memorial College, was graffitied. I went to university right next door, for many years. The government has stood in solidarity with that school and with that community. I recall that the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, even visited the school soon after that attack and met with the principal. We also saw that the Prime Minister visited the synagogue that was recently attacked, with the member for Macnamara. Those words that were written on the wall of that school, the vandalism of the offices, the destruction of places of worship and the arson attacks—I am really calling for it to stop, and I know that many in this place are also calling for it to stop. The Jewish community in our country is very proud and has contributed in many ways to our great country, and people whose history has been so characterised by their persecution by others should feel safe in a country like ours. Like every Australian, they have a right to live their lives without fear and prejudice. As the government has said repeatedly, we believe in the rights of the State of Israel to exist alongside the free and democratic State of Palestine. As community leaders, we have an obligation to call out behaviour that goes against the very essence of our Australian spirit and way of life, and that is why I will keep using my voice to advocate for peace and harmony for Jewish students, teachers and communities. It is the only way forward. 10:00 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I have a lot of prepared notes here, and I chaired the inquiry into the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), and I want to go to some of the evidence that we received during that inquiry and the final conclusions of the committee. I'll do that if time allows in this debate. But, just before I do go to that, I was very distressed to see a senator from the Liberal Party accuse the Prime Minister of avoiding this debate by going to North Queensland today. I just want to say on the record that that is an awful thing to say, given that two people have died in the North Queensland floods and we still have communities that are cut off. There are communities that require an enormous amount of effort from all levels of government, and that is why the Prime Minister is there on the ground today. To accuse the Prime Minister of avoiding the debate by going to the aid of communities in need in North Queensland is disgraceful, reckless and arrogant. I wasn't here for the debate. I hope that those comments are eventually withdrawn, but it really shows me and says to me that there are people in this place who are seeking to politicise the events that are happening around this country and seeking to politicise this debate in a way that will not help to assist the tensions in our community and that will not end this type of conflict in our community. What our community does not want right now is more conflict and more division, and comments like that from Senator Hughes, from the Liberal Party, do not assist in bringing down the temperature of this debate. That is exactly what the Albanese Labor government has sought to do, and we want to ensure that all Australians have a right to be safe in their homes, communities, educational institutions and workplaces and online. That is why we have been working and making sure that we are taking every action that we can to make sure that people in the community understand that there is no place for antisemitism, Islamophobia or any kind of racism or vilification or hate speech, whether it is in our universities, outside our electorate offices or anywhere else. We urge communities in Australia to remain respectful, and we strongly condemn anyone who incites violence or hatred within our community. All Australians have a right to feel safe. We don't want to turn distress into anger and hate that divides us. It is very important, in a debate like this, to come back to the words of the Director-General of ASIO, who made it clear. He said: … it is important that all parties consider the implications for social cohesion when making public statements. As I said, I chaired the inquiry into this bill, and we received an enormous amount of evidence, and I'm so grateful and thankful to the communities that came forward and gave evidence. The committee was very moved by the evidence given, particularly by students on campuses. The committee found that it is clear that the university responses to incidents of antisemitism and to the fears of Jewish students and staff have been woefully inadequate. The committee considers that the universities' responses to this issue are remarkably similar to their historically poor responses to sexual assault and harassment. Now, the committee also found, though, that the bill itself is not the appropriate mechanism for addressing this type of issue, saying: The committee is concerned that a commission of inquiry would be too slow. As the committee heard from the Attorney-General's Department, the shortest Commonwealth royal commission in recent years was eight months in duration. And what our communities are calling for right now is swift action—and for social cohesion. The committee considers that actions that produce results more quickly and are more agile and responsive to the situation on the ground are required. To that end, the committee asks all Australian universities to respond with urgency to the issues raised … And the committee recommended that the Attorney-General immediately refer an inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and that was done. That is exactly the action that our government took. We referred it to that committee. That committee has already started its work. That committee has already started its hearings. That committee is receiving submissions and is getting its work underway. This bill is all about politics. It's not about solutions on the ground or taking action. It's not about getting things done. It is not about addressing the conflict in our community or setting the standard by which we wish our community members to behave. It is not about ensuring that we can set the standards that we want our community to behave by. And it is not about ensuring that we set the standards for our community that make sure people are safe, that there is clear information for people about the things that they are seeing on universities. We are making sure that there is an inquiry— Senator Henderson ZN4 Why doesn't the minister— Senator GREEN 259819 This is the tone of the debate. I can't stand here and speak respectfully without being interrupted by those opposite. I can't stand here and not be yelled at by those from the Liberal and National parties about this issue. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Green, resume your seat. I have asked Senator Green to resume her seat to remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly. There is no point of order in relation to anything that Senator Green has said. Senator Green, can I ask you to direct your comments through the chair. Senator GREEN 259819 Chair, I intend to do that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Green, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 A point of order on reflection on a senator— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The senator has not reflected on anyone. Senator Henderson ZN4 There was no yelling by me, and I would ask for— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 No, she hasn't. Senator Henderson ZN4 the record to be corrected. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 There's no point of order. Senator Green. Senator GREEN 259819 Our government, since the October 7 attacks on Israel, has consulted widely and across communities. We have consulted across the Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities. We have consulted widely with the Jewish community, and the measures to address community needs identified closely by community members after the attacks are designed to address the short-term as well as the long-term impacts felt across communities in Australia. Our approach supports both short- and long-term impacts of the conflict, enables funding to be distributed rapidly to communities most in need while also building capacity in affected communities. Our priority is to provide support to those communities that have been impacted, and to enhance and foster community connection during these challenging times. That is the priority of our government—taking action, supporting communities and delivering the funding that is needed. I want to be clear in the final moments that I have that the Australian government has a zero-tolerance approach towards violence and expects all students to act respectfully towards each other. Antisemitism, Islamophobia and any other form of harassment, racism, discrimination or intimidation must not be allowed to threaten the safety of students and staff in Australian university campuses or anywhere else. Any incidents on university campuses that contravene the law should immediately be reported to police. Universities must uphold their obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021. This includes having policies in place around freedom of speech, fostering a safe environment and ensuring the wellbeing of students and staff. It also includes having effective grievance processes to enable complaints to be made without fear of reprisal. Our committee heard so many times about the universities not being able to deal with complaints or respond to complaints in an agile way. That was the evidence in our committee. But our government is working to strengthen the student ombudsman—we passed a bill last year—to make sure that students do have someone to go to when they need assistance. There will always be a place for peaceful protest, but it must be peaceful. There will always be a place for respectful debate, but it must be respectful. Upholding freedom of speech does not extend to protecting or tolerating discriminatory or hate speech, including antisemitism or Islamophobia. With the final moments I have, I intend to go through some of the work that our government is doing. A bill like this is about an inquiry that will take some time. Our government is delivering on the ground right now. The government has developed a social cohesion package, which includes $25 million to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry to immediately improve safety. I have spoken to the Jewish community in my community in Far North Queensland, and they are very appreciative of these efforts. We are also making sure that we are providing funding for a series of measures to support the Australian community—$3 million for targeted mental health supports, $6 million for mental health and wellbeing support to students in Jewish and Islamic schools and for students of Jewish and Islamic faith— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The time for this debate has expired. BUSINESS 10 BUSINESS Rearrangement 10 10:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That— (a) the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025 be called on at 10.30 am; (b) the time allotted for the second reading of the bill be one hour; (c) the questions on all remaining stages of the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025 and the Navigation Amendment Bill 2024 be put at 1.15 pm; (d) paragraphs (b) and (c) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142; and (e) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded. This motion is essentially just to make a slight rearrangement to the program, to bring on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 at 10.30 and to allow for an hour of second reading debate and then further debate post our housekeeping arrangements motions. We will get that bill done by question time or before, if that's possible. I thank the Senate for the discussions this morning. I appreciate the support from the opposition to get this important piece of legislation dealt with today. 10:13 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I indicate that the opposition will obviously be supporting this arrangement to facilitate passage of this very important legislation in a timely fashion. I just wanted to make that clear to the chamber. Question agreed to. BILLS 10 BILLS Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 10

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

Second Reading 10 10:13 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I again rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. As I observed briefly last night, this is a typical Labor piece of legislation. It's got a catchy title—no doubt research driven—and those opposite have spent an inordinate amount of time talking about the broader policy in very generic terms. But the fact is that this is about production tax credits. From what those opposite have said, you'd think that this one small measure alone will actually address the challenges and barriers that are now facing our mining, oil and gas sectors. You'd think that this will fix it all. What they didn't actually talk about—and I don't think I heard a single Labor senator actually talk about it—was the production tax credits. They quoted a couple of people in the mining sector who are supportive of this. On its own, it's not a bad policy. It will help a very few in the mining sector. But, again, it doesn't address the big issues that are currently crippling new projects and, in fact, current projects, such as in the nickel industry, which I will come to very shortly. A number of people in the sector have said, 'It's better than nothing at all,' but it does nothing, as I said, to fix the problem. Instead of addressing the fundamental issues that are constraining our mining sector—and, in fact, there are ones that the bill itself has made worse—this government is putting forward this attempt to say, 'We are actually dealing with the challenges that face the critical minerals and rare earth industries which are so essential for the development of new energy technologies'—the so-called net zero technologies. We've got a lot of them here in Australia, but it's taking 15 years under this government from finding a deposit to actually producing it. That is absolutely outrageous. It is ridiculous. These commodities are actually not rare at all. There are vast deposits overseas—in Greenland, as President Trump has identified, and in many other nations. So what's happening? We are not competitive. Companies here can't get capital. They can't get certainty. We in this nation are now defined as a sovereign risk in the mining, oil and gas sectors and that includes for the minerals and the rare earths that are needed to get the globe to net zero. So what are those opposite doing? They have introduced legislation that makes red tape even harder to deal with, even more expensive and longer. Thank goodness 'nature positive' has been shelved for now, but there is nothing more certain than that, if those opposite are actually given the Treasury benches again after the next election, 'nature positive' will be back and it will be a further death knell for Western Australia and Australia's mining and oil and gas sectors. So we oppose this bill not because the individual tax credit will help a mere handful into production, although not into development, but because this is all spin and it doesn't do anything to benefit families, workers or Western Australian industry. Australia has a very proud and long manufacturing history, which this side of politics has always supported. But what does a strong manufacturing and mining sector need? It needs strong economic management to get our country back on track, to get the mining sector and the oil and gas sector back on track, by getting the basics right—everything that this government in just over 2½ years has made infinitely worse. So what does the sector need? It needs affordable and reliable energy. It is more expensive, it is less reliable and, when you have a look at other nations that are now competing actively for our miners, our capital and for the mining projects that could have been built here, what have they got? They've got reliable and cheap energy. They have less regulation. So what have those opposite done? They have made it even worse and longer. They have added five years to projects being delivered. Even for the most critical of minerals they've added five years. What does that mean? It means that projects are now going overseas. Have a look at what Donald Trump has announced in terms of reducing regulation and red tape. It's not to say that here in Australia we want lesser standards. We've got the best standards in the world. But the amount of red, green and black tape that now strangles our businesses has been exacerbated astonishingly in just five years by those opposite. Let's have a look at the critical minerals and rare earth sectors in Western Australia that this is supposedly designed to assist. A few businesses, if they're in production, will benefit from it, and that's a good thing. But, again, it's putting a finger in the dike. Having been a passionate advocate for our critical minerals and rare earth sector for almost all of my time here in the Senate, I've consulted and engaged with the industry over many years. I've worked with them to find meaningful policy outcomes that support the critical role that they play in the prosperity of Western Australia and in the prosperity of our nation. As one of the fastest growing industries, Australia, but Western Australia in particular, does have some of the most significant critical mineral deposits in the world, including virtually all of the minerals on Australia's own Critical Minerals List, and is now the leading supplier of lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, mineral sands and rare earths. We've got advanced critical minerals processing capabilities, with large-scale global investment in refineries, but we could and we should be doing much more. While critical minerals are essential for our energy transition, the sector is facing serious global challenges. As I've said, it has taken far too long in Australia—what investor in their right mind would invest in any project in Western Australia or Australia when they know it's going to take 15 years, the regulatory environment is going to keep changing, there is going to be more and more investment and it takes hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to invest. We're a sovereign risk, and I can't believe I'm saying that in this place—that those opposite have made us a sovereign risk. Of course, companies, investment and capital—it's incredibly mobile, and it is moving. A lot of Australian companies, under the US IRA, have been incentivised to set up production facilities in the United States. Just this week, Meg O'Neill, the CEO of Woodside, said that the Trump administration's early action on deregulation and energy investment adds to the acute challenges facing Australian producers. She also urged the nation to stay focussed on being competitive in global markets, pushing for an energy policy debate based on science and facts and not wishful thinking. She also said, 'Amid rising global protection and greater competition for global capital, Australian must sharpen its competitive edge even further.' But this bill does not do that. This bill does not come within cooee of doing that. Instead, it's just a quick fix, pre-election, for the Labor government to say: 'See? We get rare earths and critical minerals. See? We're doing this.' But they're not. You're picking a few winners. You're picking a very small part of the market to help. You are not making any difference—any positive difference, anyway. Let's have a look at one of the sectors, just one of the sectors, and what's happened to the nickel production here in Australia. This is in the context of a global cold war going on between China, Australia and our allies. It's a battle that we are continuing to lose. This is a battle that's being fought not on a traditional battlefield but in the global mining commodity markets, across many commodities, and it's done differently commodity by commodity. Our nickel industry, which is so important in Western Australia, is a prime example of this battle. Significant Chinese investment has bombed the global nickel market. They've invested in new nickel mines and processing in Indonesia, and Indonesia has far lower costs. They've got faster regulatory timelines. They've got affordable and reliable power, and they have Chinese investment led infrastructure. Our domestic market, our nickel companies, did not see it coming. They didn't think that this investment could happen so fast, and they were blindsided by something that was hidden in plain sight. The fact is that the nickel we produce remains significantly less emission intensive than that in Indonesia and elsewhere. It is cleaner, demonstrably cleaner, but it is more expensive. Our market share has now plummeted from 16 per cent of the global market to just four per cent today, and it is dropping. BHP's announcement that it will suspend its Nickel West operations in the Goldfields highlights the consequence of this battle. China's systematic manipulation of global commodity markets, not just the nickel market but many others—they do this through subsidies, export restrictions and strategic stockpiling—have undermined the markets. Yet we are doing nothing to combat that to assist our own companies. In conclusion, it is a really sad indictment of this government—and, sadly, we've seen so many other examples in this place—that it's all about perception, politics and spin rather than about any genuine attempt to support our mining and oil and gas sectors. As a Western Australian, that breaks my heart, because we can see it in Western Australia. Fifteen years is far too long. People are just not going to invest anymore, because there are plenty of other markets where they can get the commodities faster, cheaper and more reliably than Australia. That is a shame, because we still have the best environmentally sustainable standards. We are slavery free. We have mine rehabilitation. And our product is traceable. But, again, we are doing nothing in this country and nothing in this bill to save those industries and to prop up our economy. 10:26 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm going to take a different angle in this debate on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, because I'm proud to be Australian, I'm proud to be Western Australian, and I'm going to talk up this bill and I'm going to talk up our nation, unlike in the previous contribution. I only copped about 11 minutes of Senator Reynolds's contribution, but what a depressing, misleading waste of 11 minutes, of certainly my time, having to listen to that. Fancy an Australian senator standing here talking down our nation! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Sterle, can you resume your seat. I just want to remind you that personal reflections directed at other senators are unparliamentary. I'd ask you to withdraw. Senator STERLE e68 Oh my goodness me. I'll withdraw. Oh, gee whiz—okay. Well, 'It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this legislation'—seriously. Colleagues, this is a bill that will deliver a sustainable future for our resources sector. This legislation delivers on the announcement made as part of the budget last year. The Albanese Labor government's last budget delivered the most significant initiatives for the future of Australia's resources in a generation. This included a 10 per cent reduction tax incentive to drive critical minerals processing in Australia, at an estimated value of $17 billion over the next 14 years. These new production tax incentives are aimed at unlocking private sector investment to build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy. They are designed to ensure that local workers, industries and communities around Australia, particularly in my home state of Western Australia that I am so proud of, are the beneficiaries of more investment in resources and jobs. When this legislation is passed, industry will be eligible for a 10 per cent production tax credit to incentivise critical minerals processing right here in Australia. These tax credits are designed to reward success, as the credits will be paid only once a company has processed or refined critical minerals in Australia. These production tax credits for critical minerals present a zero-risk approach for Australia. In fact, they will support 19 projects in the electorate of Durack—Durack, Senator Reynolds—in north-west Western Australia, 19 project that will ensure the north-west's vital role in delivering critical minerals for our domestic industries and our export industries. I fully support this bill. It's about time you got on board, too. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Sterle, you still have 30 seconds. Senator STERLE e68 Gee whiz! I'll go all day—don't worry about that—especially on this topic. Just give me a heads-up when you want to do what you want to do. Crikey! The production tax credit scheme is quite simple. If companies don't produce a processed critical— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Sterle, pursuant to the order agreed earlier— Senator STERLE e68 I'll tell you what, we've really got this show on the road here, haven't we! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 the time for debate has now expired, and you will be in continuance. BUSINESS 13 BUSINESS Rearrangement 13 10:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia With your indulgence, Senator Sterle, I just need to move an amendment, and then we're back on to you. Senator Sterle e68 Absolutely. Senator WONG 00AOU by leave—I move: That the order agreed to earlier today be amended to provide that the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025 be called on at 11 am. Question agreed to. BILLS 13 BILLS Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 13

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

Second Reading 13 10:30 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia As I was saying, the production tax credit scheme is quite simple. I'll explain it for those opposite. If companies don't produce a processed critical mineral, once again, they don't receive a tax credit. Taxpayers don't pay a cent—righto, got that?—unless the industry succeeds. If companies do produce a processed critical mineral, it means they have grown our sovereign capability, they have attracted investment, they have contributed to diversified supply chains, they have contributed to value adding onshore and, oh my goodness, they have created new jobs. Let's be clear. By opposing this legislation, that mob over there, the coalition, are opposing investment, are opposing jobs and are turning their backs on Western Australia, which we've heard very clearly today. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the member for Durack especially wouldn't support this legislation, let alone Western Australian members and senators. Those of us on the Labor side of politics want more critical minerals processed here in Australia at facilities built by, God help us, Australian workers, and, oh my God, operated by Australian workers. It's pretty hard for that side over there to fathom, but I'm going to try and help you. Don't just take my word for it. This legislation is supported by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies in WA, by Wesfarmers and by the Minerals Council of Australia. It's not often that you will find me on the same side as some of those organisations, swapping Christmas cards! Contrast the approach being taken by Wesfarmers, who, for those Western Australian senators and members, are on the record saying this is a 'smart, targeted use of the tax system to solve big problems, leverage our competitive advantages and enhance Australia's prosperity'. Imagine my surprise when I heard the shadow Treasurer, Mr Taylor, describe the production tax incentive as giving a dollar to every cafe owner for every coffee they produce. Colleagues, I'll tell you which policy gives a dollar to every cafe owner for every coffee they produce, and some of that could be the free lunch policy being promoted by that mob over that side. I'll tell you a little story. There's no such thing as a free lunch, so—do not be mistaken—that policy is a dud of a policy. How the heck do you expect workers to pay for the boss's long lunches? Rather than supporting new industries that are essential for our future, those opposite want to lurch back to the 1980s, when Australian workers and taxpayers used to foot the bill for their boss's long lunch. That's what they want to do. But I digress. Producing lithium hydroxide, vanadium pentoxide or nickel sulphate is a bit more complex than producing a latte. Believe it or not, there are members opposite representing electorates in Western Australia that host critical mineral mines with ambitions to move up the value chain, including the member for O'Connor and the member for Durack. By not supporting this important legislation, they are casting doubt on the investment opportunities for critical minerals processing in my home state of Western Australia. Worse than that, they are turning their backs on jobs in their electorates. Compare that to the WA opposition—don't laugh! There is a WA opposition. You've got to hear this. I normally have a lot of highly critical things to say about the rabble that is the Western Australian opposition. But, on this, they've seen the light when it comes to supporting our emerging critical minerals sector. Unlike the federal coalition, the WA Liberal and National parties—all seven of them—understand the importance of this Albanese government policy. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party in WA—not the opposition but the Liberal Party—Libby Mettam, at this stage the leader, has gone as far as to say, 'We will support this measure.' Very good. Add to that Mr Shane Love, the WA opposition leader and leader of the WA Nationals. He has said, 'It is essential not just for Western Australia and not just for Australia but for the Western world.' Good on you, Mr Love! It seems that common sense, believe it or not, has spread to some of their federal candidates. Not members, no—there's no common sense there. Ms Mia Davies, the Nationals candidate for Bullwinkel, said, 'Downstream incentives are welcome.' Perhaps the shadow Treasurer should listen to his WA colleagues before shooting his mouth off. The development of this bill is a great example of industry leaders and national and state governments working together to develop a new vital industry that will drive economic growth. I'm proud to be a member of a government that doesn't duck the hard challenges, that works with industry to build a dynamic future for Australia and Australian workers. Mining and critical minerals are an important part of that dynamic future. Put simply, mining matters, and it particularly matters for regional Australia—and, importantly, regional Western Australia. The development of our critical minerals mining and processing industries is vitally important to national economic resilience and our national security. But, rather than support these important initiatives, those opposite, the Liberals and the Nationals, just want to focus on division and conflict. Why those opposite can't see that the passage of this bill will deliver for Australia, Australian industry and regional Australia is completely beyond me. Australia will be much stronger, our regional economy will be more prosperous, and there will be good, well-paying jobs in our regional communities and our outer suburbs. Along with all my Labor colleagues on this side of the chamber, I'm proud that the government is investing in regional jobs. I'm proud that the government is backing the expansion of a world-leading Australian industry. I'm proud that the government is striving to create a new and lasting comparative advantage for Australia, for Australian industry and for Australians. Tax credits, production credits and other forms of support for investment and innovation will ensure that our mining products will be converted from refined metal into manufactured goods right here in Australia. Could we imagine that? Is it that hard? For that lot over there, please help me out. What is negative about that? We talk about the good old days. Let's start bringing them back. Why are they opposed to these high-skilled, well-paying jobs in regional Australia? I admit, the government's vision for our critical minerals sector is ambitious, but what's wrong with that? You don't develop world-leading industries by following. Our ambitions for Australia and Australian industry are matched by the scale of the national opportunity these important policy initiatives will create. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, the Albanese government is determined that Australian industry will be in a position where it will be competitive. We want to create the economic environment where the world's best manufacturers will again look to investing in Australia. Let's recap. Australians have a wealth of critical minerals and rare earths right under their feet. It would be a travesty not to capitalise on these resources to build Australia's future and create thousands of secure jobs, particularly in Western Australia. Critical minerals are needed for solar panels, storage batteries and wind turbines, and the world can't transition to net zero without them. The global path to net zero runs through the Australian resources sector and is paved with Western Australia's critical minerals. These minerals are also vital components in defence applications and directly relevant for the national security of Australia and our allies. But, at the moment, we ship critical minerals overseas to be refined before they can be manufactured into solar panels, storage batteries, wind turbines and defence equipment. This has led to concentrated supply chains, the undercutting of our sovereign capability, and jobs and investment leaving Australia. Listen to that mob over there, it seems they're happy to see that happen. Australia is missing out on all the jobs that will be created by building processing facilities here in Australia, on our shores, and operating processing facilities in Australia crewed by Australian workers. Building a booming critical minerals industry in Australia will boost Western Australia's economy and create secure jobs in our resources sector. There is an abundance of projects in Western Australia that can get off the ground with the right support. The government's yearly critical minerals prospectus alone lists 27 critical minerals projects in my home state of Western Australia, with 19, as I said earlier, within the electorate of Durack. An incident having occurred in the chamber— Senator STERLE e68 Sorry about that. That was my sister calling. Whoops! As I said, let's not forget that we will all prosper when we draw on our nation's resources. I'm talking about not just what is under the soil and the seabed but also the skills and the smarts of our Aussie workers—the brilliance of our Aussie researchers and our Aussie innovators. I urge those opposite to grab the other half of the brain that's missing, jump on board and support this magnificent legislation that will create magnificent opportunities for Aussies. Stop talking that rubbish about how great Trump is. 10:43 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise today to bring hope to the public in my contribution about the great future that is ours to have as a nation. It's a bold vision. It's one that embraces our nation's strengths. It invests in our people. It builds a future that's not only made in Australia but for Australia. For too long, under the leadership of Mr Dutton, the coalition and its various leaders, Australia was hamstrung. We stood by as a nation and just watched the Liberal-National coalition in control. We just watched as other nations actually seized the opportunities of the clean energy revolution. Other countries, because of a lack of leadership and vision by the former government, captured the jobs. They got the industries. Our economic sovereignty that should have been thriving here at home had the brakes totally put on it because of a lack of vision and a lack of organisation and focus on the future for this nation by the Liberal-National coalition, now led by Mr Dutton. Mr Dutton and the Liberal and National parties were content to let Australia remain a quarry, exporting raw minerals and materials, while the real economic value, the innovation, the manufacturing and the high-skilled jobs that Australians need and want were developed elsewhere in the world. When you are in government, you actually have to make these nation-building things happen. You can't just hark on about the past. It's about the future. Australians understand that, and that's what they want from their government. We don't need to get back on the dead-end track that Mr Dutton wants to take us on. Governments have to be prepared for the future, and there couldn't be a stronger way to move to the future than to create these fantastic highly skilled jobs and value-add to what we do here in the country. That's why the Albanese Labor government is acting. It's why we are delivering a project that is known in the public place as the Future Made in Australia initiative. The Future Made in Australia initiative is a $22.7 billion package that places an investment in Australia and Australians at the centre of the net zero transformation that is happening. It's driving the next generation of economic growth for this country, and any government worth its salt has to be looking to the future, not the past. At its heart, this initiative is typically Labor. It's about people—the Australian people. It's about securing good, well-paid jobs for Australians. It's about jobs in clean energy that we want to be part of the mix of our economy going forward. It's about jobs in advanced manufacturing and in industries that will power our economy for decades to come, and it's about jobs that will exist not just in boardrooms but in workshops, in factories, in regional towns and in our growing suburbs. This legislation is brought to the parliament by my good friend and that very significant thinker of economy, and that is our Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. He is very well placed to take Australia forward into the future. This policy delivered under him for our children and for our grandchildren is nation building in scope and scale. I want to commend the leadership of my ministerial colleagues who've woven this vision together. In particular, I want to thank my good friend from New South Wales the Minister for Industry and Science Ed Husic, whose clarity of purpose and passion for Australian industry has been instrumental and palpable. Minister Husic has been upfront in threading together the strands of industrial policy to meet two great challenges of our time: economic diversification and capitalising on the transition to renewable energy. He's taken on that abstract concept, full of multisyllabic words that Australians won't be talking about around their dinner table at night. Having an understanding of these concepts and bringing them into reality—that's the vision and implementation that we've seen from Minister Husic. He's tied these concepts to concrete reality, to progress, to jobs, to the delivery and development of factories and to reopening them after the shutdowns of Mr Dutton and his mates. We have new industries emerging because of the work of Minister Husic and the leadership of the Albanese Labor government to focus on our future and not backwards on a dead-end track. This kind of policy is what real leadership looks like. Governing and doing their day job every day is so much more than making speeches in this place, and it results in great outcomes for the communities across Australia. This Future Made in Australia initiative will form part of the nation-building tradition of the Labor Party. We've done it before in other areas. Labor is the party of Medicare. Labor is the reason you have that little card in your wallet. Labor has resurrected Medicare on so many occasions. We had to do it again when we came into government in 2022, to fix the mess left by Mr Dutton as the worst health minister in Australia's history. We stand on the shoulders of giants—leaders who believed in using the power of government to build not just economies but societies where fairness and opportunity are within reach for all, no matter where you live. The ministers and leaders of the Australian Labor Party continue to set the national agenda with a focus on the future, turning Australia into that long-fabled light on the hill. It's not just a slogan; it's a living, breathing reality for us and for the people we serve. We're making it happen with very targeted and strategic investment. Firstly, there is a hydrogen production tax incentive. At $2 per kilogram, this is for renewable hydrogen projects that reach a final investment decision before 2030. There is a critical minerals production tax incentive, which is a 10 per cent credit on processing and refining costs for any of Australia's 31 critical minerals. This means we will be adding value to what we produce here, turning from a quarry into a jobs-producing, benefit-creating economy around clean energy. We're more than just what we dig up. Our people need us to incentivise this industry, and that's what we're doing with that 10 per cent credit on processing and refining. We need to do more than just have a day when we talk about closing the gap; we need to support Indigenous Australians. The expansion, under the Labor Party in leadership and government, of the Indigenous Business Australia vehicle is an important way to increase investment and ensure that First Nations communities, who live on so much of the land where these critical minerals are found, are not just observers or bystanders, watching this happen—watching the quarry—but participants and leaders in the net zero transition as they continue their custodianship of this country into the future. These measures are not handouts. They're not corporate welfare. They are strategic investments designed to unlock private capital, create Australian jobs and strengthen our sovereign capability in industries that matter, not just for today but for generations to come. There couldn't be a starker contrast. Labor is aligning with business and businesses are making capital available for profit, alongside some incentives from government to grow this industry for our nation. There's that, and then there's Mr Dutton. The market has decided that there's no way nuclear can work in the Australian economy. It just doesn't work. There is not a single individual entity or multinational company—there's no-one—that wants to put nuclear in Australia. But Mr Dutton does, and he wants $600 billion of your money—taxpayers' money—to make that happen. There is no partnership with business. So, any time Mr Dutton tries to tell you that the Liberal Party are the party of business, they need their heads read. They have no idea about co-investment and design for the future of this nation. They want to take us backwards, not into the future. Let's be clear, my fellow Australians, that we are in a world that is changing at a rapid pace. Our economy competes with the United States, with the European Union and with China. Those countries are investing billions of dollars in clean energy manufacturing. They're investing in hydrogen and critical minerals. They are not waiting for the market to do it for them; they are priming the pump to get that machine running. We've already had lead in the saddlebags from nine years of a Liberal-National Party government that couldn't get their act together on anything to do with energy or creating jobs out of it. We were in a terrible state. Labor had to come in with this vision for the future, and we are delivering it. If we sit back or if we go back to those failed policies of the Liberal and National parties, we will absolutely and certainly be left behind and the jobs that are ours to take in the international environment will be gone. This is the moment. It's a moment that needs vision and leadership, and that is what Labor is offering. We will not let this opportunity pass. I want to give a shout-out to the great people who live a little bit further north than me in New South Wales, people so ably represented in the other place by my colleagues Meryl Swanson, the member for Paterson, and also Dan Repacholi, the member for the Hunter. They know about jobs. They know about mining. They know about manufacturing. They know what a dud Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison were as jobs left their regions. We know that in a sector such as the aluminium industry, where Australia has been a global leader, facilities in the mighty Hunter region, like the Tomago aluminium smelter, have been pillars in their communities, providing jobs and economic stability. But, as the world moves towards cleaner production methods, these facilities face the challenge of transitioning to renewable energy sources. To support this transition, the Albanese government has announced $2 billion to invest in the Australian-made aluminium industry. It includes the production of green aluminium production credits, providing targeted support, as a government can do if they are interested in these jobs, to aluminium smelters that switch to reliable renewable electricity before 2036. Facilities will be eligible for support for every tonne of clean, reliable Australian-made aluminium that they produce over a period of 10 years. This initiative not only will secure well-paid jobs but will also position Australia to meet the growing global demand for low-carbon aluminium. This is a result of profoundly effective advocacy by the member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, a champion archer and a champion for the community, supported by Meryl Swanson, the member for that beautiful part of the country known as Paterson, where jobs really matter to everybody who has been involved in these industries over a long period of time. When I think back on what this sort of investment means for our remote regions, I'm reminded of an old 1922 song, 'Along the road to Gundagai' by Jack O'Hagan. It speaks of a simple shack, familiar places and the comfort of home. It is a song of nostalgia about our community. It reminds me of how far we've come in over a century. But we can't go back. There is no going back on that track. We have to look to the future. Only Labor is creating the policies that will create the jobs and opportunities for our future, our children and our grandchildren. 10:58 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024. It is no surprise that the coalition will be opposing this bill. Australia finds itself in a position of absolute bloated bureaucracy. The Albanese government seem to have done everything they can to increase the size of this leviathan. There is excess duplication and regulation that is holding us back from our economic potential. We know that the Labor government's increase to bureaucracy has impacted the high inflation that we are seeing—an additional 20 per cent increase in public servants and then 11 per cent pay rises on top of that. The RBA has admitted that the growth of the public sector is a factor that the RBA will have to take into account when considering rate cuts. It's clear that the Albanese Labor government loves bureaucracy and waste. It's everywhere you look. Their Future Made in Australia legislation is only going to make the problem worse. We need to be encouraging and supporting the development and growth of businesses across the country. During the emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic, the coalition acted, as we had to, and provided all-important relief to Australians. We ensured that business could continue to operate and everyday Aussies could keep their jobs. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. Pursuant to order agreed to earlier, it being 11 am debate on this bill is interrupted. Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 17

Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024

First Reading 17 11:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 17 11:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Acceptance and diversity lies at the heart of our Australian democracy. The Albanese Government is committed to the safety and security of the community. It is our responsibility as a government, and as a parliament, to use our collective voice to send a clear, unambiguous message: it is unacceptable to advocate, threaten or commit violence against another person because of who they are, who they pray to, who they love. Strengthening urging violence offences The bill will strengthen existing offences in the Criminal Code for urging violence against groups or members of groups. These offences currently protect groups distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion. The bill will expand the list of attributes to be protected to include attributes of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status and disability. The bill will amend these offences to capture circumstances in which a person intentionally urges force or violence and is reckless as to whether the force or violence will occur. The term 'urging' will be replaced with 'advocating'—defined to mean counsel, encourage, promote or urge—to ensure the offences capture all forms of inciting violence. Importantly, the bill will also remove the availability of the good faith defence. There are no circumstances in which advocating force or violence can be done in good faith. These amendments senda clear message that this hateful conduct is incompatible with Australia's values and will not be tolerated. Criminalising threats of force or violence against groups The bill will establish new criminal offences for directly threatening force or violence towards a group, or member of a group, distinguished by protected attributes. These new offences will provide law enforcement with the capacity to address conduct which involves a direct threat from one person to another. There will also be no defence of good faith for this offence. Threats of force or violence cannot be done in good faith. New criminal offences for threatening damage to property The bill introduces a new criminal offence for threatening damage to, or destruction of, real property or a motor vehicle, where this is done because of a belief that the property is a place of worship of a targeted group, or the owner or occupier is a member of a targeted group or their close associate. The offences recognise that attacks on places of worship cause considerable impacts on these groups beyond their ability to freely practice their faith, including eroding feelings of acceptance, safety and belonging within the Australian community. The bill would also introduce new offences for advocating force or violence against a targeted group by causing damage to property. Close associates The bill amends the offences of advocating violence and threatening violence against groups or their members, to acknowledge the harm to close associates of those members caused by this offending. A close associate will include close family members of individuals distinguished by a protected attribute, and carers or assistants of persons with a disability, who may be targeted by threats of violence because of their close association with a targeted person. Strengthening public display of hate symbols offences The bill will amend the existing offences in the Criminal Code for publicly displaying prohibited Nazi and terrorist organisation symbols or making the Nazi salute. It will expand the list of groups which these offences protect to include groups distinguished by sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or disability. The amendments accord with Australia's international human rights obligations and complement existing civil protections in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Extending the protections to persons living with disability also acknowledges the need for a stronger and more comprehensive legal framework to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of people with disability. Amendments to penalties The bill amends the penalties applicable to certain Commonwealth offences. The Bill introduces mandatory minimum penalties of: 6 years imprisonment will apply to terrorist offences contained in Divisions 101 and 102 of the Criminal Code, with the exception of subsections 102.8(1) and 102.8(2) 3 years imprisonment will apply to terrorism financing offences in Division 103 12 months imprisonment will apply to offences for publicly displaying prohibited Nazi or terrorist organisation symbols, or performing the Nazi salute, and 1 year imprisonment will apply to the new offence of advocating force or violence through causing damage to property. The Bill also increases the maximum penalty for publicly displaying a prohibited hate symbol, or performing the Nazi salute, to 5 years. Conclusion Australia's diversity is our great strength. With these laws, we are sending a clear signal to those who seek to divide us. There is no place in this country for violence or threats of violence. For those who have faced hatred and violence simply for being who you are, we stand with you. We are acting to keep you safe and ensure you are free to live your lives without fear of persecution. I commend the Bill to the Parliament. 11:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. In commencing my comments to the chamber, can I just say that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has once again led the way on a crucial issue of national security and social cohesion. Last night, in the Federation Chamber, the Albanese Labor government caved in to Mr Dutton's demands for strong, mandatory penalties and new offences for antisemitic attacks. The Albanese Labor government were forced into the position of introducing amendments to their own legislation to follow Mr Dutton's strong lead. They have also supported, I am pleased, coalition amendments to further strengthen their hate crimes bill. Only on 3 February—as recently as that—did we have Minister Murray Watt confirming that federal Labor would not be introducing mandatory minimum sentences for acts of Commonwealth terrorism. And yet here today in the Senate we will pass the legislation that Peter Dutton had raised with the Australian people. The hate crimes legislation is about ensuring that those who advocate force or violence against a group of people are held accountable for their actions. The parliament needs to make it clear that you cannot call on others to commit violence against a group of people. The overwhelming majority of Australians agree that those using force or violence against anyone, and those who incite others to use force or violence, should be held to account. The legislation is considered and it is targeted. It is not about policing what people say on social media or suppressing debate in the community about a range of issues. It is about ensuring that those who commit or advocate violence are punished. The actions we saw at the Opera House on 9 October 2023, where an angry mob chanted antisemitic threats, just two days after the massacre of 1,200 Jewish people in southern Israel by the terrorist group Hamas, should never be repeated. That day, 9 October 2023, should have been the day that Australia stood behind Israel, when the Sydney Opera House, a most famous landmark, was lit up in solidarity with the people of Israel. Instead, it will forever be a day of shame for our nation because a violent mob were able to keep Jewish Australians away from the very landmark that was lit up in solidarity with them. The legislation is an important step in combating the antisemitism crisis that we have in Australia today. As I have said, the coalition has secured some very significant amendments to this legislation, and we are pleased that the government has agreed to them. The final piece of legislation before the Senate today is as a result of the strong leadership of Peter Dutton. Thanks to the work of the coalition standing up to the antisemitic crisis across Australia, the Labor Party have finally agreed to some strong measures to ensure those in our community who are committing terrorism offences are punished appropriately. Peter Dutton has once again led the way on a crucial issue of national security and social cohesion. As I have stated, the coalition has been calling for strong action in four key areas, the first being mandatory minimum sentences of six years jail for terrorism offences. I would have thought the Australian people would be surprised to know that there was not a minimum mandatory sentence if you were found guilty of committing an act of terrorism in this country. We also advocated for tougher action on prohibited Nazi and terrorist organisation symbols and related behaviour, increasing the maximum penalty to five years, with a mandatory minimum jail time of 12 months. We also advocated for a decisive response to attacks on places of worship through new offences for those who advocate or threaten such attacks, and targeted action for religiously motivated property damage that advocates violence against groups with a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment and a maximum of five years imprisonment. I am pleased to advise the Senate and the Australian people that all of these outcomes will be achieved through the amended hate crimes legislation. Since 7 October 2023, the antisemitic crisis in Australia has reached a point where we have seen the terrorist firebombing of a synagogue and the shocking attempt to carry out what could potentially have been a mass casualty attack. Peter Dutton, every single step of the way, has stood with the Australian people, has stood for national security, has stood with the people in the Jewish community, and has led the fight against domestic antisemitism from day one. I cannot say the same for our Prime Minister. What we are debating today is the strong action that was, quite frankly, needed months ago. We called for it months ago; we have been advocating for it. The Labor Party have been dragged kicking and screaming, but it will go through today. As I said, the amendments we have secured are critical—a mandatory minimum sentence of six years for terrorism offences. We want to stand up to those who do harm to our nation. We don't care about the ideology of the terrorist group; anyone involved in these organisations should be aware: if you commit an offence you will face a mandatory jail time. Another important aspect of the legislation that was secured by Peter Dutton— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, he may be your leader, but you need to use his correct title. Senator CASH I0M Thank you, and I was about to say that—the Leader of the Opposition. The PRESIDENT 112096 You have constantly referred to him without his title. Senator CASH I0M Yes, the Leader of the Opposition—was mandatory jail time for the public use of hate symbols. It is completely unacceptable to wave a Nazi flag, a Hezbollah flag or a Hamas rally flag at a public rally. We have unfortunately seen numerous examples of these hate symbols being used to terrorise Jewish Australians since 7 October 2023. The use of terrorist symbols was made illegal in a bipartisan piece of legislation which was originally suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, and the coalition. But this legislation ensures that those who do use those symbols will face at least 12 months in jail, and, as I said, we have also increased the maximum penalty to five years. This is a very clear message to those who wish to intimidate Australians through the use of a terrorist symbol. We have also secured strong new measures against those who advocate damage to places of worship, whether it is a synagogue, a church, a mosque or a temple. The other amendment that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has secured is a new offence, with minimum jail time, for religiously motivated property damage that advocates violence against groups. The new mandatory minimum sentence is 12 months imprisonment and a maximum of five years. To be clear, the references to 'force or violence' in the legislation do not include psychological harm or mental harm. For the benefit of those listening in to the debate or considering this legislation in the future, the clear intention of the parliament is to enact legislation that relates to physical force or violence and not psychological harm or other sorts of mental harm. This point was made clearly by government officials in the course of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the legislation and is consistent with the advice provided by the Attorney-General himself in writing to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The intention that the words 'force or violence' refer to physical force or violence and not mental and psychological harm is expressly reflected in the report from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which was supported by both major parties. Indeed, the word 'harm' does not appear in this bill or in the amendments that were agreed to in the other place. So let there be no doubt about it for any person who may be looking at this legislation in the future: the bill deals with physical force or violence. We have all been sickened in recent months by the attacks on synagogues as part of the wave of antisemitism in Australia. We are extremely disappointed by the actions, or rather the inactions, of our Prime Minister and his inability to lead a united response to the antisemitism crisis we are now experiencing in Australian society. In terms of the position of the coalition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, there is no ambiguity about our support for Jewish Australians facing the antisemitism crisis in Australia. The coalition proudly supports our ally Israel in their fight against terrorist organisations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, who would—let's be very clear on this—wipe them off the map. This legislation is a very important step towards ensuring that all Australians are protected, no matter what their background, no matter what their religion, no matter what community they belong to. The legislation, however—and I go back to my opening comments—is not a substitute for genuine national leadership in fighting the antisemitism crisis in Australia. What we need, and quite frankly what we needed, from day one, from 9 October, when we saw what happened at the Sydney Opera House, is a prime minister—a person who is elected to lead our nation. When there is a crisis of national security, this is the person who the people of Australia look to for leadership, for strength, for guidance and for reassurance that it is okay. Unfortunately, as we stand here in February 2025, we have a prime minister who has failed in that regard. We need a prime minister who is aware of any threat or potential threat against groups of Australians and then takes swift and appropriate action. Instead, more than a week from the breaking of the report about the explosives-laden caravan, which could have resulted in one of the most catastrophic acts of terror this country has ever seen, we have a prime minister who, despite his being asked in parliament on Tuesday and on Wednesday—and, I have no doubt, will be asked again today—the very basic question, 'When were you first briefed about this sickening incident?' hasn't failed to answer the question; he has deliberately hidden from answering the question. He has been asked multiple times—this is the Prime Minister of our country—when he first became aware of a planned mass-casualty act of terror against Sydney's Jewish community. And the sad thing is that, as the leader of our country—unlike the Labor premier in New South Wales, Chris Minns, who was able to front his people— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash. The time for debating this has finished. You will be in continuation. NOTICES 20 NOTICES Presentation 20 COMMITTEES 22 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 22 Report 22 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the first report of 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee REPORT NO. 1 OF 2025 6 February 2025 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Jacqui Lambie (Jacqui Lambie Network Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Gerard Rennick Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1 OF 2025 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 7.14 pm 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2025 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (b) the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 3 April 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025 Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024 Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025 Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) Bill 2025 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024. Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Defence Trade Controls Amendment (Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity) Bill 2024 Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Divesting from Illegal Israeli Settlements) Bill 2024 (Anne Urquhart) Chair 6 February 2025 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): February Possible reporting date: 14 March 2025 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: This is an important bill that deserves proper scrutiny Possible submissions or evidence from: Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Services Australia Home Affairs Australian Electoral Commission Community and Public Sector Union Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 7 March 2025 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinize this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): February and March Possible reporting date: 3 April 2025 (signed) Wendy Askew Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move the following amendment to Senator Urquhart's motion: At the end of the motion, add "and the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 and the provisions of the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee." The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 I also would like to move an amendment as circulated in my name. The PRESIDENT 112096 Separate to— Senator Duniam 263418 Yes, separate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May? 11:16 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria At the request of Senator McKim, I wish to move the amendment standing in his name that has been circulated in the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 I take it that you're moving part (b)? Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Parts (a) and (b). The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator McKim, I don't have your amendment in front of me. The PRESIDENT 112096 It would be helpful if I had the amendment, but the Clerk has informed me that the amendment that Senator Duniam wishes to move is separate too, so we'll deal with your part (b) because that relates to electoral reform and then we will come back. Senator Hodgins-May, are you speaking to the amendment? Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 At the request of Senator McKim, I move part (b) of the amendment standing in his name: Omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 June 2025". We are moving for the government's bills on electoral reform to go to an inquiry. The Greens remain ready to pass the transparency and truth aspects of this legislation, having long campaigned to get the influence of big money out of politics. We want more transparency so the public can see who's paying for what outcome—who's paying to try to seek influence. But we need to make sure that those other funding reforms are not simply a stitch-up for the two big parties, and that is certainly what they look to be. As we said when the bills were introduced last year, we need a Senate inquiry to hear from experts about the real effect of the funding aspect of the bills, which look to be simply a stitch-up for the two big parties to hamper everyone else whilst they allow unfettered access to their own war chests using nominated entities. We will continue to fight to clean up democracy so that it works for people, not just large political donors. We will always fight to make sure that corporate donors, fossil fuel companies and weapons manufacturers can't buy the policy outcomes that suit them ahead of the interests of the Australian public, and that should seem very simple. We are very keen to continue to try to work on improving our democracy, and then we can actually get the reforms that will kick big money out of politics and protect democracy for the people, not just the two major parties. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that part (b) of the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Hodgins-May, which seeks to amend the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.  

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

 18 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. 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. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. 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.

11:24 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Question agreed to. 11:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I ask that the Australian Greens' opposition to that amendment be noted. 11:25 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move the opposition's amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "and the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2025". 11:25 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move part (a) of the amendment standing in Senator McKim's name that has been circulated in the chamber: Omit "be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2025", substitute "not be referred to a committee". The Greens do not support referring the three-day guarantee bill, a bill to remove the childcare subsidy activity test for three days a week, to an inquiry with a report date in March, and, if Labor are serious about their own legislation, they should support our amendment. By pushing off this bill, Labor and the coalition will be betraying families and children right across this country. The Greens will be moving to block this bill from going to inquiry, because we already have the expert evidence. The Productivity Commission has told us that the activity test is punitive and needs to go. While this bill doesn't completely abolish the activity test, it is a first step that stakeholders and families have been hanging out for after Labor said just this week that they wanted to pass it in this term of parliament and in the next fortnight. We said straightaway: 'We are ready to go. We are ready to work with you. We are ready to get those disadvantaged kids into early education.' We want to see these reforms through the parliament before the end of the February sitting period. We urge Labor: honour your commitment to removing the childcare activity test and to universal child care. The childcare subsidy test is a Morrison-era relic that unfairly punishes families from the most disadvantaged backgrounds in this country. It locks 126,000 kids out of early education and keeps about 40,000 parents out of work, and we know that those are predominantly women. Parents, families and dozens of organisations, including the Business Council of Australia, have called for the childcare activity test to be abolished. The Productivity Commission and the ACCC both recommended that the test be removed because of its disproportionate impact on First Nations children and kids experiencing disadvantage. Do it today. Come on. Abolishing the childcare subsidy test is a crucial step towards universal education, which the Labor Party tell us that they are committed to. Well, here's a test for you. While this bill removes it for only three days per week, it is a welcome first step, and the Greens have said that from the outset. The Greens are ready to work with Labor. We're not only ready; we are urging you to work with us to get through in this term of parliament. Get it done this February. We want to see relief for parents and families right across this country delivered before the election. We want to see First Nations children guaranteed access to early childhood education, and it's not just us. The Labor government knows this, and that's why I truly hope that they will support our amendment. But today implementation of this bill may be delayed by the bill being referred to inquiry if Labor votes against our motion. When we have had two government commissioned reports calling for this test to be removed, and years and years of evidence from parents, children and childcare providers about how punitive the childcare subsidy activity test is, why do we need another inquiry process? This is a completely unnecessary delay, and I appeal to you—the Australian Greens appeal to you—on behalf of families right across this country who are locked out of those crucial early years of education: support our amendment. Let's get this done. Let's get it done this fortnight. Come on, Labor. 11:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will not be supporting the Greens amendment. The amendment moved by Senator Duniam is for a short inquiry, to come back before the budget, on 21 March. As senators will know, the three-day guarantee is Labor policy. It's a decision of the Labor government that we have funded the three-day guarantee, and we have funded it to start from January 2026. We believe that every child has the right to subsidised access to early education and care, regardless of whether their parent is in work, in training or looking for work. We accept and have led the way on dealing with the activity test. No government has dealt with it. We've come in, we've made investments in early education and care, and we've given early educators a wage increase, which they deserve. The next step is to deal with the activity test, or what we are referring to as the three-day guarantee. That will come into place in January 2026, so we see no reason to stop the coalition having a look at this bill. I think they've already opposed the three-day guarantee—but, anyway, have a look at it and defend any opposition to the three-day guarantee through an inquiry process. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! It is not okay to sit in silence because you agree with the speech and then heckle when you don't. I called for order several times. I am putting the question on the amendment. The question is that part (a) of Senator McKim's amendment, as moved by Senator Hodgins-May, to the amendment moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:37 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are out of order.  

The Senate divided. [11:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 14 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Rearrangement 28 11:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business notice of motion no. 764, standing in the name of Senator Rennick relating to political culture, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 28 NOTICES Postponement 28 BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Rearrangement 28 11:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That on Monday, 10 February 2025: (a) the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 11.50 am till the ringing of the bells (at approximately 12.40 pm) to enable senators to attend the House of Representatives for the annual Closing the Gap statement; (b) the routine of business from the resumption of the Senate till 1.30 pm be the tabling and consideration of the Closing the Gap statement and related documents (to be considered as an item of government business); (c) the routine of business from 6.30 pm be government business only, commencing with further consideration of the Closing the Gap statement and related documents; and (d) the overall time limit for consideration of the statement and documents be 2 hours. Question agreed to. Consideration of Legislation 28 11:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 28 DOCUMENTS Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 28 Order for the Production of Documents 28 11:41 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than the adjournment of the Senate on 6 February 2025, a copy of any briefing note from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government regarding the Australian Government's purchase of a financial interest in Rex Airlines. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:42 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 10 February 2025, the following documents created between 20 December 2024 and 4 February 2025: (a) copies of any formal letters from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts to the Queensland Government regarding the proposed $7.2 billion Bruce Highway upgrade funding; and (b) copies of any correspondence between the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Deputy Premier of Queensland regarding the proposed $7.2 billion Bruce Highway upgrade funding. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 18 November 2024 the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 657, relating to access to documents dealing with gambling reform, (ii) on 26 November 2024 the Senate agreed to a further order requiring compliance with order no. 657 by 2 pm on 27 November 2024, and (iii) to date the Government has refused to comply with the order and has advanced unacceptable public interest immunity claims; and (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on Tuesday, 11 February 2025, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the orders and the misuse of a public interest immunity claim, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 11:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: Paragraph (b), omit "at the start of proceedings", substitute "at the conclusion of question time". Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Local Content Broadcasting 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that: (i) on 16 September 2024 access to correspondence, including email, pertaining to Australian content quotas and/or associated models between the office of the Minister for the Arts and 9 commercial entities, was sought under freedom of information (FOI) 25/110, and (ii) on 13 November 2024 the minister's office responded to the FOI request, advising that 8 documents had been identified, and access to all 8 documents was refused in full, claiming exemptions under sections 45, 47 and 47F of the Freedom of Information Act 1982; and (b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, by 12.30 pm on Tuesday, 11 February 2025, the documents identified as relevant to the FOI 25/110 application. 11:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will be opposing the motion. The documents requested in this motion have already been provided to Senator Lambie, with appropriate redactions, in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 760, standing in the name of Senator Lambie, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 43 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Stronger Communities Program 30 Order for the Production of Documents 30 11:51 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on Monday, 10 February 2025, copies of any briefing notes or other communications sent to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government or the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts regarding the eligible activities under the Stronger Communities Program Round 9 Guidelines 2025. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 30 Order for the Production of Documents 30 11:52 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on Monday, 10 February 2025, a copy of the Federation Funding Agreement for Land Transport Infrastructure Projects 'Notes on Administration' document. Question agreed to. Migration: Transitory People 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 11:52 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by 2 March 2025, all documents related to payments and the cost of payments made between 21 December 2021 and 1 February 2025 by the Commonwealth to the Government of Papua New Guinea concerning transitory people held in Papua New Guinea concerning the following: (a) accommodation and welfare assistance, including income support for individuals without employment; (b) health services, including mental health supports; (c) employment, education and training linking; and (d) status resolution support to assist with third country migration outcomes, including assisted voluntary return, or Papua New Guinea citizenship. 11:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will be opposing this motion. Claims that Australia has ended its funding to PNG to provide support for this small group of people are incorrect. The PNG government continues to independently manage individuals remaining there on a permanent or temporary pathway, including providing the ongoing settlement support and services as well as assistance to pursue third country migration options. At the request of the PNG government the agreement is confidential, including details of any funding disbursements. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 763, standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 19 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. 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. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 COMMITTEES 32 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 32 Reference 32 11:59 The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that earlier this week three votes were deferred, as listed at item 12 on the Dynamic Red. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I will deal first with the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge concerning a proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to:  

The Senate divided. [12:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Environment and Communications References Committee 32 Reference 32 12:03 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now deal with the motion moved by Senator David Pocock concerning a proposed reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 19 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Reference 33 12:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the deferred vote relating to an amendment moved by Senator Kovacic to a motion to refer a matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The question on closure will be put first, and, if that is agreed to, I will put the question on the amendment. The question is that the question be now put on the amendment moved by Senator Kovacic.  

The Senate divided. [12:10]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 19 AYES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 43 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 34 Membership 34 12:13 The PRESIDENT 112096 I have received a letter requesting changes to membership of a committee. 12:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That Senator Barbara Pocock replace Senator Shoebridge on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the provisions of the Commonwealth Workplace Protection Orders Bill 2024 and Senator Shoebridge be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. BILLS 34 BILLS Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 34

Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025

First Reading 34 12:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 34 12:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I rise to introduce the Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025 (the Bill). This Bill will formalise longstanding Commonwealth practice by providing express legislative authority for the Commonwealth to continue to provide general insurance or act as an authorised representative of a third-party insurer. Since 1919, the Defence Service Homes (DSH) Insurance Scheme has provided financial support by way of home building insurance to Australian Defence Force (ADF) members, and eligible veterans and their families under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 (DSH Act 1918). To compliment the home building insurance product, since 1990, DSH Insurance has acted as a representative of a third- party commercial insurer to offer DSH Insurance 'branded' home contents, motor vehicle, caravan and motorbike insurance policies. This has generated commission income that contributes to the competitive pricing of DSH Insurance home building policies. The Bill formalises the existing practice of the Commonwealth to enter into representative agreements with third party insurers to provide general insurance products to ADF members, eligible veterans and their families. The Bill will retrospectively validate past activities undertaken by the DSH Insurance as an authorised representative of a third-party insurer and also authorise the Scheme to continue to carry out such activities in relation to more than 32,000 current policy holders, including granting it the authority to renew policies. The Australian government is committed to supporting veterans and their families and DSH Insurance is just one of those supports currently available. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Free TAFE Bill 2024 35

Free TAFE Bill 2024

First Reading 35 12:14 Senator ING Australian Capital Territory GALLAGHER (—) (): I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 35 12:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Today, I introduce the Free TAFE Bill 2024, to establish Free TAFE as an enduring feature of the national vocational education and training system. Over the next decade, 9 out of 10 new jobs will require post-secondary qualifications. And almost half will come through VET pathways. This underlines our country's reliance on universities and the VET sector. Our national prosperity relies on the success of both. In our first two years in office—we've worked hard to highlight this shared importance. And we've worked to repair the damage done to the VET sector by the previous government. The sector we inherited was neglected and fractured. And it was accompanied by the biggest skills shortage in more than 50 years. A high-quality, world-class VET system is vital to responding to the challenges and seizing the opportunities shaping Australia's society, economy and environment. VET is an enabler of inclusion and economic equality giving people the skills they want and which we need to build Australia's future. It is central to addressing workforce shortages. That's why I am introducing this bill—to ensure that the national VET system is accessible and responsive, to boost productivity and support Australians to gain the skills they need to prosper in our economy. The bill commits the Commonwealth to ongoing support to states and territories for Free TAFE, with implementation arrangements to be agreed between the Commonwealth and the states. It underpins our government's commitment to funding at least 100,000 Free TAFE places a year from 2027 to remove barriers to study in priority areas across Australia. The bill ensures that Free TAFE places will be targeted to industries experiencing current and projected workforce shortfalls—priority areas to achieve national ambitions for a future made in Australia, the net zero transformation, construction and housing supply, the care and support economy, defence, digital and tech, manufacturing, and to restore our sovereign capability. The bill re-affirms the Albanese Government's commitment to put TAFE at the heart of the VET sector. You can't have a strong VET sector without strong TAFEs. TAFEs are valued and trusted public institutions, delivering training in the public interest and working to meet Australia's social and economic goals. TAFEs are governments' trusted partners, driving quality improvements across the sector, innovating teaching and learning practice, supporting students to succeed and assisting industries to develop skilled workforces. The Albanese government is creating a national network of TAFE Centres of Excellence with states and territories to work in partnership with industry, public universities and local communities to be at the cutting edge of new and emerging skills. They will drive innovation to meet the needs of the economy and help to shape the jobs of the future. Our public providers are a key pillar of a high-performing and world class VET system. As well as delivering training across the breadth of VET and across Australia—in cities, regional, rural and remote areas—TAFEs support social infrastructure, promote social equity and inclusion, build community cohesion and set out pathways for lifelong learning. Free TAFE will support a prosperous and equitable Australia. It removes financial barriers to education and training. It delivers a coordinated national response to workforce shortages in industries and occupations of local and national priority. Free TAFE will give Australians the confidence to take on study without the extra pressure that paying for courses can bring. The bill locks in cost-of-living relief while supporting the pipeline of skilled workers needed to secure Australia's position in the global economy. This builds on the success of the current Fee-Free TAFE program, that we have delivered in partnership with state arid territory governments. In the first 18 months of Fee-Free TAFE there have been over 508,000 enrolments. This is providing a pipeline of workers to critical industries, with over 130,000 enrolments in the care sector, over 35,000 in early childhood education and care and almost 35,000 enrolments in construction. Priority cohorts have particularly benefitted from the program. I am proud that over 170,000 young Australians have enrolled in Fee-Free TAFE, and over 124,000 job seekers. More than 60% of the places are being taken up by women and 1 in 3 places are in regional Australia. It is helping Australians get the skills and education that will set them up for fulfilling careers. The bill provides that Free TAFE places will continue to be prioritised to groups who will most benefit from equitable access to education and training—cohorts such as First Nations people, women, youth, people out of work or receiving income support, unpaid carers and people with disability. A Labor government will never consider Free TAFE to be wasteful spending. Free TAFE changes lives and shapes our future. It is clear in every TAFE I visit. At Lidcombe TAFE I spoke with Hamish who is studying a Certificate 3 in Disability Care. The course has been something Hamish has been thinking about doing for a while and the impact of Fee-Free TAFE has been "huge" especially with a young family. Certificate 3 Aged Care students at the same TAFE spoke about how their Fee-Free TAFE course is helping them "to better empathise and better understand the conditions [of aged care residents] so that [we] can better help them". They can't wait to "start taking care of people". And Certificate 3 Horticulture students at TAFE Chisholm in Cranbourne said they couldn't have done the course if it wasn't free. They reported that so far, "the course has been really good and we're learning a lot". These TAFE students are getting the skills they want and which we need to build Australia's future. TAFE Directors Australia, representing CEOs across our public VET providers have welcomed this bill saying: "All TAFEs have welcomed the Federal and State/Territory Governments' focus on equity and providing access to vocational education and training through Fee-Free TAFE. Enshrining this policy in legislation, alongside continuing examples of innovation to meet industry skills needs, such as TAFE Centres of Excellence, shows the holistic thinking that is now in place. These policies are ensuring both industry and individuals are central to the importance of skills development that is needed for success." I now turn to the measures in the bill. Firstly, this bill commits the Commonwealth to make a grant of financial assistance to states and territories for the delivery of Free TAFE places, with states and territories required to enter into a Free TAFE agreement with the Commonwealth which sets out the terms and conditions of financial assistance. This ensures a genuine joined-up approach with states and territories, and that the implementation of Free TAFE responds to our national priorities. Secondly, the bill sets out key matters that are to be dealt with in a Free TAFE agreement, including the number of Free TAFE places, the areas of study, the groups prioritised for access, reporting requirements and financial arrangements. This establishes minimum terms and conditions for a state or territory to receive Commonwealth support, while providing flexibility to accommodate local conditions. Thirdly, the bill will require the Skills and Workforce Ministerial Council to be consulted on any proposed changes to the Act. This recognises the critical role of states and territories and our joint commitment to genuinely collaborative and share stewardship of the national VET system. The measures in the bill demonstrate the government's commitment to a high-quality and accessible VET that is responsive to local, national and global economic conditions. Fee-Free TAFE has been an outstanding success. It is changing lives of hundreds of thousands of people across Australia by improving access to education and training, leading to greater economic participation and building social equity. The bill will embed Free TAFE as the cornerstone of our national VET system. I commend the bill to the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 27 February 2025. Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 37

Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024

Second Reading 37 12:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This legislation is an important step in combating the antisemitism crisis that Australia has today. The coalition has secured some very significant amendments to the legislation, and we are pleased that the government has agreed to them. The final piece of legislation before the Senate today is the result of the strong leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton. Thanks to the work of the coalition standing up to antisemitism across Australia, the Labor Party have finally agreed—capitulated—to some strong measures to ensure those in our community who are committing terrorism offences are punished appropriately. It's taken them some time. As recently as 3 February Senator Watt was saying that they didn't support mandatory sentencing, yet here we are today. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has once again led the way on a crucial issue of national security and social cohesion. 12:16 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 on behalf of the Greens. Well, here we are again with a Prime Minister Albanese special, capitulating to Mr Dutton and letting him run the government's agenda—his government's agenda—in a race to the bottom with the Liberals. Say one thing and do the other—again. This is what Labor have become under Prime Minister Albanese: a hollow shell that stands for nothing. They are so afraid of Mr Dutton and his Trump-like politics that they have no qualms whatsoever in doing a complete 180 on mandatory minimum sentences. Get a backbone, Labor; be leaders. But I think that's just too much to ask from you. You are a lost cause. You have not even hesitated whatsoever to introduce mandatory minimum sentencing laws which are incompatible with human rights, which are discriminatory and which will make no-one safer. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister said there were issues with mandatory minimum sentencing as it could be counterproductive. Just two days ago, Minister Watt confirmed there would be no mandatory minimum sentencing. But last night, at the eleventh hour, you all capitulated. You did a dirty deal with the Liberals on mandatory minimum sentences. Shame on you. This amendment by Labor is an absolute disgrace, and you know it. The Labor Party platform itself opposes mandatory minimum sentencing. Labor are ripping up their own platform here and helping Mr Dutton bring Trump style politics right here to this country. Do you know what? The type of politics that Trump is playing is horrific. Mr Dutton, after Trump's proposal to effectively ethnically cleanse Gaza, praised Trump for being a 'big thinker'. That's who you are doing these dirty deals with. Labor didn't need to do this. We said, at the start of the week, that we would support the bill in its original form. But Labor has instead chosen to work with Peter Dutton. We have legal expert after legal expert telling us that mandatory minimum sentencing simply does not work, because it takes judicial decisions out of the hands of the judges and the courts and puts them into the hands of politicians. No-one wants that and no-one needs that. The Australian Law Reform Commission has highlighted that mandatory minimum sentences are discriminatory and a breach of our international human rights obligations. The Law Council of Australia president, Juliana Warner, has said that mandatory sentencing laws are arbitrary and limit the individual's right to a fair trial. Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns has said that there is simply no evidence to support mandatory sentencing. We do, however, have extensive evidence that mandatory sentences disproportionately and unfairly target First Nations people and other targeted communities and people of colour. Go and speak to any community lawyer or peak legal body and they will categorically tell you that mandatory sentences are unjust, inappropriate and extremely discriminatory. Politicians are not in a position to understand the individual circumstances of each case, and there is no justifying politicians intervening in judicial discretion. But here we are. The bill that Labor introduced in parliament, the bill that was scrutinised by the Senate committee, was a step towards increasing protections for marginalised groups. In particular, the additions of gender, sexuality and disability as protected attributes are long overdue and much needed changes. These additions send an important message at a time of continuing attacks on our LGBTQIA+ community, particularly trans people. Equally, the addition of disability as a protected attribute is a crucial step towards combating ableism and discrimination faced by disabled people. The Greens support protections against hate crimes, but we have very deep and very serious concerns, as I said earlier, about the addition of mandatory minimum sentences, as now introduced by Labor. Once again, Labor are buckling to the extreme demands of Dutton's Liberals. Hate, bigotry, racism and discrimination very sadly have become a part of everyday life for too many people in our communities. First Nations peoples, of course, have been subjected to this since colonisation almost 250 years ago. Muslims have been subjected to hate and racism pretty relentlessly for the last 25 years as Islamophobia has kept rising. And, recently, we have seen terrible antisemitism. But genuinely combating hate and violence in our communities cannot be resolved by criminal law and criminal law alone. Indeed, the criminal justice system is ill-equipped to protect against hate, with its own history of targeting queer communities, First Nations people and other culturally and racially marginalised communities. This was confirmed in the National Anti-Racism Framework, which was finally completed late last year. It identified the criminal justice system as a sector where racism is especially present and requires urgent attention. What is needed is revolutionary social change, where racism and white supremacy are called out for what they are—a scourge in our society—where queer people are able to feel safe and live their lives without judgement or discrimination and where our environment, our buildings, our workplaces and our schools and universities are accessible and welcoming to all. This kind of change is not going to come easily, and it's not going to come through mandatory minimum sentencing. To be effective, responses to hate and racism must be community led, must be grassroots and must dismantle the ingrained structures of white supremacy. The National Anti-Racism Framework also rightly identifies that the Australian government should explore and fund community informed and early intervention solutions beyond civil and criminal penalties to address far-right extremism and white supremacy in communities, particularly as they intersect with other forms of discrimination. The Greens and I have been calling out the rise of right-wing extremism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism for a very long time, including right here in my first speech in the chamber seven years ago, when I said: The existence of racism, sexism and other discrimination is not new, but what has changed is its legitimisation, normalisation and encouragement in the media and in politics. Political leaders, in addition to their old habit of racist dog-whistling, are now comfortable outright fanning the flames of racial conflict. And that in part led to the most deadly and violent attack in our region, which was the Christchurch mosque massacre, where 51 Muslims were murdered in cold blood by an Australian neo-Nazi. But has this country reckoned at all with those murders? No, you have not, as you have not reckoned with the discrimination, racism, oppression and dispossession of First Nations people, and the violence that still goes on. And unfortunately, seven years since then—since I said that—things have only become worse. Politicians from the major parties continue their racist dog whistling, punching down on migrants and people of colour, and cover their own abject failures to address the housing and cost-of-living crisis. With Trump now in the Oval Office, the risks posed to minorities have become even greater. Trump's actions have already emboldened racist, ableist, homophobic filth everywhere, and his right-hand man, Elon Musk, is actively peddling white supremacist and Nazi views. This was on show for all to see when he gave a double Nazi salute at the Trump inauguration. But there was not a peep out of anyone here. You so-called leaders who talk about hate and racism—not a peep out of you. I am yet to hear condemnation or even criticism of Donald Trump's proposal to effectively ethnically cleanse Gaza. The events in the US do have a flow-on effect here and everywhere. Here we have seen neo-Nazi rallies as recently as January in Adelaide, and households receiving despicable racist material in their letterboxes. This is no surprise when you see the leader of the opposition peddling anti-immigrant hate, fearmongering and reading from his own MAGA playbook. Then we have the Prime Minister, who capitulates to the opposition every time on migration, which is so hypocritical. This Labor government is so hypocritical, has such double standards, and that is what is allowing the division and fearmongering to continue. Labor and Mr Albanese are so scared of the opposition that they either just want to remain silent or be led by the opposition. What is the point of you being in government—truly? The Greens have been the only political party to take racism seriously. We have a dedicated antiracism portfolio. The recent spate of antisemitic attacks across the country are abhorrent, and we must call them out, as we must call out every single form of racism. For the last 1½ years, there has been an onslaught of hate and racism directed at Arabs, at Muslims and at Palestinians, and my colleagues from the two parties do not seem to understand that at all or they just want to ignore it. The weaponisation and the politicisation of antisemitism from politicians makes no-one safer, including the Jewish community. And it is not antisemitic to call for an end to a genocide, so stop weaponising and politicising racism. In the last year and a half we have seen immense grief for the Muslim community, for Arabs, for Palestinians and for so many more in the community who just want justice and peace. But, despite this onslaught of abuse and vitriol they have received, they have kept coming out, week after week, calling for an end to violence, calling for antiracism and calling for peace. Of course there is a growing fear that our world is being overcome with hate and with violence. It is hard not to fear this when we are here in parliament, where the fearmongering and division goes on. But that means actually acting and using tools that are effective in tackling hate and racism, and that does not include mandatory minimum sentencing. So the Greens will be moving a motion to delete these egregious mandatory minimum sentences from the bill. We will also be moving an amendment for a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission, for these laws to be reviewed by them. And we will be moving that if—as obviously is going to be the case, sadly—the deletion of the mandatory minimum sentences doesn't get up. If it doesn't then we want a sunset clause on these sentences, because they are cruel and they are discriminatory. We will also be moving an amendment, as the community has suggested, to change the language of sex characteristics. I know Labor opposed that amendment in the other house, but I hope you have reflected on that and will support the community in the changes you are asking for. (Time expired) 12:31 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I understand and support the intent behind these amendments to the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. We should all deplore violent conduct, and it should be and is a crime to incite violence. This bill seeks to expand a number of groups that it is a crime to target for incitement of violence, and in principle I have no problem with that—although shouldn't it be a crime to incite violence against anyone? The bill also removes the good-faith defence against a charge of incitement to violence. Again, in principle, it is hard to fathom how you could incite violence in good faith—although I would point out that many of us have probably referred to the need to 'destroy' or 'decimate' our political opponents, when of course we are only using those verbs rhetorically, not literally. This point raises the issue that words can have different meanings to different people, and we should be very clear about what the words mean in the Criminal Code, because people can go to jail for offences under it. The Senate was told by the Attorney-General's Department during the committee process that the words 'force' and 'violence' in this bill are intended to refer to physical force or physical violence against a person. The problem, of course, is that there are numerous examples of where the intention of this parliament has been overridden by new interpretation by our courts, and there is clearly a risk here. There are many people who view speech as a form of violence. You hear it constantly today. It's not hard to consider that there would be people who seek prosecutions in the future on the basis that a good-faith position—say, on the effects of transgender surgery or the benefits of heterosexual monogamy—is seen as a violent act in and of itself. This is where the removal of a good-faith defence could otherwise weaponise dormant provisions of the Criminal Code. So, if it's our intent to restrict these matters to physical force or violence, I don't understand why we can't simply make that black and white in the law. I have drafted an amendment to give effect to that. It's a very simple amendment that makes clear in the definitions of the Criminal Code that 'force' means physical force and 'violence' means physical violence. And keep in mind that, even if the courts weren't to misinterpret these words in a different way, just the prospect of this ambiguity could give rise to inequity and lawfare. Many innocent individuals right now in our country are having their lives ruined by being hauled through our courts by well-funded activist groups, simply for expressing an opinion. The punishment is the process, not the final verdict. This is having a chilling effect on free speech in Australia, which is weakening what should be a vibrant and robust debate on many important issues, such as women's rights and the welfare of children. In no way should a debate about what is right for a child be limited by the hurt feelings of adults. I want to make another point, too, that goes beyond this bill: we are here, again, with yet another gag order being put in place. We did this last time we were here. At least last time we stayed a little bit later to allow some debate on issues. This time we're going to gag the debate in the middle of the day so we can all go home early. This should be an absolute embarrassment to us as senators. As it stands, the House of Representatives, the other chamber, the other place, will debate this bill for much, much longer than we will. That is an embarrassment to us, and it's an affront to our Constitution, which has appointed this chamber as the so-called house of review. We are not doing our constitutional duty by using and abusing these gag orders that let us knock off early from work, especially when it goes to a bill that can put people in jail if they transgress it. It's a serious act and it requires much greater and more serious consideration than just the hour or so of debate that we've allocated here today. I understand the urgent need to respond to the shocking antisemitic attacks that we have seen over the past year, but we need to be very careful here. Some of these changes imply that these attacks are inspired by the intemperate rhetoric of other Australians. We actually don't know if that's the case. It may very well be, but there's a lot we don't know about why and how these attacks are occurring. Those that have been apprehended for these attacks thus far hardly fit the profile of someone who has been radicalised by religious sermons or someone who has maybe just signed up to their local chapter of the Nazi party. Some people imply that, but that's not who they seem to be. Their profiles would appear to be much more fitting of some tragic souls that have ended up running with druggie or bikie gangs. The Australian Federal Police have explicitly stated that they are concerned that these people who are committing these heinous acts are effectively mercenaries being paid by foreign actors to sow discord in our country. If this is true, I worry that our rushed and hasty response here only advances the goals of such foreign actors, if they exist. By rushing these changes, we are accepting or implying that there is a rotten core in our society that not only hold bigoted and racist views but are able to inspire other Australians to commit acts of violence based on these views. We are effectively admitting what these foreign agents are trying to do to our country. The result of course would be that we actually end up with a more divided country and being less harmonious and less trusting of each other. We should not be playing into their hands. We should be pursuing those who have committed, inspired or funded these horrific acts under our existing laws, which provide ample opportunity to do that, and if we need to make further changes to strengthen those laws then we should do so in a considered fashion that does not treat this parliament and this chamber as a rubber stamp. I'm very proud of Australia. I believe we are the most harmonious country in the world and that, despite all of our differences, we very rarely see any resorts to violence. Let us not become any different by just assuming that we are. 12:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I want to thank Senator Canavan for many of his comments about the lack of process for what is a really important bill before us that will have far-reaching consequences. The government has created an alarming habit of linking really good reforms with incredibly problematic policy, as well as curtailing opportunities to consult with experts and the community—who we are in here to represent—on major legislative changes. This time they are adding mandatory minimum sentences to a bill that was all about protecting vulnerable members of our community from hate crimes, and rushing it through parliament in a single day. As Senator Canavan said, the Senate will have less time to debate the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2025 than the House of Representatives will. To be clear, this is an important bill that is urgently needed. Like so many others in this place and in our community, I condemn hate speech in all its forms. Everyone in our community deserves to be safe to practise their faith openly and without fear. This bill is designed to make that happen. What experts have said won't be effective, though, is the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions that have been added in a late-night deal with the coalition. Faith leaders and others in my community are telling me that these issues should be above politics, yet time and again they are being politicised and used to drive division. People convicted of hate crimes must absolutely be held to account, but it is the judiciary who should set the penalties on a case-by-case basis. Less than a month ago, the Law Council of Australia published an article titled 'You know what creates unsafe communities? Mandatory sentencing'. According to the former president of the Law Council Greg McIntyre SC, the Law Council of Australia has consistently opposed the use of mandatory sentencing regimes and, indeed, has adopted a formal policy against them. He goes on to say: … mandatory sentencing laws are inherently arbitrary and limit an individual's right to a fair trial by preventing judges from imposing an appropriate penalty based on the unique circumstances of each case. The Australian Law Reform Commission also opposes the policy, saying: Evidence suggests mandatory sentencing increases incarceration, is costly and is not effective as a crime deterrent. Mandatory sentencing may also disproportionately affect particular groups within society … International law is equally clear. There is a prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the principle that children should be detained only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time is expressed in article 37(b) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Perhaps, most strikingly, at page 87 of the current Labor Party platform, it states: Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime, but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice. But apparently not. If we look at what Labor members have said, it's no different. In 2019, the now Attorney-General said, in the other place: Labor have a longstanding opposition to mandatory sentencing, and this bill would introduce mandatory minimum sentences. Labor's opposition to mandatory sentencing is no secret. It is spelled out in our national platform … In 2019, now Minister Murray Watt also said: Labor has a longstanding, well-reasoned and principled opposition to mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing may sound tough, but there is nothing tough about sentencing measures that make it more difficult to catch, prosecute and convict child sex offenders. In 2017, now Minister Matt Keogh said: There are already numerous reported examples of mandatory sentences that have been handed down and applied with anomalous and unjust results. When adopted, mandatory sentencing fails to produce convincing evidence to demonstrate that increases of these sorts of penalties actually deter any crime. In 2014, now Minister Stephen Jones said: Parliament, in fact, is usurping the judicial discretion by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing. It actually sends, as the former DPP of New South Wales said, a vote of no-confidence from the parliament to the judiciary. Despite all this opposition to mandatory minimum sentences—including that of the Labor Party and, I assume, its rank-and-file members and most Labor voters—here we are. The government has capitulated to the coalition's politically motivated demands to add something that experts tell us doesn't work to a bill that, I think, had fairly broad support amongst the community. People have acknowledged that the parliament needs to act on this. In all of this, the communities that need the substance of the original bill are being overlooked. The Muslim community, the LGBTI community, the Jewish community, people with a disability and so many people who experience racism and bigotry have been desperate for the protections contained in this bill for so many years. They've been abused and subjected to hate speech in our streets and in our public spaces, and that's why this bill is important. They want to see this bill pass. But this practice from the government of corrupting positive reforms with terrible policy has to stop. Australians deserve better. 12:45 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I know time is brief and there are others on the speaking list. I don't want to take away their opportunity to make a contribution, so I will also be brief and make a couple of points. It is a good thing that the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024 will pass the parliament today. It will send a strong message to those who are responsible for the attacks against the Jewish community, in particular, in recent months, that there are very real consequences for their behaviour, that the Parliament of Australia does not tolerate it and that we want them to feel the full force of the law to deter them from engaging in any more terrorisation of the Jewish community. But it is a shame that this legislation did not pass earlier. Senator Cash and I wrote to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs before Christmas. This bill was introduced in September. We offered them bipartisan support to pass this legislation before Christmas because we were concerned about what might happen over the summer to our Jewish community. Unfortunately, our worst fears were realised, and a summer of terror was unleashed against the Jewish community, starting with the firebombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue and continuing with the firebombing of cars, the targeting of homes and even the firebombing of a childcare centre among others, including small businesses. And it left our Jewish community terrorised. It would have been very good, had these laws already been on the books and had they been able to be used by our law enforcement agencies over the summer, to stop these crimes and to punish people for these crimes, but this is where we are. It is also a good thing that this legislation has been strengthened. This legislation has been strengthened by the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for terrorism offences. It has been strengthened by the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for the display of prohibited hate symbols, including the flags and logos of listed terrorist organisations, and it has been strengthened by a specific prohibition on advocating violence against places of worship and other institutions significant to people of faith, including religious schools and religious centres. None of that would have happened if it were not for Peter Dutton and the coalition. All of those were demands that we made of the government. All of those were demands that the government initially said were unreasonable and unnecessary. It was only Tuesday in this chamber that Labor senators voted against a motion calling for the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences. It was only last week that the prime minister dismissed the need for mandatory minimum sentences. It was only two days ago that Minister Watt said that mandatory minimum sentences were not part of Labor's policy or platform and that they would not be introduced. This is yet another example of the coalition leading the government on national security and community safety. Because their instincts are not right the first time, they have to be pressured publicly into taking the tough decisions necessary to protect our community, and it is yet more of an example of why the weak leadership of the Prime Minister cannot continue, or our country will get further off track. Only the strong leadership of a Peter Dutton coalition government can deal with these crises, because Peter Dutton does have the right instincts. He does understand the seriousness of the disaster that we're facing in our country, and he is willing to make the tough decisions to act. He won't need to be pressured into acts like this to send a strong signal to people undermining social cohesion and community safety in our country; he will do it because he believes in it. If you're going to have a strong leader, you might as well have the real one, not one who's a pale imitation of it. 12:48 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We're in a remarkable position here. The Labor government introduced the initial bill that had enormous support across the community that was an actual response to some of the appalling racist attacks that we've seen against the Jewish community, particularly in my home city of Sydney, and that would have dealt with some of the ongoing, persistent and appalling attacks against the LGBTQI+ community and would have given some comfort to those in our multicultural community who have been attacked because of their Muslim faith. There was an opportunity here to present legislation that would have brought us together and established real and important protections that would have promoted community safety and could have stepped against division. It had gone through good process and had been well considered. Then, because they have been led by the noes of the coalition in their ongoing, divisive, aggressive, far-right, Trumpian attack on basic things like the rule of law and common decency in politics—because they've been dragged there by the coalition—they decided at midnight last night to ram into this legislation a whole series of noxious, unwarranted, damaging provisions about criminal penalties with mandatory minimum sentences. Labor has taken something good that we knew would work and that had widespread support amongst the legal fraternity and communities across the country and rammed into it mandatory minimum sentences because they're scared of the coalition. They are running scared. We have a government that is being driven by the opposition and is scared of standing up for what they know is right. We know that thousands and thousands of Labor Party members are offended by what the Albanese government is doing, because they've included it—forced it on Labor politicians—in Labor's own policy platform. Labor's own policy platform rightfully opposes mandatory sentences. I'll read it: Labor opposes mandatory sentencing. This practice does not reduce crime but does undermine the independence of the judiciary, lead to unjust outcomes and is often discriminatory in practice. Time after time in the last 12 months we've had elected Labor senators and members of parliament come out and say they oppose mandatory sentencing because it tears down the independence of judiciary and replaces careful consideration by a judge who can take all the circumstances of someone's life and the nature of the offending into account and craft a sentence that is just. It destroys the independence of judiciary and replaces a judge's opinion with that of a politician when it comes to criminal sentencing. They've said it time after time, and every time that has been right, because mandatory sentencing attacks the independence of judiciary. It tears down one of the core tenets of our society that I thought this place would unite around—rule of law and having penalties decided not by politicians but by judges. But, because they are so utterly spineless and utterly unable to make a principled argument and take a stand against the opposition, they caved in during the small hours of last night. It's not just Labor's own platform. I want to be clear that the Greens' platform has said consistently that we will oppose mandatory sentencing. In 2020, the Law Council of Australia—not exactly the most left-wing organisation in the country—said: Mandatory minimum sentences are abhorrent to the whole notion of sentencing where judicial discretion is essential and can result in perverse jury decisions … What does that last bit—perverse jury decisions—mean? That means that if you want to put people who have committed these offences behind bars then don't do mandatory sentencing. If the jury knows that this person is absolutely going to go to jail for six years or seven years or whatever the mandatory minimum is and they're a bit troubled about the nature of the evidence—they may be thinking, 'Well, it wasn't that bad' or whatever a jury might be thinking about the issue in front of them—then, the Law Council is saying, there will inevitably be fewer convictions. I'd say that applies not just to juries but to judges as well. The courts are much more likely to put a really strict interpretation on each and every element of the offence if they know that at the end of it they have no discretion on sentencing and must put the person in jail for six years. So we have the coalition beating their chest and saying mandatory minimum sentences are going to keep the community safe, when all the evidence we have says it won't; it will do the exact opposite. It will make it harder to get convictions. It will certainly mean far more trials are contested, because who on earth would cop a plea if they're going to get a mandatory minimum sentence? It's far less likely you'll have people cooperating with the police, and, in relation to the number of incidents where both the AFP and the New South Wales police say they're not sure who is funding or causing these individuals to do these appalling attacks—you may have some career criminal who is being directed by a foreign agent or by someone locally; the career criminal commits the offence—if you have a mandatory sentence, what incentive is there for them to cooperate and tell who actually funded them and where the directions came from, because, win, lose or draw, they're going to jail for six years mandatory minimum? It makes it far harder for police. We know what works in this space—working with communities, listening to the evidence, joining this country together, not dividing it like this. Labor and the coalition between them have turned something that could have absolutely united us all in fighting against antisemitism, in fighting against racism, in fighting against intolerance to the LGBTQ community into this ugly, nasty bit of politics. There is something rotten in the way the two major parties in this country ignore the evidence, drive this toxic politics and create bad laws like this with no scrutiny. The Greens know there are elements, particularly in the original bill, that are essential to deal with some of the hate crimes that we're seeing. We'll take some measurable good. We've been trying to say to the government, 'Work with the rest of the chamber here, the diversity of the crossbench, and don't just be dragged by Peter Dutton to the single lowest common denominator.' But Labor can't help themselves, can they? They just can't help themselves. They keep surrendering time after time. There's no principle that they won't sully, and that's why we're here with these mandatory minimums. We know mandatory minimums won't work. We know they're going to fight against all of the purported intent of this bill. Shame on you both for doing this. 12:57 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Today, I rise to speak against the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill 2024. This is the third week in a row that we have come to Canberra and the two major parties have tried to introduce laws that will prevent free speech in this country. I don't know about you, but I come down to Canberra to serve the people, not to control the people. That's what this bill is all about: it is a political stunt, and it is a political stunt because the two major parties don't have any solutions to the real crises in this country, which are the cost-of-living crisis, the energy crisis and the housing crisis. Instead, what they want to do is basically dog whistle about race in order to deflect from their own ineptitude at solving problems. We already have laws in this country that deal with violent acts and sedition. We do not need more laws in this country that target certain statements against certain groups on the basis of violence. Why? Because we already have these laws. What is the purpose of this bill if we already have laws against violence? I note Senator Cash was at pains before to stress that this was only with regard to violent acts and not psychological acts. Well, I want to know why the Liberal Party think that it's necessary to bring in laws for violent acts when we already have laws for violent acts. Of course, the only answer to that is that they want to dog whistle and play games with race when they should be focused on solutions. Here's the thing: how do you identify a hate symbol? Someone's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. How do you actually identify what someone thinks about a particular ideology? Who's right and who's wrong? If you don't believe another person's point of view, why can't you debate them? Why do you want to gag them? What is it that you're hiding? Is it because the two major parties lack the intellectual capacity to have a debate about these issues? Of course, the answer to that is, yes, they do. They are nothing but puppets on a string that have survived in these political parties for far too long by being nothing but obedient. I'd like to reference my good friend in the House, the member for Hinkler, Keith Pitt. He said he was not going to contest again because the whole idea of sticking to the script and discipline is nothing more than obedience. That's why, for the Liberal Party—I can't speak for the Labor Party, even though it seems they're pretty much the same as the Liberal Party—it's all about obedience in their eyes. It's nothing to do with free thought or their capacity to have a rational debate and put the opposite point of view across and let the facts make the case. Look at last week's hysteria over the bombs in a caravan. Senator Babet, please remind me the next time I decide to blow something up to leave bombs in a caravan with a handwritten note that I'm going to do it and where I'm going to do it. This type of fearmongering over allegations that somehow a couple of meth-heads, who'd be lucky to find their next hit, were somehow organising a terrorist plot is absolutely absurd. While I don't agree with the Prime Minister on many things, I think the attack on him, that somehow he's playing games with this, is absolutely absurd. And that's what this bill is all about. It's a political stunt and it's going to circumvent free speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The allotted time for the second reading stage of this bill has expired. Therefore the question before the Senate is that Senator Lambie's second reading amendment on sheet 3231 be agreed to. Senator Lambie's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to: (a) classify the defacement of war memorials as a hate crime; and (b) recognise that such acts not only disrespect the service and sacrifice of veterans but also diminish the historical and symbolic significance of these memorials". Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 44 13:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, I think you're completely aware of this, because it was interrogated during the committee stage by Senator Scarr—in the inquiry into the bill, it was confirmed by the Attorney-General's Department—but, because this is the committee stage, could I just work through it again with you to get it on the Hansard record. In line with the advice from officials from both Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department, could I confirm that the term 'force or violence' in this legislation takes its ordinary meaning and refers to physical force or violence. 13:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Just before I answer your question, I take the opportunity to table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. Yes, Senator Cash, I can confirm what you've just said. The terms 'force' or 'violence' are not defined in the legislation and would take their ordinary meaning. What is intended is that the terms 'force' or 'violence' would only extend to physical force or violence against a person or group. This is consistent with the ordinary meaning of these terms. 13:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you for that clarification. Obviously there has been some discussion with a number of stakeholders who have an interest in this legislation. I know that there will be some amendments moved in this regard which we will not be supporting. Just for the benefit of anyone who may need to interpret the legislation, I want to ask one or two more questions in the same vein. Can you confirm that this bill, as amended, makes it an offence to advocate force or violence, in the terms that you have just described, against Jewish people through conduct involving damage to property? 13:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I can confirm that. 13:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Just again for the benefit of the chamber, the new offence in proposed section 80.2BB specifically includes minor damage, such as offensive slogans painted on buildings, if they advocate force or violence against groups. For the benefit of the Hansard record, is that a correct position? 13:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I can confirm that as well. 13:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can you confirm that if a person is convicted of the new offence under proposed section 80.2BB of the Criminal Code—the one we just referred to—then, based on the amendments passed, they will be subject to the mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months imprisonment. 13:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Yes, I can confirm that as well. 13:06 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3290: (1) Schedule 2, page 20 (after line 29), after item 7, insert: 7A Sunsetting of mandatory minimum sentences Without limiting item 7, the amendments of the Crimes Act 1914 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a conviction that occurs on or before 31 December 2026. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the amendment on sheet 3290, as moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.  

The committee divided. [13:11]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 16 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:14 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3284: (1) Schedule 2, page 19 (line 1) to page 21 (line 11), to be opposed. This amendment is about removing mandatory minimum sentencing, which is cruel, inappropriate, highly discriminatory and unjust. Mandatory minimum sentencing is going to make no-one safer in this country. Labor should think about what they are doing here. Senator McKim JKM Think about your own policy. Senator FARUQI 250362 Yes, exactly. It is a backflip on your own policy after promises that Senator Watt, who is sitting right there, made just two days ago. Think about how this will impact First Nations communities, First Nations children, people of colour. The exact groups that you say you want to expand protections for will be targeted by mandatory minimum sentencing. Shame on you. There is still time. Let's get these highly unjust laws out of this bill— The CHAIR 287062 Thank you, Senator Faruqi. I'm required now, by a previous order, to put the question. This will be the first question that I'll put, and then—Senator Pocock? 13:15 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Pursuant to the contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time. It's a pretty extraordinary move when you have a bill that has the broad support of the community, is something that Australians recognise that we need and has the support of the crossbench to pass—and to potentially pass with some strengthening and sensible amendments, which the member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender, moved in the other place—yet we have Labor capitulating to the coalition to add mandatory minimum sentences and totally politicise a bill that could have seen the parliament, the Senate, say, 'This is important in our community, and we're not going to stand for it.' They've now added something for which there is absolutely no evidence that it works—no evidence that mandatory minimum sentencing works. It's against Labor's policy platform. Earlier I read out four or five quotes from Labor ministers, including Senator Watt, saying exactly that, saying: 'It doesn't work. Why would we vote for something that had mandatory minimum sentencing?' And now you're putting the crossbench in a position where we have good policy that has the support of our constituents, that we've consulted on, that we're set to vote for, and you've done an overnight deal where you've added something that has no justification, no backing from any expert. Then you give us absolutely no time to actually consult—15 minutes to consider this bill in Committee of the Whole, three questions from Senator Cash, one vote on an amendment, and then we're into it. I feel that this is so disrespectful to the communities we represent. My team has been frantically ringing around—ringing the Canberra Jewish community, the Muslim community, the LGBTI community—saying, 'Hey, we support this bill, but now there's mandatory minimum sentencing; what do you want to do?' No-one supports the mandatory minimum sentencing. It's so shameful. You can see this coming from the coalition. They want to talk tough on national security. Yet it turns out that when they're in there they're actually not that tough, that all sorts of things have been happening. But the disappointing thing is that Labor is doing this—going against their own principles. I do not understand and I don't know who they're trying to please with this because it certainly isn't rank-and-file Labor members or Labor voters, who believe in something. I have serious concerns about the process of this and serious concerns about what's been cooked up that took a good bill, which had broad support and which was long overdue, and politicised it and added a whole lot of stuff to it that makes it very, very hard to vote for. 13:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the question be now put. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that the question be put.  

The committee divided. [13:24]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 25 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 18 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. 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. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:26 The CHAIR 287062 We now come to the substantive motion, which is to suspend standing orders. The question before the committee is that there be a suspension of standing orders.  

The committee divided. [13:27]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 18 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. 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. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

13:29 The CHAIR 287062 It's my intention to come to the amendment moved on sheet 3284 by Senator Faruqi. After that, in accordance with order, I will then deal with all of the remaining Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the next amendment, which is also in the name of the Australian Greens. The question from sheet 3284, standing in the name of the Australian Greens, is that schedule 2 stand as printed.  

The committee divided. [13:31]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 28 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 16 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

13:35 The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheets 3273 and 3283 be agreed to. Australian Greens ' circulated amendments— SHEET 3273 (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 16), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 28), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 8), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 27), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (5) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 2), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (line 14), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (7) Schedule 1, item 19, page 9 (line 20), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (8) Schedule 1, item 19, page 10 (line 5), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (9) Schedule 1, item 19, page 11 (line 29), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (10) Schedule 1, item 19, page 12 (line 24), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (11) Schedule 1, item 19, page 14 (line 18), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (12) Schedule 1, item 19, page 15 (line 11), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". (13) Schedule 1, item 20, page 18 (line 6), omit "intersex status", substitute "sex characteristics". _____ SHEET 3283 (1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review by the Australian Law Reform Commission (1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) The review must be undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission. (3) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of 6 months after this Act commences. (4) The Australian Law Reform Commission must give the Minister a written report of the review within 12 months of the commencement of the review. (5) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.  

The committee divided. [13:35]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 16 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:37 The CHAIR 287062 I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. We are on sheet 3259 and amendments (1), (3) and (10) standing in the name of Senator Thorpe. The question is that, in schedule 1, items 10, 18 and 21 stand as printed. Senator Thorpe opposed schedule 1 in the following terms— (1) Schedule 1, item 10, page 5 (lines 9 and 10), to be opposed. (3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 7 (lines 13 and 14), to be opposed. (10) Schedule 1, item 21, page 18 (lines 8 to 10), to be opposed.  

The committee divided. [13:39]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 28 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 16 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:40 The CHAIR 287062 We now come to amendments (2) and (4) to (9) on sheet 3259, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe. The question is that the remaining Senator Thorpe amendments on sheet 3259 be agreed to. Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments— (2) Schedule 1, at the end of item 10A, at the end of section 80.2A of the Criminal Code, add: Offences do not apply to persons under 14 (7) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14. (4) Schedule 1, at the end of item 18A, at the end of section 80.2B of the Criminal Code, add: Offences do not apply to persons under 14 (8) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14. (5) Schedule 1, item 19, after subsection 80.2BA(7), insert: Offences do not apply to persons under 14 (7A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person if person is under the age of 14. (6) Schedule 1, item 19, after subsection 80.2BB(8), insert: Offences do not apply to persons under 14 (8A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14. (7) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BC of the Criminal Code, add: Offences do not apply to persons under 14 (9) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14. (8) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BD of the Criminal Code, add: Offences do not apply to persons under 14 (10) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14. (9) Schedule 1, item 19, at the end of section 80.2BE of the Criminal Code, add: Offences do not apply to persons under 14 (8) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the first person is under the age of 14.  

The committee divided. [13:42]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 16 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:44 The CHAIR 287062 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendment circulated by Senator Canavan. As the amendment was not circulated within the required timeframe, it can only be considered by leave. 13:45 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland by leave—I move the amendment in my name on sheet 3277: (1) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 17), at the end of the Schedule, add: 23 Dictionary in the Criminal Code Insert: force means physical force. violence means physical violence. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 50 13:47 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.  

The Senate divided. [13:47]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 41 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 6 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rennick, G. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Navigation Amendment Bill 2024 51

Navigation Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 51 13:51 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 51 13:51 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 51 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Redtails Pinktails Right Tracks Program 51 13:52 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to speak about a vital project planned for my home town of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory. These days, I often find myself saying that my home town doesn't look the way I remember it. Unfortunately, the Albanese Labor government's lack of leadership and support for the town has made things far worse than they need to be. So it really is wonderful to be able to stand here today and talk about a project being developed by the Redtails Pinktails Right Tracks Foundation, because it is a project that I believe can restore some of what made Alice Springs such a wonderful place to grow up in. The project will see the development of a sports, learning and leadership centre. One of the most beneficial things we can do for our young people is to give them places where they are safe and purposeful and where they are educated with important life skills, like goal setting, and then are empowered to reach those goals, because, when kids have those opportunities, they are far less likely to be out on the streets or drawn into social dysfunction. This project will do just that. Far more than a facility, it will reach across all those areas of community life: education, life skills, leadership and development, as well as sport and recreation. I know the reality of this because not so long ago in Alice Springs I was heavily involved in women's footy, and it was the Redtails Pinktails who encouraged and supported me. The people I met at the footy club became like family to me, and I know I'm not the only one who has had that experience. That's why I've worked closely with the project founders, helping them to achieve charity and DGR status. It's a unique opportunity, and time is of the essence. I'll continue to support this project so that, just as I did, many others might find a similar sense of belonging, purpose and empowerment through their engagement with the program. Victoria: Bushfires 51 13:54 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Today I want to express my gratitude to our remarkable volunteer firefighters and crews who continue to be on high alert in western Victoria. At the worst of times, we always see the best of the Australian spirit, and that's exactly what we're seeing in my home state of Victoria—and in other parts of our country, I should also add, such as with the floods in northern Queensland at the moment. Around 1,000 firefighters and volunteers, including over 100 from interstate, are working around the clock to control these fires at the Grampians and Little Desert national parks, following the recent heatwave. It's been a very challenging bushfire season for western Victoria, with dry lightning strikes causing the initial Grampians bushfire in December last year. The Albanese government, together with the Victorian state government, has moved very quickly to activate financial assistance to those who have unfortunately been disrupted and are in need of government support. The disaster recovery allowance provides up to 13 weeks of income support for workers and sole traders who have experienced loss of income. This allowance is so important because the fires have impacted the livelihoods of workers, including many tourism operators, during what would have been a very busy peak season. Although the situation is ongoing, I give a heartfelt thanks to our volunteer firefighters, who do the job without fanfare or fuss to protect our communities. I know everyone in this place is very appreciative of their efforts on the front line for this bushfire season. Thank you once again to all our volunteers. Closing the Gap 52 13:56 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia On Monday the Closing the gap report will be released. I, like you, want change but expect it won't come. Violence, fuelled by alcohol and the associated chaos, is at the heart of the gap widening. There's also the quality of service delivery of organisations on the front line, but the Albanese government turns a blind eye. Today I checked on the progress of Yadu Health in Ceduna. More than two years since being funded to build a health service, there are just shipping containers, and the build cost has blown out. Need more evidence? Take a look at the number of non-compliant organisations on the ORIC website. That's their governing organisation, their regulator. Today, more than 20 Aboriginal health organisations have overdue reports, and many have been in breach for years. The Australian Greens and Labor talk about the complexity, but breaking the cycle of violence and maladministration is obvious. Alcohol is the primary driver of violence in Indigenous communities, leading to worse health outcomes. Imagine a child tired from hiding and seeking safety after parents have spent the night drinking. Everyone lives in fear, in a state of fight or flight. A parent is injured, compounding chronic health issues. There's no sleep, no school and no food. The root causes relevant right now must be our focus. I'll give you two examples of how the Albanese government's policies have let the alcohol flow, and with it have come violence and adverse outcomes. They removed the cashless debit card and did nothing to stop the grog bans being lifted in Central Australia, throwing around more taxpayer money to fix a mess of their own making. Labor, you can make an announcement about finding hospitals in the Northern Territory; that's great, but it was your policies that helped fill those hospitals. To get Australia back on track, the Peter Dutton— (Time expired) Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 52 13:58 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia This is the 80th year since the nuclear age began, with the testing on First Peoples' country. Australia has to come to terms with its nuclear past to avoid a nuclear catastrophe in the future. Australia must sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the TPNW, to show that we have learnt from our past. I rise today to talk about the past nuclear catastrophes in Australia, the painful impacts of which our First Nations people and country are still feeling. Three weeks after the first test, the atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds and thousands of people. Seven years later, the British government started testing nuclear weapons in Australia on First Nations land. People were vaporised, maimed and blinded, a fact that was covered up at the time—unsuccessfully. Plenty of people remember and still have the physical scars. Think Maralinga, Emu Field and the Montebello Islands. Along with this death and tragedy, the ongoing environmental disaster continued to sicken people for decades after. The test sites were never properly cleaned up. Besides laying out a path to nuclear elimination in international law, the TPNW also compels parties to assist victims of nuclear weapons use and remediate impacted environments, so why would Australia not continue to commit to this? The late South Australian elder Yami Lester OAM was blinded by the fallout of the Totem nuclear tests in October 1953, and his daughter Karina Lester is at the Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons negotiations talking about her father. We cannot let this happen in the future on First Nations land. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for two-minute statements has expired, and we move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Antisemitism 53 14:00 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On 21 January, National Cabinet agreed to establish a new national database to record antisemitic crime and other antisemitic incidents. Minister, has the database been established, and, if so, how many incidents of antisemitism has it recorded so far? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Paterson, for the question. I will obtain further information about the specific measure that you're talking about and the recording of any incidents. I don't have that to hand. Hopefully, I will have— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, I don't have to hand information on the specific question about the recording of antisemitic incidents on a particular database. What I can say to you, Senator Paterson, is that the government—and, I hope the whole parliament—recognises the unprecedented rise in antisemitism we've seen in this country, recognises our collective responsibility to stand against it and recognises the importance of ensuring that police and national security agencies are able to do their work and that those who are responsible for this are apprehended—all are apprehended—and face the full force of the law. That's the priority of this government. We are very focused on ensuring that we continue to support members of the Jewish community with the funding we have announced and with the legislation that has been passed, whether it's the hate crime legislation that has passed just prior to question time or, for example, the antidoxxing legislation which was passed through this parliament previously, regrettably not supported by you, Senator. We want a framework in place that protects Jewish Australians, we want the authorities to apprehend those who are responsible, but most of all we want all Australians to stand against the antisemitism and prejudice we have seen. It is not the Australian way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Minister, National Cabinet was two weeks ago. It only had one outcome that the Prime Minister has spoken about, which is the introduction of a new database to record incidents of antisemitism. Are you seriously saying you do not know whether or not it has been established and, if it has been established, how many incidents it has recorded? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Paterson, I've been clear with you. I will seek to obtain that information. Obviously— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, you didn't ask Senator Watt, did you? I will seek to obtain that information, but I'd again say, Senator, that I understand that the primary focus of those opposite has been on how to gain a political advantage. I think we've all seen that. Our focus is on what we can do as a government to stand with the Jewish community and against the sort of prejudice we have seen and the sort of hate we have seen, because we know where it leads, and to ensure that we provide the appropriate legislative and financial support in the way that we have prioritised. That's been the focus of this government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Can you confirm that the National Cabinet was not briefed on 21 January about the incident involving the caravan at Dural and that the only person sitting around the cabinet table who knew about that incident was the Premier of New South Wales? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Here we go again! What we see from those opposite is a focus on press conferences and on politics. It says something about their priorities, doesn't it? We are concerned with national security and keeping people safe; they are concerned with getting the grab— Senator Paterson 144138 President, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The minister has not even pretended to try and answer the question about whether National Cabinet was briefed and who knew. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, the minister is being relevant to your question. I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Paterson, I'd refer you to my previous answers. And I'll refer you again to the fact that this is an ongoing investigation. I know that what you have been prioritising this week is performing for the cameras. The rest of us are prioritising ensuring— Senator Cash I0M President, again the point of order is in relation to relevance. The question was very clear. It asked for a specific date. It could not possibly be categorised as prejudicial to law enforcement or the investigation. I really— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you can of course stand and ask a point of order, and I will take that into consideration, but it is not appropriate then to get into some kind of debate and commentary. The minister is being relevant to the question. Senator WONG 00AOU This is an ongoing investigation. I refer to my previous answers. But do you know the investigation we should engage in? It's an investigation as to your motives, because we know, Senator Paterson, that what you and your leader have been interested in is playing politics with this and getting the grab up on television. We all understand that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie and Senator McGrath, I have called both of you to order on several occasions. Senator McKenzie interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you in particular then just yelled more loudly. When I call you to order, I expect you to come to order. Cost of Living 54 14:06 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The key focus of the Albanese Labor government has been to ease the cost of living for all Australians. Our plan has been all about helping Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Low unemployment and keeping Australians in jobs is essential to achieving this goal. Inflation is down, wages are up, unemployment is low and more than 1.1 million jobs have been created. How has the government achieved these economic objectives and how has it helped Australians? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question and particularly for focusing on the cost of living because, when I'm out talking with people around Australia, they want the government focused on the cost of living and looking at ways that we can support households when inflation has been higher than we would like. We are pleased that inflation has come down and has come down so substantially from what we inherited, where we had living standards going backwards, inflation going up and wages stagnating. We've been able to make sure that inflation comes down. It's come down substantially. Importantly, wages are growing so that people are earning more and keeping more of what they earn, despite the objections of those opposite. We have seen the creation of 1.1 million jobs. So, unlike many other countries that have been dealing with the same global inflation problem and, as they have seen that inflation come down, have seen a much higher rate of unemployment, we have been able to not only see more people stay in jobs but actually see the creation of more jobs. That is something that all of us in this chamber should be pleased with. We recognise that households are doing it tough, which is why we have been looking at ways to provide cost-of-living assistance for households in a way that is responsible, in a way that the budget can afford and in a way that doesn't add to inflation. We have done that through making sure we have got wages moving again. We have done that through tax cuts, making them fairer and applied to every taxpayer. We have done it through our investments in Medicare and our investments in early education and care. We have done that through our commitment to reduce HECS debt. We have dealt with the indexation issue there and now we are changing the HECS arrangements going forward. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Australia has fought inflation whilst keeping unemployment low. In creating 1.1 million jobs, we've also seen record participation of women in the workforce and the lowest gender pay gap. How has the Albanese Labor government supported women to earn more and keep more of what they earn? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for that supplementary and, again, for focusing on some of the improvements we've seen for women in the workforce since this government came to office. No doubt, these are all things that those opposite would claim as 'wasteful spending'. These are things like extending paid parental leave—I think that those opposite include that in their 'wasteful spending' bucket—paying super on PPL and making sure that we are investing in those industries where we see high levels of women workers, so in aged care and in early education and care. Again, these are obviously seen as wasteful spending by those opposite, and we shouldn't be surprised, because they didn't focus on women's economic security when they were last in government, so why would they focus on it now? We've got the gender pay gap at record lows. Average weekly earnings for women have increased $173.80. Of the million jobs, 500,000 of them have gone to women. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The state of the economy at the last election showed inflation was high and rising, real wages were falling and living standards were going backwards. That is the record of those opposite. How has the Albanese Labor government's approach improved this outlook, and why has the government taken this approach? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Stewart. Senator Stewart is right: inflation was going up, living standards were going backwards, wages had stagnated and workers hadn't seen a real wage increase for a long time. And let's contrast that with what's happening now: low inflation, wages growing and more jobs. That's what we have delivered with our economic plan. Compare that with the Leader of the Opposition with his $350 billion in secret cuts that he won't tell anyone about until after the election—how convenient is that?—$600 billion for the nuclear fantasy and a $10 billion policy for long lunches, paid for by every working Australian. That is the contrast and that is the contest. I know those opposite don't like hearing about it. They're ashamed when it's put up like that. They don't like the fact that we've managed the economy in a much better and fairer way than they ever will. (Time expired) Cost of Living 55 14:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Working households in Australia have seen their living costs increase by 19.4 per cent under your Labor government. The cost of food has increased by 14.3 per cent. The cost of housing has increased by 14.2 per cent. The costs of insurance and financial services have increased by nearly 96 per cent. When will Mr Albanese admit that he's done a terrible job of keeping costs under control for Australian families, and why does he continue to insult every electorate by attempting to convince Australians that they have never been better off? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I say, first, that the quote used is actually Mr Howard's quote—a Liberal prime minister's. We all remember that. Look, we are, as a government, absolutely focused on doing what we can to ease the cost-of-living pressures for Australians, and that puts us in a very different place to those opposite, who obviously have a range of other political agendas, but they don't include reducing the cost-of-living pressures for Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, you've asked the question. Senator WONG 00AOU When we came to government, inflation was high and rising, real wages were falling, living standards were declining and people were going backwards. That is what was occurring under them. Since we came to government, inflation is down, wages are up and unemployment is down. We've seen inflation at almost a third of what it was at the election and falling. We've seen real wages growing again, living standards rising and the lowest average unemployment rate for any government in 50 years. We've seen the creation of more than 1.1 million jobs. It is the case that Australians are doing it tough, but what they have is a government that wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. The alternative of course is a party that wants taxpayers to pick up a $10 billion tab for the boss's lunch. Instead of fee-free TAFE, they want free lunches. Fee-free TAFE—'No, we don't want that,' they say. 'We want free lunches.' I mean, for $10 billion you can employ 5.6 million people more in free TAFE. We could triple the HECS debt relief we delivered for three million Australians. It is three times more than the cost of the energy bill relief, which is saving households $300 a year and $325 for small businesses. Now, this gives you a sense of the priorities of Mr Dutton and those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, your constant commentary is disrespectful. I have called you to order at least half a dozen times. You are disrespecting me. Come to order when you are asked to come to order, and stop the running commentary. Senator Ruston, first supplementary? 14:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The average Australian family with a typical mortgage has paid an extra $50,000 in interest repayments under the Albanese government after 12 interest rate rises. Will Mr Albanese apologise to these families for his failure to lower interest rates, and for breaking his promise that they would be better off under Labor? 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What we know is they would be worse off under Mr Dutton, and there are so many ways in which we know that. We know that because, for the cost-of-living relief that has been put in place by this government, every single measure was opposed by those opposite. We also know, out of Mr Dutton's own mouth, that he wants to cut. He wants to make sure he cuts. 'There is wasteful spending of over $350 billion in the federal budget.' But do you know what he won't do? He won't tell Australians what he is going to cut. He wants to go into an election saying: 'Yes, I am going to cut at least $350 billion. Oh, by the way, I have $600 billion to pay for my nuclear fantasy as well. I am going to do that, but we are actually about you. We just won't tell you which of your Medicare services, which of your hospitals, which of your childcare services we are going to cut.' The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey! Order! Senators, if I call another senator—just because I have not called your name, it is not an open slather for you to then interject. You should also get the message that I am calling for order. Senator Ruston, second supplementary? 14:17 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Families are paying $1,000 more per year for their electricity under Mr Albanese, and his only solution seems to be to run ridiculous antinuclear scare campaign involving three-eyed fish cartoons, forgetting that nearly all advanced economies in the world use or are pursuing nuclear energy. Why won't Mr Albanese take the increase of energy costs under his government seriously and admit he has broken a promise that Australians would be $275 better off under Labor? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, I look forward to you admitting, Senator Ruston, that your policy will cost around $600 billion. I look forward to you admitting it will take 20 years to even start delivering. I look forward to you admitting that even then it would only deliver four per cent of the grid. And I look forward to you admitting that it will push power prices up by $1,200. Now, we look forward to the coalition coming clean on all of this and the rest of their secret cuts. But, in the meantime, what this government will continue to do is what we have been doing, which is to work to bring inflation down, to work to ensure that we provide assistance to help with the cost of living and to work to ensure that wages keep rising. In doing that, we will continue to be opposed, as we always have been, by the coalition, who have always wanted lower wages for working people. United States of America 56 14:19 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. US President Donald Trump, standing alongside the Israeli Prime Minister and fugitive war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu, has proposed the occupation of the Gaza Strip, permanently kicking out millions of indigenous Palestinians so the United States can develop it. On top of being outrageously disgusting and amounting to ethnic cleansing, such an action would be illegal under international law and a blatant violation of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. We know that the Liberals and Mr Dutton are in lockstep with Trump, but, Minister, you have rightly condemned the land grabs of other countries, such as Russia. Will you today break your silence, condemn President Trump's threat and make clear that Australia will not support such actions? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Through the President, Senator, I think the Prime Minister has given multiple interviews since those reports were first made, and he has made clear on several occasions that our position, the Australian position, remains support of a two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel—achieved in accordance with international law. We have seen the discussions and clarifications overnight. I think that this is a demonstration of why the Australian government doesn't immediately react to everything that is reported. I would say that the central players in these matters are the countries of the region, who will be in dialogue with the United States for some time on a range of proposals. I say again, as the Prime Minister has made clear: there is a bipartisan commitment in Australia to a two-state solution—a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel—achieved in accordance with international law. It is in this way that we can ensure self-determination for Palestinians, security for Israel and peace for all the peoples of the region. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Sadly, there are no surprises in Minister Wong's response. She's still tying herself in knots to avoid actually answering the question and not take the bare minimum of actions to condemn this shameful attempt by Trump to take control of Gaza and expel Palestinians. I will ask you again, Minister: will you make clear that Australia will not support these actions and also rule out the involvement of Australian troops in such actions if they happen? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Australia's position is clear. We support a two-state solution achieved in accordance with international law, and that—if you actually listened, Senator Faruqi—is the response to the things you have asked about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, you won't condemn Trump, but will you at least condemn Mr Dutton for praising the US President and calling him a 'big thinker' on his despicable plans for Gaza? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I am advised that it's hard to see how that is a supplementary question—and it is out of order to ask a minister to comment on the opposition leader—but I invite Minister Wong to make any other contribution she so wishes. 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my previous answers. I have responded to the issues you've raised. Economy 57 14:23 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Senator Farrell. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's plan to process critical minerals here in Australia instead of shipping them overseas to be refined. On top of delivering immediate cost-of-living relief, how is the government creating secure and well-paid jobs in Australia's resources industry that will strengthen our economy and deliver a future made in Australia? 14:23 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Ghosh. He's a young, new senator, but he's already impressing with the work he does on behalf of his Western Australian constituents, and he's doing that again with this very important question. The Albanese Labor government is tackling the challenges of today while ensuring prosperity into the future. Australians are still under pressure, but we've made progress in easing the cost of living for Australians. We've made sure that every taxpayer got a tax cut, that every household got energy bill relief and that people have access to cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, a stronger Medicare and fee-free TAFE. That's how you deliver cost-of-living relief—not by focusing on tax breaks for bosses' long lunches. The Albanese Labor government is also guaranteeing our prosperity into the future. The world needs the critical minerals that are abundant under our feet, particularly in Western Australia, the engine room of our economy, and Australia will happily give them to the world. The Albanese Labor government's production tax credits, as part of the most significant budget for the resources sector in a generation, will ensure that resources aren't just mined here, in Australia, but processed locally to maximise their value. It's a no-risk approach to growing our critical minerals industry and ensuring a future made in Australia. It will create more jobs in the resources sector, especially in your state of Western Australia, Senator Ghosh, and provide secure and well-paid incomes for families right across Australia. Most importantly, it will ensure Australian workers benefit on our way to building a future made in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia That's great to hear, Minister, and it's great to hear how the Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future by processing critical minerals right here in Australia and moving us up the value chain. How will the Albanese Labor government's production tax credits create jobs in the resources sector, including in Western Australia, and who supports the production tax credits? 14:25 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Ghosh, for your first supplementary question. It was an excellent one, I might say. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, well, he's an impressive senator. I know you wish you could have senators like that on your side. Rather than shipping our critical minerals offshore to be processed, like the Liberals and the Nationals would like to do, the production tax credits will make it happen right here in Australia—and right here in Western Australia. The industry has lined up to support the Albanese Labor government's production tax credits. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies have said that this bill needs to pass parliament, and they also say: We need real action, and the Production Tax Incentive is exactly what industry has been seeking. The Minerals Council of Australia supports it as well. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia It is clear that there is a lot of support from Western Australians and the resources sector for the Albanese Labor government's production tax credits. Why are the production tax credits so important to the Western Australian economy, and what is standing in the way of them being implemented? 14:27 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Ghosh, for your second supplementary question. I know, Senator Dean Smith, you're embarrassed about the position of your party. And Senator Cash should be embarrassed too. Unlike you, a real Western Australian senator is backing the resources industry. The Albanese Labor government's production tax credits mean more jobs and more investment in an industry that's tipped to boom as the world transitions to net zero. Yet the Liberals and Nationals are standing in the way, including you, Senator Smith, and you, Senator Cash. You've turned your backs on the resources sector. Not even Liberal senators in Western Australia are supporting it, despite how much mining contributes to that state. They've turned their back on Western Australia. They've turned their back on Western Australia. They're happy to squander the opportunity to create more jobs and grow our critical minerals industry. (Time expired) Fishing Industry 58 14:28 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Watt. In the space of two months, we've seen Labor bring forward their own nature-positive bills only to them kill them by withdrawing them from the Notice Paper this week. There were plenty of industries who were loudly opposing the bill, including forestry and mining, but salmon producers were also worried about what it would mean for them when they're already facing uncertainty. Salmon farms at Macquarie Harbour have been in limbo for almost the entire time Labor have been in government. When can workers in the West Coast community finally expect to receive some clarity from Labor? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. There are a couple of things that your question involved—first of all, the nature-positive laws. Of course, our government did seek to pass laws that would actually deliver on the requests of many in the business community and those concerned about the environment. Senator WATT 245759 But the guy who's yelling at me at the moment was instrumental in stopping those laws being passed. He likes to yell. So do the rest of the Greens. They like to yell, but they don't actually like to get anything done. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 They're still yelling—yell, yell, yell—never actually doing anything. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young. Senator I0U On a point on relevance, it seems as though Roger Cook is a member of the Labor Party, not the Australian Greens. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, that is a debating point, and you know that. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Our view was that there was a sensible path to delivering the nature-positive laws to speed up approval times and provide strong environmental protections, but unfortunately neither the Greens political party nor the coalition have chosen to take it. So it's obviously well understood— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order, Senator McKim! Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Senator McKim continued to yell very loudly after you called. I'd ask him to be brought to order. The PRESIDENT 112096 He did do that, Minister Wong, very disappointingly. I am going to remind the chamber that this is Senator Tyrrell's question. She has a right to hear the answer in silence. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 It was clear—and we've seen it demonstrated again today—that neither the Greens political party nor the coalition was prepared to come to a sensible conclusion on the nature-positive laws, and for that reason we're not proceeding with them this term. On the second issue in your question, regarding the workers at Macquarie Harbour, there is no-one in this chamber or this parliament who has fought harder for the workers at Macquarie Harbour than Senator Urquhart, who was onto this issue of supporting those workers well before the opportunists that we see opposite us or anyone else in this chamber. Senator Urquhart had me down there when I held the agriculture and fisheries portfolio. She's had Senator Gallagher down there a couple of times. She's had the Prime Minister and Senator Farrell down there—and numerous others—listening to the local community and working with them as Minister Plibersek makes her decision. We are strong supporters of the salmon industry. Of course the laws need to be complied with, and I know that Minister Plibersek is taking this into account right now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania On a visit to Tasmania on 15 January, the Prime Minister said that he would consider legislation so that these kinds of reviews of past approvals can't be triggered against salmon farms. Is that a personal opinion of the Prime Minister, or is this a reform that the Labor Party is having? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt— Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Very good question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Minister Watt. Please resume your seat. I think that was you, Senator Whish-Wilson. My apologies if it wasn't. You are out of order. I had just called the minister. You are to listen in silence. Minister Watt. 14:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm not directly familiar with the comments that the Prime Minister made, and I am conscious that we are going through a legal process at the moment, but what I know is that the Prime Minister has made very clear his support for the workers in the salmon industry. It's why our government has provided substantial funding in partnership with the industry to, for instance, do trials of oxygenation of Macquarie Harbour, given that oxygen levels are an issue there. It's why we've funded a captive breeding program for preserving the maugean skate, which I understand has been quite successful, because of course the outcome that I think everyone wants to seek here, certainly from the discussions I've had with the workers in the industry—people want to see a viable salmon industry go forward but also want to make sure that we don't have an extinction of the maugean skate on our hands as well. There are some people who are only concerned with one of those issues. From the government's point of view, we think that we can do both, and that's what we'll keep working with the scientists and the local community on. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Labor say they're friends of the salmon industry, but actions speak louder than words. Why has Labor delayed this decision and pursued bills like nature positive that would harm the salmon industry, if you're such great friends? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have to respectfully disagree with you on one point there, Senator Tyrrell. The nature-positive laws were not intended to harm the salmon industry—quite the contrary. Those laws came from a report, commissioned by the former government, by Graeme Samuel, the former head of the ACCC, which found that our existing environmental regulation under our existing laws hurt business, by providing a lack of certainty and lengthy approval timeframes, and also hurt the environment. So we were trying to cure rather than to hurt any particular industry. Senator Urquhart in particular and our government in general have been strong supporters of the salmon industry. It's why we're investing in those oxygenation trials. It's why we're investing in the captive breeding program. Senator Farrell and I, when I held the portfolio, worked very hard on increasing our trade of salmon and other fisheries exports around the world. That's the way we want to see things continue, going forward. Agriculture Industry 59 14:35 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Food prices have increased by 12 per cent under Labor and could rise even further as farmers and food processors face increased costs. According to farm performance reports from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES, dairy farmers' costs have increased 7.4 per cent, and sheep and beef farmers' costs have risen by 14.7 per cent. SPC are in the news today with increases for processing. Why is Labor making it harder and more expensive for farmers to supply the fresh food Australian families need? Why won't Mr Albanese finally admit that Aussie farmers are not better off under Labor? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We do support Australian farmers, and we do understand the difficult environment in which they operate. You will recall, Senator, that one of the things that we have worked on since we came to government is ensuring access for our farmers to export markets, including China, because we understand how important that is not only for the broader Australian economy but for the financial position of farmers, wine growers and other parts of the agricultural sector. So I would say to you that we do understand the importance of this sector. We have worked very hard to ensure that there are more trade opportunities. I think you would understand that enabling export opportunities is a very important part of ensuring the sustainability and viability of our agricultural sector. We are a trading nation. The senator also spoke about farmers supplying to the domestic market. Of course, that's critical for the country. One of the areas that are challenging for many is energy costs. We're very conscious of what we inherited—the situation that occurred where we saw so much energy exiting the system as a consequence of policy paralysis by your government—and what we have had to do since we came to government. Senator, you are genuine in your concern for the agricultural sector. I do not understand why you would be supporting a nuclear policy, which will guarantee higher prices for that sector. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, you started whatever it was you were saying before I'd even called you. Wait until you're called. Senator Davey 281697 Apologies. The PRESIDENT 112096 Please ask a first supplementary. 14:38 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Senator Wong, farmers are directly impacted by Labor's cost-of-living crisis, including by higher electricity prices, which are up by 32 per cent; higher insurance and finance costs; and Labor's truckie tax, which is increasing the cost of getting the produce to market. Why does Labor continue to pursue policies that squeeze out farmers? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think, Senator, there's a lot of politics in your question, which is unsurprising. I don't think it's— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I said it was unsurprising; I did say that. I know that Senator McKenzie is—there's one track there. Senator, your imputation as to our motives and— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, order! Senator WONG 00AOU The imputations you make are incorrect. We do understand that our farmers, along with Australian households, have been struggling with the cost of living, particularly energy costs. This is why we put in place, for example, the energy rebates, which regrettably you voted against, both for households and for small business, and we are also working to ensure that energy prices are more stable and energy is more reliable. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales The chair of the Australian Food and Agriculture Taskforce, Mark van Dyck, has said, '44 per cent of farmers believed Australia was losing its competitive edge on the global stage.' When will Mr Albanese apologise to our farmers for making it harder to feed and clothe Australians and for breaking his promise that they would be better off under Labor? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia A strong and sustainable agricultural sector requires, in part, access to external markets. You know that. If you look at the history of Australian agriculture— Senator McKenzie 207825 Murray, you didn't fix anything! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, I've sat the minister down, yet you continue this debate across the chamber. If you can't sit in silence, leave the chamber or I'll have to name you as per the standing orders. I should not have to keep repeating myself and calling your name. Senator WONG 00AOU I can understand why Senator McKenzie is upset at not getting this question, but it is not your question; it is your colleague's. Senator, what I would say to you is that a strong and sustainable agricultural sector in this country— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I'll try for the fourth time. A strong and sustainable agricultural sector in this country requires not only our domestic market but access to global markets. If you look at the history of Australian agriculture, you and I both know that access to overseas markets has been critical in terms of the growth of our agricultural sector, the financial position of our farmers and the economic opportunities in regional Australia. (Time expired) Renewable Energy 61 14:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. Minister, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McAllister is away up north, so your question is to Minister Watt. Senator 266524 Minister Watt, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Roberts. Yes, I'm representing Senator McAllister, who represents Minister Bowen, while she's in Townsville for the floods. Given I am the representing minister, I'm just waiting to have those figures handed to me. But I know that we have had that transition costed, and it's in the order of $120 billion to $130 billion. That's my understanding. Importantly, the CSIRO—an organisation I know you haven't got an enormous amount of time for but the most reputable science organisation in the country—and the Australian Energy Market Operator, who probably knows more about the energy market than any other group within Australia, have both made clear that ensuring that we meet our future power needs with renewables backed up by gas and firmed by batteries is the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs going forward. I wasn't too far off the mark. AEMO's integrated system plan found that the net present value under a step-change scenario towards a renewable based system is $122 billion. Of course, that's significantly lower than the figure it will cost for Mr Dutton's nuclear program. As I said, people as reputable in this country as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have found that it's not just environmental benefits that we get from meeting our power needs through renewables going forward; it's actually the cheapest way we can do so as well. That's the direct answer to your question—it's $122 billion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Let me make the question easier. Minister, how much taxpayers' money is the government spending on the net zero transition across forward estimates? 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don't have a figure just for the forward estimates, being the next four years. But, as I said, the cost of delivering our power network into the future under the government's plan is $122 billion in net present value terms. Now, I know there is another plan out there. But is it really a plan, or, as Senator Canavan revealed, is it just a political fix? Whatever it is, that nuclear plan from Mr Dutton costs $600 billion. We know that means that power prices will go up by about $1,200 per household per year. And we know that, to fund that $600 billion that is required for the nuclear program, Mr Dutton will have to put in place very big cuts to things like Medicare, energy support, cost-of-living relief, housing, pensions and all manner of other things to fund the most expensive form of power you can provide. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Minister, Bloomberg has put the cost of Australia's net zero transition at $1.9 trillion. One Nation uses a consensus figure of $1.5 trillion. Across forward estimates, the budget is in deficit. Wasteful, undisciplined government spending is feeding inflation. And you can't even tell me how much will be spent on net zero across the forward estimates. Minister, will you at least give an undertaking to table, on the first day of the March sitting, the figure for the total cost of the net zero transition, including the forward estimates? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Well, I've already provided the figure of $122 billion. I'm not across the Bloomberg estimate that you cite, Senator Roberts, and I'm certainly not across the One Nation consensus figure. I assume that's a consensus between you and Senator Hanson—you've had to sort of thrash that one out between the two of you and arrived at a consensus of $1.5 trillion! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 I'm happy to answer Senator Watt's question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Perhaps some other time—thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator WATT 245759 Maybe James Ashby was in there as well, with the calculator going, working out a consensus figure. And I certainly don't know what assumptions underpinned the One Nation/James Ashby/Senator Hanson/Senator Roberts consensus figure. But the fact is that the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs into the future—as cited by AEMO and the CSIRO, our most eminent scientific body—is at a cost of $122 billion. That is the cheapest way we can meet our power needs, which I think is a very good reason for any government, no matter what their political party, to pursue it. United States of America 62 14:47 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. I note that Senator Faruqi asked questions earlier, but I would also like to acknowledge that there is an outbreak of Trump fever. The government are quarantining themselves while the opposition are mirroring Trump's anti-DEI policies, imitating Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. Trump's latest announcement that he intends to take over the Gaza Strip and push the Palestinian people off their native lands is an unthinkable act of ethnic cleansing. Yesterday the Prime Minister said, 'We take considered positions when matters of international affairs are raised and we do so in a manner that is consistent with Australia's values.' Minister, when did Australian values allow for the murdering of children, the bombing of hospitals and the annihilation of a people? 14:49 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Payman, I regret the way in which you put that last part of the question. I've made clear and the Prime Minister has made clear that our position remains as it was yesterday morning, which is that we support a two-state solution, a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, achieved in accordance with international law. I would say to you that a bipartisan commitment to two states is the only way to ensure self-determination for Palestinians, security for Israel and peace for all the peoples of the region. You would have heard me over many months asserting Australia's position in relation to international law, including international humanitarian law. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:49 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia The minister must admit how absurd Australia's position is, as the government claims to support a two-state solution but refuses to recognise Palestine. With Trump planning to annex Gaza, how can this government claim to support Palestinian statehood while refusing recognition—especially when its ally seeks to erase it? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I've articulated over many months Australia's position. Obviously we are not the key player in the Middle East, and the future of the region is ultimately something which will need to be resolved by the countries of the region and the peoples of the region. In response to the various propositions which have been aired over the last 24 hours, I'd refer to my earlier answers to you and Senator Faruqi. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:51 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia We've heard those talking points before. Ultimately, as with all issues this government considers, it comes back to domestic politics. Leaving geopolitics aside, the Trump administration has shown it will impose tariffs on countries that it believes have slighted the US. Will the minister admit that their silence on Trump's recent actions stems from the bone-chilling fear that he will slap tariffs on Australian goods just months before an election? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I might just respond a little bit more on the recognition point. I have laid out a few conditions as to recognition. A future Palestinian state must not be in a position to threaten Israel's security. We see no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza or in the future Palestinian state and no role for terrorists. We need a reformed Palestinian Authority— The 10000 Senator Payman, on a point of order? Senator Payman 300707 Minister, as a member of the crossbench, I have very limited time and obviously— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, what is your point? Senator Payman 300707 It's a matter of relevance to my second supplementary question, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant. She has just started to answer, but I'll listen carefully. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, you are not in a debate with me. I'm listening carefully, and if the minister isn't being relevant, I will draw her to the point. Senator WONG 00AOU I would have thought recognition conditions might be something you'd be interested in, Senator. Hamas must release all hostages, and issues such as Jerusalem and the final territory of a Palestinian state should be defined through negotiations. We have taken a principled position throughout this conflict. People in this chamber may not— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Well, Senator, we have taken a principled position. People in this chamber may not agree with the position we have taken, but it is a position of principle, and it is consistent. Environmental Defenders Office 63 14:53 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the most recent financial report of the Environmental Defenders Office which outlines the $9 million in legal costs the organisation is required to pay following its failed attempt to halt the Santos Barossa Gas Project. Given it's reported that the repayment of the loan provided to the EDO from a mystery donor will be approximately $2.3 million each year and this happens to be the same amount that has been handed to the EDO by this government, does the minister think it an acceptable use of taxpayers' money to effectively pay for the penalty the EDO has itself incurred for their wrongful acts in trying to destroy vital Australian projects and the jobs they create? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia All Commonwealth funding agreements contain provisions requiring the funding to be spent for the purpose for which it is allocated. All payments are subject to satisfactory progress on the project and compliance by the grantee with obligations under the agreement. As the matter is before the court, I'm not in a position to comment further. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Given that the same financial report states, 'A material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the EDO's ability to continue as a going concern,' and considering that it continues to destroy jobs, will the government now do the right thing and cease giving taxpayer money to this destructive organisation which is in financial peril because of its own recklessness? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my original answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:55 Senator 263418 Tasmania DUNIAM (—) (): I will give it a crack. Given the EDO is intent on destroying the jobs of hardworking Australians, why won't this government do the right thing and cease funding this discredited activist outfit? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, there are a range of assertions you make in there. I would make the point that the secretary of the department has reviewed a range of allegations with regard to EDO's conduct. I am advised that the results of that review are available on the department's website. Energy 63 14:55 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Watt. Cost-of-living pressures are front of mind for all Australians. When speaking with constituents in my home state of Western Australia, I often hear that energy affordability is one of their key concerns. The independent Australian Energy Market Operator has said renewable energy is the lowest-cost way to supply electricity to homes and businesses. How is the Albanese Labor government helping put downward pressure on energy bills? How is the government's clean, cheap and reliable energy plan helping all Australians? 14:56 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank Senator Sterle, who I know, like every member within the government party room, supports cheaper energy for Australian households. The Albanese government is relentlessly focused on supporting Australians to deal with cost-of-living pressures. Whether it's cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, getting wages moving again or energy bill relief, it is the thing that I know motivates every single member of our Labor government. We know that that means making energy more affordable. After the coalition's wasted decade in office, where we had—was it 21, 22, 23, 24 or 25 energy policies? I've lost count. After that decade, we're doing the heavy lifting now to ensure that we have cheap, clean and reliable energy into the future. That means investing in the cheapest form of energy—renewables—to support our energy grid over the long term. In the short term, it means important measures like direct energy bill relief that make things a bit easier for all Australians—support that we know that Mr Dutton and every member of the coalition opposed. They voted against our energy bill relief and tried to deny that support to Australians. Now Mr Dutton and the coalition want to make power prices go nuclear. They are hell-bent on spending $600 billion of taxpayers' money on nuclear reactors, signing every taxpayer up to higher power prices for decades. We know that nuclear will take too long, cost too much and slug every Australian with $1,200 extra on their power bill every year. But the big question that remains unanswered is: how will they pay for it? You don't just find $600 billion lying around the couch. The only possible answer is that Mr Dutton will have to make savage cuts to essential services to pay for his slow, expensive nuclear reactors. Australians have a right to know what will be cut, and Mr Dutton has to tell them now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a first supplementary? 14:58 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Last year the independent Australian Energy Market Operator confirmed the Albanese Labor government's reliable renewables plan is the only plan that will deliver cheap, clean and reliable energy to Australian households. Minister, why is the government's reliable renewables plan the best way to reduce household power bills across Australia? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sterle. As you know, if you're serious about bringing down power bills, the best option to do so is renewables backed up by gas and batteries. That's what the independent Energy Market Operator says. We want energy to be cheaper, and that's why we're investing in renewables. In contrast, Mr Dutton and the coalition are telling Australians you can trust them to build nuclear reactors. The people who gave us 20-odd energy policies—you can trust them to get it right this time! All they need is a lazy $600 billion of taxpayers' money. 'Trust us,' they say. This is the mob that blew out the cost of Inland Rail by 600 per cent—but, don't worry, you can trust them with $600 billion for nuclear reactors! The same crew who did Snowy 2.0 and blew out the cost there, and who spent $600 million on commuter car parks in places that didn't even have a train station, now want to build nuclear reactors, but they still can't be honest about what they will cut to pay for it. You will be worse off under Mr Dutton. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I note Mr Dutton's risky nuclear reactor policy will cost Australian taxpayers $600 billion, as you said. As Senator Canavan put it, 'Nuclear power is on the more expensive end of the scale.' And now for the best part: what are the biggest barriers to delivering cheaper power bills to all Australians—as if I didn't know? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The biggest barrier to cheaper power in this country is Mr Dutton and the coalition, with the possible exception of one senator—being Senator Canavan. Look, I think that everyone knows that Senator Canavan and I tend to disagree on most things, but at least he has the courage of his conviction being upfront and honest about nuclear power, because he said, 'Nuclear is not going to cut it. We're not serious. We're latching on to nuclear as a silver bullet because it fixes a political issue for us.' And this is the kicker: 'But it ain't the cheapest form of power.' Thank you for your honesty, Senator Canavan. I couldn't have summed up Mr Dutton better myself. We both clearly agree that Mr Dutton will say and do anything to get himself elected, but the reality is that Senator Canavan, Mr Dutton and every coalition member should also come clean about the cuts they plan to make to Medicare, to housing, to pensions and to education to fund their nuclear reactors. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Gambling 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Pocock, I'm attending the chamber in accordance with your request. I would have been happy to have a chat. The government rejects Senator Pocock's assertion that the Prime Minister has not fully complied with the order. We take our obligations seriously, and we comply with our obligations. Orders for production of documents and FOIs are processed based on the terms of the request and the requirement on relevant legislation. As is appropriate, the government has devoted a significant amount of resources to processing the many orders for production and freedom of information requests it has received. For example, the PMO has received over 140 FOI applications that all have been processed within the statutory time period. As I said, OPDs and FOI requests are processed based on their specific terms and applicable legislation. 15:02 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. I thank Minister Wong for her explanation on behalf of the Prime Minister. It is not the first time Minister Wong has had to come into this place and make explanations for the Prime Minister. I'm pretty disappointed by the explanation simply saying that it was out of scope, because my OPD asked for all records of interaction with the AFL and NRL. The PMO is trying to say that 'records of interaction' don't mean what's in the diary. 'Records of interaction' is the definition of what you put in a diary. A diary is by definition a record of interactions, so I simply do not buy it. I don't buy it, and I think that it is disrespectful to the Senate. It's not the first time where we've seen the Senate say that you need to produce these documents, things are withheld, then we have an FOI and things are released. I'd urge the government to actually live up to some of the things that they said in opposition about the need for more transparency in government. If the Senate asks for these documents, if the Senate asks for the records of interactions with the AFL and the NRL, why does PMO think that it can withhold things and say, 'Well, you didn't ask for the Prime Minister's diary'? It makes no sense to me. And I don't think it's up to scratch. It's no wonder that, when it does come to the release of ministerial diaries, the major parties don't want to do it. This—transparency in seeing who ministers are meeting with—should be a standard part of our democracy. It doesn't have to be in real time; it can be a few months after the fact. But this doesn't cut it. 15:05 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to take note of the explanation given by Senator Wong on the request in relation to interactions and discussions that the Prime Minister may or may not have had with the big corporate sporting codes in relation to gambling. And I concur with my Senate colleague Senator Pocock: it is not good enough. The reason why this information is not being given to the Senate and, therefore, made available to the Australian people is that the government doesn't want you, as members of the public, to know just how cosy the Prime Minister and the government have become with those who want to keep gambling ads in place—despite the fact that the majority of Australians, over and over again, whenever they are asked, say they do want a proper restriction on gambling ads. Australians say yes, they're sick of them. They're sick of gambling ads infiltrating their homes through the television. They're sick of gambling ads infiltrating their phones and their devices. They're sick of wondering, when they sit their kids down in front of the television to watch Bluey on YouTube, whether they're going to be bombarded with gambling ads. They're sick of having to explain to their children what 'odds' and 'bets' mean when they're watching their favourite football team on a Saturday afternoon. This government promised to act on the recommendations of the Peta Murphy report to stop the harmful advertising of the harmful product of gambling, and the government continues to fail. This week we've heard explanations from the minister and from the government that they're still consulting. Yet, when we ask for the information about conversations and what form of interaction that consultation may be taking, we get told, 'Nothing to see here; we're not showing you.' In fact, what we do know about the consultations that this government has run in relation to gambling reform is that they made the people they met with, in the official consultations, sign NDAs. That's how desperate this government is at keeping all of this secret. So it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's staff and their diaries or whether we're talking about the official consultation process run by the minister and her department, it is secret, secret, secret. It's kept out of the view of the public. And we're being asked, as a parliament, to just accept that and say that it's okay. Well, it's not. The Australian community deserve to know what is being planned, why the government has gone weak and when the government will be upfront about their plans to fix this insidious business model that the gambling lobby has, where they push these ads into our homes and onto our kids' phones and devices, grooming our children to be problem gamblers. If you can't stand up to the groomers in the gambling industry, who are you going to stand up to? It might have something to do with taking those hundreds of thousands of dollars of donations from the gambling lobby—the people making money from grooming our kids. It's disgusting, and you want to keep it secret. 15:10 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales In taking note of the matter raised by Senator David Pocock, I think that it is worth noting that we are all custodians of this institution. Regarding Senate orders for the production of documents, I note that the government says there are too many, but they are nonetheless orders of the Senate that the executive government should do its best to comply with. I have to say, that was a pretty regrettable response from Minister Wong. The reality is that the journalist was able to get more information on the same matter than the parliament; that is the reality here. This is the third such case I'm aware of in this parliament where a freedom-of-information request has yielded vastly more information, over an identical piece of information, than an order for the production of documents. It is bizarre, at a minimum, that the government would treat the Senate with such contempt, particularly noting that the government campaigned on the basis that it would show fidelity to transparency and integrity and would be transparent. It has gone out of its way to obfuscate and cover up documents which are germane to orders for the production of documents. It has been endemic across the executive government. In past sessions we have canvassed the fact that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth signed a false document where he asserted that there were commercial-in-confidence matters subject to an order for the production of documents in relation to the Cbus super fund. Helpfully, I had filed a freedom-of-information request for the same information as a citizen, and I was able to receive more information about this matter as a citizen than I could as a senator. So the government is treating this chamber like absolute dirt. Senator David Pocock is right to be aggrieved. In the case of Dr Chalmers filing a false letter with this Senate which claimed commercial-in-confidence information for Cbus, the Information Commissioner threw it out and said that this was lobbying. The Information Commissioner said this was really 'to achieve a change in the government's policy'. Dr Chalmers has really let his colours down by doing this. As it stands, we have another OPD over a report that the Senate has sought. Dr Chalmers said to the Senate in November 2024 that the agency known as APRA had indicated that this was likely to be protected information and therefore he wasn't going to provide it. As a result, I thought, 'We'll get some advice here', and the Clerk has said that Odgers' is quite clear: there is no arrangement here for the Treasurer to cover up this information. The Clerk says, 'The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act does not contain provisions which would constrain the Senate's powers.' In other words, the Clerk has said that Dr Chalmers has to give this report to the Senate because—and, again, he has some form here—his leader is wrong. The Treasurer here is a repeat offender, and it seems, noting Senator David Pocock's contribution, that the Prime Minister is party to this arrangement where the executive government wants to treat this chamber, which was elected by the Australian people, with absolute contempt. It will not comply with the orders of the Senate and therefore it is prepared to treat the Australian people with contempt. After having campaigned on integrity and transparency, the government has not met that standard. It is no wonder the Australian people are deeply disillusioned with this government. 15:14 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to support Senator Pocock on this motion. I myself have put in a number of motions throughout the term of this government requesting orders for the production of documents. Most recently, I wanted the business case for the $100 million that was spent on Avoca Drive. The reply was that the business case was prepared by the New South Wales government. I then asked for communications between the federal government and the state government as to how the New South Wales government justified this $100 million to be spent by the federal government, given that it was a New South Wales road, a state road, and a New South Wales responsibility. The reply I got to that was that, if they released the communication between the federal and state governments, it would damage state relations. And that, of course, is a complete load of tripe. It's just one of the many examples that we've seen throughout the term of this government where they refuse to release documents. The whole point of government is accountability and transparency. Now, I've just started going to the whips meetings every night at seven o'clock. I have said to my colleagues who go to those meetings that I will always vote for an order for the production of documents because I just believe in that as a matter of principle. The coalition can't get too self-righteous about this, as well, because I know that they didn't release information when they were in government, and it needs to happen. I'll give you another example. Just yesterday, I went to the community affairs committee because the minister for health refuses to release the primer that was used in the PCR test that was used to lock down 20 million people. Now, the primer that I'm asking for is just the simple combination of nucleotides that were used in that primer. That information is not unique and cannot be patented by the big pharmaceutical companies. That is Mother Nature doing its job, and I think that people are entitled to know what codons, what sequence and what length of sequence were used by big pharma to lock down 25 million people for two years. Yet again, we get more pushback from the minister for health. This time he said that it's commercial-in-confidence. Commercial-in-confidence is when you're asking for financial figures or the technology that's used in a PCR test. But the actual codons used that were in that virus are no secret. We know what the codons in the virus were. All I'm asking for is which part of the codons was used to actually justify locking people down. And, of course, yet again, the minister for health refuses to actually provide these documents. Time and time again, I have asked the Bureau of Meteorology for the technology behind the homogenisation, and the reply to that was that actually they can't give it because there are too many iterations. I'll give you one example: there have been 400 million iterations to the maximum temperature at Marble Bar and 250 million iterations to the minimum temperature at Marble Bar, and it would be impossible to provide and impossible to audit. Of course, we've now found out that this convoluted contraption that they've come up with has blown out in costs by hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet again, I've asked the CSIRO in estimates, 'Can I please have the model used to calculate net zero.' Larry Marshall, the then head of the CSIRO, said, 'Which model?' I then said, 'What do you mean by that, Laz?' He said, 'We've got 40 different models.' I think, if we're going to go to net zero and spend billions of dollars getting there, the Australian public are entitled to know how this particular net zero figure is being calculated and why there are 40 different models. If the science is settled, why do you need 40 different models? I would have thought you'd have one model. But, of course, it's just another example of the continual command-and-control fearmongering by both of the major parties. They'll create a catastrophe and catastrophise everything, and then, when you actually ask for evidence of why they want to catastrophise everything, they don't want to provide it. That is why we know that governments today are more interested in control than actually serving the people. This motion by Senator Pocock has hit the nail on the head. There has been a record number of denials to orders for production of documents, and I can tell you that the Australian public are sick and tired of the secrecy within the bureaucracy in this government. I've just missed a phone call from another whistleblower. I was meant to talk to them at 1.30 today, thinking senator's statements were on tonight. I'm talking to them again at six o'clock at night. I have got whistleblowers coming out everywhere, wanting to call out the bureaucracy. Let's do it. Let's expose the corruption in government. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 67 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Antisemitism 67 15:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I just want to add some additional information to answers given in question time today relating to the national database to track antisemitism. As I think was referred to—at the National Cabinet meeting on 21 January, leaders agreed to establish a national database to track antisemitic crime and other antisemitic incidents and behaviours. It was noted that the Commonwealth would work with the states and territories on the development of the database. After that National Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minister asked the Attorney-General to lead this work. I'm advised that the Attorney-General's Department has commenced work with key Commonwealth agencies on this project. Obviously, a national database of this kind cannot be stood up overnight by the Commonwealth government alone. It is a significant undertaking that requires work across all jurisdictions. It's work that this government is committed to leading, in consultation with the states and territories and with community organisations like the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 67 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 67 15:21 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales 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 Opposition senators today. There were so many questions because we're getting down to the cornerstone of what we're doing here in the dying days of this government—the cost of living. We hear the answers, and it's almost a scene from 8 Mile in the final battle. We know everything they'll say on the other side of taking note, because they're the same things they always say, 'All these measures we put in—so many things—were so great. Here we are,' and that we voted against them. That's the reason, but let's get down to it. Not one single measure failed because we didn't vote for it. And why didn't we vote for those measures? Because they were poorly designed and they wouldn't work. Everyone out there in the world, just ask yourselves: are you better off now than you were three years ago? It's a simple question. The answer is no. The data out today shows a 19.4 per cent increase in the cost of living since this government was elected. That's what it is about. They'll talk about this and that and who voted what. You don't vote for bad policies that don't work, and it shows on the scoreboard. People are doing it tougher out there. We can come in here and say we've done all of the things, we've got better plans and we're going to do this—they put their best foot forward this term. If this ain't the best they've got, what have they been doing? If this isn't the very biggest thing on every government's list—the cost of living and making it easier to get by—what have we been focused on all of this time? If they've been putting their second roster out, their second plan for the cost of living, do they deserve another term? This is it. We've had a term of them doing their very best—a 19.4 per cent increase to the cost of living over the term of this government. People out there are doing it tougher. A recent survey I saw this week showed that almost a quarter of regional Australians—the National Party heartland out there—could not find any way to pay an unexpected $600 bill now. Fourteen per cent would have to borrow money off family or friends because there's no commercial way to get through. Nearly 40 per cent have no savings, no credit cards, no bank overdrafts—no way to pay an unexpected $600 bill in regional Australia. Metro is a bit better, at 15 and 15—I think about 30 per cent. We're kidding ourselves that Australia is going great—that we've had all these great things that have done great things for Australia. Are we going to pretend that it's the fault of this side that didn't vote for policies that got up anyway? Let's face it, their energy bill relief was in light of $275 of actual savings in energy. Their childcare rebates—in regional Australia you can't even find somewhere to send your child, let alone get it cheaper. When we hear reports that bulk-billing has gone down, they will stand up and say the same things: 'We invented Medicare. We love Medicare.' Bulk-billing has gone down. It's like going out and getting bowled for a duck and saying, 'But, geez, wasn't my footwork great!' Look at the results. This government has let down the most vulnerable people in Australia with the cost of living across everything—food, energy, insurance and housing. We're here for these two weeks. We know we're here next week. We don't know if we will be back here in this parliament after that. Does the government have something up their sleeve? Their answers today were: 'This is what we've done. We're so good. We've done this. You didn't vote for it.' The same answers will come out now. They're desperately writing something new for the talking points. They'll say: 'Under the previous government inflation was so high. It was six per cent when we came in.' It was 9.4 per cent on average in the OECD. We were one-third lower than the average OECD inflation when this government took over. It's stayed higher and for longer because they can't help spending taxpayers' money. They spent $600 million on the Voice because that was their No. 1 priority for the first year and a half—not inflation and not the people that elected them. Virtue signalling has been the cornerstone of this government, not helping people. Sooner or later, the woke around the world have been realising reality hits you in the face, and it hits hard and it hits the people that put you there. They will be walking into booths within the next two or three months and they'll be thinking about one thing: did you deliver? Deep in your hearts, no matter what you say, you know you haven't delivered for them and we know they won't deliver for you. 15:26 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to talk about our government's record on the cost of living. I'm always going to remind the Australian people that those opposite opposed every single measure that our government has delivered when it comes to the cost of living. Of course, the Australian people also know that when we came to government, inflation had a six in front of it and now it has a two in front of it. Wages are up and unemployment is down, and our government has created more jobs than any other government in a single term. We know that people are doing it tough. We know that the cost of living is a priority. That is why we are working incredibly hard to deliver these measures. All of these measures, the opposition opposed. They don't have any of their own policies, but they've opposed every single one of ours. The senator from New South Wales says that these measures didn't work. Well, tell that to taxpayers who received a tax cut. That was opposed by those opposite. They wanted to call an election to stop it. But our government delivered a tax cut to every single taxpayer. Cheaper medicines are delivering cost-of-living relief. The senator from New South Wales said that this is a waste of money and something that doesn't help anyone. Well, in the electorate of Leichhardt alone, people have saved $6 million from cheaper medicines and cheaper scripts. It's over $1 billion nationally. The urgent care clinics are something else that we've delivered to deal with the cost of living. There have been 17,000 presentations alone at the Cairns South urgent care clinic. But the senators opposite say these measures didn't work and that's why they opposed them. We have cheaper child care and fee-free TAFE. We've had 100,000 enrolments in fee-free TAFE. I've personally met nurses who are now graduating and taking up jobs as nurses in regional Queensland because of fee-free TAFE. They say that they wouldn't have taken up that role if it weren't for fee-free TAFE. We've delivered energy bill relief, something that those opposite opposed. Not only did they oppose these policies, they've said that they're a waste and they will cut them. That is the choice at this election: more cost-of-living relief under our government or a government led by Peter Dutton, who will make savage cuts to things like Medicare, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and energy bill relief if he ever gets the chance. He will make energy costs more expensive if he has the chance to do that. If they care about cheaper energy, why are they pursuing a policy of the most expensive energy available? We know that energy costs are a real concern for people in this country. That's why we are delivering more renewable energy than ever before. It is the cheapest form of energy. When those opposite ask questions and talk about cheaper energy, why are they then pursuing a policy of the most expensive form of energy available? Their $600 billion risky nuclear plan is so expensive they are unable to explain to the Australian people how they will pay for it. The only way they can possibly pay for a $600 billion nuclear plan is to make cuts to the things we love, like Medicare. It will also increase costs. We know this. It's the most expensive form of energy. While those opposite are debating about energy bill relief and opposing the measures that we've put in place, we know that nuclear energy will make energy costs more expensive. It will add $1,200 to every single power bill every single year because it is so expensive to deliver this type of energy. Why would they support something like that? Why would they put cuts to Medicare on the line to fund something like that? As Senator Canavan revealed, it is because it's a political fix. But this is more important than politics and political fixes. We need to deliver cost-of-living measures. That's why our government has been delivering them. It's why we've got the cheapest form of energy, which we are delivering right now. It's why we've invested in cheaper medicine, cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE, energy bill relief, urgent care clinics and tax cuts for every single taxpayer, and it's why we are keeping pressure on inflation and keeping inflation down. It now has a two in front of it. When those opposite were in government, it had a six in front of it. I said they had no policies, but, with the last 10 seconds I have left, I need to mention that the only cost-of-living measure that they have announced is for taxpayers to pay for bosses to have long lunches. That is the only thing they say they will deliver to Australians to relieve the cost of living—for taxpayers to pay for bosses to have a long lunch and congratulate themselves on a good day's work. 15:31 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia When you govern, it is not what you have done that matters. What matters is the effect of what you've done. Unfortunately for Australian families and businesses, Labor is breaking international economic records for all the wrong reasons. It's breaking records for all the wrong reasons because the effect of what it is doing is damaging the prosperity of our country, damaging the livelihoods of Australian families, and damaging the livelihoods of small businesses and the sacrifices that they have been making across our country. At the election, which is now just moments away, Australians only have to ask themselves one question: are the living standards that I have enjoyed and that my family, including my grandparents, have enjoyed for decades going to go up or are they going to go down if we have another three years of Labor? The honest answer to that, peeling away all the politics, is the latter. Australian parents and grandparents can no longer guarantee that their children and their grandchildren are going to experience high standards of living—indeed, standards of living that have been the envy of the world. They cannot say to their children and grandchildren that they are guaranteed those high standards of living into the future under Labor. We know that over the past two years Australians have endured the biggest fall in living standards of any country in the developed world. What a remarkable record that Anthony Albanese and Labor take to the election, due in just moments. But, more than that, the International Monetary Fund has said that in 2025 Australia will continue to experience the highest levels of inflation of any advanced economy in the world bar one. That one country is Slovakia. I'm not even sure where it is on the map, but I'll quickly find out. So it is shameful that Labor come into the Senate chamber and that Labor go out across the electorates in Australia saying that the country can trust them because of all the things they have done when, in actual fact, in all the things they have done, they have made this nation go backwards: seven quarters of negative GDP per capita; the weakest annual growth since 1991; and one new person coming to this country every 46 seconds. What that means is that those unplanned, unmodelled immigration levels have put huge pressure on Australians looking for properties to buy and huge pressure on Australians, particularly young Australians, looking to rent. This country has been the beneficiary of strong, positive immigration for many decades, but, under this Labor government, unplanned, unmodelled immigration has made life harder for many Australians. So at this election only one question needs to be on the lips of every Australian voter: will my next three years be better under Labor? The answer to that is it can't be; it just cannot be better under Labor in the next three years because the evidence of the last 2½ years is that this country has gone backwards. The data proves it. Australian families feel it. People are talking about it in the streets. The stories are harrowing, and there is no clear pathway out of this under a Labor government. This is all from the man, Anthony Albanese, who said that things would get better under Labor. 15:36 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I too want to talk about the cost of living and the measures that this government has undertaken to address the pressures on Australians. Yes, we do keep reiterating the same messages because we are focused on continuing our legislative agenda to address the cost-of-living concerns of Australians and to build Australia's future. We are concerned about all working Australians—indeed, all Australians—and our record in parliament shows that we have been delivering. We are also really concerned about the opposition's plans that confirm there will be cuts, huge cuts, if they win the election. There are great risks for Australians in this country, particularly when the opposition won't say what these cuts will be—secret cuts to services for all Australians to the tune of $35 billion. I can't see how you wouldn't be worse off in the future when $35 billion is going to be cut from services to Australians. We are taking the opposite approach. We know Australians are doing it tough, which is why we have been doing and will continue to do whatever we can to help deal with the cost of living. The list of things—and Senator Green talked about some of them—is so long that I don't have time to go through them all, but here are just some. We made sure every taxpayer got a tax cut and every household got energy bill relief. People have access to cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, a stronger Medicare and free TAFE, and we will cut HECS debt for students by 20 per cent. Our primary focus is to continue working on easing the cost of living. We also need to remember that when we came to government inflation was high and rising, real wages were falling, living standards were declining and people were going backwards. We had a $78 billion deficit and turned it around to a $22 billion surplus—and then backed it up with a second surplus. Under this Labor government, inflation is now almost one-third of what it was at the time of the last election, and it's falling. Real wages are growing again, living standards are rising again, and we have recorded the lowest average unemployment rate for any government in 50 years. For people to survive and have their cost of living met, they need a job. We have created more than 1.1 million jobs in this term of government, the most jobs created on record in any parliamentary term. If that is not helping to address the cost of living, then I don't know what is. Our economic plan is all about helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. The Leader of the Opposition led the coalition to vote against a number of these measures. We know that Australians would be worse off right now if the coalition had their way. This government cares about workers. As I said, to have a job means you can look after yourself and your family and can keep up with the cost of living. We have seen early childhood educators' wages go up 15 per cent—10 per cent in December last year and another five per cent in December this year. The minimum wage has gone up nearly $150 a week in this term of government. Millions and millions of workers are better off by $150 a week with the minimum wage increases that those opposite opposed. Real wages have gone up for all workers for four quarters in a row, and the gender pay gap is at an historic low. There have been wage rises for aged-care workers, and I think the focus of this government on women's economic contribution to our community by introducing all of those measures is a key driver in ensuring that the cost of living continues to be addressed for Australian families. We've also introduced cheaper medicines and urgent care clinics so that, when people are faced with the difficult decision of where they need to go, they do not need a credit card; they just need a Medicare card. 15:42 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The sad reality is the Labor Party are in no position to lecture anyone about what is best for energy policy in this country, what is best to help people with the cost of living, because they've had their chance. The Australian people gave them their faith and trust three years ago, and that faith and trust included the promise to cut energy bills for all Australians. The Labor Party put a number on it; they said they'd cut energy costs by $275 per bill. They said it would be easier, that they would help to lower the cost of living. They've had a relatively compliant Senate; they've been able to get the vast majority of their legislation through. They say they got all this cost-of-living stuff through. Well, the question has to be asked: if they got it all through—they say we opposed some of it, but, regardless, they got it through—why is it that, after all their actions, Australia has had the largest drop in standard of living in the developed world? No other place in the developed world has been smashed like Australia has in the past three years, as we've gotten out of COVID. It's only this country that has suffered that. The people responsible obviously have to be those people in power. They are simply in no position to criticise other people's energy policies. They lost that authority because of their record. You can tell right now that they're barely even defending that record. In question time, we asked about the Labor Party's record on power prices, on energy policy and on the cost of living, as you would as the opposition. Immediately, the ministers would pivot to criticise the polices and plans of the opposition. There was no attempt at all to defend the record of their own policies and what they've done for Australians. It shows the shallow platform upon which the Labor Party are asking the Australian people, against all of the evidence, to give them their faith and trust again. We saw evidence of this just a couple of weeks ago. The Prime Minister, just after Australia Day, was quoted as saying that his party has done 'all we can to encourage a rate cut'. As I say, we've had the highest inflation rate in the developed world. We've had the biggest drop in the standard of living in the developed world, and the Labor Prime Minister says he's done all he can. He's washed his hands. 'Good luck, Australians. You're on your own now.' We'll see how we go with the Reserve Bank in a couple of weeks time. This Prime Minister is out of ideas and out of a plan. It raises the question why the Prime Minister is standing for re-election. Why is he asking to have another go, if he's already done all he can and he has no other plans in the locker to develop? I think Australians deserve better, because we have such a great country. We have so many natural resources. We just have to unlock them. Now, I'd like to unlock all of them. I've been very transparent and upfront about that. And lots of my friends and colleagues on the other side like to watch and listen to everything I have to say. I just wish they acted upon it. But we just have to open up our resources. At the election, there'll be one side—the side of failure, the side that have failed on their promises in the last few years—who are saying, 'We're only going to use our solar and wind resources.' They've stopped talking about hydrogen. They used to talk about hydrogen, too, but that's been a complete and utter failure, and they're too embarrassed to even mention it now. So they're only going to use solar and wind. That's it. They're restricted to that. We'll have a plan. We're saying that we need to use, yes, solar and wind; we need to use our gas; we need to continue our coal-fired power stations, and we need to use our uranium reserves, too, because we've locked those up. Twenty or 30 years ago it didn't matter that much, because we had so many coal-fired power stations running, but right now we need to open up more resources. It is a very simple equation. If you want to have lower energy prices, you need to have more supply of energy. And the more energy we open up—the more nuclear, the more coal, the more gas, the more solar and wind; I've got nothing against solar and wind, in the right places, as long as it doesn't destroy the environment—the more of it we build, the lower our power prices will be, the more chance we'll have to save what is left of our manufacturing industry and the lower the cost of living will be for all Australians, and we we'll finally have some relief. Right now we have to make decisions that are going to put our country in a strong position to navigate the uncertain times that are occurring around the world. Unless we reform and change course, we're going to be a weaker and poorer nation, which is the trajectory we've been on under this government. Question agreed to. United States of America 71 15:47 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice Senator Faruqi asked today relating to the Trump administration. It is remarkable. Sometimes there are moments when you're looking for a clear statement of principle from the Prime Minister, from the defence minister and from the foreign minister, and three times in less than a week Labor has comprehensively failed on that. And that was in response to the appalling proposals by Donald Trump—first of all, to take the Panama Canal and/or Greenland by military force, which would be a gross breach of international law, the kind of action that we have rightly been condemning Russia for in Ukraine. We've seen the Prime Minister, the defence minister and the foreign minister condemning, rightly, the threat and then the actual invasion of Ukraine by Russia—dead right. But, when Donald Trump threatened to invade Panama and threatened to invade Greenland using military force and defence minister Marles was asked about it, what did he say? He said that he loved Trump, and he wanted to work with Trump and Trump was a great bloke. In a two-minute waffle, he could not once come out and say: 'No, that's absolutely bloody crazy! There's no way we would join with the United States to engage in yet another illegal war, contrary to international law, contrary to our policies—never.' Why couldn't he bring himself to say that? Because he's like a little poodle sitting there begging at the door, hoping for maybe a handful of nuclear subs at some point. Then we have the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was asked squarely about the most recent appalling statement by Donald Trump. In this case, it was Donald Trump threatening to engage in ethnic cleansing of Gaza and a US military assault on Gaza—to use US troops to ethnically cleanse Gaza and turn it into a real estate opportunity. When the Prime Minister was asked that question squarely, what did he say? He said, 'I'm not going to comment; I'm not going to run a day-to-day commentary on threats to do ethnic cleansing and illegal invasions.' He absolutely refused to make a statement. Again, what are they so scared of—being seen to have some kind of principles? When exactly the same question is put to the foreign minister here by Senator Faruqi, we get the same nonanswer: some waffle about the two-state solution and a refusal to do what Labor know they should do, what millions of Australians expect them to do and what Palestinians in this country and around the world expect them to do, which is to condemn threats of ethnic cleansing, condemn the threat of another illegal war and refuse to follow the United States into the next illegal war. 15:50 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Yesterday, President Trump talked about the Palestinian people as though they were a real estate deal. He talked about the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip as though they were simply individuals he could clear away to make a buck for himself, carelessly and disgustingly calling for ethnic cleansing, the US occupation of the Gaza Strip and the wholesale violation of international law. Trump has begun his presidency with a string of incredibly harmful declarations. The things that he and his administration have done in the first two weeks of office include beginning to carry out mass deportations and setting quotas for immigration officials that have swept up those seeking asylum, legal immigrants and maybe American citizens. He has announced his intention to open up a mass detention facility for those seeking asylum. Where? At Guantanamo Bay, a place synonymous with the American history of torture and cruelty. To place it there is no accident. He has blamed the tragic loss of 67 lives that occurred because of an air collision between a helicopter and American Airlines Flight 5342 on diversity, equity and inclusion. He has withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization, ensuring that one of the largest countries and healthcare systems in the world will not be sharing information on epidemic outbreaks, infectious diseases and global health emergencies. This is who the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition want to hitch Australia to for the next 50 years with the AUKUS agreement. They want Australia to go in lockstep with a government that is actively promoting ethnic cleansing and genocide. We need to make sure that Trumpism cannot take root here in Australia, by tackling the causes of its existence: the hate, the fear and the desperation that people feel. We need to leave the AUKUS agreement once and for all. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 72 CONDOLENCES Hodges, Hon. John Charles 72 15:53 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 On Thursday 28 November 2024, the Senate was informed of the death, on 14 November 2024, of the Hon. John Charles Hodges, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Petrie, Queensland, from 1974 to 1983 and 1984 to 1987. 15:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 14 November 2024, of the Honourable John Charles Hodges, former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and former member for Petrie, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of former minister and member of the House the Hon. John Charles Hodges, who passed away on 14 November 2024 at the age of 87. As I begin, I firstly convey the government's condolences to Mr Hodges's family and friends. I do so as the minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in this chamber, recognising the portfolio held by Mr Hodges, but I also do so as a fellow Queenslander. Born in Brisbane in 1937 and raised in Cooktown in Far North Queensland, John Hodges studied to become a pharmacist, in a move that would form the foundation of not just his career in politics but his life's work in community service. Mr Hodges returned to Brisbane to complete his studies, and, after serving as a pharmacist, he began his political career on the Redcliffe City Council, where he eventually served as deputy mayor. He followed on to serve as campaign director for Nelson Cooke in the 1972 federal election and went on to replace him at the next election as the new Liberal member for Petrie in 1974. Successful in his move to federal politics, Mr Hodges went on to serve the division of Petrie, mostly uninterrupted, for over 11 years. John Hodges was re-elected in 1975, 1977 and 1980 but was defeated at the general election in 1983 by the incoming Hawke government. This would only be a short defeat, as he regained the seat after just one term, in 1984. He would hold this seat until 1987. During his time in federal politics, Mr Hodges served on several committees and was for a time the deputy whip in the House of Representatives. However, his defining legacy would be his brief yet impactful appointment as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in 1982 under the Fraser government. Mr Hodges stated: Immigration is an important catalyst in Australia's continuing development. It is to the credit of the Australian-born and to newcomers alike that we continue to share fundamental values of national unity and equal opportunity for all. While Mr Hodges and I shared differing opinions on many issues across the political spectrum, this statement rings true today and speaks to the type of man he was. Mr Hodges was a man of integrity who believed in fairness and the importance of reward for good, honest hard work. As a minister in the Fraser government, he sought to address labour shortages through skilled migration and introduced reforms to the migration system. This included overseeing the introduction of freedom of information laws in the migration system, a significant reform that afforded greater transparency and accountability in Australia's immigration system. Following Mr Hodges's retirement from politics, he returned to his professional roots and, with his wife, purchased a pharmacy on Bribie Island to continue his service to the community in perhaps a more personal way, and worked to eventually own or part-own four of the five pharmacies on the island. For 30 years Mr Hodges was known as a dear friend to the community in Bribie, becoming the founding patron for the Bribie Island Diabetes Support Group, of which he was named an honorary life patron after 22 years in the role. He was also generous in his support for local groups, sports clubs and schools in the Bribie community and always willing to lend his support to those in need. Today we acknowledge that generosity of spirit and celebrate the life and achievements of the Hon. John Charles Hodges. The government expresses its condolences following his passing, and we again convey our sympathies to his family and those who knew him well. 15:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the condolence motion. The Hon. John Charles Hodges rose to be a minister in the Fraser Liberal government in 1982, but, in many ways, it was his involvement in and contributions to his local community that he will be best remembered for. In fact, I suspect it was that connection to his community that he would have been most proud of. John was a politician who never forgot where he came from or the people who put him there; that, of course, was the voters in his electorate of Petrie on the northern outskirts of Brisbane. He was born in Brisbane on 3 October 1937 but was actually raised in Cooktown in Far North Queensland. John was educated in Cooktown and Cairns and undertook a pharmacy apprenticeship after finishing school. Qualifying as a pharmacist in 1958, he pursued what he described as 'a very noble profession'. But pharmacy was more than just a profession for John; it was quite literally a labour of love. John, in fact, married fellow pharmacist Margaret in 1962. While caring for his community by preparing medicines for them, John developed his interest in politics. No doubt this was fostered in his early years in Cooktown by his father, who was chair of the Cook Shire Council. John jumped into local politics at the age of 29, serving on the Redcliffe City Council as an alderman for nine years, including for six years as deputy mayor. The chance for a seat in Canberra came abruptly. Four weeks prior to the 1974 election, the Liberal Party threw its support behind John to contest Petrie in favour of Nelson Marshall Cooke, for whom John had been a campaign manager. John won almost 55 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. His campaign material for that election, which was obviously highly effective, celebrated his time on the Redcliffe council and said: 'John Hodges knows how to handle the awkward, awesome problems that affect people's lives. Married with three young children, he knows the battle families fight against rising prices, taxation and interest rates.' In fact, if you jump forward to today, those are exactly the sorts of election issues this country still looks for. Coming to Canberra, he was actually six foot five and bespectacled. He had a baritone voice. When he arrived in Canberra, he joined the criticism of the Whitlam government, and he said: This Government has presided over the worst inflation, the worst unemployment, the worst industrial strife and the worst economic crisis this nation has known since Federation. …   …   … It wants to reform, yet, in doing so it wants more taxation. The prosperity of this nation cannot be sectionalised. In another speech, he said: In my opinion there is nothing more uncertain than the uncertainty of this Government. I believe that the confusion and the uncertainty is breeding growing concern in the people of Australia. No wonder the country is in economic shambles. One might ask where is the plan of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to combat inflation? John was also a champion of free enterprise and lean government. He fundamentally believed in the Liberal cause of encouraging a person to be his own master, and he called out his opponents for creating the impression that 'big brother' government will be there to look after you. Many causes were dear to John's heart. On industrial relations, he said: … there must be greater understanding by the business world and the labour force that one cannot survive without the other. He declared that we must bury the idea that businessmen are mostly out to exploit the labour force. John also cared deeply for pensioners and widows, whom he saw as falling behind under the Whitlam government, and he was proud to be part of the Fraser government, which increased the age pension. In 1982, Malcolm Fraser appointed John as his Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. John took forward his Prime Minister's multicultural agenda with energy and certitude. His fairness on family reunion was juxtaposed with firmness in cracking down on illegal immigrants and illegal workers, whom he saw as undermining the aspirations of genuine migrants and Australians. And, while recognising the benefits of a second language, John pushed back against an advocate-driven national language policy that sought to give equal status to all languages. John knew that the English language was central to our national cohesion, equality and love of country. In 1983, Bob Hawke's Labor had been swept into power in the election that followed a double dissolution. Dean Wells, the new Labor member for Petrie, got to his feet to deliver his maiden speech and said: I would like now to say a few words in honour of the gentleman who preceded me … Mr John Hodges is a man who has exerted himself with courage and conviction in both the local and the national arena. …   …   … I disagreed with my predecessor on a wide range of issues … However, I never at any time doubted the sincerity with which my opponent held the views he expressed … and I wish him well in his return to private life. Wells had taken the seat of Petrie from John Hodges by just 720 votes. But John did not return to private life for long. Just shy of 21 months later, in the timetable-correcting early election of 1984, John Hodges won back his seat from Wells by just 776 votes. John's great political comeback would not only cement Petrie as a key election battleground for decades to come; his return would culminate in more than 11 years of service to his nation at the federal level. When John's second stint in Canberra came to an end in 1987, he was a casualty of the infamous 'Joe for Canberra' campaign. But John's service didn't stop. He and Margaret went on to own or partly own four pharmacies on Bribie Island. He and Margaret owned those pharmacies on Bribie Island until 2018, when they sold up to retire to their home on the Redcliffe peninsula. John also served his community as a patron and fundraiser for charities, sports clubs and schools. He told the local newspaper: 'I don't ever recall saying no to giving any organisation financial support. It's a two-way process, as they were supporting us.' John, who was also a type 2 diabetic, was a founding patron of the Bribie Island Diabetes Support Group, and was made an honorary patron after 22 years in the role. Today we honour John Hodges' life of service and his dedication to his community and family. On behalf of the coalition, I offer my heartfelt condolences to John's colleagues, friends, family and community, and our thoughts are especially with his wife, Margaret, and children, John, Jane and Sarah. May John Hodges rest in peace. 16:07 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to contribute a few brief remarks in relation to this condolence motion, and I rise as a Queensland senator paying tribute to a great Queenslander, John Hodges, who served his community and this country with great distinction. I acknowledge John Hodges's service to this country as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as it was so called then. John Hodges understood the true meaning of multiculturalism in an Australian context. He represented the very best values of the Liberal Party in this regard, and there are those of us in this place who seek to continue his tradition. I acknowledge John Hodges's contribution to his community, his service to the community, both in local government and also as a pharmacist, especially on Bribie Island. And I acknowledge his service to the Queensland Liberal Party. As a lawyer member of that party, he contributed a great deal prior to his having the opportunity to serve in this place, in the Australian parliament. I also admire two things about John Hodges and his contribution to the Queensland Liberal Party. First, when he lost his seat in 1983, he came back and recontested it in 1984. To me, that is a sign of someone who was greatly committed to the cause, and it was a great shame that he was to lose his seat at the next election in the midst of the mad 'Joe for PM' campaign. I also would like to acknowledge the fact that, up to the end of his life, he was always a good and true supporter of the Liberal Party. Our friend and colleague in the other place, Luke Howarth, has spoken about the fact that John was always someone who would contribute to Luke's campaigning and was a source of trusted advice and guidance. It was wonderful to see that the former Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, attended John Hodges' funeral and paid the utmost of respect to John Hodges' life of service to its country, to his community and to the Liberal Party of Queensland. So I would like to associate my remarks with those of Senator Watt and Senator Cash and offer my condolences to Margaret and also to John Hodges's children and grandchildren. 16:09 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I was four days old when John Hodges was first elected, back in 1974. Notwithstanding that age difference, the generation of the 1970s who were elected to this place fighting the evils of the Gough Whitlam government directly resonate—as Senator Cash has pointed out—with the current government and the damage that it is causing to Queensland. I join Senator Cash and my friend and colleague Senator Scarr as fellow Liberal senators to acknowledge the service of John, and to associate myself with their comments. As a Queensland Liberal National Party senator, I give my condolences to John's family, friends and supporters across what is now called the Moreton Bay region, from Bribie to Redcliffe. John was such a good guy. When you met him, he had that sparkle, that joy of life that comes with someone who has worked hard but has kept true to their beliefs. He was, as Senator Cash pointed out, someone who believed in lower taxes, smaller government and the freedom of the individual. He was someone who kept that flame of Liberalism alive. As Senator Scarr pointed out in relation to the 1987 election, perhaps it was his loss of Petrie to Gary Johns, caused by the three-cornered contest between Labor, the Liberal Party and the Nationals, that led, 21 years later, to the formation of the Liberal National Party of Queensland, in which we've come together as a united conservative cause. John, as a former Liberal member, has helped and worked hard and provided counsel to countless candidates—in particular, Luke Howarth, the member for Petrie. Luke is someone who has turned the swing seat of Petrie away from being a classic battleground seat to being that bit safer, and that is partly owing to the lessons of what happened to John in his term in power that Luke has taken on board. John lived a life of service—before parliament, during parliament and after parliament. He lived a good life. He had a good family. He was surrounded by friends. To me, as a Liberal National Party senator from Queensland, he kept true to our beliefs, and for that I thank him so much. I thank his family for lending him to us. My condolences, on behalf of the Liberal National Party, go to his family. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. Tambling, Hon. Grant Ernest John, AM 75 16:13 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 24 January 2025, of the Hon. Grant Ernest John Tambling AM, a member of the House of Representatives for the Northern Territory from 1980 to 1983, and a senator for the Northern Territory from 1987 to 2001. 16:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 24 January 2025, of the Honourable Grant Ernest John Tambling AM, former member for the Northern Territory and former senator for the Northern Territory, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement. I rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences after the passing of former Northern Territory senator the Hon. Grant Ernest John Tambling AM. Grant Tambling, or Tambo as he was known, was born in Wondai, near Kingaroy, in Queensland, in 1943. His parents, Ernest Tambling and Edna Williamson, were both teachers and married in Darwin in 1941. They returned to the Top End to work after the end of World War II. Grant was named after the USS President Grant, the ship his parents were evacuated on out of Darwin to Queensland during the war. He was a student at Darwin Primary School, Darwin High School and Adelaide Boys High School. He went on to join the AMP Society as an insurance sales agent. It was during his time in Sydney that he met trainee nurse Sandra, who he went on to marry in Sydney two years later. Grant Tambling continued his career, covering Darwin, Gove and Arnhem Land, until, in his words, 'Cyclone Tracy blew away all my clients in December 1974.' He became an alderman for the Darwin city council and served from 1972 to 1974, before becoming a member of the first fully elected Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, holding the seat of Fannie Bay from 1974 to 1977. He was the leader of the NT Country Liberal Party and he served on the consultative committee on constitutional development of the Northern Territory from 1975 to 1977—a cause he strongly advocated for throughout his political career. Grant Tambling was elected to the House of Representatives on 18 October 1980. His tenure as the member for the Northern Territory lasted only one term. During that time, he focused on statehood, advancing the Northern Territory, defence and building a stronger relationship with South-East Asia. He became a casualty of the 1983 election, with a landslide Labor Party victory. Grant Tambling was next elected into the Senate on 11 July 1987, completing the rare task of having served at all three levels of government as well as both houses of the Commonwealth parliament. In his first speech to the Senate, he said, 'I will never be apologetic about being parochial in my advocacy for the Northern Territory,' remaining committed to the Northern Territory throughout his service. When the coalition returned to government in 1996, under John Howard, he served for six years as a parliamentary secretary. Grant Tambling was National Party Whip in the Senate from 1987 to 1990 and the deputy leader in the Senate from 1990 to 1993 and again from 2000 to 2001. In one of his final speeches to the Senate, Grant Tambling offered an apology to Aboriginal Territorians for not getting enough done. He said, 'There is still a hell of a long way to go,' and that, despite his 20 years of work in the area, not enough had been achieved. After politics, Grant Tambling continued community service. He was appointed administrator of Norfolk Island from 2003 to 2007. After his retirement as administrator, he returned to Darwin and worked with the Northern Territory's Development Consent Authority, a body with planning responsibilities for the City of Darwin Council. He was honoured during Australia Day in 2011, being made a Member of Order of Australia for his service to the parliament of Australia, to the community of Norfolk Island, and to the Northern Territory through contributions to local, state and federal government. Grant Tambling was a strong advocate for the Northern Territory. We pass on our condolences and we again convey our sympathies to his family, including his wife, Sandy, son, Coryn and daughter, Amalia. 16:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on this condolence motion. Many words can be used to describe Grant Tambling, but two that immediately come to mind are commitment and conviction—commitment to the service of the public over a long career and conviction to political beliefs. Grant Ernest John Tambling was born in Wondai, near Kingaroy, in Queensland, on 20 June 1943, and he was the eldest of three children. His parents, Ernest 'Tam' Tambling and Edna Williamson, were school teachers who were married in Darwin in 1941. The couple returned to Darwin to work after the Second World War. Grant himself was named after the USS President Grant, the US Navy transport ship used to evacuate his parents out of Darwin to Queensland during World War II. Grant attended Darwin Primary School, Darwin High School and, finally, Adelaide Boys' High School. After matriculating, Grant returned to Darwin in 1960 to study accounting. Later he moved to Sydney for three years to join the AMP Society as an insurance sales agent. Whilst in Sydney, he met trainee nurse Sandra McDowall. The couple were married in 1969 and moved back to the Northern Territory. Back in the Territory, Grant continued to work with the AMP covering Darwin, Arnhem Land and Gove. Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin on Christmas Eve 1974, and, as we know, that changed the course of life for so many Territorians. Grant's interest in public life had already begun before Cyclone Tracy. He served as alderman with Darwin City Council from 1972 to 1974, before being elected to the seat of Fannie Bay in the first ever Northern Territory Legislative Assembly from 1974. After serving at those two levels of government, he would go on to represent the Territory in both the House of Representatives and the Australian Senate. Grant was, in fact, a founding member of the NT Country Liberal Party and was the deputy leader of the party in the early years after its formation. He was elected to the House of Representatives as the member for the Northern Territory in 1980. Grant was a fierce advocate for the Northern Territory during his time as a backbencher. In fact, in his maiden speech, Grant said: … it is necessary to challenge the Government and the Parliament on many of its attitudes to the Northern Territory. He challenged those Australians who stereotyped the people of the Northern Territory, pointing out: Our Northern Territory community now comprises people of 40 different nationalities, including many descendants of the Chinese who came to the Territory as labourers, miners and merchants in the years after the gold rushes in the early 1870s. As well 30 per cent of Australia's tribal Aboriginals, some 25,000 in all, the majority living on their own tribal lands granted to them under Commonwealth statute, are determining their futures as Aboriginal Australians. Grant advocated for the rights of Indigenous Australians but also preached personal responsibility. He said: Aboriginals are, firstly, Australians with the same rights, privileges, opportunities, accountability and responsibilities as all other Australians. He said that in his maiden speech. After serving one term as a backbencher in the Fraser government, Grant lost his seat at the 1983 election, which saw, of course, Bob Hawke elected as Prime Minister. He spent the next four years running a newspaper in the Darwin suburb of Parap and serving as the Deputy Chairman of the Northern Territory Planning Authority. But, in 1987, he was returned to Canberra by voters as a senator for the Northern Territory. He held his seat in the Senate from 1987 to 2001 when he retired with the expiration of his term. As a Northern Territory senator, he was re-elected in 1990, 1993, 1996 and 1998. His Senate service combined with his service in the House of Representatives meant that he had served in federal parliament for a total of 16 years, eight months and 22 days. Grant was appointed to various shadow ministries while in opposition, including regional development, external territories, northern Australia, community services and public housing. When the Howard government was elected to office in 1996, he was made Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development and later served as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Security and then to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Grant served as National Party Whip in the Senate and Deputy Leader of the National Party in the Senate during his time. Grant was renowned as—and I have mentioned the word 'conviction' earlier, but there was no doubt Grant was—a conviction politician and, indeed, he was a true champion of Territory rights. After politics, he was Norfolk Island administrator from November 2003 to September 2007. Grant is survived by his wife, Sandy; son, Coryn; daughter, Amalia; and grandchildren, Reuben, Hamish and Castiella. On behalf of the coalition, I offer my heartfelt condolences to Grant's family, colleagues, friends and community. Our thoughts are especially with his wife, Sandy, and his children and grandchildren. May Grant Tambling rest in peace. 16:25 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria As Leader of the National Party in the Senate, I rise to join all senators and, indeed, former Senate leaders Nigel Scullion and Ron Boswell in giving this condolence speech about Grant 'Tambo' Tambling, particularly on behalf of National Party senators, honouring and acknowledging his life and service and, as we like to know him, Tambo. He was a distinguished servant of the Northern Territory and the Australian parliament. He was the eldest of three children, born in Queensland on 20 June 1943, and he was named after the USS President Grant, which was used to evacuate his parents out of Darwin to Queensland during World War II. His parents, both school teachers, had married in Darwin in 1941 and returned there in 1946 after his father served in the war. Despite a brief stint in Sydney, where he met his wife, Sandy, he lived most of his life in the Territory. He was fiercely loyal and proud to be a Territorian. Tambo was a man of conviction and dedication and had an unrelenting passion for the people he represented. Over the course of his long and distinguished career, he made a significant and lasting contribution to the advancement of the Northern Territory, the strength of regional Australia and the cause of the National Party and the Country Liberal Party. His parliamentary career spanned over three decades and he served at all four levels of government, serving as an alderman with the Darwin City Council from 1972 to 1974, before being elected to the seat of Fannie Bay in the first-ever Territory assembly in 1974. He then served as the member for the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives for three years, and later as a senator for the Northern Territory from 1987 to 2001. After politics, he was appointed Norfolk Island administrator from 2003 to 2007 during the Howard-Anderson-Vaile government. He also served as National Party Whip, a time-honoured tradition, it would seem, for National Party senators, and Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate for a number of years, and, after the 1996 election, he was appointed as parliamentary secretary for six years. Paul Davey, Senator Davey's late father, who wrote the book on the National Party, talked about Tambo, saying: Tambling's tenure as Member for the Northern Territory lasted only one term, but helped to shape his main political interests: Aboriginal advancement, statehood and further development for the Northern Territory, defence, and closer links with South-East Asia, particularly Indonesia. These are Paul Davey's words: 'Round-faced and jovial, Tambling was a tenacious character who preferred to resolve issues by negotiation rather than confrontation, but who was not afraid to mix it with the best in all political forums and stand firm on his beliefs.' It seems like that is a template for Territorian senators who serve in the National Party party room. His work in public life was instrumental in shaping the Northern Territory's policy landscape, particularly in regional development, Indigenous affairs and health. Across both chambers, he carried with him a fierce determination to see the Territory thrive economically, socially and politically. He was a dedicated champion for better services and opportunities for Indigenous Australians—a cause to which he committed himself with sincerity and purpose. His leadership as the Administrator of Norfolk Island reflected his enduring belief in the power of strong, community-driven governance. Throughout his parliamentary career, he was a strong advocate of federal initiatives such as the joint defence facility at Pine Gap, the construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin leg of the north-south railway and the expansion of mining, including uranium. In his first speech in the House of Representatives, he made several observations that are as relevant today as they were in 1980, when he made them. Firstly, he said: The electorate of the Northern Territory may be short on population but it is not lacking in importance to the nation or in natural resources. …   …   … It is impossible for honourable members, without personal knowledge, to appreciate the value to the Commonwealth of the vast area of country which I now represent, or to visualise its immense possibilities. How true those words are. The Northern Territory continues to be essential to the prosperity of our nation and still has vast possibilities if it's given the chance to succeed. Secondly, he said: The ALP's policies on uranium are negative and useless. Senator Farrell, it's great to see you in the chamber for this condolence, because it would seem that former senator Tambling's words are as true today, unfortunately for your political party, as they were when he made them. Thirty-four years later, nothing has changed. The passing of Grant Tambling is a great loss, not only to those who knew him personally but to the broader political and public policy community. His service to this nation, particularly the people of the Northern Territory, leaves a lasting legacy that will be remembered with great respect. I know his family should be very proud of the contribution he made on behalf of his community; his political party, the CLP, and the National Party; and, indeed, the Australian people. On behalf of the Nationals in the Senate, I extend my deepest sympathy to his wife, Sandy; his son, Coryn; his daughter, Amalia; and his grandchildren, Reuben, Hamish and Castiella; his friends; and all of those who had the great privilege to work alongside him. Vale, Grant Tambling. 16:32 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory On behalf of the Country Liberal Party of the Northern Territory, I would like to honour and pay my respects to Mr Grant Tambling. Mr Tambling was a well-loved and popular man. He served our nation of Australia faithfully and tirelessly. He left no level of government untouched, serving in local government and then both Territory and Commonwealth parliaments. To every position he held, he gave himself wholeheartedly. Mr Tambling began his time in government as a member of the Darwin City Council from 1972 until 1974. He then moved to the Northern Territory parliament, where he served in a variety of capacities, including multiple ministerial positions, from 1974 to 1977. A few short years later, in 1980, he was elected to the House of Representatives in this parliament, albeit down the road at Old Parliament House, where he was required to share an office with three other MPs. Despite being defeated in 1983, he returned to federal politics in 1987 as a senator for the Northern Territory. He was subsequently re-elected to that position four times before retiring at the end of his term in 2001. Holding the trust of the Territory to represent them in this House for that long is a testament to the respect he enjoyed. As a senator for the Northern Territory myself, I know its size can make it a challenging place to get around, but Tambling's devotion to his community saw him travel all across the Territory, always ensuring he was on top of the issues that mattered to those on the ground. His desire to see Indigenous Australians treated equally, as any other Australian, resonates with the reasons that spurred me on to have a career in politics. Tambling was a man who championed the cause of Indigenous Australians and was not afraid to say things how he saw them. He highlighted problematic aspects of Indigenous land rights legislation and called on the government to review it. He also offered a sober warning against what he perceived to be the manipulation of Indigenous Australians for political purposes, things which we can learn a lot from to this day. Aside from Indigenous affairs, Tambling was also an advocate for efficient government. He wasn't afraid to call out government waste and used his time in estimates to do just that. All of this was ultimately because he loved his home of the Territory and the nation of Australia. Tambling's life and service demonstrated his dedication to his home of the Territory and the nation of Australia without exception. We honour his life today and remember his contribution to our country. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. BUDGET 78 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 78 16:35 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates: Budget estimates 2023-24 (Supplementary)—Economics Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information. Additional estimates 2023-24—Economics Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information. Budget estimates 2024-25— Economics Legislation Committee—Additional information— Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. Treasury portfolio. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information— Defence portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Education and Employment Legislation Committee 78 Additional Information 78 16:36 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator Sheldon, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill 2024. Human Rights Joint Committee 79 Report 79 16:36 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of 2025. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 79 Report 79 16:36 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia As Chair of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the National Broadband Network Companies Amendment (Commitment to Public Ownership) Bill 2024, together with accompanying documents. Economics References Committee 79 Report 79 16:40 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise to speak on the Economics References Committee report Australia's taxation system. I thank the people who made submissions about the need to overhaul Australia's tax system. It's been one of the great frustrations of my time in this parliament that the two major parties do not want to talk about tax in this country. Our tax act is killing us. I have to laugh because everyone is jumping up and down this week about Trump's tariffs. We actually have reverse tariffs in this country that punish Australian industry. If you make a dollar of profit in this country, you pay 30c on that dollar of profit. Yet if you set up an overseas company, or you are a subsidiary of an overseas company, you can shift your profits offshore—interest, royalties, rent, management fees, insurance fees, whatever—and you will get a tax deduction of 30c here, and, depending on the tax treaty, you will pay no more than between zero cents and 15c. It is a reverse tariff. If you keep your profits here in Australia, you pay 30c in the dollar. On the other hand, we have sections in the tax act that encourage foreign investment in this country to the extent that foreign companies pay no tax on their income earned in this country. Section 128F of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 covers the public offer test. All that money that Australians pay on interest, all that interest earned by foreign banks as Australians pay their mortgages, and maybe 40 per cent of Australia's mortgages are funded by overseas debt—all that interest that goes offshore does so tax free. Think about it: if you're an Australian pensioner or any Australian that earns interest income on a bank account, you will pay tax. Yet foreign banks that lend into this country, that control you through that debt, don't have to pay any tax provided they meet the conditions in section 128F of the 1936 tax act. Division 855 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 says foreigners don't have to pay capital gains tax on the sale of shares if they own less than 10 per cent of a company. If I make a profit or if Senator Tyrrell makes a profit, capital gains on the sale of shares, we pay tax. All Australians—all you people out there—pay capital gains tax on any capital gains they make on the sale of shares. Yet we have an explicit section in the tax act that says it's okay if you're a foreigner; you don't have to pay any tax. Guess what? If you buy property in this country, a real asset, you have to pay stamp duty. If you're a farmer and you buy a farm, you pay stamp duty. If you buy a house, you pay stamp duty. If you buy commercial land, you pay stamp duty. But if you're a foreigner—or an Australian, actually—you don't have to pay stamp duty on buying shares. Why is it that people who want to speculate on the stock market don't have to pay stamp duty, yet other people who do real productive labour out there in the real world pay stamp duty? One of the big mistakes we made when we brought in the GST in this country was that the state premiers were allowed to abolish stamp duty on share trading—but they didn't abolish payroll tax. You want to know why we've got a productivity crisis in this country? It is because we tax the wrong things. I call out the teals for wanting to lift the GST. No, we do not need to lift the GST in this country; we need to abolish the GST in this country, because the PAYG system and the BAS returns are killing Australian businesses. When I was offered partnership at an accounting firm back in the nineties, the margins we were going to make, had I stayed around or went overseas, would have been 50c in the dollar. When I came back 25 years later the margins were less than 20c. Why? Because today you've got to do four BAS returns a year, you've got to do your division 7A loans and you've got to do FBT returns. I was speaking to the wonderful ladies from the Isolated Children's Fund yesterday. It turns out that, if a boarding school pays the people that look after the children and live on site, if they are allowed to have their own little cottage off to the side, they have to pay fringe benefits tax. That is absurd. That is just one of the many examples in this country. Take franking credits. Why not get rid of franking credits altogether, lower the company tax rate and increase the offshore tax rate so it actually penalises people who shift profits offshore? We encourage people here to keep their companies, when they earn profits, onshore. It is absolutely crazy what we do with our system. And, by the way, I just got a reply from the tax office today. There is $482 billion in franking accounts out there that the federal government has to refund. If you think our federal debt is big at almost a trillion dollars, you can add another $482 billion in franking credits onto that. Question agreed to. Community Affairs References Committee 80 Government Response to Report 80 16:45 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Could I clarify whether the government's response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report Assessment andsupport services for people with ADHD is still on the Notice Paper. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 What you're asking for is not on the Notice Paper. However, you can seek leave, and then it will be up to the Senate as to whether you're granted leave to speak on it. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 I seek leave to take note of the government's response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report Assessment and support services for people with ADHD. Leave granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. And I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 80 DOCUMENTS Department of Defence 80 16:49 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise today to discuss the Department of Defence annual report 2023-24 and the subsequent committee inquiry. The report included five key themes, with the first theme focusing on Australia's assistance to Ukraine. It's important to note this month, on 24 February, is the three-year anniversary of Russia's unlawful and brutal invasion of Ukraine. For 1,078 days, Ukraine has stood resilient and pushed back in defence of their sovereignty and of global democracy. As a democratic nation that always stands up with other nations that face an existential threat to their very being, we have stood up and supported them and supported democracy. But I'm afraid that Australia, like many other nations, is doing just enough so that Ukraine doesn't lose, but also doesn't win the war. There are five recommendations from the report on Australia's assistance to Ukraine: (1) that the Australian government continue providing military assistance to Ukraine while exploring additional opportunities to encourage and support Australian industry and institutions to further contribute to the support effort; (2) Defence publishes a statement on its internal policy approach to Ukraine; (3) the Australian government establish a whole-of-government mechanism, a one-stop shop, potentially within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; (4) the Australian government review any legislation, regulations or policies that govern decisions around the placement of diplomatic personnel in high-risk locations; and (5) the Australian government reopen, finally, the Australian embassy in Ukraine, with a permanent military attache alongside it as soon as possible. So the first thing I would do is call on this government to provide a report back to this place on the progress and the timeline for each of the five recommendations. This ongoing war of aggression is a stark reminder of how fragile democracies can be, and how vital it is for Australia to do all it can to help others fight their wars, because, if we were in their shoes, we would absolutely want and expect other nations to help us defeat tyranny. Late last year I hosted a briefing with His Excellency the Ambassador of Ukraine and Dr Yuriy Scherbak, an adviser to Ukraine's ministry for strategic industries. I did that as a co-chair of the parliamentary friendship group of Ukraine. They highlighted the urgent need for further support to fight back against Russia. Australia ranks 35th out of 41. How pathetic is that? We are 35th out of 41 donors on the German Kiel Institute Ukraine support index, which ranks the aid given by donors to Ukraine. This is a sad indictment on this government. Not only are we 35th out of 41 donors but the materiel provided to Ukraine has that whiff of being the old junk out of the cupboard we no longer want, and it's certainly not what Ukraine have consistently said to us that they need. One of the things that the Ukraine government and the ambassador here have said consistently for nearly 18 months is that the main assistance they want from Australia is help with their communications, which is a huge issue. Twenty-five per cent of Ukrainian fixed networks have been damaged, and over 4,300 base mobile connection stations have either been destroyed or damaged. This is something that Australia can contribute to which will make a huge impact on Ukraine, not only on the battlefront but also in towns that have been cut off, not just now but also when reconstructing. The system that the Ukraine government has requested on more than one occasion from Australia is actually an Australian product. They need 50 of the Citech NEXUS 16 systems, which are manufactured in Western Australia. These systems are important not only for communications on the battlefield but for the recovery of communities back to properly functioning societies. So we must consider, and I urge the government to consider, this request, with the additional funding that's been announced, to back in Australian industries to provide Ukraine with what they have asked. Debate adjourned. Consideration 81 COMMITTEES 81 COMMITTEES Finance and Public Administration References Committee 81 Report 81 16:54 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to take note of committee report No. 52 from the Finance and Public Administration Reference Committee, Management and assurance of integrity by consulting services, on an inquiry I initiated into the big four two years back. That inquiry generated shared outrage across us all here in the chamber. We were outraged at the monetisation by PwC of confidential government tax information to help some of the world's largest multinationals avoid tax. We were outraged at the aggressive 'land and expand' tactics and the contract extensions of the big four, the superprofitable revolving door between government and consultancies, the deliberately cultivated conflicts of interest, the cheating on ethics exams and the payment of public dollars for poor, incomplete or no work at all. And that's just the start. This report set out the sins of these rorters in a rolled gold internationally significant case study of the big consultancy con. Sadly, however, the recommendations authored by the big parties in this report are pathetic. They squibbed it. The recommendations, just 12 of them, are shamefully weak—'reviews', 'guidelines', 'training'. It's straight out of the 'lots of words but no change' playbook. We need deep systemic change. Our comprehensive Greens recommendations set that out. Labor's weak response to this inquiry leaves the big four intact and unpunished. Outrage is not enough; we need action. What about the coalition? Where have they landed? The coalition are straight back to replenishing these consultants' trough. They want to cut the public sector by 36,000 jobs and refill the consultants' coffers. These are coffers that received $20.8 billion in consultant, labour hire and private sector contracts in the last year of the Morrison government. That is the world that Peter Dutton wants to take us back to—fewer jobs for Australians and big bucks for the big four and the big end of town. He is taking notes from Trump's America. Peter Dutton is drawing strength from Trump's dark, Voldemort shadow. Of all things, he has complimented Trump today for his 'big thinking'. A Dutton government promises, in Senator Cash's words this week, exactly the same attitude as Trump—a massive cut to public sector services and the return of overpriced, underperforming, conflicted consulting and labour hire firms, doing the jobs of public servants at three times the price. We see in real time every day right now Trump modelling our future under a Dutton coalition government, and it is a horrific prospect. In the last couple of days Trump has cheered on Elon Musk, who has shut down whole agencies, like USAID, sacking tens of thousands of workers overnight and cutting $40 billion in foreign assistance without any congressional authority. Robert Reich, the former US Secretary of Labor and adviser to three previous US administrations, called what we are seeing in the US a coup—a coup! He points to the irony of the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, almost single-handedly destroying an aid agency designed to help the world's poorest people, all to fuel huge tax cuts for that very rich man and his billionaire mates and big corporations. It's a dangerous, destructive coup that is costing thousands of families their livelihoods and costing food and help for the world's poorest. These cuts shut down 43 per cent of the world's humanitarian aid. This cuts off access to water, sanitation, health care, disaster relief, shelter and food in places like Ethiopia, South Sudan and the Asia-Pacific. This is the world that Mr Dutton wants to mimic, Trump's world of disdain for humanity and for the services that we need. He wants to mimic Trump's swap of public servants for consultants, labour hire and rampant profiteers. We say no. We say no to Dutton's Trumpian attack on our Public Service and workers and to his servile admiration for Trump's appalling— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Pocock, please refer to people in the other place by their correct title. Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ Mr Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, will mimic Trump's swap of public servants for consultants, labour hire and rampant profiteers. We say no to Mr Dutton's Trumpian attack on our Public Service and workers and to the admiration for Trump's appalling 'big thinking' and we say yes to the major parties showing some backbone and taking real action on consultancy and labour hire rorts in response to the consultancy disaster that this chamber witnessed over the last two years. Question agreed to. Consideration 82 DOCUMENTS 82 DOCUMENTS Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Department of the Treasury 82 Order for the Production of Documents 82 17:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Cbus super fund inquiry and the board of Housing Australia. MOTIONS 82 MOTIONS Parliament 82 17:00 Senator 283596 Queensland RENNICK () (): I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, despite being the cause of Australia's cost of living, energy, housing and immigration crises, neither the Labor Party or the Coalition have the courage or the solutions to address these problems, preferring to distract from their incompetence by engaging in juvenile behaviour by attacking each other over issues that are of little significance to the Australian people. It gives me great pleasure today to be able to speak to this motion because, after almost six years in this place, I'm incredibly frustrated at the lack of seriousness that the two major parties take when it comes to dealing with significant issues that concern the Australian people. They are sick and tired of watching the circus down here. It's interesting, now that I'm an Independent—the only senator for People First, but a party all the same—that I sit here and watch the clown show that goes on and the juvenile behaviour between the two major parties. The Australian people deserve better than what we're getting. This week we've had a focus on issues that aren't of great concern to the Australian people. We've had next to no discussion or debate or any legislation that attempts to deal with the major issue in this problem, which is the cost of living. There's the cost of living, housing and the cost of energy. Yes, I know that the Labor Party want to deal with the cost of energy by providing subsidies to build hydrogen energy, which is only going to be very, very expensive. We've got cheap black coal in the ground that is much, much cheaper. But, rather than do that, we're going to go down some rabbit hole of green hydrogen, as if that's ever going to work! We've got an immigration crisis. Neither of the two major parties want to get serious about immigration in this country. If we want to get serious about immigration, we need to repeal many of the laws that were brought in by the Hawke-Keating government in the 1980s. We are only weeks away from the campaign for the next election being called, and the Australian people have no idea what the policies of the major parties are because the major parties aren't interested in solutions; they are only interested in power. Just today, yet again, we've seen laws passed that are going to censor free speech. There's no definition of 'violence' in regard to this free speech. The policing in this country is dealt with by the states. There's nothing in section 51 that deals with the federal government dealing with violence. No-one knows what the definition of 'a terrorism symbol' means. Heaven knows what that's going to be in the future and how that is going to be used against people who want to express an opinion. If you add those laws brought in today to the Online Safety Bill and the misinformation and disinformation laws, we don't know what we can say anymore. This is typical of the two major parties. When I come down here, I want to provide solutions. I want to put forward bills that are going to deal with the cost of living, deal with energy prices, deal with housing and deal with the immigration issue, and I want to get the government out of people's lives. I want to get them out of the bedroom. I want to get them out of the family home. I want to get them out of the corporate boardroom. I want to get them out of the doctor's waiting room. I want them out of the classroom. But, when we come down here, all we ever get is the major parties trying to impose more control. Now, I've got to point out that there are a lot of good people in the major parties. Once upon a time, the dominant faction of the old Labor Party was the blue-collar workers, and that was okay because this country was built by and belongs to the battlers, and we've got to look after our workers. It's same for the Liberal Party. It's for small business. Small business is also the backbone of this country. The little guy is the backbone of this country, whether it's the worker or the small business. That's the great thing with People First. We will put the people first, and we will hold either big governments or big corporations to account. We don't care if it's public or private, because we know that you just can't trust big organisations. From my time in these big organisations I'll tell you what; it's always the yes men—it's always the little toadies—that climb to the top. If you speak out, if you want to push back, you're pushed to the side. I know. That's what happened to me in the Liberal Party. When I stood up for the vaccine injured, what happened to me? 'We've got to get rid of Rennick. We can't control him. ' So what do you do? Rather than go in and actually fight for the people injured by the vaccine, you just remove the messenger. You remove the messenger and protect big pharma and all those industries that made a killing out of the COVID hysteria. Here we are, three weeks into this parliament—can I say, this term has been dominated by two issues. The first 18 months were all about the Voice, which was one way of segregating the people and fighting each other. The second way to do it has been all about antisemitism and what's going on in Israel. These issues do not belong here in this country. These issues are all emotive issues that should not be dealt with in this manner. We've seen the Liberal Party this week engage in disgusting, inflammatory behaviour in order to stir everything up, with the whole idea that somehow Anthony Albanese is responsible for these so-called explosives in the caravan and the whole idea of, 'When did he find out and why didn't he tell us?' With all due respect, he wouldn't have a clue, because it's being conducted by the NSW Police Force. They're the ones responsible for this. Some of the stories and the posturing going on around this are a distraction. It's a deliberate distraction because the Liberal Party don't want to talk about their policies. They've only got one business policy so far, and that's a $20,000 tax deduction for entertainment, for businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million, and it's only temporary for two years. Let me tell you, if that's the best that the Liberal Party have got, we're going to see more of the same under a Dutton government that we saw under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, where they didn't deal with tax reform. I'm going to hold this against the Liberal Party because, as secretary of the finance backbench committee for five years, I pushed a lot of ideas and I pushed a lot of tax reform. When we were stuck down here on weekends because of COVID, I'd call meetings about tax policy, and a few of my former colleagues did turn up on Saturday afternoons. I had hours-long meetings—they went for hours, for most of Saturday afternoon—with the former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, and none of these policies that I suggested have ever been implemented. If these people were really serious—if these two major parties were really serious—about tax reform in this country, they could implement them. The policies I'm recommending here are policies that are actually going to tax foreigners more and Australians less. This is the biggest free kick you could ever get. All you've got to do is lower income tax for the hardworking Australians out there. But the two major parties come in here, and 80 or 90 per cent of what goes on in this place is nothing but juvenile bickering between two major parties. There's next to no government business, and, when there is government business, it's always more control, like we saw today with the hate speech bill, which is designed to censor free speech. Where are the actual, genuine bills that are going to bring in greater efficiency in this country, especially in the government, that look at actually reforming and streamlining the bureaucracy? There is none of it. If anything, it's quite the opposite, where we end up introducing a new agency. We saw that this week with the environment-positive bill, a nature-positive bill. Now, Labor want to bring in a bill that's actually going to create a new, independent department. That is the last thing we need in this country—another independent department, especially with the environment. At the end of the day, the environment isn't even a responsibility of the federal government under section 51. The only reason why we have a federal environment department was that Bob Hawke went to the High Court in 1983, under the Franklin dam decision, and basically said, 'We are going to use the foreign treaties power to override the plenary powers of the states when it comes to dealing with the environment.' I'm pretty sure, when our founding forefathers wrote the Constitution and said that the federal government should have powers over foreign treaties, they never intended for that power to override the plenary powers of the states. But, because the federal government are linked in through all these treaties, they now have control. There are treaties dealing with the environment. They've now established a federal environment department, which is one of the many duplications of environment departments that we have in this country, as well as education, health, energy and water, just to name a few, and there are a whole raft of others. Yet again, we've got this debacle this week where all we're doing is looking at adding more bureaucracy, censoring free speech and subsidising green hydrogen. It just beggars belief, and I can't believe you guys in the Labor Party are behind in the polls. I didn't rate Anthony Albanese all that highly, but I did rate Labor as a political machine. And you guys are completely out of touch with reality. You're out here chasing these unicorns of climate change and all these wonderful woke ideas. They might work when you don't have a cost-of-living crisis, but when people are struggling with mortgages and 14 interest rate rises—which, by the way, isn't the fault of the Labor Party. I know that the Liberal Party have done a very good job of pinning all that on you, but it was actually the reckless spending throughout COVID that caused that, as well as 40 years of a slow decline in productivity. People don't want to hear about fancy woke ideas. They want to know how you're going to implement solutions that are actually going to solve their cost-of-living crisis, because there are people going broke in this country. There are people that are having to sell their houses. They're either having to move back home with mum or dad or actually ending up on the streets in tents, and we can't have that. It's alright if you live in the City of Melbourne and you can sell up, move to Queensland, get a house for half the price and then at least have some money to live on. But, for many people in Queensland and that, they can't sell their houses and move into something lower, especially if they're from regional Queensland. So we need to be dealing with this problem, and we need serious structural and monetary reform in this country. One of the big mistakes of Keating was that he made the RBA independent. Monetary policy, along with taxation policy, are the two most important issues that government should be dealing with, and we have outsourced monetary policy to an unelected RBA that refuses to hand over the minutes of meetings they have with the Bank for International Settlements. Instead, they have sat there and done nothing about 14 interest rate rises. Let me tell you that changing the price of money is a speculative measure. Mucking around with the price of interest rates on the first Tuesday of every month, or six meetings a year now, is not dealing with the underlying problem, which is that we have a lack of infrastructure in this country. We have a lack of base-load energy. We have a lack of decent dams. We haven't built hardly a dam in this country in the last 50 years. We haven't built enough roads, rail and things like that. If you want a solution to this, we need to start building more infrastructure, and we should fund it via an infrastructure bank. I've spoken about monetary policy and the need to reform monetary policy many times in this chamber, and, of course, we get nothing. We need to change the standing orders as well. There is too much time in this chamber. We need to get rid of taking note of answers. We don't really need two MPIs a day. We don't really need any MPIs, but let's take it back from one hour's worth of MPI to half an hour of MPI. Those sorts of things need to go. They're just arguing for the sake of arguing, and we need to give the government more time to actually do business, because, yet again, today we've seen more bills guillotined. We saw 30 bills guillotined in the last sitting week, at the end of the year, and these were very, very important bills. I never got a chance to speak on the shuffling of the RBA boards and the fact that we've now got two RBA boards. That's the typical solution to our monetary problem—one bureaucratic department couldn't solve it, so now we're going to create another bureaucratic department. So we're now going to have two boards to sit around and shuffle the price of money, rather than get more people out there in the workforce on the front lines and more people back on the tools actually building dams and power stations. If you want to deal with the productivity crisis, our productivity crisis and our inflation crisis are actually not caused by too much demand, if you put aside the immigration issue; they're actually caused by a lack of supply. And it's a lack of supply because we haven't built enough infrastructure in this country in the last 50 years. We can blame John Button for that—the former Victorian Labor senator that introduced the Button plan—because he said that Australia can no longer compete in manufacturing, so we're just going to let it all go offshore. Well, how's that turning out for us? Forty years later, we've got a whole generation of university graduates who are broke and brainwashed, feeling sorry for themselves, instead of getting out of school when they were 15 or 16, getting an apprenticeship, getting on the tools and learning the meaning of hard work. It's wealth for toil in this country; it is wealth for getting on the tools and building infrastructure. It's certainly not wealth for the games and the circus that go on in this chamber week in, week out, where you guys, the two major parties, are just bickering between yourselves. So I say to you guys: get busy, come in here next week with some genuine solutions in regard to monetary policy, tax immigration and energy, and stop fighting amongst yourselves. 17:15 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I would like to thank Senator Rennick, in his newfound spirit of independence, for bringing forward this motion on the political culture, because it raises so many of the pressing issues confronting decent, honest and hardworking Australians, particularly my constituents of New South Wales: the cost-of-living crisis, which has ballooned so much over the last 2½ years; the energy crisis and the Albanese government's outrageously broken promise to the Australian people; the housing crisis that, despite billions being spent by state and federal Labor governments, is only getting worse; and the immigration crisis, where this government can't help but continue to add more fuel to the fire. However, I think Senator Rennick has got it wrong in his motion. He is half right: the Albanese Labor government has absolutely no plan to deal with these major crises and in fact has made them worse. But the coalition, on the other hand, has a serious plan to deal with these crises, and we are not afraid to govern. We have a plan to deal with the energy crisis that means being technologically agnostic and not placing a blanket ban on any form of technology. We have a plan to fix the housing crisis that means making the Australian dream a reality again. We are going to break free the critical backlogs that are stopping families from getting into their new homes. We are going to fund the critical infrastructure that is a prerequisite of any new housing development—the commonsense things like water, power and sewerage. We are going to stop union thuggery and intimidation on our building sites by restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We are going to allow people to use their own money to buy their first home, because if Labor's mates and the big super funds can own your home with your money, why shouldn't you be able to do that, too? And we are going to allow separated women to do the same, because women over 55 are the largest-growing cohort of homeless in our country, and that is shameful, and in no way should this government be getting in the way of their accessing their own money to buy their own homes. We have a plan to rebalance our migration program, because we can't keep taking on the equivalent of a new Adelaide every four years. It is simply not sustainable. The problem Labor has created over the last 2½ years simply cannot continue. We are going to reduce the levels of permanent migration by 25 per cent to a responsible level that recognises the rich contribution of migration to our country and balances it with a sustainable path forward. We are going to reduce the number of international students studying at our metro universities, because right now it is causing too much strain on our housing market, particularly close to our cities. It is locking young Australians out of affordable housing. We are going to re-secure our borders, because that is a core responsibility of any government to keep their people safe. And we are going to strengthen our detention laws, because violent criminals whose visas have been cancelled must be properly monitored and kept off our streets. Most importantly to everyday Australians, we have a plan to address the cost of living, because nothing is more pressing to Australian families than the financial pressure they are under—pressure caused by this Labor government. We are going to rein in wasteful government spending, because this government has spent over $200 billion more than was budgeted before the election. This has directly contributed to skyrocketing inflation. We are going to provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for Australians, because tax money belongs to Australians; it does not belong to any government. Personal income taxes are 22 per cent higher since this government was elected. We are going to bring down inflation because inflation is an insidious disease that eats away at the savings of working Australians. The IMF has projected that this year Australia will have the second-highest inflation of any developed country. Under Labor, our economic conditions have deteriorated and Australia is heading in the wrong direction. That is their legacy. Ours will be getting Australia back on track. 17:20 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I have enjoyed listening to the debate thus far. I haven't pointed this out before, but 'back on track' is an interesting slogan. It was a slogan for the team of the ultramilitant Builders Labourers Federation ticket in the 1980s and the 1990s within the current construction union. It was an interesting ticket and an interesting idea. Some of the themes that sit behind Mr Dutton and 'back on track' sound like the same things that I used to listen to in the building industry from these unreconstructed Trotskyites. There was a very similar sentimentality about the moribund, shonky leadership that there had been before, which is exactly what we're seeing from Mr Morrison's leftovers in the Liberal Party today. They just want to get back on track to where Scott Morrison had the show, where government efficiency was billions and billions of dollars out the door. At the Department of Veterans' Affairs—some of the senators here were with me in Senate estimates where you'd hear of billions and billions of dollars going to shonky labour hire contractors in Veterans' Affairs. No work ever got done. People's friends were enriched in the process. No work ever got done. Waiting times blew out. There were 45,000 veterans—the people who we should be looking after—just waiting for their claims to be assessed. The minister was just sitting on his hands. Bureaucracy was stuck because it was not focused on its job. We've come into government and fixed Veterans' Affairs. What do we hear from these characters? They want to get back on track, back to sacking all of the public servants who've been engaged and employed in country towns and regional centres all over Australia, helping veterans get the services that they need. Why would you want to go back to the Morrison show, where Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, was a sort of leading light and second-string character on the policy front? Why would you want to get back on track to that? It was a road to ruin that we had when Labor took government in 2022. The country was in diabolical trouble. Inflation was higher than six per cent, and it was going up. I agree with some of what Senator Rennick said—some of it, Senator Rennick. Senator Rennick 283596 That's better than usual! Senator AYRES 16913 It's better than usual, and I'm being kind because we're heading towards the end of the parliamentary term and I've enjoyed your contributions over the years. There's plenty of time, but I get the sense that time goes on, and you get a sense of history about these things. One of the reasons that the inflation challenge has been tough for Australia is that it came off the back of a trillion dollars in debt with nothing to show for it from the Morrison government. It was a trillion dollars in debt with nothing to show for it. There was no infrastructure, nothing. Secondly, there had been a decade of the lowest ever productivity growth on record. Admittedly, it was sitting against the back of a decade before it that wasn't too flash either. Energy policy was in tatters. Amongst the investment community around the world, Australia was a laughing stock on energy policy. We'd managed to construct an energy policy where four gigawatts of electricity generation were decommissioned and only one gigawatt of generation was introduced. It was a debacle. And everybody wonders why electricity prices have had it tougher from inflationary impacts than everybody would have hoped for. Well, that's what happens when you've got low productivity and you don't build generation capacity. It's cactus. There's a lot of work to do. I don't agree with Senator Rennick's prescriptions for how we deal with these challenges, but I do like his sense of urgency, and I do like the fact that he makes the argument. There was inflation with a six in front of it; $1 trillion in debt and nothing to show for it and real wages in long-term stagnation. These characters over here pray for real wages to decline. When they were in government, they loved it because it was a design feature of their system. When they're in opposition, they want them to fall so they can make a political point. There are only two things that make these characters smile: (1) when real wages decline and people are impoverished, and they just hope that they can make a political point out of it; and (2), when they're pulling the wings off flies. Misery loves company—well, there they are. If something goes wrong, there's johnny-on-the-spot trying to make the point, the partisanship, instead of focusing on the things that can actually be done to make it better. Here we are with inflation a third of what it was and falling. Real wages are rising. Living standards are rising. The lowest average unemployment rate of any— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Smith, a point of order? Senator Dean Smith 241710 That is not true. Living standards have fallen. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 That is a debating point, not a point of order. A real point of order, Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 Actually, I was going to take a point of order. I didn't think that was a legitimate point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Thank you very much for the clarification. We are in firm agreement. Back to you, Minister. Senator AYRES 16913 This is exactly what Senator Rennick was complaining about. Senator Scarr 282997 Humour? Senator AYRES 16913 Sometimes I wonder! We have the lowest average unemployment rate of any government over the last 50 years—1.1 million new jobs, and the fact is that half of the jobs are for women. Interestingly, these characters over here don't really like that very much, either. They complain that many of these jobs are in the private sector but are about looking after people. They don't like that, either. While I'm interested in Senator Rennick's broader philosophical argument, the people of Australia are confronted with a pretty stark choice this year. We saw it on Sunday on the Insiders program, didn't we? These characters over here and in the other place say that there's $350 billion worth of additional spending. They say that our vision for the economy—a soft landing where unemployment stays low, where people are in jobs, where wages are rising, where living standards are rising, and where people are earning more and keeping more of what they earn—is a bad thing and not their prescription. Their prescription is the old economics 101 one—they never got to second year, let alone third year—which is cut, cut, cut. You cut public services and you cut expenditure to socially useful things because you want to create unemployment, create misery and drive the economy over a cliff. That is the alternative vision. We saw it from Mr Dutton. He said there will be cuts, but they won't tell you what they will be until after the election. Australians aren't dumb. They are not mugs. They are not going to be taken for mugs. What that is is a prescription for the old Abbott routine. Remember, Mr Abbott said, 'There won't be any cuts,' and then, in 2014, he delivered the most savage budget, with cuts to Medicare, cuts to the ABC and cuts to public services—cuts for all sorts of things that mattered for ordinary people. Well, this will be that on steroids, because Mr Dutton's told Australians that the cuts will come after the election, and they certainly will. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 87 ADJOURNMENT Education 87 17:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise this evening to speak on matters of education. We in the Labor Party know just how important our education system is. It is one of the foundations of our amazing country, and that's why I am so proud to be part of a government that is fully committed to supporting our education system to provide quality, accessible education to all Australians, not just some. From early childhood education to primary, secondary and tertiary education, Labor is committed to investing—investing in the future of our children and the future of this country. Education starts in early childhood, and already the Albanese Labor government has delivered cheaper child care and a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators. Just this week, we've introduced legislation for three days of guaranteed early childhood education. This means an extra 100,000 families will have access to subsidised care, and these are the children who really need it—who need that support, that assistance and that leg-up early on in their education career. In my wonderful home state of South Australia, we move on from early childhood education into our primary and secondary education systems. The Albanese government has, alongside the Malinauskas government, signed a historic schools funding agreement to fully and fairly fund all South Australian public schools. This is a very exciting moment, and the teachers and parents I have spoken to in South Australia are delighted that, after such a long time, we finally see the full tote odds of the Gonski reforms coming to bear. This is really great news, because quality education shouldn't be about having a price tag; it should be quality education for every child, regardless of their postcode, regardless of their circumstances and regardless of how much money their parents or their caregivers may have in their pockets. Under Labor, access to postschool education has become so much easier as well. Fee-free TAFE, which came about in January 2023, has so far netted us 508,000 enrolments. That's an enormous number of people across this country for whom that form of education was probably not accessible before but now is, and that is something that I am deeply, deeply proud of. But one thing that really bothers me is that the coalition have been very clear over the last year or so that they don't support it. They believe that, if you don't pay for it, you don't value it. That is absolutely not what I hear when I speak to the students who've enrolled in those courses. What we see on the other side of this chamber are people with an ideological driver that's just cemented on the idea that those without money shouldn't have the same right to be educated as those with it, and that is shameful, in my opinion. We've even heard the Liberal deputy leader, Sussan Ley, say that, if you don't pay for something, you don't value it. I just don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. Anyway, moving away from that, we then go on to the university system. If students make the choice to undertake a university degree it can sometimes be really difficult if they have to move away because it's too far to commute. For those students it can be really difficult to leave their family and their community behind. Also, the financial impact of that can be really, really challenging. That's why Labor has developed 56 regional university study hubs all over the country. I visited a couple in the Upper Spencer Gulf and across the great seat of Grey, and they are doing spectacular things with all sorts of universities from around the country, delivering those services and supporting students right there in Port Pirie, in Whyalla, in Port Augusta and over towards Ceduna and Port Lincoln. These are great, great services. From the early days of childhood education to reception, primary, secondary and tertiary education of all sorts—from vocational to university—Labor's got your back. We are building the foundations of decent education, proper education and accessible education across the country. (Time expired) Western Australia: Community Events 87 17:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Western Australia is home to a thriving and diverse multicultural community, one that has shaped our state's identity and continues to enrich our social fabric. Over recent months, I've had the honour of joining some of these communities in celebrating some of their most significant cultural events. From the Karen New Year to the centenary of the Hellenic community of Western Australia and Bhutan's national day, these moments remind us of the invaluable contributions made by these communities to both our state and our nation. Each of these celebrations tells a story of heritage, perseverance and the shared values that unite us all as Australians. One of the highlights was attending the Karen New Year celebrations. The Karen community in Western Australia has long demonstrated incredible strength, overcoming immense challenges to build new lives here while preserving their language, traditions and culture. Their New Year, which marks the completion of the South-East Asian rice harvest, is a time of reflection, gratitude and renewal. The event brought together families and friends, young and old, in a celebration filled with traditional don dancers, singing and, of course, the sharing of food. It was a joyous occasion, one that epitomised the close bonds and enduring sense of identity within the Karen community. I was particularly deeply honoured to receive an award from the WA Karen community for my support of them over many years. But the true recognition belongs to the community itself, to the many individuals who work tirelessly to support one another and contribute to the broader Western Australia society. Their commitment to family, education and community service is an example to us all, and I reaffirm my commitment to standing alongside them in the many years ahead. I also had the privilege of attending the final event of the Hellenic Community of Western Australia's centenary celebrations, the launch of a remarkable book that chronicles a hundred years of Greek contributions to Western Australia. The Greek community has been an integral part of our state's history, and this book is not just a historical record but a tribute to the generations who have worked tirelessly to preserve their language, culture and orthodox faith while embracing the opportunities that Australia has offered. The Greek story in Western Australia is one of hard work, resilience and strong community spirit. Whether through small business, education, the arts or public service, Greek Australians have made an indelible mark on our great state. This was reflected in the distinguished attendees at the event, who came together to honour this extraordinary legacy. More recently, I joined WA's Bhutanese community in celebrating their national day, an event filled with colour, music and national pride. The Bhutanese community in Perth continues to grow and thrive, contributing in so many ways to our state's cultural and economic life. This year's celebrations were particularly special, as they came in the wake of a historic visit to Australia, and to Western Australia, by the King of Bhutan, who I had the great honour of meeting. The Bhutanese people are known for their deep commitment to harmony, respect and gratitude, values that have shaped their community here in Western Australia. Their national day celebrations reflect the importance of unity and national identity, and it was inspiring to see so many members of the community—many of whom have faced significant hardship in their journeys to Australia—come together in this celebration. These celebrations are more than just cultural events. They are living examples of the great success of Australia's multicultural story and the profound contributions that migrants and refugees have made in building our nation. They also serve as a powerful counter to those who seek to divide us, who question the strength of our multicultural fabric and who fail to see that our diversity is a source of strength, not of division. When we talk about what makes Australia a great country, we often speak of our freedoms, our opportunities, and our way of life. But at the heart of it all are the people—people who come from all over the world, bringing with them their traditions and their histories. These communities are not separate from the Australian story; they are integral to it. As a West Australian, I'm immensely proud of the multicultural communities that call our state home. Their stories are woven into the very fabric of life in Western Australia. As a senator, I remain committed to ensuring that our institutions, policies and national conversation continue to reflect the values of inclusion, opportunity and respect that define Australia at its best. Tertiary Education 88 17:40 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales There are 200,000 people working in our universities who deserve better than the governance disasters that so many vice-chancellors around the country are serving up. To give one example, this week the National Tertiary Education Union uncovered new revelations about the University of Wollongong and its interim vice-chancellor, John Dewar. Mr Dewar is a partner at consulting firm KordaMentha, who, it just so happens, the university has hired to advise on a restructure of the university's operations. The university said that Mr Dewar has been on unpaid leave at KordaMentha since he took on the vice-chancellor's role, but it was revealed yesterday that in fact he has continued working for KordaMentha while picking up his $1 million salary from the university. This absolutely screams of a conflict of interest. As the National Tertiary Education Union general secretary, Damien Cahill, said: Why on earth would you choose KordaMentha, fully aware your hand-picked interim vice-chancellor was going to continue to work for them, to review the university if you took conflicts of interest seriously? On top of all this, the university has cut 91 jobs and is threatening more. It raises serious questions about financial mismanagement at universities, when you are sacking staff and cutting courses, while at the same time you are handing out lucrative contracts to your vice-chancellor's consulting firm. These are serious issues to explore here. That is why I'm chairing, and the Albanese government is supporting, an inquiry into university governance, but, critically—to the minister's credit—it is why he set up an expanded inquiry into the Expert Council on University Governance. These are important steps to make sure that universities' governance are an improvement to what is going on now. Wollongong university is an unfortunate but obvious example of why these vice-chancellors need to be held to account. Medicare 89 17:43 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania . I rise to speak on what is an important week for many Australians. On 1 February 1984, the Hawke Labor government introduced Medicare, building on the foundations of the Medibank system established by the Whitlam Labor government in 1975, and we have defended and strengthened it ever since. Before Medicare, two million Australians had no health cover at all. That's one in seven people who lived with the daily risk and worry that health care might see them lose their house or bankrupt them altogether. Thanks to Labor, today that is no longer the case. Today every Australian has access to Medicare, and Medicare belongs to all Australians. We've got more doctors, more bulk-billing and urgent care clinics that have already seen more than one million patients nationwide, all fully bulk-billed. Of these presentations, over 65,000 of them have been at the five urgent care clinics in my state of Tasmania. That's 75,000 patients who would have attended an emergency department or GP, putting less pressure on our hardworking health professionals and emergency departments. It's not just the patients who love Labor's urgent care clinics. Doctors also love the clinics, with a recent poll finding that over 70 per cent of GPs support the work of Medicare urgent care clinics and over 80 per cent of GPs think the clinics are having a positive impact on hospital emergency departments. Medicare urgent care clinics are a key part of the Albanese government's reforms to strengthen Medicare to deliver a better, fairer, stronger health system and to deliver cost-of-living relief. Now, while it is great to look at the initiatives the Albanese government is undertaking in this space, it's also important to reflect on what those opposite think of Medicare. So come along with me. Let's have a look back at the coalition's record on Medicare—and I must warn everyone listening that you may want to sit down for the next bit. Under Mr Tony Abbott and Mr Malcolm Turnbull, the coalition implemented a Medicare rebate freeze. This led to rising gap fees for everyday hardworking Australians as doctors passed on higher costs to their patients. In 2014, Mr Dutton, as the health minister, proposed a $7 GP co-payment, which would have forced patients to pay for previously free bulk-billed services. The Turnbull government in 2016 explored privatising the Medicare payment system, raising concerns that outsourcing would erode public healthcare accessibility and quality. The coalition have repeatedly reduced funding increases to state-run public hospitals, shifting more costs onto state governments and patients. And who could forget Mr Dutton stating, 'Medicare is dead.' That's right: the man claiming to be in touch with working Australians would happily see bulk-billing abolished and our public hospitals overflowing. It's really no wonder that doctors voted him the worst health minister in 40 years. And how could you blame them? I would like to now share just a small selection of the many success stories coming from the Medicare urgent care clinics in Hobart. Laurence, who visited one of the Medicare urgent care clinics in Hobart due to unbearable shoulder pain whilst on holiday, said he witnessed 'the highest level of training, experience and professionalism from staff' in what was, he said, 'one of the best medical experiences of my life'. Brenda, who presented with severe pain and difficulty breathing, left in under an hour after receiving treatment and pain medication—all completely bulk-billed—and said: 'I was so happy being treated here. The doctor and nurse were amazing.' I'll leave you with one more, from Sophie, who speaks of her fantastic experience with the staff at one of Hobart's urgent care clinics. Sophie said: 'They were all so lovely and friendly. I can't thank them enough for the care my son received.' These stories aren't isolated. They are happening in every state across Australia, because each of these clinics is making a genuine difference to our communities. Labor will always fight for Medicare, because we know how much of a difference it makes to everyday Australians. You will never hear this government or our Prime Minister threaten Australians with cuts to bulk-billing or hospitals. If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that you can't trust Peter Dutton and the coalition with Medicare. Brisbane Valley Highway 89 17:48 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Can I say to Senator Brown that I'll always fight for the people of the Somerset region, and today I stand up for the people of the Somerset region in relation to the appalling state of the Brisbane Valley Highway. This is a highway rated in the top 10 worst roads in Queensland. The Brisbane Valley Highway is rated No. 4 on that list of the top 10 worst roads. Last month I travelled the Brisbane Valley Highway in the rain, and during the course of that journey I felt how dangerous the Brisbane Valley Highway is in a number of spots. I felt truly uncomfortable and unsafe. I spoke to one Somerset resident last month who told me about his experience on the Brisbane Valley Highway. This was a father with a young family, and he was telling me that, when he travels the Brisbane Valley Highway, his fatigue management system goes off, because he has to manoeuvre to try and find the best part of the road whilst he is driving his vehicle, and, because of that movement, his fatigue management system goes off. This is just not good enough. It's just not good enough. I congratulate Mayor Jason Wendt and his council colleagues for their advocacy in relation to the Brisbane Valley Highway. I also congratulate my good friend Jim McDonald MP, the member for Lockyer; and the Hon. Deb Frecklington, member for Nanango, for delivering a $20 million commitment from the new Queensland LNP government to improve the Brisbane Valley Highway. I use this opportunity now to call upon the Albanese Labor government to match that $20 million commitment from the LNP Queensland state government. There's a budget coming up, and I'm calling upon the Albanese Labor government to match the LNP state government's commitment of $20 million to improve the Brisbane Valley Highway. If the Albanese Labor government cares about the people of the Somerset region, if it cares about their road safety and their ability and opportunity to travel around their region in safety, then it should match the Queensland LNP government's $20 million commitment to the Brisbane Valley Highway. Match that $20 million and fix this road. Senate adjourned at 17:51