2025-02-13 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 13 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 Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023 1

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Labor, you claim to support First Peoples. You claim to stand for justice. But today your words mean nothing unless they are backed by action. This bill before us, the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023, is about the rights of First Nations peoples. It hits the three Rs: it is reasonable, rational and responsible. It is a simple change to ensure the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, when scrutinising legislation, is able to consider rights and freedoms laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UNDRIP, a human rights instrument this country signed up to in 2009. It means that, every time a minister puts forward a piece of legislation, they have to write a statement of compatibility that forces them to consider the rights and freedoms of First Nations peoples as laid out in the UNDRIP. It was actually a Labor government who signed this country up to the UNDRIP, which was developed over many years by First Peoples all over the world. It was a Labor senator, Patrick Dodson, who, in his last act of parliament, tabled the UNDRIP report, which recommended not only this change but that the whole of UNDRIP be implemented into domestic legislation. I won't go into the whole story of how Labor hijacked my original bill and watered down the inquiry; that's a yarn for another time. Last year I tried to do exactly what the UNDRIP report recommended and introduced a bill that set up the framework for its implementation in domestic legislation. I thought: 'Labor themselves recommended this. Surely they can't vote against it. That would be so unlike them.' But Labor and Liberal voted it down right after their gammon referendum. When I asked them why they couldn't support the bill, Labor told me they needed the permission of their Liberal mates before they could move forward on the rights of First Peoples. Today I come with an even more modest proposal for the human rights committee to just be able to consider the rights in UNDRIP when scrutinising legislation. It is not that hard. Once again, this is something the Labor Party apparently supports. It was in their own committee recommendations. This support will come to a test today. If the government do not support this bill, we know that it is only because it was not written by yourselves and that policy does not matter in this place—only political games. I am not fighting for this for myself; I am fighting for the rights of blackfellas all over this country. Not supporting this bill meant not even having the courage to let a human rights committee, who they ignore anyway unless it suits them, put some words on a piece of paper, which none of you will bother to read anyway. Theoretically, the government should already be bound by the provisions outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples anyway, from back when they agreed to it in 2009. There should be nothing to fear. Let's be real. The colonial masters have a long history of treating human rights like an optional guideline, not a binding obligation. They don't care about First Peoples' rights. They don't care about truth-telling. All they care about is their own survival. Minister McCarthy, you can have a legacy. You could actually fight for the rights of our people. I don't mean fighting me; that's exactly what the colony wants. I mean fighting the people in your own party to stand up for our people. If you really care for your people, cross the floor if your party won't support this bill. Show the people on the ground that you are willing to put yourself on the line for them. Instead, you will go down in history as just another minister for Indigenous Australians who did not fight for real justice for our people. Shame. Disappointingly, I didn't even get a phone call or reply when I requested a meeting with you, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and the Attorney-General about this bill. You shut the door. You didn't even want to talk about it—too ashamed to front up. Apparently, Minister McCarthy, you were too busy. What in your calendar, Minister, was more important than the rights of your people? The letter even had the signatures of the majority of crossbench senators and members of parliament, meaning you have the support to pass this bill today in both houses. How's that, mob out there? This place and the place next door have an opportunity to take seriously the rights of our people in this country, and we have a gammon Labor government who will do nothing, except to turn up to the Sorry Day morning tea and make a few gammon speeches about how much they care about us. You've got to see through this. Look how many people are locked up. Look how many babies are taken away. Look how much destruction there is of our water and our land. They are so gammon. The support for this change is unanimous and has been called for by experts, academics and civil society more broadly, including by the Australian Human Rights Commission in their 2021 report Free and equal: a reform agenda for federal discrimination laws (2021); the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, who recommended this amendment in a report after her visit to this country in 2017; the Inquiry into the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Australia report 2023, recommendation 6; the Human Rights Joint Committee Inquiry into Australia's Human Rights Framework report 2024, recommendation 13; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Katie Kiss, is calling for this amendment in her current listening tour. You appoint these commissioners. You say that they're going to do all these deadly things. You just appointed a children's commissioner. What's the point if you don't take on board what they are saying? It is a simple yet critical amendment that ensures that no matter who is next in government—and we know you're doing really badly out there—we have to consider the human rights of First Peoples every time they put forward a piece of legislation. So they can't send the army into communities to destroy peace and harmony, because we would have an instrument that calls out the human rights and the Indigenous rights prior to that happening. Today I anticipate we will hear nothing but excuses from Labor. They will tell us to wait and to compromise, and to negotiate within the boundaries they set on their white line that they're not allowed to cross. They will tell us that there are too many unintended consequences. The human rights committee is not powerful. There is a majority of Labor and Liberal people around the table to ensure that the human rights committee doesn't have any power. Our people have waited for over two centuries for rights in this country. We have negotiated with the colonial boots on our necks every time. This is not governance; this is domination by delaying. Labor has real power, a crossbench that today is ready and would support human rights and First Peoples' rights in this country. So, Labor, are you genuine? You wear your Aboriginal earrings and your deadly little dot-painted scarves and you pretend to care, but, in fact, you really don't, because you've got to uphold the colonial system, and the colonial system is not about giving us rights; it's about taking away our rights and stripping us of our rights. It's about stripping us of our land, resources, water, babies, families—the list goes on. You sip your morning tea and celebrate Rudd's apology, even though we've got 24,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care today. After he said sorry, they kept going; they kept taking our children. We have mothers who are being shackled to beds to have their babies and we have child protection waiting at the end of those beds to take those babies. If you are genuine, let the First Peoples in your party speak about what they genuinely want. Stop shutting them down. Stop gaslighting them. Let them speak. Let them cross the floor. If you are genuine, please prove this country wrong, prove me wrong, prove my people wrong: give this bill your support, especially today, on the national apology day. We know Rudd's apology was carefully written. It was carefully scrutinised by the highest lawyers in this country so that there was no comeback to this government ever. We know that that apology was hollow. It ensured that there were no reparations. It ensured that they were able to continue to steal our children. So, while you sip your tea and have your cake and pat yourselves on the back, think about what else you can do today for our rights in this country, because our people are dying at a faster rate than anybody else in this country, and it's because of what comes out of this place. If you don't support this bill then you'll have to live with that. I hope you don't sleep well at night. I hope our ancestors haunt you all. 09:15 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023. The Albanese government are committed to the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and we have embedded them in our work, particularly Closing the Gap. The Labor government live these principles in the way we partner with First Nations people and communities. This is exemplified in our work with the Coalition of Peaks on closing the gap. We cannot make decisions about how to implement the UNDRIP in Australia without meaningful engagement and conversation with First Nations people. As a government, we must be sure to take the time to get this right, working together with First Nations people. UNDRIP was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in September 2007. Australia, under the former Howard government, was one of only four countries who voted against it. It was Labor, when the Rudd government was elected, who signed up to the UNDRIP and it is Labor that is embedding these principles in the way it works. It took the election of the Rudd government to get Australia back in the international community on this issue, and it took the election of the Albanese government to turn these aspirations into reality. We have embedded the principles of UNDRIP in the work we do. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap is a prime example of how we are supporting the principles of self-determination that underpin UNDRIP. We know that, when First Nations people are meaningfully involved in the development of laws and policies that impact them, those laws and policies are more successful. Labor has long been committed to UNDRIP. It was Labor that signed on and it is Labor that is embedding the principles in the way that it works. The most important thing for First Nations people is that government works for them. The closing the gap national agreement commits not just the Australian government but all state and territory governments to working differently and delivering for First Nations Australians. That is the job of Minister McCarthy every day and it is the focus of her colleagues around the cabinet table. Principles are important, and we are committed to them, but what is more important is how those principles translate into real actions, and that is our laser focus. Closing the Gap is an example where all governments committed to working with First Nations partners to design and deliver programs that will help close the gaps in outcomes. The four priority reforms agreed with the Coalition of Peaks in the closing the gap agreement chart a course for changing the way government works. This is hard, consistent work and it takes time. There is no magic wand. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap remains the critical framework for delivering improved outcomes for First Nations people. Closing the Gap is about partnerships with First Nations people, organisations and communities at all levels of government. All partners to the national agreement are responsible for outlining the actions they are taking in annual reports and implementation plans. Just this week, the government tabled the Closing the Gap 2024 annual report and 2025 implementation plan. This Commonwealth report demonstrates the actions we took in the last 12 months and puts forward what we will deliver in 2025. This report delivers on a key commitment under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. All governments, federal, state and territory; the Local Government Association; and the coalition of peaks have committed to releasing annual reports and implementation plans each year, outlining what they are delivering to achieve the Closing the Gap targets and priority reforms. The Commonwealth's report outlines the actions we have taken in 2024 and what we will deliver in 2025 to help achieve Closing the Gap outcomes. We have delivered on these priorities. We have launched the Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, with around 200 applications received in round 1, and with round 2 now open. We have expanded the Indigenous Rangers Program to create 1,000 new jobs, including 770 positions for First Nations women. We have introduced legislation to expand the role and remit of Indigenous Business Australia to boost First Nations economic empowerment. We have built more than 200 homes in remote communities in the Northern Territory as part of our 10-year goal to halve overcrowding. We have invested in community-led justice reinvestment initiatives in 27 sites across the country and delivered significant increases in funding for First Nations legal services. We have rolled out the 500 health workers program, with over 300 enrolments to date. And we have invested in much-needed renal services in remote communities, opening the Coober Pedy service. We have established the First Nations children's commissioner role, which will help protect the rights of First Nations children. We will continue to build on these achievements and deliver action that will achieve change in 2025. In 2025 we will deliver a new Northern Territory Remote Aboriginal Investment agreement with the Northern Territory government and Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory that reflects a community led approach to improving the lives of First Nations Territorians. We will drive economic development through strengthening the Indigenous Procurement Policy. We will support First Nations women in business. We will help more people access home loans through Indigenous Business Australia. We will improve food security in remote communities by subsidising the cost of 30 essential items and creating 120 nutrition worker jobs in remote communities. We will invest in programs to improve mental health and social and emotional wellbeing and drive down suicide, including scholarships for 150 First Nations psychologists. We will roll out remote laundries to improve health and living conditions in 12 remote communities. We have made much progress over the last almost three years, but we know there is much more that still needs to be done. What we also know is that the previous Liberal-National government signed up to Closing the Gap, but are they backing away from this agreement? They are not prepared to work in a bipartisan way or in partnership with First Nations people, which are central commitments under Closing the Gap. What those opposite are offering the Australian people is a grab bag of confused and contradictory priorities that will make matters worse for First Nations people and for our whole community. They have no vision and no plan. They want to divide and destroy. Their priorities are confused and contradictory, divisive and dangerous. They promise an audit of Indigenous programs as part of Dutton's plan to cut $347 billion. This is an obvious front for funding cuts that we should all be concerned about, like the $500 million they cut from Indigenous programs under former prime minister Abbott. Make no mistake, this means cuts to job programs, cuts to housing, cuts to essential services like legal and health services and cuts to childcare programs. It means cuts to programs like Birthing on Country in Galiwin'ku, which is helping women in that remote community to give birth safely. It means cuts to renal services that save lives in remote Australia, in places like Coober Pedy, and it means cuts to programs like Junior Rangers in Nowra, where local kids are attending school and gaining confidence that will set them up for life. They promise an attack on land rights masquerading as a review. Ultimately, they want to take away the rights of First Nations people. Those opposite need to be clear about the destructive alternative they pose to the Australian people. We will see more division and worse outcomes for everyone under a coalition government. I urge those opposite to take their closing-the-gap commitment seriously and to back the evidence based, tangible actions that will help improve the lives of First Nations people. The government is aware that the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs tabled its report on the UNDRIP in 2023. The government is considering the findings of the inquiry report carefully, and we're working through them methodically. I will not pre-empt the government's consideration of the inquiry report, but it is important to note that we have already worked to embed many of the principles of UNDRIP in the work that we do. In 2009, the government formally agreed to uphold the principles of UNDRIP. This work is ongoing, and key examples include the priority reforms under the 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap and adherence to the principles of UNDRIP through accountability measures. A range of Commonwealth laws incorporate FPIC principles. For example, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, traditional owners hold the decision-making powers over the use of Aboriginal land. The Native Title Act 1993 establishes the process for notification, consultation and negotiation with native title groups about acts affecting their native title rights and interests. The requirements vary according to the type of act proposed, with the highest procedural right providing groups with a right to negotiate. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act includes statutory public comment periods during which Indigenous communities can provide input into the environmental assessment of a proposal. If this information is provided, it must be considered by the minister in determining whether or not a proposed action can proceed. The Albanese government is working to implement the principles of UNDRIP, and we are working to embed them in our work, particularly on closing the gap. This government is delivering action and working in partnership with First Nations communities, peak bodies and state and territory governments to close the gap. Our Closing the gap report shows we are delivering in health, we are delivering in housing, we are delivering in economic empowerment and jobs and we are delivering in community led justice initiatives and reinvestment—and we have more to do. Our plan is to drive economic empowerment, to ease the cost of living and food security issues in remote communities and to improve the living conditions and wellbeing of First Nations people. 09:28 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I want to thank Senator Thorpe for bringing this bill to the parliament this morning and recognise her work and her passion for her people and the ongoing work that we on this side continue to do. I agree with the point of expanding the human rights definition in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to include UNDRIP. That requires us in this place to mobilise and commit to action, because we are sick and tired of the rhetoric and we are sick and tired of the political spin in this place. This is the 17th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. And, yes, I went down to the Great Hall this morning to sit with stolen generations people and listen to them and watch them cry again for another year because of the lack of action of successive governments in this place. They have been doing that for 17 years, and there is now a report that says they are waiting for us to die. That is exactly what's happening to an aging population of black people in this country. You're waiting for them to die so you don't have to pay reparation and compensation to the people. None of the laws in this place measure up to the human rights framework. They don't measure up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a declaration that was scripted by Indigenous people for Indigenous people to guide your governments in making sure that we never live under the regime of the past. It's about facing up to the past. I sat through the history of this country this morning and witnessed the legacy of the intergenerational trauma that I know exists in our communities. It exists and it is a legacy of your governments that you continue to perpetuate, and then you have a crack at us and say we're angry. We have to be frustrated and angry because, if we don't raise our voices, we will continue to be eradicated under your law, under the Westminster system that was brought here. It is about recognition of the immense harm that government legislation of the day did by stripping our culture away from different people in different parts of this country. I want to acknowledge that it was not a homogeneous effect that happened. There are many elements who are still in their first language, in their native tongue, who are still living on country and who still have the benefits of that identity and their connection to their kin and to their country. That is not a homogeneous thing. But we, as First Peoples in this country, demand better, and the apology in 2008 should have been a turning point in this country for healing. It should never have been another hollow statement. It should never have been another, 'Yep, there it is. We've done the bit,' so that now we can allow people in 2025 to say things like, 'But I'm not responsible,' 'I didn't do that,' 'That wasn't me'—because that's what we have right now—or, 'People should just move on.' Why? There were uncles standing in that place this morning saying, 'I want the right to rebuild my family structures because there is a bloodline which I have responsibility for.' Yet we are given none of that because our basic human rights are not being met. Senator Darmanin just spoke about Closing the Gap. I am the new chair of the Senate Select Committee on Measuring Outcomes for First Nations Communities, and I acknowledge Senator Cadell, who's in the chamber today who's also part of that committee. The reason we put forward this select committee is that there are four targets in Closing the Gap that are going backwards. They are going backwards and now are worsening from what we've heard. If you properly read that report that came down from the Productivity Commission on Monday, you will see it's still regressing. These are the most basic human rights for our people in this country. One is about the increase in adult incarceration. We see the Northern Territory passing laws to ensure that they fill up every lock-up, every watch house and every jail in the country. The prison industry is one of the richest in the world. Places like America are moving away from privatisation, but Australia is increasing it. Why? Ask yourself: is it for their economic empowerment? That's exactly what's happening. There is child removal in places like Victoria, where Senator Thorpe comes from. I want to acknowledge the 24,000 children that are currently in out-of-home care. They are currently being removed and continue to be removed. When we said sorry, we should have stopped, we should have changed the law and we should have made sure that we would never again remove children in this country. But we are still doing that, and that is a target that is worsening. So the Labor government cannot take any kudos or say that they are doing anything in that. They are standing by and allowing that to happen on their watch. In terms of child development and the five domains of social and emotional wellbeing for First Nations children, we are failing. They are 40 per cent behind other children in this nation. What a shame. That is shameful. As a mother of two daughters, I know that the practical application of that is to have books in my home and to read to my children. Where's that in the Closing the gap report, Labor? It's not in there. This Labor government needs to do better. Stop standing on the hose for our people and give us the changes that we require. The legislation in this place has to be up to scratch, and that's what these amendments will do. That is what this bill will absolutely do. I want to touch on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We know that FPIC—free, prior and informed consent—is so important. This week we passed the government's Future Made in Australia, but no-one is talking about co-investment. No-one is talking about equity shares for our communities. But they're still destroying cultural heritage. In question time yesterday I asked a question about Murujuga because the width and the breadth of the 46 articles in the UN declaration cut across every bill that comes into this joint. They should be assessed based on that and should absolutely have a statement of compatibility to make sure that they are up to scratch. The important part of the UN declaration and another one of those principles is recognising historic injustices—truth-telling. Truth-telling will bring justice, and it will bring healing to this nation. If Australia wants to go down that pathway, it's laid out right now. The Greens have brought a bill to this place around a truth and justice commission to make sure that the formal processes pre colonisation are put into and enshrined in every school curriculum in this country to make sure that we are doing the work that will leave a legacy for the future generations of our children and our grandchildren. I appeal to everybody to understand what a difference it is absolutely going to make if we allow ourselves to just go: 'No more motherhood statements. No more half-baked actions. We are actually going to take forward and drive action. We are going to put in place what this government talks about, which is practical action that will make a difference.' You cannot go into a workplace for a job if you are still experiencing racism in this country. The stark reality is that, post the 2023 referendum, there has been an increase in racism experienced online but also in our communities that is very, very real for First Nations people. People who've done lots of work on racism talk about it, and they relate it to being punched in the face. It is so damaging, and we have children who are experiencing this; we have babies who are experiencing this. This work must not just be about an economic pathway. I'm all for making sure we have opportunities. I'm all for eradicating poverty in our communities, because we still live under the breadline in our communities. That is a reality. But we cannot invest in structures that have been given to us because the successive governments in this country didn't want to do the whole job. Native title is a perfect example of that. I'm glad that the native title future acts regime is with the Australian Law Reform Commission for review. It's about time. But we cannot let that opportunity pass when we can fix every bit of legislation. Senator Darmanin talked about the environment and the EPBC. You will see that I, Senator Thorpe and others from the crossbench all put up amendments to all of those bills—which you all vote down—because we know our communities and we know what they need. We continue to represent the issues that they bring to us and to use their voice, which we hear when they come to our offices—they don't come to yours. We bring their voice to this place, and we represent their issues. We will continue to do that, but today is your opportunity to change. Today is your opportunity to vote for Senator Thorpe's bill and to show Australia that we're doing the right thing and that Labor hasn't abandoned Indigenous affairs because you lost the referendum. This is the opportunity to fix that, and you could do it now. 09:40 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The government is very proud to be supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As we heard from earlier contributions and from Senator Darmanin, we're also committed to enhancing Australia's application of rights under UNDRIP. We acknowledge the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and its report on the application of UNDRIP in Australia. It is worth noting that the government is considering the findings of the inquiry, and we've been working through those findings. We've also been working on embedding many of the principles of UNDRIP in the work that we do. It must be right. It must take time, but it must be done in the right way. Australia has been, proudly, a signatory since 2009 but, unfortunately, it took a Labor government to overturn the Howard government's shameful rejection of UNDRIP back in 2007. Labor strongly believes in the right to self-determination and First Nations peoples' participation in decision-making. We know that, when First Nations peoples are meaningfully involved in the development of laws and policies, those laws and policies are much more successful. Nowhere is this partnership better shown than in the government's work with the Coalition of Peaks on closing the gap. The Coalition of Peaks is an organisation of more than 80 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled peak organisations and their members. The government proudly considers its working relationship with the Coalition of Peaks to be successful. As the Prime Minister outlined earlier this week, the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is a landmark partnership. Also earlier this week, Minister McCarthy and the PM launched the Closing the Gap: Commonwealth2024 annual report:Commonwealth 2025 implementation plan. In Minister McCarthy's speech, she acknowledged what the government has been doing. The 2024 annual report also outlined the actions that the government has taken over the past year to deliver on the outcomes of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, an agreement in partnership with the Coalition of Peaks that is emblematic of the principles of UNDRIP. It was focused on creating jobs and economic empowerment for remote communities, easing housing overcrowding and improving safety. In 2024, the Commonwealth government commenced the new Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, which will create up to 3,000 jobs in remote communities over the next three years. The government is also committed to expanding the Indigenous Rangers Program to create a further 1,000 jobs with 770 positions being assigned to First Nations women. Further, there will be the release of the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy to maximise the nationwide potential for First Nations people to benefit from the clean energy transformation that this government is proudly implementing. We've also introduced legislation to expand the role and remit of Indigenous Business Australia to boost First Nations peoples' economic empowerment. We've built more than 200 new homes in remote communities in the Northern Territory as part of our 10-year goal to halve overcrowding, expanded access to affordable PBS medicines, and opened the first of up to 30 dialysis units in regional and remote locations so First Nations people can receive treatment closer to home and on country. We've also welcomed over 300 enrolments in the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program. The 2025 implementation plan outlines our strategy for the year ahead, focusing on easing cost-of-living pressures and improving food security in remote communities, delivering the next steps of the economic empowerment agenda and continuing to improve the outcomes of First Nations people. We've already announced $842 million and a six-year partnership with the Northern Territory government and Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory, another First Nations partner—something that the government is very proud to be working with—to deliver essential services for many remote communities, including policing, women's safety, health and education. The government is also investing in a range of other measures to reduce the cost of 30 essential products in more than 76 remote stores, building a nutrition workforce in remote communities, rolling out new laundries and upgrades to existing facilities in 12 remote communities, strengthening the Indigenous Procurement Policy to boost opportunities for businesses and increasing opportunities for First Nations Australians to buy their own home and build intergenerational wealth through the Australian home loans capital funds. These measures are just some of the initiatives that the government is committed to delivering over 2025. Closing the Gap is UNDRIP in action. We cannot make decisions about how to implement UNDRIP in Australia without meaningful engagement and consultation with First Nations people. I think that has to be the bedrock of any decision that this government makes. There is no-one who pushes against the principles of UNDRIP or has a record of opposing it like those opposite. Really, it is about trying to bring everybody together in this place. I think it's so important that we do work in a collaborative manner. This government, particularly with the leadership of Minister McCarthy, are very much implementing our promises and our agenda to empower First Nations people here in Australia. It is also worth mentioning that the Albanese government is committed to progressing meaningful programs and policies that will empower First Nations people through the strengthening of partnerships and hearing from all of them about what works, what does not and what will lead to meaningful change. That is UNDRIP in action. Through the Joint Council on Closing the Gap, we are creating systemic change to improve the way we work with First Nations Australians, the Coalition of Peaks and state and territory governments. At the end of the day, we all need to work collectively and cooperatively, and we have to make sure that we do build a better future and that there is meaningful change for many generations ahead. On that note, I am going to finish my speech there. 09:48 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question now is that the bill be read a second time.  

The Senate divided. [09:53]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

 15 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. 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.

 09:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—the Albanese government supports the principles underlying the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, known as UNDRIP. As a signatory to UNDRIP, we commit to taking steps to realise those international standards and to do so in the spirit of partnership and mutual respect. The UNDRIP brings together existing human rights and applies them to specific contexts affecting Indigenous peoples. It provides a framework for countries to realise these rights but provides flexibility so the details can be determined at a domestic level in partnership between the state and Indigenous peoples. While we have structures in place to facilitate First Peoples' perspectives, our government remains committed to increasing opportunities to work in partnership with Indigenous Australians to achieve improved outcomes. On 28 November 2023, the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs released its report on its inquiry into the application of the UNDRIP in Australia. The government is considering the report, and we're determined to get this right. While it considers the report, the Albanese government is giving practical effect to UNDRIP through its programs, policies and approach to engagement and collaboration. This work is ongoing. As the explanatory memorandum notes, the bill proposes a significant change to the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee's role has been important and longstanding. Changes to its role must be carefully considered. As the explanatory memorandum notes: … under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 , new Bills and disallowable legislative instruments must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility with human rights. Currently, it assesses the compatibility of the legislation with the rights and freedoms recognised in the seven international human rights treaties that Australia has ratified. The explanatory memorandum further notes: … practical impact of this bill is that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) may, in the course of the committee's examination of bills, legislative instruments, Acts and other inquiries, consider and report on the rights and freedoms outlined in an eighth international instrument, the UNDRIP. The government is not in a position to agree to this significant change at this time. BUSINESS 8 BUSINESS Rearrangement 8 09:57 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator WATERS 192970 Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. What the Greens are seeking to do here is to ensure that seminal legislation to underwrite 32 gigawatts of renewable energy investment pass this chamber today. We have secured amendments in the other place to make sure that this 32-gigawatt clean energy target is written into law. The reason we did that is that nobody knows what the parliament's going to look like in a few short months but we do know that Mr Dutton will certainly not back in clean energy for this country. In fact, he'd rather prop up coal and gas, using a nuclear fantasy as a fig leaf. So it is absolutely crucial that anyone who supports clean energy, in particular solar and wind, sees this legislation pass today. We know that the opposition will try every trick in the book to talk out this bill. They'll probably seek their own suspension. They will throw every procedural trick in the book that they've got at this, and that is exactly why we need to make sure that, today, this chamber deals with this piece of legislation. We will not stand by and watch the country go down a nuclear fantasy path, which simply props up coal and gas in the meantime, when we have a chance today to legislate the Capacity Investment Scheme—the government underwriting of the clean energy industry. This is a very important decision that the chamber will be making, and I know the crossbench know that, if they support clean energy, then they need to support this suspension. The other reason that we're moving this suspension today is to make sure that the gender pay gap legislation also has a chance to pass this parliament. The other thing we know that Mr Dutton doesn't like—it's not just renewable energy—is women getting a fair go. He doesn't support that, either. We know the Liberal Party will be opposing the legislation to require mega companies to close their gender pay gaps, so we are moving this suspension motion today to make sure that this chamber can actually improve women's rights at work—so they can be paid fairly—and ensure that the climate crisis can be tackled with decent investment in clean energy. Mr Dutton does not want big businesses to close the gender pay gaps that they've identified. In years gone by, the Liberal Party didn't support the gender pay gap legislation at all. The problem with that law has been that, whilst companies have had to identify whether they have a gender pay gap, they haven't had to do anything to close it. Well, today's legislation is the first step to say to those super big companies, the ones over 500 workers, that they not only have to identify their gender pay gap but also have to actually do something to close that pay gap. That's really important. If this parliament does not ensure that that legislation passes today, you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr Dutton's Liberal Party in minority government would not be progressing that. In fact they'll probably try to further undermine women's rights at work. So today is the chance for everyone in this chamber, the women in particular, to back in women's rights at work and to back in the right for us to receive fair pay. That is precisely why it is crucial that we ensure that these two pieces of legislation pass the parliament today. I'm urging our friends on the crossbench—because we know we certainly won't get any support from the coalition over there—to vote for the climate, for women and for integrity. Let's get this done today. 10:01 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Who's in charge today? It looks like the Greens are in charge. It is again another great, big preview into what life after the next election is going to be like if there is a minority Labor-Green government elected. We've had the Greens march in and tell Labor what deal they want today, what deal they want to strike, and it's great for Australians to know, ahead of this election, that this is the kind of stuff they can expect on steroids after the election. The bills that the Greens are insisting pass through are the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024, and the Greens are suggesting that these bills somehow will benefit a cohort of people that the Liberals are opposed to. I'll tell you what the first bill they want to rush through this place won't do—the one about more renewables. It won't bring down power prices by one cent. Here we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and one of the biggest pressures households face is power prices. And we can't forget that Prime Minister Albanese and his frontbench went out there and said 97 times before Australians cast their vote at the previous election that power bills would go down by $275. Instead of that actually being the case, Australian households are on average paying more than $1,000 more in power bills per year. The government's response to this crisis that Australian households and businesses are facing is to jam into this place—in partnership with, facilitated by and brought on by the Greens—a bill to bring more renewables into the grid and fast-track all of that, which will again drive up power prices. This is an amazing insight into how a Labor-Green government will work after this election. They give no care when it comes to the cost-of-living crisis households are facing. Here we are on the death knell, the last sitting day, I expect, before the election, and this is demonstrating this government's priorities in partnership with their friends, their coalition partners, the Greens. It's about electricity infrastructure legislation, very benignly named, but you can be guaranteed that this will not only not do a thing to ease the burdens that households and businesses face but also make things far worse. It will be interesting to see whether the government support this approach being led by the Greens. I've lived through Labor-Green governments in Tasmania, and we've seen it here at a federal level. They are disastrous. Things that are bad get worse under Labor-Green governments. Industries shut down. Investors flee the country because they know that there will be no certainty. Sovereign risk becomes an issue. Jobs evaporate, particularly in our regions, where you have miners, fishers, foresters and farmers being strangled by green tape. This legislation that this cohort, the Australian Greens in partnership with the Labor Party, are going to rush through this place will make all of that worse. This is a prime example of what a Bandt-Albanese government would look like after this election if people are conned into voting for them. If the government roll over and allow this to happen, it is proof positive that the government will be like this after the election. They will happily wave through whatever agenda it is the Greens want to bring on. In Tasmania we have a saying: 'It's the Green tail wagging the Labor dog.' Having lived through a Labor-Green government and having seen what destruction is wreaked upon a jurisdiction—in our case Tasmania, where we saw our economy continually shrink, with great swathes of productive and well-managed land locked up at the behest of the Greens—I ask: what's on the table here? If the goal is to stay on the Treasury benches and for Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, to hang onto the keys to the Lodge, what price will he pay to do that? We are getting hints and previews, and can I tell you that anything that the Australian Greens vote for is generally very, very bad. They are not pro jobs. They are not pro the economy. They are certainly not pro regional Australia. They're a party that claim to be the friends of the worker and say they will have a future made in Australia. None of that is possible if you do deals with this crowd down the end here who want to choke our economy. They represent downtown Melbourne and Sydney—big population centres—not people in our regions. I say to the government: don't roll over. Don't be led by the Australian Greens here. It'll be bad for Australians, and you know it. Prove them wrong, and don't support this ridiculous motion. 10:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland These bills that are the subject of the Greens motion are obviously government bills that, of course, we support. They're important bills to do with electricity infrastructure in Australia and also gender equality—two issues that our government has stood very strongly on. As I say, they are government bills. The Greens have put forward a motion to bring them on for debate. Given they are government bills, we would support the idea of this parliament progressing the bills, and for that reason we'll be supporting the motion. On that basis, I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:11]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:15 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senator Waters in relation to the suspension of standing orders be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:15]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate. 10:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 There is a procedural question that the motion be put. The question before the chair is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:19]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:22 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the procedural motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:22]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 10:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move the motion as circulated: That— (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at 1 pm: (i) Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and (ii) Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded. 10:24 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I ask that the question be put separately on paragraph (a)(i) and paragraph (a)(ii). The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The motion moved by Senator Waters has been split. The question is that paragraph (a)(i), which relates to the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:26]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Blyth, L. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm hoping you can clarify, because I thought the operative provisions were the subject of the previous vote. People are entitled to vote separately on placita (i) and (ii), but the operative provisions need to be the subject of a vote. Take advice from the clerk about how that should be constructed, but it would not be appropriate to have people vote on (a), placitum (ii), plus all the operative provisions together. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 To clarify for the chamber: the vote we're dealing with is on paragraph (a), placitum (ii). We voted on the motion as it applies to the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. We are now voting on it as it applies to the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. So is there clarity in the chamber? It's crystal clear? The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that paragraph (a), placitum (ii) of the motion as moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [10:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. (Teller) 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. 31 NOES Antic, A. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 6 PAIRS Farrell, D. E. Cash, M. C. Gallagher, K. R. Canavan, M. J. Green, N. L. Askew, W. McAllister, J. R. Cadell, R. McCarthy, M. Reynolds, L. K. Wong, P. McKenzie, B.

Question negatived.

 BILLS 14 BILLS Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 14

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024

Returned from the House of Representatives 14 Third Reading 14 10:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 14

Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

First Reading 14 10:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland 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 14 10:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— In December 2024, important amendments to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Regulations (the OEI Regulations) were introduced to clarify my legislative powers when making decisions on feasibility licence applications for offshore renewable energy projects. The effect of those regulation amendments was to ensure that the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure licensing scheme operated as intended. Those regulation amendments: set out the requirements for area descriptions within licence applications, and provided that licences could only be granted for the area as described in the licence application; and ensured that only applications of the highest merit could be granted licences, where those applications overlapped with other applications of lower merit. However, currently these regulation amendments only apply to licence applications made after their commencement. That means applications submitted before the OEI Regulations were amended would be treated differently to applications submitted subsequent to the amendments, and result in unfair outcomes for different applications. This bill seeks to ensure a consistent approach to all feasibility licence applications, regardless of when they have been made, by ensuring that the regulation amendments apply to applications made prior to their commencement. Passage of this bill will ensure that the licensing scheme operates consistently and equally for all applicants and licence holders regardless of when their applications were made. These changes will improve scheme administration, provide regulatory certainty to applicants and licence holders, and, importantly, support the continued development of a high quality and high integrity offshore renewables industry in Australia. I commend this bill. 10:39 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to move a motion relating to the referral of the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 to a Senate inquiry, as circulated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 We're in the second reading debate. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Well, I will scratch what I've just said and get on with the second reading debate. You're going to be in for a lovely morning, everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, when we think we know what's going on we clearly don't. That's because of what has just happened here, colleagues, with this Labor-Greens dodgy dirty deal on a Thursday—the last sitting Thursday of this parliamentary term. What we have just seen in their attempt to ram this ridiculous piece of legislation through the Senate is, as I said before, a window into the future, a crystal ball moment in which we know exactly what's going to happen under a Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Greens leader Adam Bandt government. It will be a Labor-Greens government where we will, of course, be left with a Greens tail wagging a Labor dog. Bringing this bill on to have it rammed through the parliament today was contrived as part of some dodgy deal between the two coalition parties: the Australian Labor Party, the former friend of the worker; and the Australian Greens political party. You had the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate in here watching over to make sure that this deal was brought to fruition. It's very disappointing to see this. We have Australian households in a cost-of-living crisis. The reality is that the legislation before us, the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, does nothing to address the problems that we have in this country. Any occupant of this chamber—any senator from anywhere in the country—would be aware of the fact that Australians are struggling under the cost of living. One of the biggest portions of the pressure that these households and businesses are facing is energy prices. This is not a new problem. This is something Australians have now been struggling with for the better part of 2½ years. Before the last election, the Prime Minister told Australians 97 times that their power prices would go down by $275 a year. It's a figure that, in a very Trotskyite type of way, the Labor Party have tried to scratch from history. No-one refers to this $275 figure anymore. It's like it never happened. But, of course, it was a key element in the promises that was made to Australian households. It was a key element of the Australian Labor Party's offering to the Australian people. I remember the Prime Minister saying to Australians, 'My word is my bond.' His word was, in this case, that, when it came to power prices, Australians would be $275 better off under his government than under the alternative. Well, if we fast-forward the clock and we forget about the 97 times that promise was made on this issue—that is, again, just for clarity, that Australian households and businesses would be $275 better off—the reality is that here we are, nearly three years on from the election, and it's gone in the opposite direction. On average, we have households now paying $1,000 more per year than they were at the date when that promise was made. Far from being just a broken promise, it is an abject failure of government to do what they owe to the Australian community. It isn't just about honouring promises, about making sure that the bond that was offered to the Australian people is honoured; it's about actually doing the right thing by Australian households and finding ways to bring down energy prices. With that as context, why are we here, on the eve of an election, debating legislation that will do nothing to help the government honour its election promises and nothing to help Australian households with the burden of skyrocketing power prices, amongst all of the other cost-of-living issues we have? It is because, as I said before, we are staring into the looking glass at what a Labor-Green government would look like. It demonstrates the tone-deaf nature of this Labor-Green outfit that, in all the contributions we hear—I wonder whether we will hear about the cost of living from government speakers on this legislation. I'm not wondering whether we will hear about the cost of living from Greens speakers. That is not part of their lexicon. They do not refer to this issue that impacts most Australians, because it doesn't suit their narrative. And that is because, when you go with Greens ideals, when you follow the Greens path, when the Labor dog is being wagged by the Greens tail, nothing helps with the cost of living. As I said earlier when we were debating whether we should be rushing this legislation through—legislation, I might also point out, that will not be subject to any legislative scrutiny now because of this dodgy dirty deal—when you follow the Greens pathway, as this government sadly is today under the supervision of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, who were here watching to make sure that the Greens got their wishes, you can be guaranteed that Australians will be worse off. Anything the Greens say is a good idea you can take as read is a bad idea. It is anti-jobs, it is anti cost-of-living relief and it is against what Australians actually need. To have a party of government teaming up on the eve of an election to give effect to this terrible, economically destructive, job-destroying agenda that applies further pressure to households is, frankly, an alarming development. But it is not surprising. As we head off from this building this afternoon, I suspect we won't be coming back, given the government's desire to pass all of this legislation in a hurried fashion and to tick the boxes with their inner-city-elite voters, who like the sorts of things that this government is trying to rush through. This is a preview of what we will have from this government. Senator Ayres 16913 More electricity, good jobs. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I'll take the interjection from the assistant minister. He says that we will have more electricity. Well, I'm afraid we have a situation where we are facing blackouts because of the unreliability of the source of generation that this government chooses, which is intermittent and unreliable, to the exclusion of all other technologies, and they refuse to talk about other technologies. They don't want to work with coal energy generators to extend the life of power stations. They don't want to actually work with gas producers to bring more on for domestic consumption because, of course, in the cities— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Order! The interjections are disorderly. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Unless I take them, of course. Unfortunately, the assistant minister is incorrect because he, like all of his colleagues, lives in an alternative universe. They don't do anything about the cost of living, and this legislation will not help at all. It will not help with grid reliability; it will not help with expanding the offering of energy available to the grid. You go out and talk to manufacturers as well. We've gone to talk to manufacturers— Senator Ayres 16913 Go and tell that to the people of Bell Bay— Senator DUNIAM 263418 I might just take that interjection. Senator Ayres 16913 It's the Dutton plan to offshore aluminium. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Order! Senator Duniam, resume your seat. Minister, as you know, interjections are very disorderly, so I ask you to restrain yourself, please. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Those interjections were disorderly but amusing nonetheless because they are a glimpse into the alternative universe that this government lives in driven by green ideology rather than reality. They talk about offshoring aluminium manufacturing. Can I say, when you've got a government that brings in this draconian safeguard mechanism, which is offshoring aluminium smelting jobs, if you go out and talk to the high-vis army working in these smelters, they will tell you what this government's policies have done. They will tell you what the cost of energy is doing to their capacity to manufacture in this country. They will tell you what it's doing to their workforce, which is decreasing because we are being outpriced by our competitors from countries where they don't care about the environment, emissions or workers rights. Those opposite are happy to see that happen all in the name of green ideology because they know, as every pollster does, as the bookies know and as we are tracking today, that the Labor Party is set to win in minority with the Greens political party down the end. Therefore, we need to make sure that they think we're on the same page before the election. We are going to see the offshoring of jobs under this plan, and if the minister or any other government senator wants to tell me—or workers in smelters in Bell Bay, for that matter—that this legislation is going to help them then I would love to know what happens when we exclude all other sources of energy generation, as this government does. They exclude consideration of every other technology and every other source of energy generation because it is all about the green agenda, as I said. The green agenda is failing Australians, but it is one this government has signed up to. You've got to understand that, if you go out doorknocking, people aren't saying, 'Yes, I know it's going to cost a bit more, but we'll go along with it; I know it might affect grid reliability, but we'll go along with it.' They're saying, 'No, please honour your promise and bring down power prices by $275.' That's what they're after, that's what they were promised, and I don't think it's wrong for us to point that out. When you talk to manufacturers who struggle with the cost of compliance with the safeguard mechanism and struggle with these skyrocketing electricity prices and industrial relations laws which have made the ability to compete internationally very, very difficult, they're not saying, 'This government has got our interests at heart.' Therefore, by extension, the government does not have those manufacturers' employees' interests at heart, because what does an employee in a company want? They want a job, but we are eroding certainty around employment. This legislation will absolutely harm the capacity of people in Bell Bay. Senator DUNIAM 263418 It'll harm the capacity of people on the West Coast of Tasmania at the MMG mine or, of course, the Port Latta— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Point of order, Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 I'm only seated about a metre away from Senator Duniam, and I am struggling to hear him over the interjections from the minister, no less, sitting over on the other side. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 I think the degree of interjection is quite high at the moment, so I ask you to restrain yourself, please, Minister. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Normally we do listen in respectful silence, of course, but it is hard to restrain yourself when you're confronted with the truth. It is very, very hard. As I was saying, if you go to the Port Latta pelletising plant in Braddon, I'll tell you what: they're not looking at this legislation and going, 'Yes, this is excellent for us; it's going to help us keep operating here, in a globally competitive environment where prices are going down overseas, our dollar is making it hard to export and, of course, the prices of doing things here in this country—to manufacture what it is we take out of the ground and value-add to—are going up.' They are now drawing big question marks over their operations, because of government policy. That's in the seat of Braddon. That's a very, very important seat. In the seat of Lyons, you've got this government—in addition to driving up power prices, as it will with this bill—casting uncertainty over a range of industries, including the salmon industry. Here we are, on the eve of an election, with a government that will stick its head in the sand to deny the claims being made not just by us here in opposition but by employers out there who, of course, want to do well, which in turn means employees do well. They have jobs, they can pay their bills and they get paid more when they are able to compete on the international stage. But we are pricing them out of the market, and that's what industry is saying. They have said it countless times, whether it relates to the Nature Positive Plan—this ridiculous green agenda—to the safeguard mechanism, which is also part of the green agenda this government has adopted, or to the industrial relations changes which were rammed through without much consultation with industry. Here we are now furthering the green ideology this government has adopted, again demonstrating how out of touch it is with Australian businesses and Australian workers. I don't think there will be many people in regional communities celebrating what this legislation does. You can almost be guaranteed that anything the Australian Greens back is bad for jobs, apart from in the inner city or perhaps in government run offices. So that is always a warning sign, as well as the fact that the government is so happily signing up to this and happily allowing the Greens to run the agenda here today. We've got to remember that it was the Greens who moved a motion to ensure that debate on this legislation concludes today—that they get their bill through—and we tried to ensure that there would be scrutiny applied to these bills. But, of course, all of the shrill cries about what happened over the course of the last couple of days don't matter anymore, particularly when it comes to our little Greens-Labor agenda. In conclusion, we've just been given another glimpse into what the world will look like if we, unfortunately, wake up the day after the election with a Labor-Greens government. It will be bad for our economy, bad for jobs and, most importantly, as demonstrated by the legislation pushed in here and pushed through the Senate by the Greens, bad for the cost of living. I think Australians need to know that. I'm pleased we had, what, a dozen votes this morning where Labor and the Greens voted together to get their green ideology across the line, because that's exactly what the world is going to look like after they get their hands on the Treasury benches together. 10:56 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise to speak to the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 today. The Greens will always fight for clean energy. We will always fight for the thousands and thousands of jobs that that will provide in the regions, including in my home state of Queensland. We will always fight to stop a future Dutton led government from undermining the clean energy sector, because they don't accept the climate science and are instead propping up coal and gas with the fig leaf of nuclear. I'm absolutely thrilled that we were able to secure the chamber's support to make sure that we passed this bill today. I'm very pleased that some of the crossbench voted with us to make sure that, if we're not finished debating this bill by one o'clock, we can actually vote on it. What we're voting on here is about making sure that the government can continue to back in renewable energy. Thanks to the amendment that the Greens were able to make in the other place, that's precisely what this bill can now do. Originally it had a slightly different—but also good—purpose. In order to protect the renewables sector from a future Dutton government, we've managed to put into law the Capacity Investment Scheme, which is the government's underwriting of clean energy projects. To put that in English: this bill, thanks to the Greens amendment in the House, will now protect 32 gigawatts of clean energy in law, and it would take both chambers to undo that. Even if we get a Dutton led minority government in the other place, I don't think they're going to be able to get the numbers in the Senate. I'm really pleased that today we'll be able to lock into law support for clean energy. We've seen many communities and individuals across the country take the opportunity of clean, renewable energy to power their homes, farms, community services and businesses. With proper support for communities we can build prosperity and a safe climate by decarbonising our energy systems. That's what this bill seeks to do: provide certainty for communities and the industry in a renewables rollout. As I mentioned, we've improved it further by Dutton-proofing the Capacity Investment Scheme. The Capacity Investment Scheme is the government's key policy to reduce emissions and to achieve the 82 per cent renewables target by 2030. Right now, prior to this bill passing, it's very vulnerable to sabotage by the Dutton coalition because it was only created by regulation. The Leader of the Opposition could dismantle it on day 1 of getting into the Lodge—if he gets there, if the various folk in the other place decide to support a Dutton minority. If it were repealed, renewables investment would come to a grinding halt. The Greens amendment, which passed the House, which is now incorporated in the bill that's before the Senate, would enshrine the government's Capacity Investment Scheme into law. That means that our amendment has Dutton-proofed the Capacity Investment Scheme. It cannot be unilaterally repealed if there were to be a coalition government or minority government. By enshrining it into law it will oblige the next two governments to meet the 32-gigawatt renewables and storage target by 2030. That's made up of 23 gigawatts of renewable generation and nine gigawatts of dispatchable energy. That will ensure that critical investment in the renewables rollout can continue smoothly. As many folk know, that's important for creating market confidence, and it's essential for the rapid decarbonisation that's needed to address the climate crisis. So the Greens are using their balance-of-power position in parliament to push for better climate outcomes by Dutton-proofing it from the climate destruction of the LNP. The Liberals and the coal and gas industry are doing everything they can to slow down action on the climate crisis. They're spruiking nuclear, which, as we all know, would simply prolong coal and gas, and they're pouring time and money into undermining the transition to renewables. We've seen ridiculous billboards by the likes of Advance Australia. We've seen anti-offshore wind community campaigns. We've seen the National Party whip up fear in the community about renewable energy. I don't see them standing with the same farmers when it comes to coal or coal seam gas wrecking farmland, but, hey, they clearly pick their battles. What we've also seen in the news this week is that Australia has already shot past 1½ degrees of warming and that the world is on track for a catastrophic 3.1 degrees of warming. We have got to be doing absolutely everything we can to decarbonise as rapidly as possible. We've got to transition to 100 per cent renewables as soon as we can. We cannot afford to have existing policies slide backwards, which is exactly why we moved to Dutton-proof this key emissions reduction policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, you need to refer to members of the other place by their correct titles. Senator WATERS 192970 My apologies—Mr Dutton. We've moved to Mr Dutton-proof this key emissions reduction policy and to lock in renewables investment. That is obviously crucial, but we cannot keep pouring fuel on the fire. Renewables investment has to be accompanied by no new coal, oil or gas. Unfortunately, under the Albanese government, we know that emissions have actually gone up, which is frankly gobsmacking. Perhaps part of the reason for that is that 32 coal and gas projects, either new or expanded, have been approved by the Albanese Labor government. Without a commitment to stop subsidising coal and gas to the tune of $11 billion of taxpayer money and without that commitment to stop opening new coal and gas fields that are simply turbocharging the climate crisis, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. We are risking the future of our climate, our environment and our economy and we will continue to be out the back of the pack internationally. Australia's future is in clean energy, not fossil fuels, and this bill is an important step to lock in renewable investment and to provide more certainty for communities and industry, but we've got to get on with the rest of the job. We are strongly in support of the 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target. We'd like it to be higher, and we can do that in a way that actually shores up the economic future of regional communities. We know that renewables are not only the cheapest form of energy, which is great news for households, but they are job rich, and they are safe jobs. They're not coalmining jobs, where you come down with black lung disease or get sacked by your mega coal company because you've been replaced by a robot. We can have a job-rich, clean energy transition that's smooth, and that's why we're backing this bill today. Government underwriting for the renewables sector is crucial, and it will help even out the peaks and troughs. This is us adapting and trying to make that transition to a clean energy economy. I'm so pleased that we were able to get the support of those in the chamber and in the other place to do that today to make sure that those good targets—they're not as strong as they should be, but they're good—are now in law and can't be just undone by the stroke of a pen should Mr Dutton assume control of the country. But you can't just do good renewables stuff; you've got to stop approving coal and gas. It's one step forward and two steps back. This is why we will continue to insist that there be no new coal and gas approved. That will always be what the Greens work for, and that will always be on the table for any kind of minority government negotiations should the country lead us to that outcome. We're here for climate action. We're here for providing those jobs in regional communities. They know that the writing is on the wall for the coal industry. They know that their jobs are on the line and that they'll be sacked the minute it's cheaper for a robot to do their jobs than it is for a person. They deserve to have a bright economic future. They deserve to have a say in determining what is the next underpinning for the prosperity for their town. That's exactly why we will always stand with those coal and gas workers and we will always make sure that they've got options for well-paying jobs locally in their community. We are sick of the coal and gas companies running our country. We are sick of them running this parliament. We have tried to ban donations from coal and gas companies. Unfortunately, nobody else seems to agree that that is a good idea. They're perfectly happy for the oligarchs in the coal and gas companies to be in control of decision-making. Maybe that's why in every budget, no matter who's in government, you get $11 billion of taxpayer money given to the big coal oil and gas companies. Cheap diesel and accelerated depreciation are perks that no other industry gets. But, when it comes to the coal and gas industry, they say: 'Eleven billion dollars? Yes, sir. You'd like us to jump? How high, sir?' That is, sadly, what both of the big parties say when it comes to the coal, oil and gas industries. We will always say you could use that $11 billion you are giving to coal and gas to let people go to the doctor for free, to make sure they can go to the dentist and use their Medicare card and not their credit card or to make sure that public schools are fully funded and teachers are getting properly paid. There are so many better ways to spend money than propping up the coal and gas industry, and we need to do that. We need to make sure we're not opening new coal and gas in a climate crisis when we're already at 1½ degrees. We know the impact that that will have globally on coral reefs, and that includes the Great Barrier Reef in my home state of Queensland. We're going to lose 90 per cent of coral cover at 1½ degrees of warming, and, if that keeps ticking up and we get to even two degrees of warming, we know that 100 per cent of coral cover will be lost. That's 60,000 jobs that we're talking about losing, not to mention losing one of the seven natural wonders of the world. The future of our communities and the future of our environment is at stake, and that is why we're so proud that we have 'Dutton-proofed' this renewable energy investment scheme. But Labor have to stop approving new coalmines and gas projects. They have to stop giving $11 billion of taxpayer money to coal, oil and gas when they should be investing that in communities for the services that all of us rely on, like schools and hospitals. Maybe they could even subsidise solar and batteries for small businesses and for homes to really further kick along that renewables transition. 11:07 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia What a rich amount of interesting commentary to respond to here! The desperation of Senator Duniam was quite outstanding. I'm not entirely sure what he's so scared of, or is he just trying to get enough social media grabs to run some form of scare campaign that has no basis in reality? Any which way, I don't know that he really referenced any part of the actual bill in his commentary, so it could be that we need to go through some of those elements so that people are really clear about the content of the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I don't think there was anything that Senator Duniam said that actually has any basis in the intent of this legislation. Let's just be really clear: there is no majority in this chamber. There is no majority party in here. We, as the Albanese Labor government, invite every single senator across this chamber—it doesn't matter who you are—to embrace the great Labor agenda that we have set. We encourage you to come forward and support it because we do believe it is the future. It is where we should be going to protect jobs, to build our economy and to ensure we have a clean and sustainable future. In the context of this bill, that is a clean energy future with more manufacturing, better jobs and a stronger economy, making more of what we need right here at home with clean energy from the abundant renewable resources that we have in this country. We are luckier than so many parts of the world. The abundance of available resources for renewable energy is amazing, and what we are trying to do is harness it. What those opposite are trying to do is to go back to the Dark Ages and not embrace that clean energy future that the majority of the rest of the world is embracing. So let's go to a little bit of what this bill is actually about. Senator Duniam 263418 Cost of living. Senator 296331 No, Senator Duniam, this bill is not about the cost of living. I think, perhaps, you should have read the bill. An opposition senator: That's a social media grab. Senator GROGAN 296331 Sure—the desperation of those opposite to get a social media grab that they can misconstrue and misquote is absolutely disgraceful. The desperation that you are showing, Senator Duniam, is outstanding. I don't think I've ever seen you so desperate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, please direct your comments to me. Those on my left, listen in silence. Senator GROGAN 296331 My apologies, President. I just won't look at Senator Duniam, because I am tempted to address some of the commentary he made. But I will go back to the bill, because someone needs to talk about what this piece of legislation is actually about. Let's be clear, this is a bill to address an issue. What might not be clear, from the commentary we have had so far, is that the coalition designed and passed the enabling legislation to establish the offshore wind industry. From the commentary we've heard so far today, you wouldn't know or grasp that. You would think that they've always hated offshore and onshore wind—hell, any form of renewable energy doesn't seem to be their bag. But no, they passed the enabling legislation— Senator Bragg 256063 It's true. Senator GROGAN 296331 Thank you for the nod, Senator Bragg, acknowledging that that's exactly what you did, which was great. As it was originally legislated, the bill was designed to ensure that the most meritorious projects received feasibility licences so that they could start their work and develop their projects. Senator Bragg 256063 It's been maladministered. Senator GROGAN 296331 I'm not sure if you developed it for maladministration, Senator Bragg, but I'm pretty sure it was about trying to ensure that the most meritorious projects got up. The applications were assessed against very clear guidelines and very clear criteria, but a successful court challenge has placed 12 of those feasibility licences and two preliminary decisions at significant risk. Those potential delays in critical projects are forcing the developments into less suitable locations and injecting an awful lot of unnecessary uncertainty into the industry. In response, the Labor government took swift action to ensure that this great enabling legislation, passed by the coalition back in the days when they were a bit less desperate but still ineffective—in December, the minister signed the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Amendment (Overlapping Applications) Regulations 2024, ensuring that, moving forward, feasibility licences would be granted only to the best projects in the case of overlap. But these regulations don't apply retroactively, meaning that the current applications are not all treated consistently. I can see that everybody is enthralled by this deep explanation of a piece of legislation that's fixing up a challenge, but that's where we are at. This is what it's actually about, not some of the bunkum you've heard from the other side around this legislation. This is to ensure that our wind industry can grow and progress, because offshore wind is going to provide an enormous, valuable resource to this country to enable us—in a clean, green and sustainable fashion—to build our manufacturing, to ensure we have great jobs into the future and to ensure that we are supporting the regions. The kinds of places that we are looking at, with these wind resources, are places that have traditionally provided us with our energy sources. There is the project in Gippsland, which is set to come online in 2030, and then we have zones in the Hunter, the Southern Ocean, Illawarra, Bass Strait and Bunbury. This is an economic driver. This industry will be a game changer if we just continue on the same pathway that, once upon a time, this whole chamber was in agreement over. In fact, in 2021 the support of the Greens, the support of Labor, the support of the Nationals, the support of the Liberals— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, you will be in continuation. We've hit the hard marker. NOTICES 21 NOTICES Presentation 21 Withdrawal 21 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Pursuant to the notice given yesterday on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for 12 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the National Land (Road Transport) (Parking) Rules 2024. COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the second report of 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 2 OF 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 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 12 February 2025 at 7.42 pm 2. The committee recommends that- (a) the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No. 2) be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 August 2025 (see appendix l for a statement of reasons for referral); and (b) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the provisions of the AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2025 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee considered the following bills and, noting that they had been referred to committees on 12 February 2025, makes no further recommendation: Remuneration Tribunal Amendment (There For Public Service, Not Profit) Bill 2025 Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (There For Education, Not Profit) 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] 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 Great Australian Bight (World Heritage Protection) Bill 2025 Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 Pacific Banking Guarantee Bill 2025 Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025 Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025 Defence Trade Controls Amendment (Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity) Bill 2024 Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Divesting from Illegal Israeli Settlements) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 13 February 2025 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025 (No. 2) Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: The Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill proposes the establishment of a new, independent statutory authority responsible for providing information, advice, assistance, guidance and support to whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers. This body has previously been proposed, but warrants an inquiry. Possible submissions or evidence from: Law Council, Bar Associations, Integrity Civil Society Groups, whistleblowers Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): TBA Possible reporting date: 31 August 2025 Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program} Bill 2025 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise 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: 21 March 2025 (signed) / Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Public scrutiny of bills Possible submissions or evidence from: Migration Institute of Australia Human Rights Law Centre Civil Liberties Australia Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): March 2025 Possible reporting date: 21 March 2025 (signed) / Nick McKim Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I would like to move an amendment: At the end of the motion, add "and the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 April 2025". In speaking to this amendment, I just want to make the point, which was actually helpfully highlighted by the last government speaker, that this legislation has nothing to do with the problems being faced by Australian people—the households and businesses, of course, that are struggling under the cost of living. The last government speaker on the legislation we are now seeking to refer to a committee had nothing to do with addressing the problems being faced in this country. Again, this is why we should send this legislation to a committee for an inquiry—so stakeholders, including Australian households, who are paying more for electricity, can have their say about this legislation, which does nothing to address the problems being faced by Australian households. The cost of living is something that again, as predicted, did not feature in the contribution by the Australian Greens on this debate. This is why it's important. As demonstrated by what is happening here today—led by the Australian Greens cheerfully pushing their agenda and supported by the Australian Labor Party blindly following this ideological road to economic destruction, to households not being able to pay their power bills, to people being out of jobs—this is another step in that pathway. As I said before, it is a preview of what is to come. We have seen it here in the ACT at the territory level. We have seen it in Tasmania at a state level. We have seen Labor-Green governments and their agenda around legislation like this, which does require scrutiny. If the last government speaker in the substantive debate on this legislation was happy to point out that this has nothing to do with the cost of living then tell us exactly why this is good legislation. Tell us why we need to do it. Justify it to the community through the process of transparency. Let's not of forget, of course, that it was the Prime Minister who said this government would usher in a new age of transparency. I don't know who the usher is, but they're doing a terrible job, because there is no transparency. Here we are again, at the end of this week, at the end of this parliamentary term, in probably the last sitting day before we go to the polls, Australia, with this government rushing through this legislation. Now, I could understand if it were legislation to do with the problems being faced by Australian households and businesses—that is, legislation that would assist with the cost of living—but apparently, according to the government, this has nothing to do with the cost of living. So, again, the government should be justifying to the Australian people why this legislation should pass. They should be justifying to this Senate why this legislation should pass and not rush it through. That's why Senate committees, like we are proposing today, should be able to look at the legislation, interrogate this and ask the government if there's any modelling that's been done about what this would do to the cost of living, what this would do to grid reliability, what this would do to manufacturing jobs in this country, what this would do to their flimsy, glossy, Future Made in Australia agenda. Of course, on one hand, they are strangling our economic drivers—small business, manufacturing—with things like the safeguard mechanism; their ridiculous nature-positive agenda, which has failed, thankfully; and all of the rest of the antibusiness, antijob, pro-Greens agenda that this government has been running. That's why the coalition would desperately love to see this legislation sent to committee for inquiry. If the Prime Minister and others are to be believed, we've got time for this. We're going to be back for estimates; there'll be further sittings of the Senate, so let's send this off. Let's have a discussion. Why rush this through? It is unbelievable that this government would lock in behind the Australian Greens to rush this through when it does nothing to assist Australian households and businesses. Again, it demonstrates this government's tone-deaf approach to dealing with the issues being experienced by households and businesses across this country. They've been crying out for solutions. If the government wants to tell us that this legislation is the solution to the problems being faced by the Australian people, then let us do that through a Senate inquiry process. Come and justify what it is you're trying to rush through this place. Don't jam it through in here today just because your coalition partners, the Greens, want that to happen. Australians know something is up, because they're the ones who are paying higher power bills. They're the ones whose employers are saying: 'Times are getting tough. We are not able to compete with overseas imports because electricity is too expensive.' Tell us how this legislation is going to help with any of that. Tell us how this is actually a solution. Tell us how it honours the promise made by the Prime Minister that power prices would go down by $275—a promise he made 97 times. Tell us how it actually honours your agenda, and we'll back it in. 11:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I wasn't going to speak, but that performance from the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate warrants me to reply, just briefly. I think it is very interesting that the party that's proposing nuclear reactors around the country as their response to delivering energy security in this country, which will cost $600 billion and drive up power prices by $1,200 for every household, would come in here concerned about the price of electricity and energy for households. Seriously! This bill is important. It is largely to address some technical issues that have arisen and to ensure there is a consistent licensing scheme in operation for offshore wind projects. We are not going to take lectures from those opposite about the cost of energy, when their solution to that is more coal generation for longer, fewer renewables and some far-out nuclear fantasy of dotting seven nuclear reactors around the country in the 2040s as some solution to people's household bills right now. We're just not going to take it. I'm sure Senator Duniam might not have seen some of the information that's come out today from the Clean Energy Council. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, okay, you're not interested in hearing from them, but the information that they've released today is: Australia has seen its best year for large-scale renewable energy investment since 2018, finishing the year strong in 2024 with $9 billion in total capital investment committed to projects that will help Aussies keep the lights on, according to new figures released by the Clean Energy Council today. It also goes on to say that the projects that are under construction now will help with over 10,000 construction jobs. This idea that people are losing jobs is just wrong. We have created 1.1 million jobs, and many of those new jobs are coming from delivering large-scale renewable projects across the country. Senator Duniam is wrong. He's wrong on cost, and he's wrong on the work that's underway around how we are shifting to more renewables. Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. You can keep dancing around about your nuclear fantasy without providing costings and telling people how much that will cost them, including to keep coal operating. The biggest risk to our energy system at the moment is coal-fired power stations breaking down, and they're doing it regularly. So we need more investment in renewables to make sure that we can support households with this transition. Supporting offshore wind is part of that. Making sure we have a licensing scheme that works is part of that, and that is what this bill does. But we understand that those opposite want to take us way back—20 years—to ruin all the work that has been done with capacity investment, Rewiring the Nation and the renewable projects that are underway. We know that that is what you are promising, but it's the wrong way. And I think most Australians understand that, because they have solar panels on their roofs and they want batteries at their homes. This is where the future is going. You may not like it, and you might want to fuel it with some far-fetched plan for nuclear energy in 30 years time, but the reality is that that's what households understand because they want help right now with their energy bills. You opposed our energy bill relief. That was a decision you took when we tried to help households with the increasing cost of energy. We helped them. You opposed it. We want to support households with that transition, and that involves supporting large-scale renewables, it involves supporting storage and it involves supporting investment through things like the Capacity Investment Scheme. All of that has been put in place by Minister Bowen and this government, and you are threatening to unwind it all. So it's no surprise that you oppose this legislation and you want to kick it off to a committee instead of just allowing these important projects to continue with the legal certainty that they require. We are seeing incredible investment in this country in renewable energy projects, and you want to rip that all up. That is going to cost households. It will cost households in their bills, and it will cost our energy security. So we do not support this amendment. It's just another way for those opposite to take us way back, 20 or 30 years, in energy policy, and we won't support it. 11:26 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I think what's incredible today is that we're in a cost-of-living crisis and you promised us at the last election that our power prices would go down, and you have failed to do that. You have failed to do that. As a matter of fact, the best thing you could do is send out $75 relief to us each quarter to try and keep us believing that is going to happen. You failed to fulfil that promise, and that's where we are. We have a cost-of-living crisis, and right now we need everything on the table. We need this to go to a Senate inquiry, and that's what the people of Australia expect. Any other time you want something to go, it goes to a Senate inquiry; whenever the Greens want something, it goes to a Senate inquiry—but not when it's not in your best interest. We can come and remind you every day of the week that, between the Greens and the government of the day, you have failed to do what you promised the Australian people at the last election. You have not reduced our power prices, and that's all that matters today. Between the Greens and the government, the Labor Party failed to reduce what they promised to at the last election. They failed to reduce your electricity bills. That is what's happened today, and that's all that matters. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and today in here they're still trying to tell me there's nothing wrong and our power prices aren't going up. That's where we're at. So, instead of gaffer-taping us every time it's not working for you guys and making you look good, these things need to go to an inquiry. We've waited three years for you to reduce our prices. You have failed. So what's another four or five weeks so we can do this properly? What is wrong with that? 11:28 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move an amendment to the amendment moved by Senator Duniam: Omit "17 April 2025", substitute "25 March 2025". I voted against this guillotine earlier, despite supporting the WGEA bill and this bill. I think it's a great shame that, on what I'm hearing might be the last day of parliament, we yet again have a bill introduced into the parliament at the last minute and not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny. We have a sitting week in March. We have a prime minister who's told us that he's going full term, and he's told us that he's a man of his word. So I take him at his word and I believe that we will be back in March. This will allow us to have a short Senate inquiry to delve into the issues. As Senator Cash often reminds us, the devil is in the detail, and that's what the house of review is here for. We saw last night a deal to ram through the biggest electoral reforms in 40 years, with no Senate scrutiny, and the crossbench— Senator Gallagher ING Oh, come on! There's been inquiry after inquiry into electoral reform. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Gallagher. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 It's convenient for the government to say that JSCEM made broad recommendations and that the government are simply implementing those. It's very inconvenient for the government that JSCEM recommended additional Territory senators, and it was in the Labor Party platform to have delivered extra Territory senators. Then, last night, the Labor Party voted against that, despite there being the numbers on the crossbench to support additional representation for the territories. But I digress after the interjection from Minister Gallagher. I don't understand why we have Labor trying to ram through more legislation today without any parliamentary scrutiny. Let's have some respect for the Senate. I think there are legitimate reasons to support guillotines when there has been scrutiny and some debate, and the Senate just needs to deal with things. We've seen in that past that, during these big guillotines, a lot of the bills don't even go to a division, because the Senate has largely worked through the bills. Some may even be noncontroversial but have been hanging around for a while. I don't think this is the case with this bill. Again, whilst I support what I've seen of this bill from Mr Bowen and have said to him myself that I support it in principle, I do think a short Senate inquiry would be worthwhile. I do not buy some of the rhetoric coming from the coalition on their stance on nuclear. We've heard from other former Liberals who are very open about it just being a front to continue the use of coal and gas. We do need to get on with transitioning not just our electricity sector—that's very important—but genuinely transitioning. So I give the government credit; they are committed to 82 per cent renewables, but they're also committed to expanding the fossil fuel industry, continuing to export gas and using Japan as an excuse to export gas. Well, we now know that Japan are exporting more gas than we export to Japan, which doesn't make a lot of sense. We hold them up as the reason we need to make life a lot harder for young people and future generations. On this one, I'm going to stick to my principles. I'll be supporting a referral here. I hope the Senate will look at this for a few weeks and come back in March, and the government will certainly have the numbers to pass it. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator David Pocock to Senator Duniam's amendment be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 5 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Pratt, L. C. Cash, M. C. Ayres, T. Davey, P. M. Ciccone, R. McKenzie, B. McCarthy, M. Smith, D. A. Farrell, D. E.

Question negatived.

11:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Duniam to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:40]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.

 BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Rearrangement 28 11:42 Senator ING Australian Capital Territory GALLAGHER (—) (): I move: That— (a) the Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 be considered from 12.15 pm today; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 797 standing in the name of Senator O'Sullivan, relating to the cost of living, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 28 11:42 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator McCarthy for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 28 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 28 11:43 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the extensions are agreed to. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 28 Reference 28 11:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 August 2025: The representation of and advice provided by ex-service organisations, commercial entities, not-for-profits and individuals to veterans and families in relation to accessing compensation and income support from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, with particular reference to: (a) the appropriateness of commercial entities within and outside Australia providing advocacy services, including the charging of fees or commissions on statutory entitlement payments; (b) representation of veterans at the Veterans' Review Board, including by legal practitioners; (c) regulation, training and professional discipline arrangements for advocates; (d) the consideration of previous reviews undertaken into the advocacy model, including recommendations made and subsequent implementation or lack thereof; and (e) any related matters. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 29 DOCUMENTS Stronger Communities Program 29 Order for the Production of Documents 29 11:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: That in respect of the requirement for an explanation to be provided of the response to order for documents no. 761, the explanation may be provided at the conclusion of question time on Thursday, 13 February 2025, instead of at 12.15 pm. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that government business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.  

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

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 5 PAIRS Ciccone, R. Smith, D. A. Farrell, D. E. McKenzie, B. Grogan, K. Davey, P. M. McCarthy, M. Cash, M. C. Pratt, L. C. Canavan, M. J.

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 30 BILLS Right to Protest Bill 2025 30

Right to Protest Bill 2025

First Reading 30 11:50 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to recognise the right to protest, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 30 11:51 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech in relation to the Right to Protest Bill 2025 incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This bill seeks to protect one of the most fundamental democratic rights, a right from which so many other rights stem: the right to peacefully assemble and protest. It does this by codifying in Australian law the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), specifically Articles 19, 21, and 22. These articles affirm that all people have the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association without arbitrary restriction. It is no coincidence that as global temperatures rise and urgent social movements demand action, governments around the world are responding, not with solutions but with suppression. In Australia we have witnessed an alarming erosion of our right to protest over the past decade, with successive state and territory laws criminalising dissent, expanding police powers, and imposing severe penalties on peaceful protesters. This bill is a necessary response to that trend. Protest is not an incidental feature of democracy; it is at its foundation. Without protest, workers would not have won the five-day work week, women would not have the right to vote and the world would not have come together to help end apartheid in South Africa. Aboriginal land rights, protected rainforests and nuclear free communities are all thanks to protest. Yet in recent years, governments across Australia—Liberal and Labor alike—have worked to dismantle this right. New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and Queensland have all enacted laws that target and criminalise protesters, particularly those who challenge the fossil fuel industry, logging, police violence, and government inaction on climate change. In doing so, they have chipped away at one of our most precious democratic rights. The Right to Protest Bill 2025 is about reversing this dangerous trajectory. This bill affirms that all Australians have the right to engage in peaceful protest in public spaces and that any restrictions on this right must be strictly limited to those necessary for national security, public safety, public order, public health, or the rights of others. Importantly, this bill ensures that excessive penalties—such as lengthy prison sentences and exorbitant fines—are considered unnecessary and disproportionate limitations on the right to protest. The bill provides that where state or territory laws conflict with this federal protection, those laws will be invalid to the extent of their inconsistency. This bill operates by clearly defining the right to peaceful protest as a federally protected right drawing on long standing international precedent in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. It establishes that a person has the right to engage in peaceful protest in a public place, and that any restrictions on this right must be justified in accordance with principles necessary in a democratic society. The bill sets out five narrowly defined circumstances under which this right may be restricted: (a) National security (b) Public safety (c) Public order (d) Protection of public health (e) Protection of the rights and freedoms of others. However, these are not blanket restrictions. Any limitation on the right to protest must be proportionate and necessary to address an unacceptable risk of harm, as determined by an objective legal standard. The bill explicitly invalidates any state or territory law that imposes excessive penalties for peaceful protest. Laws that criminalise protests through disproportionate fines or imprisonment terms would be rendered inoperable to the extent of their inconsistency with this federal protection. Importantly, this bill does not prevent states from regulating protests within reasonable parameters; it simply ensures that these regulations cannot be used as a tool to unduly suppress public dissent. I note Australia's international obligations do not allow for the curtailment of fundamental freedoms solely to protect corporate profits, business convenience or to protect governments from public scrutiny or mass movements for change. This is despite what Labor and Liberal Governments would like the community to believe. Let us be clear about the pattern we are seeing. State governments are too close to their police forces, who have pushed for harsher laws under the guise of maintaining order. At the same time, these governments—both Liberal and Labor—are preparing for the inevitable public backlash against their continued inaction on climate change, inequality, and human rights. Rather than addressing these crises, they use their close ties with police forces to justify laws to criminalise those who expose them. We have seen this in action. In 2020, when thousands gathered in New South Wales to protest for Black Lives Matter, police and government officials claimed the protest was illegal because of public health restrictions—even though at the same time they were encouraging people to gather in their tens of thousands in sporting stadiums and shopping centres. In 2022, NSW passed laws to punish climate protesters with up to two years in jail and $22,000 fines simply for demonstrating on certain roads. Victoria passed draconian forestry protest laws. Tasmania introduced harsh penalties for causing "public annoyance" and unconstitutional limitations on protesting in pretty much any forest. Meanwhile Queensland banned basic protest tools like lock-on devices and gave police largely unchecked powers to stop and search to find them, drawing condemnation from the United Nations. This creeping authoritarianism must be stopped. We cannot allow governments to make protesting so legally dangerous that the only demonstrations left are those that cause no inconvenience, challenge no authority and achieve no change. The right to protest exists precisely because it disrupts—it forces those in power to listen. Once we need to seek permission to protest, then we have already lost the right. If that happens, then other rights will topple over behind it. Australia has ratified the ICCPR, and as such, the Federal Government bears the responsibility to uphold its principles. That is why this bill relies on the Commonwealth's external affairs power under Section 51(xxix) of the Constitution. This bill ensures that our domestic laws are brought into line with international human rights standards. It makes clear that peaceful protest cannot be restricted merely to protect commercial interests, nor can vague notions of "public inconvenience" justify severe criminal penalties. The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Australia Institute, the Human Rights Law Centre and even the High Court have raised serious concerns about the erosion of protest rights in this country. It is time for the Federal Government to act. The Right to Protest Bill 2025 affirms that dissent is not a crime. It enshrines into law what should already be understood: that Australians have the right to gather, speak, and demand better from their governments without fear of police crackdowns or punitive legal consequences. We know that the challenges of the coming decades—climate crisis, social inequality, corporate overreach—will not be solved quietly. The people will not stand idly by as their future is compromised. This bill ensures they won't have to. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 31 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 11:52 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Duniam, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 746, agreed to on 5 February 2025, relating to correspondence with Senators Hanson-Young and David Pocock on the Government's Nature Positive bills, (ii) in a response from the Government, dated 11 February 2025, the Minister for the Environment and Water (Ms Plibersek) has written that 'I need time to seek advice on the text of the documents to determine whether I assert public interest immunity', noting there is no date specified by which such advice will be received, and (iii) there is no valid public interest immunity claim that can be made by the Government in relation to order no. 746; and (b) the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water be required to attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 13 February 2025 to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders, 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, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 793, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [11:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. 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. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 5 PAIRS Canavan, M. J. Pratt, L. C. Cash, M. C. McCarthy, M. Davey, P. M. Grogan, K. McKenzie, B. Farrell, D. E. Smith, D. A. Ciccone, R.

Question agreed to.

 BILLS 32 BILLS Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025 32

Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025

First Reading 32 11:58 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator FARUQI 250362 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 33 11:59 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. Leave granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I am pleased to introduce the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2024 to the Senate. I introduce this Bill at a time of crisis. A time where weapons manufacturers pocket billions as tens of thousands are slaughtered in Israel's genocide in Gaza. A time where climate-driven disasters continue to escalate while fossil fuel companies record mammoth profits. A time where gambling companies prey upon the vulnerable to maximise profit. A time where our higher education institutions serve corporations rather than their academic staff and students. This bill will not end the climate crisis. It will not end the Gaza genocide nor war in Ukraine. It will not free us from the scourge of gambling. But it will dent the armour of companies who profit off the misery of humanity, by denying these dirty industries access to the research prowess and funds of our public universities. And it will ensure that the 'corporate university' is forced to become more ethical. This bill prohibits monetary partnerships and investments between public universities and dirty industries like fossil fuels, weapons, tobacco and gambling. It also requires universities to divest from current partnerships and prohibits universities from appointing individuals involved in these industries to their governing bodies. Such partnerships fly in the face of the core purpose of universities in our societies. Universities are essential institutions to advance the public good, to create knowledge and research to progress humanity for the collective good of society. Partnerships with industries that inflict harm upon people and planet shatter this core purpose. The bill requires all higher education providers who receive Commonwealth funding to disclose any existing partnerships with, or investments in, prohibited industries. It identifies the weapons industry, the gambling industry, the tobacco industry, and the fossil fuel industry as prohibited industries that have no place in our universities. The Bill provides that a Minister may, through a legislative instrument approved in both Houses of Parliament, prescribe other prohibited entities that are harmful to students or to the broader public. Additionally, the Bill requires higher education providers to divest from any existing prohibited partnerships within six months of this ill becoming law. It prohibits higher education providers from appointing to their governing bodies any individual that has investments in a prohibited industry or sits on the board of a prohibited entity. Crucially, as universities end these dirty partnerships, the government must commit to making up the funding shortfall. The Bill acknowledges this by noting that, where compliance with these obligations result in a quantifiable loss for a higher education provider, the Commonwealth may provide reasonable compensation. Beyond this, however, our public universities are in desperate need of increased and sustained public investment. If our universities are to be places of public good, they must be adequately publicly funded. For decades, successive Labor and Liberal governments have chipped away at public funding for universities, forcing universities to turn to other funding, and rely on industries that are harmful to our environment, our health, our communities, and our planet. Weapons For 16 months the world has witnessed Israel's genocide in Gaza as affirmed by a UN special committee, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The genocide has seen at least 47,000 Palestinians murdered—with an estimate published by The Lancet putting the number at over 186,000 killed. According to the UN, nearly 70% of those killed in Gaza were women and children, and 44% specifically were children. The largest age demographic killed by Israeli forces in Gaza are children aged five to nine. The scale of devastation is such that, according to the UN, it would take 350 years to rebuild Gaza to pre-genocide levels. Additionally, Israel's invasion of Lebanon on October 1, 2024 killed more than 4,000 Lebanese people. This genocide has been inflicted with modern weaponry built through an extensive global supply chain. That includes the F-35 fighter jet, parts of which are manufactured in Australia. Companies involved in the production of the F-35, such as Lockheed Martin Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, enjoy partnerships with public universities in Australia. Documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws revealed that, as of March 2024, the Australian National University held 8,517 shares in BAE Systems, worth over $200,000. Even worse, these documents also show that ANU's shares in BAE jumped from 6,758 in September 2023 to 8,517 in November 2023, the period after the bombing of Gaza had commenced. This is no surprise, as the value of BAE's shares have only grown over the past year and a half as their death machines have played a starring role in Israel's genocide. BAE Systems' list of products include white phosphorous bombs, the use of which potentially amounts to a war crime, and missile launching kits used in many Israeli fighter jets. The Hermes series of drones, manufactured by Elbit Systems, have also been crucial to Israel's ability to kill civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. It was this series of drones that was used in the Israeli strike on April 1, 2024, that killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom. In February 2024, Elbit Systems was awarded a contract worth more than $900 million by the Albanese government. When asked by the Greens in Parliament in June 2024 about the contract, the Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy emphasised that the contract was ostensibly awarded "to Hanwha Defence Australia to build infantry fighting vehicles in Australia" and it was Hanwha Defence Australia that had contracted Elbit Systems "to build the turrets of those vehicles in Australia". Hanwha Defence Australia benefits from the research and development performed by Australian universities in order to produce the very weapons inflicting mass harm on civilians, having signed as recently as September 2024 a memorandum of understanding with Deakin University. These are examples of the relationships existing between Australia's higher education institutions and weapons manufacturers whose weapons are causing such catastrophic levels of suffering. University managements are beginning to be held to account by the tireless activism of staff and students who are demanding disclosure and divestment. Since October 2023, more than 6,000 students across 15 universities have voted in favour of universities divesting from the weapons industry. The national council of the National Tertiary Education Union this year supported a motion that states the NTEU will "demand university management cut ties with the weapons industry and militaries in general, and commit to a long-term strategy of demilitarisation of the higher education sector". Despite mounting calls for divestment, university boards have largely dismissed these demands or made surface level changes to investment policies that require no genuine action. Fossil Fuels For many years university students have been campaigning and pushing for their university to divest from fossil fuels to become fossil free because they know coal and gas are driving the climate crisis. Once emissions from fossil fuel exports are included, Australia is the world's second largest climate polluter. For years, Australian governments have disrupted progress in international climate negotiations, and successive Australian governments have taken actions that are entirely incompatible with the Paris Agreement's goal of 1.5 degrees. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on the Labor and Liberal parties shows no sign of abating. In just this parliamentary term, the Albanese Labor government has approved 32 coal and gas mine projects and expansions. A study released in September 2024, led by Sofia Hiltner from the University of Michigan, considered Australia, along with the US, UK and Canada, "four countries [that] lead the world in fossil fuel production and per capita carbon dioxide emissions". The study pointed to "fossil fuel involvement in higher education" within each of these four countries. Despite some universities making announcements of significant divestment from fossil fuel companies, a 2017 report by 350 Australia found a range of existing links between fossil fuel companies and Australian universities, including council members of universities having ties to fossil fuel companies and universities receiving funding for projects from fossil fuel or related companies. According to its 2022 annual report, the Australian Coal Industry's Research Program was then overseeing more than $91 million invested across 277 research projects—171 of them in partnership with 15 different Australian universities. Universities should not be in relationships with an industry that is directly responsible for global boiling and the devastating consequences already being felt across the world, including in this country. Gambling Gambling is also identified as a prohibited industry under the Bill. Each year, people living here lose billions of dollars to gambling, with significant harm inflicted on individuals and families. According to the Australian Gambling Statistics, Australians spent a record $244.3 billion on gambling in 2022-23, which amounts to $11,859 per person. The harms caused by gambling are well documented. A 2022 federal parliamentary inquiry found that four out of five gamblers were at risk of harm, and heard stories of deep suffering including financial ruin, substance abuse, homelessness, domestic violence, and mental illness. Animal cruelty is baked into their business model of the gambling-fuelled greyhound and horse racing industries, with thousands of animals killed, injured and drugged each year. Public scrutiny of the gambling industry has intensified in recent years, prompting a response from the industry to protect its interests. One such avenue the industry has pursued is in higher education. In August 2023, the University of Sydney launched the Centre of Excellence in Gambling Research, which included a $600,000 funding commitment from the gambling industry. The university was roundly criticised for accepting the funding, with one criticism accusing the university of "turning a blind eye to funding from the gaming industry, using its institutional credibility to legitimise compromised research". It is a particularly egregious breach of public trust for universities to be receiving funds from and conducting research on behalf of a sector that is responsible for significant harm impacting communities nationwide. Conclusion Universities should be places that advance the public good, not help dirty industries profit from human misery. Having these links to dirty industries betrays this core purpose and the mission of academia. There is no place for weapons manufacturers, fossil fuel, gambling or tobacco companies in our universities. Universities must rediscover and redeliver on their core purpose—to truly act as the essential hubs in society that advance only public good, not contribute to harmful corporate industries. This Bill will ensure they do that. Senator FARUQI 250362 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BUSINESS 35 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 35 11:59 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That— (a) immediately after a message from the House of Representatives is reported in relation to the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, the questions on all stages of the bill be put; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (c) divisions may take place for the purposes of the bill notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and (d) to avoid doubt, the bill may be considered before the Education and Employment Legislation Committee presents its report on its inquiry into the provisions of the bill, and the inquiry may proceed notwithstanding the passage of the bill. 12:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion. It's been circulated. This amendment would simply add the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 at the end of section (a). So it would be to add, at the end of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, the workplace gender equality bill as part of that. Leave not granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving an amendment to the motion. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Thorpe 280304 It's the anniversary of Captain Cook being eaten tomorrow That's something to celebrate, all those love bugs down there. Captain Cook got eaten tomorrow, on 14 February. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, come to order. Senator Thorpe 280304 Okay. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 35 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:09 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 795 standing in the name of Senator Hodgins-May be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 33 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Van, D. A. 4 PAIRS Ciccone, R. Canavan, M. J. Farrell, D. E. Smith, D. A. McCarthy, M. Kovacic, M. Wong, P. Askew, W.

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 37 DOCUMENTS Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation 37 Order for the Production of Documents 37 12:11 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 26 February 2025: (a) all documents, including funding agreements and purchase agreements, between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008 relating to the purchase and transfer of land by the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation (ILSC, previously Indigenous Land Corporation) at Queens Park, Western Australia, including: (i) 190-196 Treasure Road, (ii) Lot 255, 187 Hamilton Street, (iii) Lot 258, 174 Treasure Road, (iv) Lot 296, 6 Cross Street, and (v) Lot 295, 223 Hamilton Street; and (b) all correspondence between the ILSC (previously ILC) and Uniting Church of Australia between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2008, regarding the sale, use or transfer of land at Treasure Road, Queens Park, Western Australia, including: (i) 190-196 Treasure Road, (ii) Lot 255, 187 Hamilton Street, (iii) Lot 258, 174 Treasure Road, (iv) Lot 296, 6 Cross Street, and (v) Lot 295, 223 Hamilton Street. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 37 MOTIONS Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights 37 12:12 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That— (1) If the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has: (a) sought a response from a minister in relation to a bill and a response has not been received; or (b) concluded that a bill is incompatible, or at risk of being incompatible with Australia's international human rights obligations; or (c) made a recommendation to amend a bill that has not been implemented; then, immediately prior to the consideration of the relevant bill, the minister must provide an explanation of why the minister has not provided a response to the committee, or why the bill is proceeding. (2) Where the minister makes an explanation under paragraph (1), at the conclusion of the explanation any senator may move, without notice, a motion: (a) relating to the consideration of the bill; or (b) that the Senate take note of the explanation. (3) The procedures in paragraphs (1) and (2) may only be used once on any sitting day in respect of any bill or bills taken together. (4) This order is of continuing effect. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 798 standing in the name of Senator Thorpe be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 15 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. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 37 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BUSINESS 38 BUSINESS Withdrawal 38 12:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the discharge of Labor's super tax bills from the Notice Paper, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator CASH I0M Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the discharge of bills from the Notice Paper. Colleagues, super tax bills are exactly what the coalition is against. Let's recall what the Prime Minister said prior to the election. He looked the Australian people in the eye, like he did on so many occasions, and he promised no changes to superannuation. Yet what has he done with the Australian Greens? What has he done? They have a bill on this Notice Paper that will take more money from the pockets of Australians, as if Australians were not doing it tough already under this government. You promised the world to Australians prior to the last election, and the only thing—the only thing—that you have delivered to them is a cost-of-living crisis. On top of that cost-of-living crisis, you now have the audacity to say to hardworking Australians, who go into work every day, who work hard and who are putting money away for their retirement: 'It's not your money. It's the Labor Party's money and it's the Greens' money. And it doesn't matter how hard you worked. Guess what? We want it. It's a pot of money, and we are going to take it from you.' Let me be very, very clear. This is an election issue, and the coalition proudly stands with hardworking Australians—mums and dads, small-business people—who go into work every day, who do a hard day's work for a fair day's pay. They put money away for their superannuation. Our fundamental principle is: your money, your super. We will fight this government and the Australian Greens every single step of the way to ensure that they do not get their dirty little hands, their little mitts, on your hard-earned cash. Let's look at the detail of what they want to do; it gets worse. They tell Australians—it's simple, seriously—80,000 people will be affected. Actually, their own figures, from the Treasurer's own department, show it is not 80,000 people. More than two million Australians under the age of 25 today will be slugged with Labor's latest tax grab. So to all those young people out there who might be thinking, 'I'm going to vote Greens,' I say: just remember you will be working hard for many decades to come. You will be putting money away into your superannuation for your retirement. And guess what? There are not 80,000 of you. The Labor Party and the Australian Greens are going after literally one in 10 Australians to take their hard-earned money. Think about that carefully before you vote, because, even if they voted to discharge this from the Notice Paper today, guess what? You've done a dirty deal today to kill off gas, to stop gas—and we know you need to pop more of that into the market—with the Australian Greens. The end result is that Australians will now pay more for their energy under this dirty little backroom deal that has been done by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. Senator McGrath 217241 Your preference mates! Senator CASH I0M Absolutely, their preference mates. It's not only that—and I hope Senator McKenzie gets to speak to this motion. I think one of the most offensive parts of Labor's super tax on the Australian people is the taxing of unrealised capital gains. Do you know what that means for all of the retirees and all of the farmers out there? They will pay tax on money they haven't even made yet. Farmers have warned the Australian Labor Party—this is what they've told them: 'You rely on us each and every day to feed Australians. We are doing it tough as it is, and now you are going to tax our unrealised gains.' It is unfair. It sets a dangerous precedent. On behalf of mum-and-dad Australians and all the young people who are going to be working hard for decades to come, we will vote to discharge this bill from the Notice Paper. It's a clear commitment to the Australian people: we will not tax your super. On the other hand, Labor and the Greens cannot wait; they're salivating at the prospect. 12:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government will not be supporting the suspension or the motion. I do find it rather amusing that Senator Cash gives such a passionate statement about protecting people's super when those opposite oppose super. They oppose superannuation every time. They've voted against superannuation from its inception to now, when they continue to look at ways to undermine it because they cannot stand working people having access to capital to fund their retirement. That's ultimately what this is about. You cannot bear it. You can't bear the size of the superannuation industry. You can't bear that industry funds actually have resources in this country to invest on behalf of their members. Nobody thinks you're serious, Senator Cash—that you have some concern about people's superannuation. It's not about that at all. All of this term, you have sought to undermine every effort we have taken to provide cost-of-living support and help to Australian families. You walk in here, at the end of a sitting fortnight, to pull a stunt that you argue is trying to protect people's superannuation. It is Labor that built superannuation, it is Labor that has ensured that it works in the interests of working people and it is only Labor that will continue to do that. I accept that you, in seeking to discharge this, do not agree with the position the government has put in the legislation. I accept that you don't support a very modest change that allows high-balance superannuation— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! This is a five-minute contribution, but I've had to call order at least half a dozen times. You are being disrespectful to me. The minister will be heard in silence. Otherwise, you can leave the chamber. Senator GALLAGHER ING I must say, the louder they shout the more I feel like my points are being well made. You make a good point; the volume goes up. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I've just called order. Senator GALLAGHER ING Those opposite—let's just be clear—the government accepts that you don't support lowering the concessional tax rate for those with balances higher than $3 million in their superannuation account. I would say to you that the average super balance is in the order of $270,000 at retirement age. The average working Australian retires with about $270,000. Senator Hume 266499 Is it indexed? Senator Henderson ZN4 It's unrealised. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume and Senator Henderson, I've called you to order. Senator GALLAGHER ING The average working woman, of course, retires with a lot less than that. This is about lowering the concessional rate. It's still very concessional, in the tax system, but just lowering it for high-balance superannuation accounts. I accept that you don't agree with it, but this stunt today, seriously, under the guise that you're trying to protect people's superannuation balances at the same time that you have Senator Bragg there grinning at the thought of dismantling the superannuation system—nothing gives him greater joy than the idea that he might be able to systematically undermine superannuation in this country. They're quite open about it. We have conversations about how the Liberal Party doesn't support superannuation. I think you should just say it. You don't support super, you've never supported super and you will never support super. But the thing that you didn't support, the superannuation guarantee going up for working Australians, you wanted to keep at 9½ per cent. You tried to undermine it there. You don't like the fact that it's getting to 12 per cent. Yet you'll fight tooth and nail to stop this legislation passing, about lowering a concessional rate slightly for balances over $3 million. Let's just be clear what's happening here. Whilst you're trying to get rid of it for everyone else and dismantle it and lower the standards and ensure that more people are pushed onto the age pension than need to be, instead of living a dignified retirement, you will go into bat to make sure that those who are fortunate enough to have more than $3 million get a slightly lower concessional tax rate. That is what you are saying here. We don't agree. We don't agree with the suspension, we don't agree with your attacks on super and we will always stand against it. 12:27 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Can I just highlight, Senator Gallagher, that you're actually incorrect when you say that the Liberals have always opposed superannuation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senator Gallagher ING Don't give me that! Senator RENNICK 283596 Hear me out. Vocally, they will oppose it in the chamber and talk about how it is all bad, but, in the dead of night, 'Little Johnny Howard' and Peter Costello ran down to the sewer with their mates from the banks, CBA, National Australia Bank, Westpac and ANZ. CBA did a joint venture with Colonial Mutual. National Australia Bank did a joint venture with National Mutual. Westpac took over Bankers Trust and ANZ did a joint venture with ING. Colonial Mutual's return on equity, when they were owned by the Commonwealth Bank, was 66 per cent. So don't believe it when you think the Liberals don't support superannuation. I pleaded with the former Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, not to lift the superannuation levy from nine per cent to 12 per cent. He didn't block it, because, at the end of the day, the banks love superannuation. You know why? It increases the mortgage. If you can't pay your mortgage off quicker, because your money's tied up in superannuation, it means you've got to pay more interest on your mortgage. That's why the banks love superannuation and that's why the Liberals love to pretend they hate superannuation. But they don't. Had they been serious about it, they would have listened to me when I was secretary of the finance backbench and pleaded with them to enable people to keep their own wages. Senator Gallagher just belled the cat again, because she said the average balance of superannuation is $267,000. Guess what the threshold is for the full pension, to start getting off the full pension? It's $312,000. That means, after almost 33 years of superannuation, it hasn't shifted the dial. I'll accept it's not fully matured yet, but guess what? This is what's going to happen when superannuation becomes fully matured. You are going to get people to start withdrawing a lifetime's worth of savings, you're going to get someone pulling out 40 years worth of savings and you're going to need 40 people coming in to replace those savings. You're going to start to see withdrawals exceeding contributions. You're going to see forced asset sales, which is going to induce a liquidity crisis, and then you'll see the government having to step in and solve the problem. I've approached a number of Labor people and said, 'If you got rid of the tax on the unrealised gains, I'd consider the legislation.' But here's the thing: the whole taxing of superannuation is fundamentally flawed. It was Howard and Costello that ramped up superannuation from four per cent to nine per cent. They should have killed it stone-cold dead when they got elected in 1996. They didn't, but I will acknowledge former senator Richard Alston, who did a great job in 1992 when it was introduced. He tried to oppose it, and the Liberal Party then opposed it. But, of course, Howard was always the bankers' servant—and Costello—and he rolled over on superannuation. To listen to the Liberals come in here and slag off superannuation—I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. You had your opportunity to kill it stone-cold dead, and you didn't. Here's the other tragedy about superannuation: today, 40 per cent of people retire with a mortgage, and those 40 per cent are the low-income workers. They are pulling out their superannuation and going on the pension anyway, so we're wasting $40 billion a year on fees for the financial engineers in their ivory palaces in Sydney and Melbourne. Here's the other tragedy with superannuation: last year's MYEFO exposed that superannuation now costs $60 billion a year in tax concessions. It goes to the upper 20 per cent, the very people—and I'm one of them—that don't need the pension and were never going to go on the pension anyway. It costs $60 billion. You could give 14 million workers a $4,000 tax cut and you could lift the tax-free threshold to $50,000 if you abolished superannuation. That would enable young people to save up for a mortgage quicker. At People First, we're not going to base your tax on how much money you have in superannuation; we're going to give you a tax-free threshold of $25,000 in superannuation and $40,000 outside of superannuation so that your first 65 grand a year is tax free. We're going to fund that because we're going to abolish those absurd tax concessions in superannuation, we're going to get rid of the financial engineers, and we're going to bring back the civil engineers, the mechanical engineers and the electrical engineers to start building infrastructure in this country, not paper castles in the air based on the sand of superannuation, the lies of superannuation, the rorts of superannuation and the dead carcass of corruption. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, the tradition is government, opposition and then around the table. Senator Cash has spoken. I'm going to go to Senator McKim. Senator McKenzie 207825 The precedent— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you're not in a debate with me. I've just told you what the custom is. I've given the call to the opposition. I'm going to go to Senator McKim. 12:32 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I can shorthand the contribution we've just heard from Senator Cash and the contribution we were just about to hear from Senator McKenzie: won't somebody think of the wealthy superannuants in Australia? Let's be very clear here. The legislation that is the subject of this motion applies not to the wealthiest one per cent of superannuants in the country but to less than half a per cent of the wealthiest one per cent of superannuants in this country. There are plenty of people in Australia who think we should blue-shell the one per cent. But that's not what Labor is proposing to do. They are proposing to increase—not by very much, I might add—the tax burden on the wealthiest half a per cent of superannuants. That is who the Liberal Party are coming in to bat for here. If you have $3 million in your superannuation fund, you are an extremely wealthy individual. Let us be abundantly clear here. The latest ATO data shows that just 0.6 per cent of people in Australia with a super account have a balance greater than $2 million. So that 0.6 of one per cent of people owns 14 per cent of the total value of superannuation balances in this country. Just to be clear, the bill that the Liberals are going to die to destroy—politically speaking, of course—doesn't even cover all of that tiny, bloated cohort of people who make up 0.6 per cent of the superannuants in this country. Of course, that 0.6 per cent relates to people who have super balance accounts of over $2 million, but the bill would actually impact only on people who have superannuation accounts of above $3 million. And all it does is subject them to an additional 15 per cent capital appreciation tax. The Liberals have come in here today basically to ask us to think about the bloated, tiny cohort of wealthy superannuants with balances of over $3 million. I'll tell you who the Greens are going to think of; we're thinking of people who can't afford to get their teeth fixed at the dentist. We're thinking of people who don't go to the GP, because they can't afford to see a doctor. And we're thinking of them because we believe big corporations and billionaires should be forced to pay their fair share of tax so that we can actually put dental care into Medicare and so that we can ensure people can visit a GP with no out-of-pocket costs. Instead of supporting the Greens on those principles and those policies, the Liberal Party have come in here today to die on the hill of defending wealthy superannuants—the top half of one per cent, who have over $3 million in their super accounts. They are the absolute top of the pile of wealthy superannuants, and they are the people the Liberal Party has come into this place today to defend. That is not the priority of the Australian Greens. We are here to support people who can't afford to get their teeth fixed and are living with teeth literally rotting in their mouths because dental is not a part of Medicare. We are here to support people who make the agonising decision to not see their GP, because they know they're going to be faced with massive out-of-pocket expenses. Instead of supporting us on those things, the Liberals have come in here today to defend wealthy superannuants—less than half of one per cent of people in this country. 12:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It's the irony of ironies that, as the sitting fortnight comes to a close, of all parties we see the Liberal Party and the National Party now holding themselves up as the people who want to stand up for superannuation. Senator McKenzie 207825 The National Party has not spoken. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, if you seek to speak— Senator McKenzie 207825 I have sought to speak. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 in the course of the contribution from the person who has been called, you are out of order. I'm calling your attention to the standing orders. Hold your fire, and give Senator Watt the call, as it has been directed. Senator Watt, you have the call. Senator WATT 245759 As I say, it is ironic that the two parties who've done most to oppose superannuation ever since it was introduced, by a Labor government, 20 or 30 years ago are now the parties who want to hold themselves up as those who want to defend the rights of people with superannuation. How absolutely laughable! Having spent the last 30 years doing everything they possibly can to oppose superannuation, they now say they want to protect the superannuation rights of Australians, but only those with balances of over $3 million. So they've actually never cared about average working Australians and their superannuation. Let's remember this: when it took for a Labor government to introduce superannuation, what did the Liberal and National parties do? They opposed it. While a Labor government has repeatedly sought to increase superannuation contributions so that average working people can have a dignified retirement, what have the Liberal and National parties done? They've opposed those increases in contributions. They have never once supported superannuation for the average working person in Australia. They've invented all sorts of different schemes that have enabled or forced working people to raid their superannuation to deprive themselves of a dignified retirement. But today we see this road-to-Damascus conversion from the Liberal and National parties, saying that they want to defend the rights of Australians to have their superannuation preserved—but only if you've got a balance above $3 million! That's only if you're fortunate enough to be in the less than half a percentage of Australians who have a superannuation balance above $3 million. If you're an average working person with an average balance of around $267,000, the Liberal and National parties don't care about you. They'll vote to let you raid your superannuation and deprive yourself of a dignified retirement. They'll vote to block every possible increase in contributions towards superannuation, but, if you're fortunate enough to be in the less than 0.5 per cent of Australians with a superannuation balance of more than $3 million, then the Liberal and National parties are for you. That says all you need to know about the Liberal and National parties. We see this play out in every single policy area we ever debate in this parliament. If it's about superannuation and if you're an average working Australian, they're against it. If you're a very, very, very, very wealthy Australian with a superannuation balance above $3 million, then the Liberal and National parties are in your corner when it comes to superannuation. That's just as we've seen over and over again throughout this term of the Albanese government when we've changed workplace laws to benefit average working Australians. Every step we've taken to support working Australians to get pay rises has been opposed by the Liberal and National parties. Every step we've taken to ensure more secure jobs for working Australians, promoted by the Albanese Labor government, has been voted against by the Liberal and National parties. When we proposed same job, same pay laws and pay rises for average working people, you could always count on the Liberal and National parties to be voting against it, just as they did when they were in government and just as they have promised to do if they win the next election. For those privileged few with superannuation balances of over $3 million, the Liberals and Nationals are in your corner, fighting for you. Now, I am a very well-paid individual, as is every person in this parliament. But, even with the very large amount that I earn and the relatively large superannuation balance that I enjoy, I do not have a balance anywhere near $3 million. That puts into some perspective the kinds of people that the Liberal and National parties are in to bat for here, even the highly paid politicians working in this parliament don't have superannuation balances above $3 million. There might be a handful because of former business wealth that they've developed, but even highly paid politicians in this parliament don't have superannuation balances of more than $3 million. That's who the Liberal and National parties are going in to bat for today, just as they've done on wages, job security and every other policy matter that we've discussed over this term of parliament, and they're in there doing it again today. 12:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It's a pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak in this debate and to observe yet again two things. One is that the opposition are desperate not to get to the electricity legislation that the Senate previously agreed to resolve before one o'clock, and so we got a bit of sour grapes from Senator Cash and her team, who didn't like the fact that they lost the amendment before and that the Senate will deal with the electricity legislation before one o'clock. So they've come up with this great idea to come into the chamber and try to blow up the chamber so we don't get to that legislation. So let's be very clear about the tactical reason for this. It is because they don't want to vote on the electricity legislation that the Senate has previously agreed to resolve in the next 15 minutes. At least be upfront about it. At least be honest with the Senate. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senators, order! Senator WONG 00AOU Senator McKenzie and Senator Cash, that is the case. We know that they don't like it when they lose a vote. They don't like it when they have to vote on a bill that they oppose. They certainly don't like renewable energy—we know that—particularly under Senator Cash, now that Senator Birmingham is gone. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator McKenzie, you have been called to order over a number of infractions. You are continuing to yell at another senator across the chamber in a manner that is entirely unfit for this place. I have called you by your name. I will say to you to retain your silence for the rest of the contribution of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. You have the call, Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. I appreciate your protection, Acting Deputy President. I really do, because the reality is that those opposite are running this as a tactic, and they should be honest about it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The time for this debate has expired. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that Senator Cash's motion to suspend be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:52 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement for no longer than five minutes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for two minutes, Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 What a farce we have just seen in the chamber for the last half an hour, as the Labor Party sought to silence rural and regional Australians having their say on the superannuation changes. They've clearly done a deal with the Greens to get this through parliament. It isn't, as the future 'Minister McKim', Minister Watt or Minister Gallagher outlined, some microcosm of Australians—these big, fat wealthy fat cats sitting on these billion-dollar superannuation balances. It's every small-business owner and every family farmer in this country. That is why the National Farmers Federation is so against this change. It's because you are taxing unrealised gains on the family farm. I'm sorry; you're not getting wads of cash running through your bank account every week to pay your tax bill and your superannuation as a family farmer or small-business owner. The NFF has raised the issue that they will have to sell family farms in order to pay the tax bill that is being imposed by Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers. It is no wonder— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 that Paul Keating— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, refer— Senator McKENZIE 207825 thinks this is an— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Three times I had to call you. You refer to others in the other place by their correct titles. Senator McKENZIE 207825 This disaster of a Prime Minister and his hapless Treasurer have put a bill— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator McKenzie, that's a reflection; withdraw. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I withdraw. And I thank Madam President and the Labor Party for giving me 28 seconds to put the fervent view and strong position of the nine million Australians who do not vote for the Labor Party, who do not vote for the Greens and who produce the food and fibre in this country, about the disastrous impact of your superannuation tax grab—cruelling succession planning on family farms and farms having to be sold to pay tax bills because you are such hapless managers. BILLS 44 BILLS Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 44

Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024

First Reading 44 12:55 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. Senator GALLAGHER ING by leave—I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered in this period of sittings. I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows — STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2025 AUTUMN SITTINGS CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (EXPEDITED SEIZURE AND DISPOSAL OF ENGINEERED STONE) BILL 2024 Purpose of the Bill The Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 amends section 206 of the Customs Act to empower the Comptroller-General of Customs to cause engineered stone products seized as prohibited imports and to be dealt with in a manner he or she considers appropriate, including the immediate destruction of the goods. The import prohibition on engineered stone products came into effect on 1 January 2025 Reasons for Urgency Passage of the bill in the 2025 Autumn sittings is required to ensure that the ABF has a means to effectively administer seized engineered stone at the border, and dispose of these goods in a timely and efficient manner, to minimise impact on available storage for seized goods generally. As prohibited engineered stone products are a bulk good, they pose significant logistical challenges in terms of storage and transport. Passage of the Bill would enable the ABF to manage increased workloads at the border and ensure that the Australian Government's ability to effectively manage ongoing border responsibilities is maintained. Question agreed to. Second Reading 45 12:56 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— The Australian Government is committed to protecting Australian workers from the harm associated with silicosis and silica-related diseases. To support this aim, in cooperation with the States and Territories, we have implemented a world-first prohibition on the use, manufacture, supply, processing and installation of engineered stone benchtops, panels and slabs that cause these diseases. This initiative will be further strengthened by the prohibition on the illegal importation of engineered stone that is intended to be implemented on 1 January 2025. The Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024 is a key component required to support the proposed import prohibition. The amendments in this Bill will support the Australian Border Force's operational effectiveness by enabling Australian Border Force officers to more efficiently administer and dispose of seized engineered stone at the border. The Customs Act 1901 currently generally requires seized prohibited imports to be stored for a minimum of 30 days before destruction. However, engineered stone products are a bulk good, and the management of seized engineered stone products at the border poses significant challenges in terms of storage, transport, disposal and administration. The amendments in this Bill will provide a mechanism for the Australian Government to deal with seized engineered stone in an efficient manner, by allowing the immediate destruction of the prohibited goods following seizure. Similar provisions already exist for other prohibited imports, including tobacco products, vapes, dangerous and perishable goods, and illicit drugs. This Bill amends section 206 of the Customs Act to empower the Comptroller- General of Customs to deal with seized engineered stone in a manner that he or she considers appropriate, including the immediate destruction of the goods. It is expected that immediate destruction may be used in situations where engineered stone is imported without a permit, or in contravention of permit conditions. Importers will retain the right to make a claim to recover market value of the goods through judicial review. This Bill will ensure that the intended new import prohibition for engineered stone can be implemented, while not impacting the Australian Government's ability to effectively manage other priority border activities. I commend this Bill to the Chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 45 12:57 The PRESIDENT 112096 No amendments have been circulated. I'm assuming no-one wants a committee stage. 12:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 46

Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Second Reading 46 12:58 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Here we have it. Here we have living proof that this is a rushed policy on offshore wind. It isn't a policy that's sustainable. It isn't a policy that does anything. It is a policy that has got it wrong, so we have to go back and fix up what is already wrong with it. We haven't even built one! Yesterday in question time was like the episode of Seinfeld about the reservation policy. This government knows how to take the reservation, but it doesn't know how to hold it. 'This is what we're doing in policy. We know how to put out the guidelines, but we don't know how to build it.' We heard about housing yesterday: 'We know how to fund it. We don't know how to build it.' We heard about doctors: 'We know how to fund them. We don't know how to get them.' This is where offshore wind is. They've got this great idea: 'Let's go and build something that's never been built, a floating offshore wind farm on an industrial scale off the coast of New South Wales.' Then we find out the minister doesn't know he's got powers he's meant to have. He did not know the powers he's meant to have in regulation and the way they issue these things. So they come back, and he says, 'We've got to fix it up and we've got to make it retrospective. We've got to go retrospective on what we can do and how we can give these grants, how we can give these leases, so that we don't have to go through consultation for the people that did it a different way and we don't have to go through community consultation. We don't have to go and talk to the people; we just make it retrospective.' It's like the opposite of a superpower: the ability to not know what powers you've got. And this is this minister, rushing headlong into an unsustainable way. There is a sustainable way to do renewables, and that's why we have renewables in our plan, but it has to be done better. Throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks is a plan for a farce. That's why we'll have blackouts. The superman who is doing this is 'Blackout man', not 'Renewables man'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, pursuant to order, the time for consideration of this bill has expired. I will now put the question before the chair and put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. I first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the opposition amendment on sheet 3332 to be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendment— Omit all words after "That:, substitute "the Senate notes that: (a) the bill is specifically designed to make electricity more expensive for Australian families; (b) Australian families have already seen their electricity prices increase by $1,000 under the Albanese Government; (c) Prime Minister Albanese told Australians 97 times before the election that their electricity bills would fall by $275 a year, but has instead delivered price increases; and (d) a Labor-Greens minority government would introduce super-charged nature positive laws to make electricity even more expensive".  

The Senate divided. [13:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 4 PAIRS Cadell, R. Grogan, K. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hughes, H. A. Farrell, D. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. McCarthy, M.

Question negatived.

13:07 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that this bill now be read a second time.  

The Senate divided. [13:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 4 PAIRS Cadell, R. Grogan, K. Cash, M. C. Wong, P. Hughes, H. A. Farrell, D. E. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. McCarthy, M.

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Third Reading 48 13:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be now read a third time.  

The Senate divided. [13:11]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 37 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 49

Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024

Consideration of House of Representatives Message 49 13:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move: That the Senate agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives, which is identical to the Senate amendment. Question agreed to. Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 49

Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024

Second Reading 49 13:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. This bill amends the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012 and introduces new requirements for designated relevant employers, those with 500 or more employees, to commit to achieve or, at a minimum, improve on and report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on measurable gender equality targets. These targets are proposed to fall under any of the six gender equality indicators. The bill requires large employers to select three gender equality targets and report on their progress to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency each year. In their third year of reporting, they must then show that they have achieved their targets or, at a minimum, have improved their targets before selecting a further three targets to achieve in the following three years. This bill also amends the definition of 'relevant employer' to explicitly include subsidiaries of parent companies with 100 or more employees and clarifies that, in a corporate structure, a parent corporation is also considered to employ each of the employees of any of its subsidiaries. Where an employer has not met its selected gender equality targets or has not demonstrated improvements within the relevant period of three years, they are considered to have failed to comply with their obligations under the act. Under the Workplace Gender Equality Procurement Principles, relevant employers seeking to supply goods or services to the government at or above $80,000 must provide a certificate of compliance issued by the agency as part of that procurement process. Consequently, such employers would be unable to provide the compliance certificate. This bill places quite significant and onerous financial implications on businesses. The legislation will affect over 1,650 of Australia's largest companies by potentially precluding them from supplying goods or services to the Commonwealth government at or above $80,000 in critical areas, including agriculture and forestry; forestry and fishing; construction; education and training; manufacturing; and mining. The provisions in this bill significantly undermine businesses and they risk the important procurement required for critical areas like national security. This bill introduces a new power for the minister to set targets and rules in relation to the selection of gender equality targets. The bill gives personal power to the minister to set the category of targets that can be selected and to select the number of targets that businesses are required to select. It's getting more and more convoluted. The menu of targets will be set out in an instrument to the act and will not be on the face of this legislation. This is, without a doubt, government overreach. The minister has personal powers to set rules and targets of their own choosing with no scrutiny from the businesses that are impacted. This creates the possibility of an even more onerous compliance burden on businesses. The bill introduces substantial compliance requirements on Australian businesses, and the reporting requirements add further red tape to the operations of Australia's biggest corporations, driving down their productivity in an economy that is already struggling under the increasing compliance burdens of the Albanese government's radical industrial relations and energy policies that other senators in this place have spoken about. Adding compliance burdens to businesses will also inevitably be inflationary, adding to the Albanese government's already existing homegrown inflation crisis. It's estimated that the bill will create further compliance issues for over 1,650 of Australia's businesses. Should the government want to go further, guess who we think is next in line after big business? It's pretty clear it's going to be small and medium enterprises—millions and millions of them—around the country, who are already struggling with significant red tape and compliance burdens under this Albanese Labor government. We are concerned that there has not been adequate scrutiny of this legislation. The debate has come on in this chamber, and yet, at the same time, businesses around the country are going under. There have been 27,000 businesses that have failed under the Albanese government, and that should be a red flag. It's belling the cat. It's of great concern that not only is productivity going backwards in this country but red tape is increasing and economic growth is stagnating. The Albanese government's solution seems to be more and more red tape that is holding Australian businesses back. We should be trying to reduce red tape and overburdensome regulation on Australian businesses, not adding more. 13:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. The reason we're supporting this bill is that we've had gender pay gap reporting for some years now. Companies with over 100 workers have had to check whether they've got a gender pay gap and tell the Workplace Gender Equality Agency if they do. That's a good start. You can't fix a problem if you don't know you've got one. But there has never been an obligation in our laws to do anything to actually close the gender pay gap that the company has identified it's got, which makes a bit of a mockery of the process of reporting. So I'm very pleased that today, finally, after more than a decade of having these gender pay gap laws, the government of the day has taken a small step to say, 'Now that you know you've got a gender pay gap, perhaps you'd better think about closing it.' This is a step in the right direction. One of the concerns that we have is that this obligation to do something to close the gender pay gap only applies to businesses with over 500 workers. It was completely laughable when, just then, the opposition were worrying about businesses having to comply and businesses going under. This applies to the largest businesses in the country: those who are already doing the reporting and those who have identified that they have a gender pay gap. We see the antiwomen opposition not wanting to fix the gender pay gap and not wanting the mega-employers of this country to do anything to actually reduce their gender pay gap. I've long said that the LNP have a problem with women, and they are just putting it right up in lights today. If you don't support closing the gender pay gap, then you support keeping the gender pay gap. What a disappointment to see Mr Dutton's Liberals quite happy for women's work to be undervalued, for it to be underrecognised in the workplace and for there not to be any requirement of businesses who have a gender pay gap to do anything to close it. That's not to say that this bill is perfect. This bill, as I said, only applies to those very large employers of 500-plus workers that would now have to do something to close their pay gap. When I say 'something'—they've got three years to try to show some measure of improvement on a selected number of targets that they themselves will pick, and they don't have to consult with their staff to work out which ones to pick. Unfortunately, as we've seen from this Labor government, they have a good idea, but then they do the weakest possible interpretation of it. Only the biggest employers will have to pick a handful of targets. They'll have three years to work towards them, and they simply have to make reasonable progress after three years to meet those targets. Not one of those targets has to actually be one that sees the gender pay gap close. It seems a bit crazy, doesn't it? That's why I'm moving a handful of amendments, including one that says that you've got to pick a numerical target and that large business will have to make progress on closing the gender pay gap. There are lots of other good, positive targets that they can select from, but the fact that they don't have to pick one that will actually make a real difference is a problem. We could move to fix that, and that's what my amendment will do. We'll also be seeking to amend this bill so that the obligation to close the gender pay gap isn't just for the 500-plus workers companies. It's also for the 100-plus workers companies. Our reporting obligations at the moment apply to companies that have 100 or more workers, so why shouldn't this new obligation to act on that data apply to the same cohort? They've already got the reporting infrastructure, they're already familiar with it and they're already aware that they've got a gender pay gap, because they've been reporting on it for more than 10 years. They too should be required to set targets and make reasonable progress towards them, over a three-year period, to actually reduce their gender pay gap. I think that's eminently sensible. Some would argue that even the figure of 100-plus workers is too high. They say maybe it should be 50-plus. So we will propose a sensible amendment that would make these new rules help more women in the workforce. You shouldn't have to be in a superbig company to have your rights recognised. Your rights should be important no matter how big your employer is. That's why my amendment says that if you've got more than 100 workers you should have to do something to close your gender pay gap. We know the gender pay gap is still very real. In the last figures it was at 78 per cent. Women are still earning about 78c for every dollar that their male counterpart takes home. That's a difference of about $30,000 each year. It is a staggering amount of money, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis. The small progress we have seen in the gender pay gap data was thanks to aged-care workers, who got a very modest pay rise, which we supported. It was not as much as they'd asked for and certainly not as much as they deserved, but it was progress. It shouldn't be this hard. It shouldn't be this much of an endless slog to pay women more and value equally the work that they do. The sad reality is that every single occupation and industry still has a gender pay gap in favour of men. This is why for years we've been calling for an obligation not just to identify the gender pay gap but to close it. So it's disappointing that the bill the government has rolled up today only requires that of employers with over 500 workers. If you're a woman working in a company with fewer than 500 colleagues, well, too bad, you're going to have to suffer through a gender pay gap. We think that number should be reduced to 100. I do want to acknowledge that some employers are stepping up and voluntarily taking action to close their gender pay gap. That's great. In fact, already nearly half of employers are setting targets, and a majority of those are to increase the number of women in management, which is also a good thing; it's moving in the right direction. But it's 2025! Can't we do better? We still have a leadership gap. Women make up just one in four CEOs and heads of businesses, and the gender pay gap for those roles is massive. We need more women in senior positions and we need to reflect the value of their work in their pay. In the boardrooms, one in four boards still have zero women. One way the government could fix this would be to make sure that when a company is tendering for a government contract, when it's seeking taxpayer money, the company has to be meeting its obligations not just to identify but to close its gender pay gap. The government said they were going to do this. In March last year they committed to doing this. But the devil's in the detail. In the course of the inquiry into this bill, when I pressed the very useful and helpful departmental officials on this very point, I learned that unfortunately compliance with gender pay gap obligations is just one consideration in whether or not you should get a fancy government contract through a tender or other government procurement mechanism—or a grant perhaps. That's just one consideration. If you don't have one it's: 'Don't worry about it, mate. It's not really that binding. We'll still give you the contract. You don't have to do anything; it'll be fine.' Well, what a shame, because we heard the minister at the time, last year, say she was going to fix this, and she hasn't. It is not enough that complying with your gender pay gap rules—whatever they might be once this bill passes—is just something for government to think about when they are offering contracts. It should be a threshold question. In order to get taxpayer support in the form of either a grant or a procurement contract, companies should have to show they are complying with their legal obligation to stop underpaying women. That is what the third of my amendments would do—if we have an opportunity to vote on it. I did move earlier today in the chamber a motion to make sure we get to a vote on this bill today. That's because, folks, we're probably headed to an election, and this might be the last time we sit under the current parliamentary structure. We know that the Dutton led coalition will not be standing up for women in the workplace, so if we don't pass this bill today, essentially, you can kiss goodbye your action on the gender pay gap. I was disappointed to not get support to do that, but I remain optimistic that our friends on the crossbench want to see equality for women and will vote accordingly if we have the chance to come back to this bill later today. I will be in continuation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 It being 1.30 pm, I shall now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 51 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Ukraine 51 13:30 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Winston Churchill said in 1938 that an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping against hope it will eat him last. These words were quite prophetic five days after the disastrous Munich Peace Conference in September 1938. It was true then, and it is just as true today. 24 February will mark the third-year anniversary of the illegal invasion by Russia of Ukraine. For 1,085 days, Ukraine has stood defiant and resilient against Russia's unlawful invasion. The cost is incalculable. Today, we reflect on the Munich Security Conference announcement that next week Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet to decide the future of Ukraine without Ukraine. The conditions of not returning Ukraine's pre-2014 borders and disallowing Ukraine's NATO membership, to my mind, is appeasement—appeasement in Munich once again. Despots and dictators never ever respect appeasement. They patiently and ruthlessly exploit it. If Vladimir Putin is appeased once again next week, it will simply buy him time to regroup and continue his relentless annexation. Appeasement did not work in 2014, when Russia illegally invaded and annexed Crimea, but yet the rest of the world sat by, Sudetenland-like, and said, 'We'll give him Crimea; he won't do anything more.' Well, clearly it did not work. It simply emboldened Putin to keep going. Ukraine's war is our war. It is the West's war. It is our war. Slava Ukraini. Liberal Party of Australia 52 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania This morning, in Senator Duniam's contribution to a debate, he was talking about regional Australia. I'd just like to point out to Senator Duniam and to others on that side that just because you drive a four-wheel drive doesn't mean you understand regional Australia. I can tell the senator that regional Australia and urban Australia are not celebrating the thought of Peter Dutton becoming the Prime Minister and the coalition's nuclear pipe dream. You were in government for almost a decade, and you couldn't even hit an energy policy that you could bring while you were in government. You had 22, and then you went to 23 with nuclear energy. The only thing that relates to is maybe your lucky number or my age. How can Australians believe anything that you say on energy or anything else? You have three policies. One is that you're going to cut, cut, cut, and you're not going to tell people until after the election. The second one is nuclear energy. And then there is the one that is most popular already with the Australian community, and that is the long lunches for bosses that the taxpayers are going to pay for. That is the depth of experience and delivery of policy that you're known for. No-one trusts you at all. We can talk about red dogs and green tails as you often do in here lately. It's obviously your thing. But your entire energy policy is a dog. Remember Clifford the Big Red Dog? That is the Liberal Party of Australia's energy policy—a big nuclear dog that nobody wants. What I want to also ask of Senator Duniam and my colleagues on that other side is: are you going to take in Hobart, in your backyard, nuclear waste? I don't really think so. Australians are waking up to Mr Dutton. I wish I had more time so I could talk about how he gutted— (Time expired) Right to Protest Bill 2025 52

Right to Protest Bill 2025

13:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Today I presented to parliament the Right to Protest Bill 2025. The bill seeks to protect one of the most fundamental democratic rights: the right to peacefully assemble and protest. It does it by putting into Australian law the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As global temperatures rise and social movements demand action, governments around the world are responding, but they're responding not with solutions but with suppression. In Australia we've witnessed an alarming erosion of our right to protest over just the last decade. This creeping authoritarianism, often cheered in this chamber, must be stopped. We can't allow governments to make protesting so legally dangerous that the only demonstrations left are those that cause no inconvenience, challenge no authority, achieve no change or are signed off by the powers that be. The Right to Protest Bill 2025 is about reversing this trajectory. The Right to Protest Bill 2025 affirms that dissent is not a crime. It puts into law that Australians have the right to gather, to speak, to demand better from their governments without fear of police crackdowns or punitive legal consequences. We know the challenges of the coming decades: the climate crisis, the inequality crisis and corporate overreach. They're not going to be solved quietly. The people will not stand by idly as their future is literally sold out from under them, even if that's what the government would prefer. This bill, the Right to Protest Bill 2025, says they won't have to. I will see you in the streets. South Australia: Economy 52 13:36 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Labor government policies, inaction and missteps have kept inflation higher for longer for everyone. In the Upper Spencer Gulf, uncertainty associated with the operations and finances of the Whyalla steelworks continues wreaking havoc for industry and for jobs. There's uncertainty now, too, from the South Australian state Labor government on the future of its hydrogen hub, which is looking right now like a cruel hydrogen hoax. This week, the threat is the United States trade tariffs. They threaten Australian industry and steel. The federal government must secure that exemption, as the coalition successfully did when it was in government. True to form, the Albanese Labor government has been bad for business growth and associated jobs, unless you're one of the 29,000 new Commonwealth public servants. In just one parliamentary term, there has been a tripling of bankruptcy in South Australia. Upper Spencer Gulf locals are counting every cent, putting off travel and delaying health appointments. I was told staff are even taking their own toilet paper to work. With my colleagues Senator McGrath and now hardworking Liberal candidate for Grey, Tom Venning, we heard that local companies have cancelled contracts. Some businesses and residents can't even pay their bills. Workers and suppliers are not getting paid, and increasing numbers are turning to crisis payments. Demand can't be met, and at least 15 per cent of those seeking help are associated with the steelworks. This government has turned battlers into beggars. You pulled the wrong policy levers. Locals want back the future you took from them. House prices in Whyalla have risen 40 per cent. Median rent is up 21 per cent. Food prices have risen 12 per cent. A Labor-Greens coalition would deliver so much worse. What these people want and deserve is better government. What they need is a change of government. Aviation Industry 53 13:38 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Here we go again. The Nationals have dropped the regional Aussies they were supposed to represent, faster than a rat up a drainpipe. Labor announced this week that we're saving the future of regional aviation by ensuring that Rex continues to fly to regional airports. That means ensuring regional Aussies can stay connected to the rest of the country, their families and their health care. You might think the Nationals would support that, but again they've been overruled by those inner-city free-marketers in the Liberal Party. In November last year the Leader of the Nationals said: It is critical that Rex continues … to run services … … But now Senator McKenzie wants to cut off towns like that because apparently helping them is a waste of money. We didn't hear her concerns about wasting money when those opposite gave Alan Joyce $2 billion no strings attached or when they gave the previous Rex management—their mates—hundreds of millions of dollars to expand into capital city routes, which is why Rex is in the financial mess it's in now. They think it's fine but they opposed saving Virgin. Now they want to abandon regional communities. The Nationals will roll over and have their tummies tickled every time by the Liberals on anything. We heard this week that the Liberals have banned Barnaby Joyce, a shadow minister, from travelling outside his own electorate. Well, I say, 'Unleash the beast.' Now they want to stop regional Australians from travelling by killing off Rex. Only Labor is fighting for regional Aussies doing it tough, whilst they make things worse for regional workers. Ukraine 53 13:40 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'd like to commend President Donald Trump for last night picking up the phone and having discussions with Vladimir Putin. In my maiden speech, I talked about and honoured Ronald Reagan for picking up the phone and talking to Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s. They effectively brought the Cold War to an end through detente and through diplomacy. In my maiden speech I said the 21st century has been plagued 'by belligerent rhetoric and an unwillingness to seek peace'. That continued after I came into this chamber. The war in Ukraine is a result of reckless diplomacy and belligerent behaviour. There was a violent coup in 2014 that overthrew a democratically elected government. There were two Minsk agreements, which Angela Merkel later admitted the Western powers were trying to deliberately stall. One of those agreements was that the people of Donbas could hold a referendum, and that was deliberately sabotaged. The other thing in this war that we weren't told by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which was mandated by the Minsk agreements to monitor attacks between the two sides, was that, in the two weeks before Putin invaded Ukraine, those attacks from the West increased from about 50 violations a day to over a thousand a day. That war had already started, yet none of that has ever been acknowledged. Yet again this was a deep state ploy, instigated by the Biden crime family and the deep state Democrats, to advance imperial interests, not so much in Russia; the idea there was to stop Russia from selling gas to Germany. You couldn't have the Russians selling gas to Germany because the US oil companies in the Middle East would have nowhere to sell their oil to. It's time to call out these imperial Western interests, and it's time to put peace first. Tasmania: Salmon Industry 53 13:42 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Tasmanian salmon workers are continuing to live with the threat hanging over their heads of the Albanese Labor government killing off the very industry that employs them. This is a threat to the livelihoods of thousands of Tasmanians and their families, which was 100 per cent created by the actions of this Labor government. It is an insult to those families that members of the Albanese government are preposterously claiming to be champions of the salmon industry. Senator Urquhart, who sits in this chamber, likes to tell the people of Braddon that she is a champion of the salmon industry, but the reality is that Senator Urquhart and her other Tasmanian colleagues have sat by and allowed the Albanese cabinet to make decisions which will see thousands of jobs destroyed in the electorate of Braddon. She continues to back the decisions of the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, to appease inner-city green activists, not the people of Tasmania. She supports the Prime Minister, who is too weak to stand up to the Greens. In contrast, our Liberal candidate for Braddon, Mal Hingston, is an incredible supporter of salmon workers, and salmon workers know that they have a champion in Mal, who has made a clear commitment to the future of the industry, as have my Liberal colleagues. Mal Hingston is the only candidate for Braddon who will step up and protect salmon workers and families, who rely on their income from jobs in this vital Tasmanian industry. In contrast, we all know that, after the election, Labor will get together with the Greens and shut down this vital industry, just as they have done for so many industries before. In the last 24 hours, we have finally seen Labor's candidate for Lyons stop double dipping and running a federal campaign while being paid by Tasmanian taxpayers. I think it is time for Senator Urquhart, who has failed to stand up for Tasmanian salmon workers, to belatedly do the right thing and resign from this chamber, rather than be paid as a senator to campaign for the lower house. Women's Health 54 13:44 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I am so proud to serve in the first-ever majority-women government in Australia's history. Never before have the concerns of Australian women been as heard, understood and taken seriously as throughout our term in government. We've championed issues such as women's safety, women's wages, access to paid parental leave, superannuation on paid parental leave, women's housing and of course, women's health. Earlier this week, the Albanese Labor government announced its latest investment in women's health with a massive half-billion-dollar package. This includes the listing of new oral contraceptive pills on the PBS for the first time in over 30 years, providing better access to long-term contraceptives with larger Medicare payments and more bulk-billing for IUDs and birth control implants; giving more support for women experiencing menopause, with more endometriosis and pelvic-pain clinics and more specialist menopause support in these clinics; and providing better access to contraceptives and treatment for uncomplicated UTIs without the need to see a GP. This package has been overwhelmingly praised by medical peak bodies, including the AMA and the RACGP, as an absolute game changer for women. Contrast this to what Australian doctors think of Peter Dutton. They voted him Australia's worst health Minister in the history of Medicare after he cut more than $50 billion from our public hospitals. The choice for all Australians, especially women, is crystal clear at the next election. With Mr Dutton vowing to make $350 billion in secret cuts if elected, you can bet the house that he will wind back most, if not all, of the gains that we have made for women throughout our term. The stakes are high. We cannot risk our mothers, our daughters, our sisters or our granddaughters going back to being ignored, marginalised and undervalued by the boys club— (Time expired) AUKUS 54 13:46 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Trump is a tariff tyrant. He is showing all too much evidence of being an unreliable ally to Australia and he is a bully. Just as you would not kowtow to a bully in a schoolyard, we should not be letting him walk all over us on the global stage, yet the Labor government is doing all too little to stand up to him and his outrageous international ambitions. Australia made a $798 million AUKUS donation to the US last Saturday, and two days later President Trump announced a global 25 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium imports on the Monday, with no guarantee of Australian exemption. Why are we handing over a huge payment to this man who has no regard for Australian sovereignty for a submarine deal that so many experts say has no chance of realisation? It's a bad deal, and we should end it. We know that Trump is an unpredictable ally and that the usual rules of diplomacy do not apply. Trump only makes deals that suit him. So why is Labor sinking our public resources into such a bad subs deal? AUKUS is expected to cost up to $368 billion over the next three decades, and now we're dealing with a US president who is even less likely to deliver us a single submarine. Even Labor's own people are calling out the reality here. Former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans has said that the notion Australia will have full sovereign control of nuclear-powered submarines is, frankly, 'a joke in bad taste'. Many agree. The Greens say no to handing over blank cheques to a billionaire bully. We need to draw a line in the sand to defend our sovereign independence. Senate: Parliamentary Debate 55 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory In potentially my last speech in this place, I wanted to talk briefly about priorities and take a moment to recap. Last night the major parties prioritised reform to give themselves $80 million each in additional funding at elections and lock out new entrants with an unfair bill with no amendments from the crossbench genuinely considered. They also rammed through scams legislation, an undercooked bill full of loopholes that, like their electoral reform, won't actually protect consumers or help scam victims get their money back. Today they are ramming through child care, again without the chance to move amendments like one to ensure children without a birth certificate are captured by this legislation. Offshore wind is very important but, in some communities, controversial, and it passed with no chance for debate and no Senate scrutiny. The workplace gender equality bill, which I support and which was introduced last November, we won't get to, because of how the government has managed time in the Senate and prioritised other legislation. The Australian people didn't send a record number of crossbenchers, of Independent representatives, to the parliament just to be a rubber stamp. They sent us here so that they would have a voice, to help improve legislation, and what about the unfinished business of this Senate, everything the major parties have parked in the too-hard basket? Let's go through a few of them now. Where are the mandatory guardrails for artificial intelligence:? The government has absolutely dropped the ball on this. What about a ban on deepfakes at elections? It's something we've been warned about. What about truth in political advertising, a ban on gambling advertising or environmental reform that actually protects nature? Where are the changes to laws to have more competition, in our economy, in a cost-of-living crisis? They're in the too-hard basket. But when it comes to money for the political parties, there's political will. Victoria: By-Elections 55 13:50 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My home state of Victoria had two by-elections on the weekend and they certainly sounded the alarm, loud and clear. Labor's wrong priorities, broken promises, bad policies and waste and mismanagement have meant that Victorians have had enough. From Frankston to Bentleigh, from Moe to Mentone, from Warrnambool to Wonthaggi and everywhere in between—inner-city, regional and outer suburbs—Victorians are frustrated. They're feeling that they're falling through the cracks. They were willing to give the Albanese government the benefit of the doubt, but now they want change. It's an absolute pleasure to have joined one of my candidate colleagues, Benson Saulo in the seat of Macnamara, meeting so many locals in Elsternwick last week to hear about what's important to them and, most importantly, how they feel that they've been let down by the Albanese government. You don't have to walk too far down Glen Huntly Road to see how many small businesses, how many traders, there are being pushed further and further to the wall. We met with Perry, who owns a famous restaurant down there, the Mediterranean Greek Tavern in Elsternwick. He explained to us how rising costs, particularly energy, utilities and rents, are making it increasingly difficult for him to keep his doors open and how consumers are responding to the cost-of-living crisis. All around the country we're hearing this. The cost-of-living crisis has run out of control because of the decisions Labor have been making. Inflation has lasted higher for longer, interest rates have lasted higher for longer and the cost-of-living crisis has continued on, unabated. With the calibre of candidates, like Benson Saulo, though, at the upcoming election in Macnamara people have an opportunity to make a real difference. He is a man who will make a difference for the community that he loves. The voters in Macnamara now have a true choice. He is a community champion that Macnamara needs. He's dedicated, genuine and committed and I am very confident that he will be a strong— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Roberts, you have the call. Alcohol Excise 55 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last week, the alcohol excise increased again. Taxes on alcohol raise over $6 billion a year from all Australians, rich and poor alike. As I listen to people across my home state of Queensland, this is an issue I hear all the time. Hospitality staff are worried about their jobs. Higher alcohol prices mean fewer customers come in and less staff are required. Hospitality venues are closing faster than the other businesses being sent broke under the Albanese government. The Guardian predicted last week that this year one in 10 hospitality venues will fail, collapse. With those failures go all the income tax and the general taxation generated from their hard work. An increase in the alcohol tax doesn't raise more revenue, it just moves existing revenue around: more alcohol tax, less income tax, less general revenue. This has been a gradual process. The problem is not just this last rise, it's the 84 tax increases that have occurred since the introduction of alcohol tax under the Hawke Labor government in 1983. Ironically, Mr Hawke held the world record for beer sculling. The loss of hospitality venues and the rising cost of patronising those venues takes from everyday Australians a simple pleasure, one that encourages social contact, support and mental health. They are venues where alcohol is served according to rigorous, responsible-service-of-alcohol rules. This is replaced with drinking at home, where there's no peer support, no 'Mate, you've had enough', nobody to stop drunk shopping or drunk gambling or drink driving. One Nation will abolish the alcohol tax levied on hospitality venues, to save these businesses, so they can continue offering social benefit, employment and the other taxes they pay, including taxes on their profits. One Nation want to see all hospitality workers earning a fair wage and having a life, not languishing on unemployment benefits because this government failed to see the unintended consequences of its greed. We are one nation, one community. Pubs and clubs support communities. Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 56

Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025

13:54 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Politics is about choices, and I'm pretty happy about one of the choices that has been made in this place today. This chamber today will pass the government's legislation to remove the punitive activity test for three days per week, as part of the Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025. This bill's passage is happening because of the Greens, and because of early childhood advocates keeping the pressure on. The Greens and advocates know that this punitive policy locks out hundreds of thousands of kids from achieving a crucial early education. It keeps more than 40,000 parents out of work, primarily women, and it locks First Nations kids out of child care, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Today, the Greens look set to secure a major win for families and kids right across this country. It's a sign that Greens pressure works, because Labor has been forced to back its own bill to remove the childcare-subsidy activity test for three days per week. I'm confident that this sort of collaboration and cooperation is exactly what people right across this country want to see more of. At the start of last week, the government said that they wanted to get this done. The Greens came out and said, 'Come on, then; let's do it.' Despite this being just one step towards fixing a broken childcare system, we recognised that this was a crucial first step. And, despite some false starts, today they've been forced to put kids and families ahead of politics. I just want to reflect on the opportunity that exists to do this in so many other areas. We could be up here celebrating gambling reform, getting gambling ads off televisions. We're seeing today that women are just as impacted as men in terms of gambling losses. We could be celebrating putting nature first and passing incredibly important reforms to our environmental protection authority. Labor, we're ready to work with you and get things done because that is what the people of Australia want. Arthritis Australia 56 13:56 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'm delighted this afternoon to give my thanks to Arthritis Australia for the privilege of being one of their co-conveners for the Parliamentary Friends of Arthritis group. It's most apt that Senator Polley is in the chair because she has expressed her interest, and I hope that after I leave she will get the support of members who rejoin the Parliamentary Friends of Arthritis, to become the new Labor convener alongside Dr Anne Webster from the coalition. I have learned a great deal from the organisation over many years, with the events they have organised. It's wonderful to see, for example, how they've taken research on issues like early intervention on osteoarthritis, to get non-surgical pathways of treatment to divert people from having expensive and unnecessary surgery. I was pleased that they got a funding commitment during MYEFO this year to do models of education for health professionals to be able to support their patients living with arthritis. World Arthritis Day will take place in October next year, and I very much wish Arthritis Australia all the best with their advocacy in the new parliament and the events that they hold as part of World Arthritis Day. I also want to give a shout-out to Dr Gordon Reid, MP, for his convenorship of the Parliamentary Friends of Autoimmune Diseases, because of course they are related conditions. I want to give my particular thanks to Louise Hardy from Arthritis Australia. Future Made in Australia 56 13:58 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The Albanese government's Future Made in Australia plan is all about Australian workers and companies making things right here. It's about tapping into our natural resources and strengthening our economic security. That's why we're creating a $22.7 billion plan that invests in skills and training, renewable energy, industry and technology, utilising our natural resources and critical minerals. Critical minerals and rare earths are essential components of clean energy technology, such as storage batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. They are also essential for our defence industry. Just this week, the government's Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 passed the Senate. This will boost critical minerals processing and spur on new investments in green metals, securing the future of our aluminium industry and the thousands of jobs it supports, including in my home state of Victoria. This builds on our $2 billion investment in our new green aluminium production credit, which will support Australia's aluminium smelters to transition to renewable electricity before 2036. It guarantees jobs right across Australia, including 1,300-plus jobs at the Portland smelter, in my home state of Victoria. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for two-minute statements has expired. MINISTRY 57 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 57 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I advise that Senator Farrell will be absent from question time on account of ministerial business interstate and that Senator McCarthy will be absent for personal reasons today, 13 February 2025. In their absence, ministers will represent portfolios as outlined in the letter circulated to party leaders. I seek leave to table the letter. Leave granted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Health Care 57 14:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday Australians were shocked and disgusted by the antisemitic threats made by nurses at Bankstown hospital. The New South Wales health minister said that both nurses had been stood down immediately. However, it currently remains possible for both individuals to practise in any other state or territory. What steps has the Prime Minister taken to ensure that these people are not able to practise as health professionals today in any location across our country? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for the question and I agree with her that we were shocked. I think I made some comments yesterday about how shocking it was to have that kind of vile hatred, that antisemitism, expressed in the way that it was. We've seen universal condemnation, including across the political spectrum. Also, I note today that the relevant trade union, the Nursing and Midwifery Federation, have engaged in a public rally in support of the appropriate values that health care should have at its heart. I think I answered that aspect of the question yesterday. I made reference to the fact that any reduction to or taking away of a licence in a state would be reflected in terms of the national regulator. I read to you the advice that I have received, which is that there is a national scheme for regulating the safety and quality of health practitioners, including nurses, and the relevant authority is NSW Health— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston 243273 I think my question was very specific— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, what is it that you're on your feet for? Senator Ruston 243273 It's relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Okay, you didn't say that. Senator Ruston 243273 I may have been mumbling—my apologies. I was seeking relevance in terms of the response that we've received so far from the minister. It was in relation to what action the Prime Minister is taking to make sure that these people are not practising anywhere else in Australia, and I think we deserve to know the answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Senator Cash I0M It's about the Prime Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU I'll take the interjection from Senator Cash, because she wants to talk about the Prime Minister. I want to talk about the registration, and I will come to the Prime Minister. Your question, Senator— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU As I said yesterday, an adverse finding made by NSW Health automatically flows through to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which is the national regulator. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, first supplementary? 14:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The New South Wales police has launched an investigation into the incident, with the New South Wales police commissioner Karen Webb calling it 'a sad day for the country'. Is the AFP investigating this incident to determine whether any Commonwealth crimes have been committed and whether these individuals would be subject to the mandatory minimum sentences in the hate crimes legislation passed in this parliament last week? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, obviously the matter is being investigated by the New South Wales police, as it should be. I express the view, as I did yesterday, that those individuals should face the full force of the law. The AFP will provide any assistance that is needed by the New South Wales police, and, Senator, I hope you, like I do, have faith in the AFP and in authorities. Senator Ruston 243273 Point of order—I think my question was very clear about the mandatory sentencing in the hate crimes law, and I don't think the minister's gone anywhere to that point. The PRESIDENT 112096 Your question also went to the New South Wales police investigation and the AFP, and the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Senator WONG 00AOU Can I indicate that I'm advised that the AFP has offered assistance. The Senate would also be aware of Special Operation Avalite, which has been previously spoken about and whose objective is to ensure, as Commissioner Kershaw says, that we protect not only Australians but the Australian way of life, and it's specifically looking at how it is that authorities can more effectively protect against— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, second supplementary? 14:06 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Will the Prime Minister hold a National Cabinet to ensure the safety of Jewish Australians, who were the subject of these death threats, and will you commit to taking real national action beyond a national database which only really serves to enmire the problem? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Through you, President—the Prime Minister engages closely and regularly with premiers and chief ministers and has worked closely with Premier Minns. What I would ask of the opposition is: will you stand with us against antisemitism? Will you stand with us? The most effective way of standing against prejudice and hatred—I say this as somebody who remembers John Howard—is for the parties across this chamber to stand together, united against antisemitism. I invite those opposite to show that principled leadership and bipartisanship against prejudice and hate. I invite Senator Ruston to do that. I will always stand against prejudice and hate, and I invite those opposite to stand with us against it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I do not intend to spend the next 55 minutes calling you to order. I remind you of standing order 203. Medicare 58 14:08 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. New Medicare bulk-billing data out this week shows there were an additional six million bulk-billed GP visits between November 2023 and December 2024, making it an average of 100,000 additional visits each week. How has the Albanese Labor government achieved these bulk-billing rates, and how is the government working to further strengthen Medicare? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Smith for her question. She knows, like all of us know, that bulk billing was in freefall when we came to government, and it's important to understand why. In 2014, Mr Dutton, the then health minister, tried to introduce a GP tax on every single Australian patient. And, when Mr Dutton couldn't get that through the parliament, he then started the Liberals and Nationals' six-year freeze of medical rebates. It went from a tax to a Medicare rebate freeze. At the time, doctors warned Mr Dutton that they'd have to increase fees and stop bulk-billing, but Mr Dutton arrogantly bulldozed ahead anyway. That is why bulk-billing was in freefall when we came to government. Labor has responded with the largest increases to Medicare rebates in 30 years and opened Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive to stop the freefall, and we delivered six million additional free visits to the doctor last year. Nationally, 77.5 per cent of all GP visits were bulk-billed in December last year. We know there is more to do, but what we have done has made a difference. The Royal College of General Practitioners has described Labor's investment as a 'gamechanger'. This stands in stark contrast to what they said when Mr Dutton was in charge of Medicare. They said that he was the worst health minister in the history of Medicare. We know Mr Dutton and the Liberals cannot be trusted with Medicare. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, first supplementary? 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Following a decade of cuts and neglect from the former Liberal and National government, Australians in regional and rural areas have found it more difficult to see specialist GPs. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure there are more specialist rural GPs where they're needed so more Australians can get the health care that they deserve? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Smith. I invite National Party senators to listen to what the Labor government is doing for regional and rural Australia. Unfortunately, those opposite—the Liberal Party—have had a long history of muzzling their junior partner. Mr Joyce knows what that feels like. Senator McKenzie certainly knows what that feels like. Just like how the Liberals have rolled the Nationals over Rex, the Liberals have rolled the Nationals on health. During their time in government, we saw, yet again, the Liberals rolling the National Party. Together, they made it harder for Australia's regional communities to see a doctor. Labor's investments are changing that. Today the health minister, Mr Butler, has announced more specialist rural GPs coming to rural and regional Australia. More than 1,750 are expected to begin government funded training to become a GP, the largest cohort of future GPs in Australia's history. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:12 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia The Albanese Labor government's strengthening Medicare agenda is delivering more doctors and nurses, more bulk-billing and more urgent care clinics. What are the risks to this agenda that could undermine Australia's health system? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The biggest risk to the Australian health system is Mr Dutton and the Liberals. We know that because of Mr Dutton's record. We know what he's done before. Mr Dutton cut $50 billion from public hospitals. He tried to abolish bulk-billing altogether. He tried to jack up medicine prices. He tried to make everyone pay a fee every time they went to an emergency department. When he couldn't get his GP tax through, he froze Medicare rebates. Mr Dutton said to Australians that not enough of them were paying to go to the doctor. Then we had Senator Ruston who said, 'Medicare is not sustainable.' Australian doctors don't trust Mr Dutton. That's why they said he was the worst health minister in Medicare history, so why would Australians trust him? Australians know they'll be worse off under— (Time expired) Cost of Living 59 14:13 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Prior to the last election the Prime Minister promised Australians on 97 occasions that he would reduce their power bills by $275. Did the Prime Minister deliver on his promise? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I first make the point that our plan is delivering cheaper energy right now. We delivered energy relief, which has cut $300 off power bills. The person who asked that question is of a party that has voted against every piece of energy bill relief that we have provided to Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, a point of order? Senator McGrath 217241 I regret to do this, but I have a point of order on relevance. The question was actually, 'Did the Prime Minister deliver on his promise in relation to the $275 reduction that was made 97 times?' I don't believe the minister is anywhere near answering that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. The minister has started her answer. You've repeated the question, so I will continue to listen carefully. Senator WONG 00AOU I said at the outset our plan is delivering cheaper energy right now, and we've delivered energy relief which has cut hundreds of dollars off Australians' power bills. We delivered $650 in energy relief to small business— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, a point of order? Senator Cash I0M Point of order in relation to relevance— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm sorry, Senator Cash. I'm going to call the Senate to order. Senator Cash I0M It's a point of order in relation to relevance. The question was: given that the Prime Minister made a promise to the Australian people, did he deliver it? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Cash. Minister Wong, I'll remind you of the question and invite you to continue your response. Senator WONG 00AOU President, I've answered it. Our plan is delivering cheaper energy now, and it stands in stark contrast to the nuclear fantasy, which will push up power prices by $1,200 and deliver less than four per cent of our energy needs. You don't like these facts, do you? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, a point of order? Senator McGrath 217241 There is a point of order on relevance that I wish to raise, and that is that the opposition's policy in relation to nuclear energy has absolutely nothing to do with the question I put to Senator Wong about the Prime Minister keeping his promises. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, that is a debating point. What I'm advised is that talking about the opposition's policies is not relevant, but the minister is being relevant to the question that you asked, Senator McGrath. Senator WONG 00AOU Our plan is delivering cheaper energy right now, and I welcome the fact that the opposition wants to avoid talking about their policy. Before the election, Australians are going to know precisely what your policy is, Senator McGrath. It will deliver more expensive energy, it will cost $600 billion and you would have to pay for it. People will know about that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Prior to the last election, the Prime Minister promised Australian families cheaper mortgages. Did the Prime Minister deliver on his promise? 14:17 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can I point out to the senator that, when we came to government, inflation had a six in front of it and now inflation has a two in front of it. I would point out to those opposite that, in fact, under this government you've seen inflation falling, you have seen unemployment falling and you've seen wages rising. These are good things. Now, I know those opposite don't wish to see higher wages, and I know those opposite don't wish to understand what's happening with inflation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, a point of order? Senator McGrath 217241 I'm sorry to do this to you, but I have a point of order on relevance. Senator Wong has once again referred to the opposition when the question was very clear and in relation to whether the Prime Minister delivered on his promise to deliver cheaper mortgages. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. I will draw the minister to your question. Senator WONG 00AOU I want to also point out that the government has passed a range of policies which have assisted and will assist homeowners with their mortgage payments, with the price of houses and with the supply of houses; one of those was the Help to Buy shared equity scheme. (Time expired). The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The Prime Minister also said prior to the last election: …when I make a mistake, I'll fess up to it, and I'll set about correcting that mistake … I won't blame someone else, I'll accept responsibility. When will the Prime Minister admit to Australians that he promised them cheaper mortgages and cheaper electricity and all that he's delivered is a cost-of-living crisis? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It is the case that we teach our children that they should acknowledge their mistakes, and I look forward to Mr Dutton acknowledging his mistake around the GP tax. I look forward to Senator McGrath acknowledging his mistake, which was— Senator McGrath 217241 President, I wish to raise a point of order in relation to relevance. The question was about the Prime Minister and whether he has admitted that he has made a mistake in relation to delivering a cost-of-living crisis. It was nothing to do with Peter Dutton or me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. I note the minister had just started her response, but I will remind her of your question. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm very happy to get to our record of higher wages, lower inflation and lower unemployment. I'm very happy to talk about that. But I think Senator McGrath and Mr Dutton should acknowledge their mistake of a $50 billion cut from public hospitals and a GP tax on every Australian. I think it would be good if they could acknowledge their mistake, which is their $600 billion of funding for a nuclear scheme—a nuclear fantasy—for more-expensive power that will deliver four per cent of Australia's grid. I'm all for accountability, Senator McGrath. We have yet to see it from Mr Dutton. Tasmania: Bushfires 61 14:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator McAllister. Fires have been burning in the Takayna/Tarkine wilderness for 10 days now. Fire boundary maps published by the Tasmanian government show that the grove of Huon pines on the upper Harman River burned last night. This grove contained the largest known Huon pine on the planet—a tree that was estimated to be 3,000 years old, making it one of the oldest trees in existence. It's now in ashes, which is devastating. The same fire is now threatening two other significant groves of Huon pines on the Wilson River. These are ancient paleoendemic ecosystems that exist nowhere else on the planet. Why wasn't more effort put in to extinguish these fires in their early stages, 10 days ago now, and what is your government doing to ensure that the protection of these globally significant ecosystems is given the priority it deserves? 14:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks for the question. Senator McKim, you are a former parliamentarian in the Tasmanian parliament and you know that firefighting is the responsibility of state and territory governments. I have been in regular contact with Minister Ellis, who is the minister responsible for emergency management in Tasmania. We've spoken about the challenges facing first responders in your part of the world. One of the things that is distinctive about fighting fires in the Tasmanian context is that there are a lot of wild places and there are a lot of amazing communities too. Our government seeks to be the best partner that we can be to the Tasmanian government as they seek to gain control of this particular set of events. We have deployed the national large air tanker to Tasmania to assist in firefighting efforts. We have also deployed one of the heavy-lift helicopters to assist Tasmania in its firefighting effort. I will make an additional point, Senator McKim. This is the first high-risk weather season where those assets have been available at all. The reason that they're available is because our government came to office understanding that more would need to be done to deal with emergencies and to deal with natural disasters. That is because all of the advice that we have from scientists is that natural disasters are going to become more frequent and more intense. Now, our government accepts that science; it's not clear to me that the people opposite us do. But it is on that basis and on the experience of communities across Australia that we have made the investments that we have, by increasing funding in the national aerial fleet, increasing funding for a national stockpile and standing up a National Emergency Management Agency that can support states and territories at times like these. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, first supplementary? 14:24 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Acknowledging other priorities and the importance of safety for fire responders, will you commit to continuing to stay in touch with the Tasmanian government to ensure that saving these globally unique and ancient ecosystems, which are at the core of Tasmania's Gondwanan heritage, is given the priority that it deserves? 14:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator McKim. Your question is apposite because, actually, this is an enterprise that rewards collaboration. I do work to stay in touch with my state and territory colleagues because, as I indicated in my response to your primary question, they do lead on these questions. They do lead on the response, but we are in a position to provide support. What that requires is me working with each of those ministerial counterparts to understand the circumstances that they are facing. I can tell you also that the National Emergency Management Agency, a new body established under our government, maintains very regular if not daily contact with fire chiefs, commissioners and other personnel in the emergency management system around the country. Indeed, as we speak, we are of course actively engaged in the circumstances continuing in Queensland—the recovery there—and in monitoring the cyclone which is forming off the north-west coast of Western Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, nine years ago now, the Greens led a Senate inquiry into the 2016 fires that devastated the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, and we made a series of recommendations on how to respond better to fires like the ones we are seeing now, including by hitting them hard and hitting them early. Why have successive federal governments, including yours, ignored many of the recommendations we made? 14:26 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I dispute the premise of the senator's question. This government has in fact made very significant investments to improve the Australian government's capacity to support states and territories not just in relation to our response to natural disasters but also to improve the resilience of communities around Australia. Your question referred to the benefits of moving early once an ignition has been detected, and I know, from speaking to fire chiefs around the country, that these principles are embedded in many of the ways that fire chiefs are responding to some of these very difficult circumstances. We also—I acknowledge Minister Watt here—have established the Disaster Ready Fund. This fund—a $1 billion fund—has already had two rounds where we are making investments in a range of measures that can support resilience, including investments in early detection technologies. Women's Health 62 14:27 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Women and Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. This week, the Albanese Labor government responded to two Senate inquiries on women's health that made recommendations to improve reproductive and menopause health care in Australia. The government has taken these inquiries seriously by delivering a $570 million package of women's health measures that will give women more choice and save women and their families thousands of dollars. How does the government's women's healthcare package respond to the Senate inquiries and deliver for Australian women? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for the question, and, of course, I am thankful for the work of all of my colleagues in the Labor caucus who have worked so hard to make sure that we are addressing areas where women have not been given the support that they deserve, in particular here in relation to access to appropriate health care. I do want to acknowledge the work that's been done in this chamber, through this term of parliament, on the Senate sexual reproductive inquiry and the Senate menopause inquiry. The inquiries heard from Australian women and health advocacy organisations about the longstanding issues with support for women's health care, and the Albanese Labor government has listened. In addition to the inquiries, Minister Kearney and Minister Butler have been informed by extensive consultation with women, healthcare providers, advocacy groups and the National Women's Health Advisory Council. We know from all of that that women too often experience delayed diagnoses, have their pain dismissed and struggle to get the support they need. Women need for their government to take their health care seriously. We have listened and we have responded. A significant package—$573 million—demonstrates our commitment to making sure we are addressing those areas of need. This package includes the first PBS listing for new oral contraceptive pills in more than 30 years. There are more choices, lower costs, better access for long-term contraceptives, more Medicare support for women experiencing menopause, the first PBS listing for new menopausal hormone therapies in over 20 years, more endometriosis and pelvic-pain clinics treating more conditions, and contraceptives and treatment for uncomplicated UTIs directly from pharmacies for those women who are on a healthcare card and where cost becomes prohibitive. These packages will save women and their families thousands of dollars over their lifetimes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, first supplementary? 14:30 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thank you for that response, Minister. Not only will this funding assist women with their healthcare choices; it will also help women with their economic security. Chief Executive Women has found that, on average, women retire earlier than men due in large part to their health. How will this package, particularly the menopause initiatives, support women in the workforce? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for the question. This is a package that recognises that women bear a high cost for their health over their lifetime and that there has been a gap in quality and responsive health services for women. We know that this has real impacts on women not just in bringing down the costs of health treatments through this package but also in avoiding the costs that women bear when they can't access quality health care. Chief Executive Women has pointed out that, on average, women retire earlier than men and 12 years earlier than they want to due in large part to their health. This obviously has huge impacts on a woman's life and on her economic security into retirement but also on our economy. Employing just five per cent more people age 55 or over could add $48 billion to the Australian economy. Monash University has also estimated women's labour force absence costs $72 billion in lost GDP annually. This package goes to making women's health care more affordable and more accessible and to giving women more choices. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania The women's health package adds to a huge amount of work that the Albanese Labor government has done to repair Australia's health system after a decade of coalition neglect. How would Australian women be impacted if the government had not done the work to repair the health system? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We know that those opposite, given the chance, want to cut Medicare if they get back into government. We know that because we have only to look at their record. What happened when they were last in government, when Mr Dutton was voted the worst health minister in the country ever? Bulk-billing was in freefall, a GP tax was on the table, they froze the Medicare rebate for six years, they cut $200 million out of emergency departments, they voted against making medicines cheaper and they threatened to cut $50 billion from public hospitals. That is the record. We don't need to imagine what it would be like; that is the record. In terms of the women's health package, there was very quick support from those opposite, but I wonder why none of that happened when they were in government for a decade? Why did none of that happen when they were in government? It's taken a Labor government to fix it. (Time expired) Universities 63 14:33 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. Yesterday the government announced changes to the HELP debts so they won't stop people from getting home loans. There are 50,000 people with HELP debts from Tassie who I'm sure were very pleased to hear it, but the government has made no change to fix a system that's made to punish graduates. A graduate on an average income is paying $2,000 more than they need to all because HELP debts don't count someone's yearly payments before charging interest. Why doesn't the government change the timing on indexation? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks very much, Senator Tyrrell, for the question. I do appreciate getting questions from Senator Tyrrell, because I think Senator Tyrrell has asked me more questions than Senator Cash has in the entire time I have been in the industrial relations portfolio. In fact, it was 7 September 2023 that Senator Cash last asked a question about industrial relations. She went— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I am going to draw you to the question. Senator WATT 245759 I think Senator Tyrrell will appreciate this and I will get to the point shortly. Senator Cash went the entire year of 2024 without asking an industrial relations question, and that's because she knows her record is so bad. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt! Senator Tyrrell, on a point of order? Senator Tyrrell 300639 Thank you, President, for drawing Senator Watt back to the question. Can we reinforce that? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, when I draw you back to the question, I do expect to you be drawn back to the question. Senator WATT 245759 Thanks, Senator Tyrell. We share your interest in supporting graduates when it comes to their HELP debts. We have, as I'm sure you would be aware, announced a couple of different measures to assist in that regard. First of all—I think it was this year's budget; it may have been last year's budget—we adjusted the indexation rate for university graduates and also for VET graduates. There's been a lot of attention on the benefits of these changes for university graduates, but, equally, they benefit graduates from vocational education and training courses who've taken out loans as well. That indexation rate has been adjusted to try to make life easier. We've also made a commitment that, should we be elected to a second term in office, we will discount the debts owed by graduates of either universities or vocational education by 20 per cent, something that I think has been very well received by students and graduates right around the country, including in Tasmania. We know that Mr Dutton and the coalition opposed that measure, just as they have opposed every single step that we've taken to assist with the cost of living for your constituents in Tasmania. You would have seen this week, Senator Tyrell, that we've made an additional announcement about helping graduates with their home loans through changes in HELP, and we'll continue to take that work up. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Last year, the government made changes to HELP debts so that they'd be indexed either by CPI or WPI, whichever was lowest. This will save a graduate zero dollars this year, but that graduate would save money this year if the timing on indexation was changed. Why did the government prioritise changes that don't save graduates money now instead of a change that would save them money every year? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. The government was particularly prompted to act in terms of the indexation rate for those university or VET loans because of the high inflation that Australia was experiencing when we first came to office. It's well understood that inflation was much higher when we came to office than it is now, due to the work that we've undertaken to get inflation down. The indexation rate that we set in the budget was designed to deal with that high inflation environment that we inherited when we first came to office and that did last for the first 12 months or so of our time in office. Thankfully, we've now managed to get inflation down. That's the outcome of the actions of the Albanese government. We've had two surpluses in a row. We didn't bother making 'Back in black' mugs; we just delivered surpluses. We got it done. We didn't need mugs. In the process, we brought inflation down, which is obviously good news for university and VET graduates, as it is for the entire Australian community. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Labor says they're all about helping students and young people with the cost of living. You could help them now, but you won't. Why are you making them pay more on their HELP debt than they need to? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. I've already explained the reasons for the indexation rate changes and the fact that inflation now being significantly lower is good news for university graduates, in terms of the indexation of their loans. I have to disagree with you on one point, though, when you say that we haven't helped university students—I can't remember the exact words that you used. We have not only taken action as a government around HELP loans and indexation rates but assisted students in a whole range of other ways. The increases that we've made to rent assistance have been particularly useful for students. I think I'm right in saying it's the biggest increase in rent assistance that any government has made in decades—a 45 per cent increase in rent assistance. Students are obviously big beneficiaries of that. Anyone on a low income, whether it be a student, an unemployed person or an elderly person, benefits from the work that we've done around increasing bulk-billing. Of course, there are the energy bill rebates, and let's remember who voted against every single one of them—all of those people over there. Creative Australia 64 14:39 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Australian government funded organisation Creative Australia has announced that Khaled Sabsabi will be Australia's artistic representative to the Venice Biennale. Mr Sabsabi features the dead Hezbollah terrorist leader Nasrallah in his artworks. With such appalling antisemitism in our country, why is the Albanese government allowing a person who highlights a terrorist leader in his artwork to represent Australia on the international stage at the Venice Biennale? 14:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I wasn't aware of the facts as you outlined them in your question until now. I agree with you that any glorification of the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah is inappropriate, and I've expressed those views previously, and I'll certainly get further information for you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Hezbollah is a listed terrorist organisation in Australia and Hezbollah has committed the vilest of atrocities. Why then is the Albanese government allowing Australian taxpayer money to fund an overseas trip for Mr Sabsabi when he has featured the dead Hezbollah terrorist leader Nasrallah in his artwork? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Chandler, I refer you to my first answer, which I think responded directly to some of those points. I would say to you that you would see from the government's actions, as well as from what I have said and what the Prime Minister has said, that we condemn Hezbollah unequivocally. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, second supplementary? 14:41 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Mr Sabsabi has previously produced artwork promoting Osama Bin Laden and a series of 9/11 images of the aircraft hitting the Twin Towers, titled 'Thank you very much'. Will the Albanese government immediately reverse the decision for Mr Sabsabi to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my first answer, Senator, which was— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator 00AOU I know that you really want to make— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Cash, if you could, just let me answer. Senator Cash I0M It's a simple answer: yes. Senator WONG 00AOU I wasn't aware of this until you asked me. I certainly will get advice, and I share your concerns about Hezbollah. Climate Change 65 14:41 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. Minister, at the last election the government campaigned on an emissions target of 43 per cent. Commentary at the time said that it was supported by voters and was therefore a factor in the election. The government legislated this target in 2022, and it is now incorporated throughout the Australian economy. Can the minister tell us what the importance is of Australia setting international emissions targets? 14:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Van, you are right: we went to the last election seeking to bring some measure of consistency and predictability to climate change policy. It had been a policy area which was the subject of chaos and dysfunction under the previous government, and it was clear that our national interests would be best served by a return to a predictable and orderly approach to this policy area. When we first came to government we sought, as you recall, to establish our emissions target in legislation. We also sought to establish a governance arrangement that would allow us to track and monitor our progress and to take advice from the Climate Change Authority about how we were progressing and any future arrangements. All of that has occurred, and there are a number of reasons that it matters to us. It matters because Australia is exposed to the realities of climate change. Australians know that the climate is changing, and all of the scientists tell us that our climate is changing. That impacts rainfall, it impacts heat, it impacts fire weather, and it impacts a whole range of sectors of Australian society, including the farm sector, communities, fisheries—a whole range of areas where a change in climate makes a real difference. Our best chance at dealing with that lies in being part of the international community and supporting international efforts to reduce emissions. We've set about doing that, but we also make the obvious point that our economic interests lie here too. There is a global market for low-carbon products and services, and we want Australians to be part of that market. We want the jobs and opportunities that come with a low-carbon world to be part of the future for Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary? 14:44 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Australia and other Paris Agreement signatories have undertaken to update their targets every five years. The deadline for countries to submit their new targets for 2035 was Monday this week, 10 February. Minister, can you assure the Senate that the government will set a 2035 target, and when will you set it? 14:45 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I indicated in my primary answer, in 2022 we legislated the Climate Change Act. That was with the broad support of members of this parliament. That act enshrined both our national targets under the Paris Agreement and a formal process for determining the 2035 target. That process, as I indicated earlier, requires independent advice from the Climate Change Authority before any target can be set. The authority is yet to provide that advice, but it has been extensively consulting and is considering the issues and the broader international context. The Climate Change Authority chair has said that they need time to consider international developments before they deliver their advice, which is entirely appropriate. Our target will be robust and responsible, and informed by the experts at the Climate Change Authority. This is an approach that has been backed by industry, by serious climate voices and by the broader sector. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Thank you, Minister. You referred earlier to the importance of our international agreements. Given the significance of these targets to voters, do you believe both major parties should commit to a 2035 target before the upcoming federal election so that voters are fully informed? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, it is not for the minister to be speaking on behalf of the opposition. I will invite the minister to answer your question in the best way that she can. 14:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the clarification, President. Senator Van, I think I've just provided you with an answer already about the government's approach to this and the fact that we are reliant on the advice to be provided to us by the Climate Change Authority. That approach is one that has been broadly endorsed, not just in this place but by many of the stakeholders that we work with. I do think that Australians, when we go to an election, will be very clear that there is one party that has a track record of taking this issue seriously. We have worked very carefully to put in place an architecture based on evidence that would allow us to do the work necessary to obtain the benefits of participating in a global decarbonisation effort and to do so in a way that protects Australians' jobs and industries. That's the approach we've taken in this term, and that is the approach we intend to continue to pursue. Trade with the United States of America 66 14:47 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Wong. President Trump has announced a 25 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium exports. If this tariff comes into effect without an exemption for Australia, more than $200 million worth of exports could be jeopardised. A senior Trump adviser has even claimed that Australian companies are flooding the US aluminium market. Given that the Prime Minister spoke with President Trump earlier this week, can you confirm whether there has been further government contact with the Trump administration about this tariff, or are we just hoping this problem goes away? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The first point I'd make is that Australia and the United States have a very strong economic relationship, a very strong trade relationship and a very strong investment relationship, underscored by the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. I would make the point that the United States has had an unbroken trade surplus with Australia since 1952, and I would say to you, Senator, that we are working very closely with the Trump administration to realise the benefits of our strong economic partnership. You would have seen the engagement from my first visit, where I had the honour of being the first foreign minister from Australia to attend a US presidential inauguration. You would have seen that I had the privilege of engaging with Secretary Rubio— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I know that it's Thursday of the last sitting week. I know that there's a little bit of joviality, but this is serious. This is about the nation engaging with the United States. I had the privilege of engaging with Secretary Rubio, both directly and through the Quad meeting. You'll also see that the defence minister and the Deputy Prime Minister engaged recently as well. The Prime Minister did have a call with President Trump. It was a constructive and warm discussion. The Prime Minister made a strong case for Australia to be exempt from tariffs on steel and aluminium and, as you would have seen from both the President's words and the Prime Minister— Senator WONG 00AOU This is the US relationship, Senator McKenzie. Perhaps you should be bipartisan. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:50 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Steel production in Australia starts with iron ore, the majority of which comes from my home state of WA. Minister, if your government fails to secure an exemption, unlike former prime minister Turnbull under the first Trump administration, what's your plan for protecting WA jobs? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Unlike some of those in the chamber, we are one hundred per cent focused on the interests of Australia, and we think that the alliance and economic relationship with the United States should, despite Senator McKenzie's interjection, be bipartisan. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU We are pleased that the president is giving great consideration to the exemption. We will continue to press our views. Obviously, the US administration made clear, both before and after the election, that President Trump and his administration intend to do things differently. They have set about implementing that agenda, which was the agenda the American people voted for. We will continue to engage and press Australia's interests, as you would expect. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question was specifically about WA, but that's okay. Amidst the cost-of-living crisis, the national housing crisis and the climate change emergency, we still managed to cough up $800 million to ship off to the US as the first payment towards the AUKUS submarines, which I don't think is in the best interests of Australians. Yet the US treats us with the same contempt as it does its worst enemies. Minister, is this how friends treat each other? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Payman, I appreciate that you don't support AUKUS, but I think—if I may—that the tone of your last question flies in the face of what you're proposing in your first. We are in the process of an engagement with the US administration. We will do so, very clearly, in Australia's national interest. We will do so professionally and we will do so consistently. In terms of AUKUS, I appreciate that you have a different view to the government's. We believe AUKUS is in Australia's national interest. We also believe it is an important aspect of our relationship with the United States and the United Kingdom. On this, we are not going to agree. I disagree with what you've put in your question. We'll continue to engage, as is appropriate, with our principal strategic ally and the world's largest economic power. Cost of Living 67 14:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt! Senator McKenzie, please continue. Senator McKENZIE 207825 My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres! Senator McKENZIE 207825 Minister Wong, could you please outline to the Senate how much the average mortgage repayment has increased since May 2022? 14:54 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm sure that someone will provide me with precise details of the figures soon, but what I would say to you, Senator, is that, when you were in government— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I am providing an answer to a question about inflation. I know those opposite find it hard to recognise some of the laws of economics. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 On relevance—and to assist with the paper flurry—my question wasn't about inflation; it was actually about mortgage payment increases. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister understood your question because she said she would get you that information, so I will call her to continue with the response, and I will listen carefully. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, I've called you about four times in about five minutes. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator McKenzie says she's not interested in inflation. I thought that was the basis of her— Senator McKenzie 207825 President, I would ask you to request Senator Wong to withdraw that comment, please. Senator WONG 00AOU As you know— Opposition senators interjecting— The 10000 Order! Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. Senator Ruston, resume your seat; I will come back to you. Senator McKenzie, you made a reference to inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 You're not in an argument with me. When you rose about your point of order, you spoke about inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am happy to review the tape, but I clearly heard that. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I'm not debating with a bunch of people on the front bench. Senator WONG 00AOU As always, President, I'm happy to withdraw, and I withdraw. But the point I was making to you, Senator, is that—am I still on the point of order? I can respond in the answer to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston on a point of order? Senator WONG 00AOU I've just withdrawn. Senator Ruston 243273 My point of order isn't related to your point of order. My point of order is related to the adverse reflection that one of the ministers on the front bench made in relation to Senator McKenzie, which was completely uncalled for and was an adverse reflection on her. A government senator interjecting— Senator Ruston 243273 It was nothing to do with a long lunch. It was actually a personal comment about Senator McKenzie, and I think Senator Ayres knows what I'm talking about. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator McGrath, I have called order. As you should know by now, I take personal reflections very seriously and I always ask senators to withdraw. I didn't hear the comment, but, Senator Ruston, it is not helpful to me to say 'a minister' or 'one of the ministers'. I'm happy to ask ministers— The PRESIDENT 112096 No, Senator Ruston, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, I've just finished telling the chamber that I take points of order seriously, and you made a joke about it. I am going to ask, if there was an adverse comment on the front bench, for that senator to withdraw and to withdraw in a proper spirit. Senator Ayres 16913 I'm now aware of it because Senator Ruston mouthed it to me, and I withdraw it. Senator WONG 00AOU Can I just be clear that I understood Senator McKenzie was saying that an answer in relation to inflation was not relevant to an answer about mortgage rates. Senator WONG 00AOU Exactly. My point is that inflation is the key thing that governments can do in relation to mortgage rates, Senator. The independent Reserve Bank—which should be independent, despite what Mr Dutton might have said—sets mortgage rates and sets the cash rate. Governments can do what we can to reduce inflation. Inflation under us has a two in front of it; inflation under you has a six in front of it. I would say to you, respectfully, President, that on a question about mortgage rates, particularly given that it is not governments which set mortgage rates but the Reserve Bank, it is quite relevant to talk about inflation. If the opposition want to say that it's not relevant to talk about inflation, they are demonstrating, with respect, the same economic incompetence that the nuclear fantasy policy demonstrates. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria They were the good old days. Minister, Australians are struggling under a cost-of-living crisis. Could the minister please outline how much the cost of food has increased since Labor came to power? For those playing along at home, the average mortgage cost has increased by $50,000 since Labor came to power. 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The cost of living has been really difficult for many Australians. We acknowledge that, which is why we put in place tax cuts for every Australian, which you voted against. It's why we put in place cheaper medicines, which you voted against. It's why we delivered more bulk-billing, which you don't support. It's why we provided energy bill relief, which you voted against. Senator WONG 00AOU It is the case that we have seen increases in the cost of living. We have seen Australians struggling. It is a good thing that we see inflation down, wages up and unemployment up, but we know there is a long way to go. What we also know is that Mr Dutton would simply make things harder for Australians and that Australians would be worse off under Mr Dutton. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hume, stop the running commentary. Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The minister doesn't know how much food has increased since Labor came to power. It would be probably better, and less embarrassing, if she said she didn't know and sat down. Minister, under the Albanese government we have a cost-of-living crisis, including 12 interest rate rises, energy bills rising by $1,000, living standards collapsing, 27,000 businesses going bust and a record-breaking household recession. Isn't it clear that Australians cannot afford another three years of a Labor government? (Time expired) 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Do you know what Australians can't afford? They can't afford Mr Dutton. They can't afford the bloke who thinks that a GP tax is good health policy. They can't afford the bloke who thinks that $600 billion is worth a nuclear fantasy. They can't afford the bloke who has been clear that he will cut government services to the tune of in excess of $350 billion. That is what Australians can't afford. And they can't afford a government that seeks to keep wages deliberately low. We know that Mr Dutton actually wants to return to the low-wage economy that the coalition have always worked to achieve. Australians can't afford Mr Dutton. Australians will be worse off under Peter Dutton. With that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Stronger Communities Program, Local Content Broadcasting, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I note that the Senate has ordered three explanations this afternoon: firstly, from the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, relating to the Stronger Communities Program, on the motion of the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator McKenzie; secondly, from the Minister representing Minister for the Arts, relating to Australian content quotas, on the motion of Senator Lambie; and, thirdly, from the Minister for the Environment and Water, relating to correspondence with Senators Hanson-Young and David Pocock on the government's nature-positive bills, on the motion of Senator Duniam. I will make each explanation in turn. Each senator can then move their own motion to take note as provided for in the Senate orders, so there will still be three separate debates. I'll begin with the explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The Stronger Communities Program provides grants of between $2,500 and $20,000 to community organisations and local governments for infrastructure projects that deliver social benefits for local communities. The Stronger Communities Program has committed funding to over 17,400 community based projects across Australia. Round 9 will open on 14 February 2025, with $22.65 million available to support infrastructure projects that provide social benefits for local communities across the country. MPs are currently undergoing consultation on their nominated projects, determining local priorities in partnership with local communities. Round 9 project activities must directly align with and give effect to at least one of the objectives of the program and be one or more of the listed activities within the grant opportunity guidelines. Order for the production of documents No. 761 requested copies of documents provided to the minister by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts in regard to eligible activities under the Stronger Communities Program's round 9 guidelines 2025. The document identified as falling within the scope of this order refers to legal advice that is subject to legal professional privilege, which has not been waived by the Commonwealth. It is not in the public interest to depart from the longstanding practice of successive governments to not disclose privileged legal advice. A broad number of organisations can apply for funding through the program, and that includes but is not limited to Men's Sheds, senior citizens clubs, scouts groups, surf lifesaving clubs, rural fire services and sporting clubs, as they are not-for-profit organisations. The lengthy list of projects might include upgrades to old, or installation of new, war memorials, signage and flags that commemorate Australians killed during Australia's war efforts; extensions to premises that support veterans; or the purchase of defibrillators or other first-aid equipment. The Albanese government is committed to delivering for all Australians. For example, in the past 12 months alone, through a number of grants programs, we have funded $2 million to upgrade PCYC facilities in Cairns; $1.9 million for the Precinct 58 redevelopment of the Bundaberg and rural fire services; $2.7 million for the Southport Spit Emergency Services Hub; investment in the Men's Shed in Diamond Creek, Victoria; amenities upgrades at Middle Head Oval, in Mosman; $15 million for the Kwinana Recquatic Centre redevelopment; and $2 million for a facilities upgrade with new change rooms at the Eastern Suburbs District Rugby Union Football Club, in New South Wales. I'll move on to the second explanation, from the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, relating to Australian content quotas, on the motion of Senator Lambie. As you are all aware, through our national cultural policy, Revive, the Albanese Labor government have committed to introducing Australian screen content requirements on streaming platforms to ensure continued access to local stories and content. We have brilliant talent in Australia, and we want to make sure that people have access to Australian scripted drama and children's stories across different platforms. The document is undertaking a genuine and thorough consultation process that is taking the time to consider views to support ongoing investment in and production of Australian stories. Development of this policy requires a productive working relationship between government and all stakeholders. The streaming companies provided commercially sensitive data in good faith and in confidence to assist the process. These companies had no obligation to provide any information to the government. They provided it on the understanding that it would not be released. Had they known it would be released, they would not have provided it. The government firmly rejects Senator Lambie's assertion that we have not complied with the previous order. The documents have already been provided to Senator Lambie, with appropriate redactions in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The government also subsequently provided the documents to the Senate, with appropriate redactions under public interest immunity. The redactions made were in order to appropriately protect the commercially sensitive data and personal information of various stakeholders. It has been well accepted by the Senate that information which could damage the commercial interest of commercial traders in the marketplace is entitled to be protected by public interest immunity. The FOI Act also provides explicit ability to redact information which is obtained in confidence or which would disclose commercially valuable information. Finally, in relation to the explanation from the Minister for the Environment and Water, relating to correspondence with Senator Hanson-Young and Senator David Pocock, this government takes its disclosure and transparency obligations seriously, and we comply with our obligations. The documents sought by this OPD were partially released under FOI decision reference 78919. Those documents had redactions applied as per the relevant provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. I will table those documents for the benefit of the chamber in the form they were made public. I'm informed by the minister that there are unresolved questions relating to the release of the documents in the form requested by the OPD. I want to provide the chamber some context. This OPD is highly unusual, and senators should consider precisely what Senator Duniam is asking for. This OPD seeks to force the disclosure of correspondence between a member of the House and two non-government senators, correspondence that relates intimately to the performance of their parliamentary functions. Senators should reflect on the impact it would have on the ordinary operations of this place if OPDs of this nature became commonplace. This order traverses unfamiliar ground for this chamber and raises complex questions for the minister to answer in responding to this OPD. I'm advised that the minister is working to resolve these questions as quickly as possible. As flagged, I table the documents I've referred to that were partially released under FOI. Stronger Communities Program 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 15:12 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise to take note of the minister's comments around OPD No. 761, relating to the Stronger Communities Program. I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation concerning the response to the order relating to the Stronger Communities Program. It seems it's another day, another effort by the government—who promised so much on transparency and integrity when they came to power—and another week of them hiding behind redacted copies, legal advice and, 'We can't talk to you, Senate, about the documents the Senate has voted we must provide, because it will somehow discriminate in our discussions with states and territories.' I can tell you that Catherine King screaming down the phone at Jacinta Allan about infrastructure funding in my home state of Victoria is not doing a lot for state-Commonwealth relations, and I would suggest tabling the documents requested by the Australian Senate. For these ministers to continue to hide behind flaccid words and legalese is an absolute abrogation of their responsibilities to this chamber and their responsibilities as ministers of the Crown. Catherine King's pathetic response on the Stronger Communities program round is just the latest case. This is a program which is supposed to support volunteer community organisations, such as Men's Sheds and emergency services, in buying microwaves, shade cloth and pie warmers so they can actually support their local communities and really build community involvement along the range of things most Australians like to do, which is not to listen to politicians; it's actually to get out there and play sport and help their fellow man and fight fires and floods together. That is actually what Australians want to do. Under the Labor Party, getting access to that much-needed funding for simple things like volunteer organisations just got a lot harder. Under Catherine King—guess what?—you don't just have to prove that you're doing a great job in your local community and you do need a pie warmer or a microwave; you actually have to report on how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are in your particular community group. What about your gender related activities? That's a bit tough if you're a men's shed. I hope that won't affect you getting the funding you need so much, remembering men's sheds were set up to assist with men's mental health needs and with having a safe space for men to participate in activities and chat to each other. No—they're going to have to disclose that they are really just about guys helping guys. You also have to report on your renewable energy sources and storage if you want to access grants between $2½ thousand and $20,000. It's an absolute joke. But, on the OPDs that weren't responded to by this minister and that the opposition has put in, requesting an understanding of Rex Airlines funding from Minister King, how did you put $80 million on the table to not find a solution for regional aviation services to places like Wynyard, Whyalla and Albury, where I come from? We need to make sure that regional communities are supported no matter what happens with Rex, and the fact is that we have 40 other aviation service providers wanting to assist in affordable and accessible regional aviation services. This government really has only got one stakeholder they listen to—if it's not Qantas, it's the TWU—instead of the 40 other businesses that employ 10,000 Australians that want to help. Instead, this government has put $130 million on the table with no solution for regional communities, and now they want to simply buy Rex without telling the Australian taxpayer how much more money that will cost and how many other small, regional aviation service providers will be put out of business as a result. The other question the opposition sought to get answered by the government is on an announcement made by the Prime Minister about $7.2 billion dollars towards the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Obviously, we are huge supporters of the Bruce Highway getting up to safety standards. It is not in a state that we would expect of a road for passenger vehicles or the freight tasks it is expected to undertake. After the derelict oversight of the Palaszczuk-Miles state government, we are absolutely committed to that project. However, there was a bit of misinformation and confusion amongst government ministers, with Senator Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, going on 7:30 over the summer holidays saying that it's not in the forward estimates. For those playing along at home, that means there's no funding flowing in the next four years on the ground to get this fixed. But the Prime Minister is saying, 'We're going to get money out the door this year.' So who was right? Good question. I thought, 'Why don't I ask the minister?' The Senate agreed with me: 'Why don't we ask the minister? What is the profiling for that Bruce Highway funding?' We got stall tactics from the Labor Party and stall tactics on transparency from Minister King's office. Okay, we will come back to the Senate. We'll give them more time. We'll be considerate. This is not a hard document to find, because the minister would have had to have it all profiled when she went off to the Expenditure Review Committee to get the okay. The Prime Minister would have had to tick it off so they could make the big announcement in Queensland. And yet somehow the Prime Minister, Minister King and Minister Gallagher all had different answers around the profiling of the Bruce Highway. We want to understand what it was, and, unfortunately, this government, again running from transparency and accountability in the Australian Senate, has refused to provide that profiling. So we're none the wiser. Now we learn that neither the minister nor her department has formally written to the Queensland government regarding the proposed Bruce Highway. They're in partnership together. They're supposed to be fifty-fifty on this; we're on board for eighty-twenty. The Prime Minister makes a big song and dance. He wants 80-20. No-one has told the Queensland government. Is this how you run the show? Is this how you run a $120 billion infrastructure pipeline? Apparently under the Labor Party that is how you run it. Don't talk to the states unless you're screaming down the phone at Jacinta Allan about: 'Will we fund the Suburban Rail Loop or won't we? How much do you want? Do you want another lazy $9 billion? We're getting the $2.2 billion out the door, Jacinta. Can you give us the Melbourne rail link? Can you give us the Melbourne Airport rail? We really want to go and announce that, because we know you've really stuffed up the working-class suburbs in western Melbourne. That's really going to cost us at the federal election.' And Jacinta is saying no. Jacinta is saying, 'I want the whole $9 billion, thank you, Catherine King.' I wonder where this stand-off will end up? That's going to unfold over the coming days, I imagine. Watch the Prime Minister swoop into Melbourne and make a big announcement about the Melbourne airport rail when he finally convinces the Premier of Victoria to get on board his re-election train. Unfortunately—I'm coming to government—the Labor Party supported a big transparency game, and yet, as we've seen in this chamber time and time again, when it suits their political purposes, they refuse to release the detail. Ministers hide behind letters of legalese and commercial-in-confidence instead of actually treating this chamber with the respect it deserves—and, indeed, the Australian people we represent—when we ask legitimate questions about how their tax dollars are being spent, particularly around Rex and particularly around this Prime Minister's decision to nationalise Rex if he gets the chance. I wonder if Alan Joyce is going to come back as his CEO. He might get Joyce back in the saddle—in the cockpit, shall we say. They've always been great mates, and Albo—the Prime Minister; sorry. Not only does he want his own shipping line—I like to call it 'Albo's armada'—but now it seems that's not enough to have his own fleet of ships. He now wants his own airline. This is a guy that's never given up the transport portfolio, and I hope to kick them out at the next election. 15:22 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I too question why there's no transparency on Albo airways. I'm wondering whether I want to come fly with him. 'Let's fly, let's fly away.' It'd be lovely to fly Albo airlines. I wonder if there are also— Senator Hanson-Young I0U It's that time of day. Senator DAVEY 281697 It is that time of day! Senator Ciccone 281503 I have a point of order. I'm reluctant to interrupt my good friend Senator Davey, but I should also draw to your attention that she should address members of the other place by their correct title. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Ciccone, it was referring to a fictional airline as opposed to a— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Davey, allow me to handle the interjection. That's my role. I'll give you the call again; please proceed. Senator DAVEY 281697 What we have seen time and time again from the Prime Minister and the government is a lack of transparency and an absolute unwillingness to actually produce documents requested by this chamber—documents on their programs! With the Stronger Communities Program, if there were nothing to hide, you would think they would be willing to present the documents we're asking for without fear or favour. You would think they would be willing to shout from the rooftops what a success that program has been, but clearly not. It should be a great program, delivering for our regional communities and, importantly, delivering for our volunteer organisations. I want to tell you how important grant programs are, like what the Stronger Communities Program should be, like what we had when we were in government—the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, which was highly successful and highly sought after and delivered a huge amount of benefit for regional communities. There is not one community that I have visited that hasn't shown me a community infrastructure facility and said, 'This was delivered through your Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program,' like the former government's Building Better Regions Fund, where communities identify what they need. Organisations like our state emergency services are run by volunteers, who have sheds and just need that little bit of support to upgrade, to do some maintenance or, in the case of so many, put in female change rooms. A lot of our regional and rural fire services' sheds were built at a time when, unfortunately, not many female volunteers were welcomed. Times have changed, but infrastructure has not caught up. These organisations used things like the Building Better Regions Fund, used things like the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, and should be using the Stronger Communities Program to help make their places more welcoming for female volunteers, for volunteers of different abilities and for volunteers from different cultures. But we don't know, because we don't have the documents. This government is not being transparent. This government, which promised transparency, has become the government of nondisclosure agreements, of secrecy and of hiding behind things like commercial confidentiality. It is not good enough. We deserve more openness from this government. We deserve to know what investigations they've done before hurtling into a promise to purchase Rex Airlines. Don't get me wrong: as someone who lives in regional Australia and who is dependent on Rex Airlines—being the only airline that services the Narrandera-to-Sydney route—I want to see Rex Airlines continue to fly. But does it have to be Rex, or could that route be serviced by another regional airline? What investigations have this government done to see if the routes serviced by Rex could be serviced by another commercial operator so I don't have to rely on 'Albo Airways'? Senator Ciccone 281503 You want to shut down Rex Airlines? Senator DAVEY 281697 I'm not saying I want to shut down Rex Airlines—thank you; I'll take that—in no way. I'm saying I fly Rex Airlines. But what investigations have this government done to investigate all opportunities to keep Rex Airlines or regional routes serviced before they've gone into agreeing to a massive debt on behalf of the Australian taxpayer? Our position in the Nationals has been that we must ensure that regional routes continue to be serviced. But there are options, and we are not convinced that the Labor government has considered all those options. The call for the production of documents is so that we can reassure ourselves that the Labor government has considered all options to ensure that our regional routes continue to be serviced so rural and regional Australians are not left out. 15:29 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland There has been a rolling crisis for the past almost year now in regional areas, as there has been uncertainty about the continuation of Rex Airlines. This is an incredibly important service for people in regional Australia. The distances that are involved out there require that there be access to aviation services. If there isn't access to aviation services for people who live in these country towns, they can't go to hospitals, they can't do business and they can't visit friends and family elsewhere. There's no way driving or other options are an alternative. They have to have access to planes. We have been thankful that the government has ensured that these services have continued since Rex Airlines went into receivership. The issue here is that nothing much seems to have happened apart from that. There is still a cloud hanging over aviation services in regional Australia because there is no long-term plan for these services that people can see, touch and be confident in. It's great that the planes are still flying, that the services are still on. But people who want to make plans to move to, invest in, or expand their business into a country town actually need to know that these types of services will be there for the long term. We don't have that confidence at the moment. We don't have that confidence because this minister has not been able to present a proper plan to the Australian people. The minister for infrastructure has not properly engaged with the broader aviation sector here to formulate a plan that would deliver solutions and certainty for people in regional Australia. What we are discussing here is the failure of the government, the failure of the minister, to release even the basics of the documentation around what they're doing and what discussions they've had in regard to the future of Rex Airlines. Maybe the reason the government is hiding details here is that there's not much to produce. The most embarrassing thing for the government would be to have to table what would be almost nothing. From the outside it would seem that the government has not done much more than that. I myself have been in discussion with aviation operators. Indeed, I had a discussion with some just yesterday in my office. They are at a complete loss to understand why the government won't engage with them and why they aren't presenting a plan that would be good for the aviation sector, good for regional Australians and good for the country. They can't even talk to the minister. They can't even get a meeting with the minister of this government to discuss these important matters. The people I met with have some potential solutions. From this position it's hard for me to judge whether their proposals are good, bad or indifferent. But I can't believe that we have a minister for transport who has one of the most important issues on her desk right now—the continuation of regional services—and she won't even meet with senior players in the aviation sector that could potentially provide a solution and certainty for people in regional Australia. That's the only reason we could conclude the government is hiding these documents, hiding this information, from us. It is because, perhaps, the minister has not done much and has not done the basic work that any competent minister would do in stakeholder management—to get around and communicate with everybody in this area and at least have the best information at hand. The other problem here is that, because I think not much has been done, the government is now floating thought bubbles as a substitute for action on the aviation sector. The government is now effectively trying to kick the can down the road on this matter, beyond the election, which we can all smell in the air and which is coming any time soon. You can tell that the story this week that somehow the government was going to potentially buy or take over Rex Airlines and apparently create a new national airline network was cooked up by some media adviser to get them through the next few weeks. There was no detail or substance to it. There's no detailed corporate plan about how this would work. There's certainly no money put aside for this. It wasn't even a media release; it was a leak to the newspapers to get them through the next few months without having to take tough questions from regional Australians about what their plans are for the future. That's just not good enough for people out there who rely on these services, and more should have been done by now to put us in a better position. Now, unfortunately, those tough questions, those conversations that should have been happening, will probably have to wait until after the election. Hopefully, there will be a change of government. I've got no doubt that my good friend and leader here, Senator McKenzie, will engage with the sector. I know she's been engaging with the sector, as she mentioned earlier. She will be talking to all players and trying to come up with a solution to a difficult problem, and will come up with a solution that works for everybody. It is also obstructive that, on this motion, we have the government hiding information about not just our airline networks but also our roads. Indeed, one of the most important roads in the country—and perhaps the road that's in the most crisis right now—is the Bruce Highway. I live not far from the Bruce Highway, in central Queensland, and I use it all the time. I have never seen it in a more shocking state than in the last few years. It has never exactly been a great road. It has always been somewhat described, in a love-hate way, as a goat track, but it gives goat tracks a bad name now, with the potholes that are emerging and the lack of maintenance that seems to occur. It is very hard to understand exactly why that has happened. As I said, it has gotten worse. It's not just that we're not getting the upgrades or the overtaking lanes and these things, which I know cost a lot of money; it's that we can't seem to keep the road in the state which it had been in for many years, including all the years I had driven on it. Now, you've got situations where large holes in the road exist or persist for weeks, sometimes even a month or more, and they are incredibly dangerous. We have had a spate of tragic fatalities on this road over the past couple of years and the people of regional Queensland simply deserve better. It should be one of the most important roads in our country, effectively linking the whole of coastal Queensland, yet it is a road that constantly seems to get ignored and lacks any kind of proper plan for the future. We did have a plan. When Tony Abbott came to office in 2013, we had a $10 billion plan for the Bruce Highway. It has delivered enormous benefits and upgrades in some areas, like the Mackay Ring Road—a fantastic project that was completed under the plan—and like the Yeppen South Floodplain Upgrade Project, which now keeps Rocky open when it floods and was used not long after the road was opened. There's now the Rocky Ring Road as well, which this government tried to cut. One of its first actions in its first budget was deferring the funding for the Rocky Ring Road to the never-never. They left the people of Central Queensland high and dry, despite the government committing to do it. Albanese's infrastructure minister said it would be safe under him, then he came into government and cut the rug out from under us. We had to bring our own convoy to Canberra and had to have a rally in Rocky. Eventually, we got that funding restored, and it's up and running now. Now, again, the government is hiding details from us. We've asked them a very simple question: where is the funding profile? They announced the other day that they were going to put $7 billion into the Bruce Highway. There was, again—like the Rex Airlines situation—no detail and no plan. It was just a number, and they thought that would get them through. Days after that announcement, minister and senator, Katy Gallagher, was asked on the 7.30 Report where that money was. The minister said: Well, I think the funding will be coming outside of those forward estimates years, because it's a long-term project. We haven't had any more information than that. We've subsequently learned that the government has had no formal discussions with the Queensland government about when this money will be released or provided—and the Queensland government is a co-funder of this road and will be responsible for delivering the upgrades. Again, this just seems to be a total thought bubble to try and get the Labor Party through the election and to give them something to talk about when they're in regional Queensland that will try and pull the wool over peoples' eyes once again. Who knows if this $7 billion was just a figure? It doesn't seem to appear in any budget papers or anything. There have certainly been no contracts written and no agreements signed by the Queensland government. Who knows whether we'll get another Rocky Ring Road on the Bruce Highway funding after an election? Who knows whether if the Labor Party are re-elected that they won't, in their first budget, say: 'Whoops. We don't have that $7 billion anymore. You can't have it.' It would be just like what they did with the Rocky Ring Road. You just can't trust them. You couldn't trust them last time and you can't trust them this time. Elect a government that will have a real plan for infrastructure. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The time for debate has expired. I put the question. Question agreed to. 15:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the length of time for taking note of the minister's explanation relating to general business notice of motion No. 790. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M I jumped first. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The advice I've received is that it's the government's prerogative to report a message, and therefore I focus on the message. Senator Cash I0M Can I seek a point of clarification? There was a break in between items. In between items, a senator is entitled to seek the call, which is what I did. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I've taken advice, and the advice to me was that, even if the call was sought, I had to focus on the message. That's the advice I have received. I'm going to accept the advice. I am relying on the advice. I am not exercising— Senator Cash I0M And you said that, correct. In terms of that statement to the Senate that you are relying on the advice, could I ask then that you would consider the advice that has been given—I did seek leave to move a motion, and, if leave had been given, we could have proceeded with debate on that motion; if leave had not been given, we then would have sought to suspend standing orders—and provide a ruling to the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No; I will refer it to the President. BILLS 74 BILLS Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025 74

Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025

First Reading 74 15:41 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 In accordance with the order agreed earlier today, time for consideration of this bill has expired. 15:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I would move that so much of standing orders would be suspended— Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order. There is a different issue before the chair. Senator Cash cannot do this. She cannot do it whilst you are in the middle of an item. There's no break. We are currently dealing with the message. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 From my perspective—but I will seek advice—I am bound by the previous order, which means all questions must be put in sequence, but I will seek advice on whether a member of the Senate can stand and seek to suspend the standing orders. Senator Cash, the advice from the clerks is that you have the ability to seek the call in this instance and move as you are intending. Senator CASH I0M Pursuant to contingent notice 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. I will now address the chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU You sat. Senator Cash I0M No, I didn't. 15:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put.  

The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:50 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, as moved by Senator Cash, be agreed to.  

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

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 15:53 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order, I will put the remaining stages of the bill. 15:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3270 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to ensure that early childhood education is universal, free and high-quality across Australia". Question negatived. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time.  

The Senate divided. [15:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 16:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with Committee of the Whole requests for amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. 16:00 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I seek leave to withdraw Greens amendments on sheet 3271. Leave granted. Third Reading 77 16:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.  

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

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 26 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time

 DOCUMENTS 78 DOCUMENTS Local Content Broadcasting 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:04 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation concerning the response to the order relating to Australian content quotas. One of the main campaigns I have been running through the Jacqui Lambie Network is Make Australia Make Again. I've been doing that since I got into parliament. But a broken promise by this government has one of our industries on its knees—just another one—in your portfolio. I'm talking about our film and TV industry. You might want to listen to this before you go. When this government was elected, Minister Burke promised that he would bring in local content quotas on the streaming platforms Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+ et cetera. Let me break it down for those Australians out there who might not know what I'm talking about. Content quotas mean that TV stations have to put our Aussie films and TV shows first. Before Australia had content quotas, it was mainly British and American shows on TV. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senators, in accordance with standing order 185, if you are not participating in this debate, you are not allowed to stand in sections of the chamber and hold conversations. Please leave or resume your seats in silence. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Our free-to-air broadcasters—Channel Nine, Channel 10 et cetera—already have these quotas, but there are no local content quotas on streaming platforms. The big boys have got these guys by their gonads. My office was assured by the minister's office that these Aussie content quotas would be in place by 1 July last year at the latest. But guess what. There are still no local content quotas in place. It's just another broken promise from the Labor Party. The streamers have been lobbying the government hard. I thought it would be interesting to see how deep this lobbying went, so I put in some freedom-of-information requests for the people out there. Guess what I got back, Senator Duniam, through the Acting Deputy President? This is on quotas! This is their transparency! This is their promise to the Australian people at the last election! There is nothing! How embarrassing. Getting more Australian content on our screen and getting more Australian producers jobs isn't in the public interest, apparently, according to the Labor Party. You have to be kidding me. Then I asked for a production of documents, and the only thing I got out of it was that the US ambassador lobbied heavily to the minister on behalf of Netflix—on behalf of her United States people—and said 'Bugger you, Australian people!' The US clearly think it's in their best interests, but you people over there don't think it's in our best interests. I tell you what: they're also using our NBN, something Australian taxpayers have forked out 50 billion bucks to build. You keep bending over for the US, don't you? How's that going with you and Trump? How's that bending over going? The streamers try to run the line that content quotas will create a problem with free trade—another load of rubbish you told Australians. In Europe and in Canada, they put local content quotas on streaming platforms, and guess what. Netflix is still there. They didn't leave. The world is still going around. When their free-trade agreement fell apart, they started crying poor. Aw! According to the Australian Financial Review, Australians spend 3.5 billion bucks on streaming subscriptions, but we're getting nothing back for our own screen stories. Meanwhile, the Australian TV and film industry are on their knees. You are running them out of this country, because you want all our kids to be walking around speaking with an American accent. Wow! We've got enough problems with those young kids. Now we're going to be speaking to them in our own households with an American accent, because you are stopping our own people from having a fair go. Everybody benefits from this industry, and we need to be able to tell our own stories. Think about it this way: if your kids want to make films and TV shows about Australia, about life for them growing up and about our history, imagine if they came home and said, 'There aren't any Australian companies, Mum; I can't make film and TV here.' That is what is going on with this generation. The government says a future made in Australia is absolutely vital, and I agree with you—no argument from me. That's why I want Australia to make again, and that should include our TV show- and filmmakers—you know, the ones that you've put on their hands and knees; the ones that you promised to help. You have failed to do that. It's just another failure from your last election. God, you want the Australian people to vote for you! If we didn't have rules about local Australian content, our kids would be growing up, like I said, with American accents. There'd be no Bluey, no Kath & Kim, no Mad Max and no Crocodile Dundee. Most of our big Aussie stars got their start on TV here. You big Aussie stars out there, don't forget where you got your start. Any time you want to put your head above water and start yelling out for these quotas, that would be helpful. Have you forgotten where you started? You're happy to come up here and take pickies with pollies and make yourselves look good, but you aren't getting behind your own industry and it is shocking. Like I said, it's just another broken promise. It's another bit of transparency that you promised, and it's all blank. You honestly should be ashamed of yourselves. 16:09 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to take note of this pathetic explanation as well, and I thank Senator Lambie for putting forward this request for information and for her passion in relation to this issue. Before the last election, we were promised that the Labor Party would do everything they could to make sure Australian stories were protected on our screens. We were promised that we would have quotas in place on these online streaming services so that Australians can watch Australian-made content, so that Australian kids can log on and see Australian-made shows and so that parents know, when they put their kids in front of a device—when their kids are nagging for the iPad, Netflix or the app to watch their favourite show—they can put their kids in front of something that has an Australian accent. Over and over and over again, our screen industry has been dudded by this government. First of all, it happened under the previous government. They did nothing to help the Australian screen industry. Many small businesses right around the country—who employ hundreds of thousands of people and put hundreds of millions of dollars into our local communities—are now being screwed over by the big global tech companies who are flooding our devices, our screens and our airways with overseas content. This content is often made very cheaply—cheap and nasty—at the expense of Australian stories. A big part of what makes us a great country is that we share our experiences with one another. We celebrate what's great about our nation. We celebrate our differences, which helps us to understand each other. It helps with social cohesion. It helps with national pride. It helps with overcoming crises and difficulties. Storytelling is the glue that makes this country great. Storytelling is the glue that allows us, as a community, to understand each other, to back each other, to be proud of being Australian, to be proud of who we are as a nation and to be proud of our diversity and unity. But that storytelling power cannot be taken for granted. Our storytellers, our creative workers and our artists need to be supported. It's not just good for the economy; it's good for the soul of our nation. When the big US tech companies like Netflix and Amazon want to flood our airways and devices with American content at the expense of Australian-made stories, we should be really worried. The government promised to do what needed to be done to regulate streaming services to make sure Australian content would be looked after, supported and funded. Because the big tech companies didn't like it, they've now backed away. This is a broken promise from the Labor government on the eve of the election—a well and truly broken promise. I have had many conversations with ministers in both these houses about this issue over the last three years. Increasingly, I have become concerned that, rather than doing what they promised to do, they are back-pedalling and bowing to the pressure of the big US tech companies. Netflix doesn't want this. Amazon doesn't want this. Apple TV doesn't want this. It is now the eve of the election. These might be the very last couple of hours we have in this place before the election, and we have nothing to show from the government on this issue. It's disgusting. Don't make promises you can't keep. Don't make promises you can't keep, and stand up for Australian stories, because Australians will punish you if you don't. (Time expired) 16:14 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales When I recite my ABCs, I end with 'X, Y, Zed'. The reason for that is that I'm a Play School girl, not a Sesame Street girl. Play School is Australian content. We want to see more Australian content, and this government promised us Australian content. But, like so on many issues, this government is quite happy to break their promises. We've seen it on superannuation, we've seen it on stage 3 tax cuts and now we see it on what they were so staunch and so proud about. In the arts sector, they've broken their promise to deliver Australian content quotas for streaming platforms. This promise was made in light of that, when we were in government, Paul Fletcher, the former Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, worked with industry and proposed a way forward to develop a content quota regime. We had a change of government. Prior to the change of government the former shadow minister, Tony Burke—at Woodford Folk Festival no less—promised in the summer of 2022 that, if they were elected to government, they would deliver content quotas for streaming platforms. Maybe he thought they wouldn't win; you don't have to worry about a promise made in opposition because you'll never have to deliver. But win they did, so he committed to deliver it and then put a deadline on it. He said that they would have content quotas in place by 1 July 2024. In May 2024, an options paper was released, and they were investigating content quotas on revenue or content quotas on expenditure. They were at least making some progress—while making everyone participating in the consultation sign non-disclosure agreements. Again I'm standing here highlighting the lack of transparency of this government and its reliance on non-disclosure agreements. What have we heard since May 2024? We heard, at the Senate estimates at that time, that the department was still working on the scheme to inform cabinet decisions. Since then, nada. We've heard rumours that the hold-up is now because it's a trade issue, but we've heard nothing. There hasn't been an exposure draft; 1 July came and went, and we are still waiting. The screen production industry in Australia is still waiting. Even worse, what we are also seeing is a continuation of the failure to deliver on their promises. In the May budget last year, we saw a promise that the government would lift the cap on above-the-line costs for the producer offset to apply from 1 July 2024. Has the required legislation that needs to pass actually come through this place? Has it even come through the other place to ensure that can happen? No. It is nine months later; I could have had a baby in that amount of time! Then, in MYEFO, there was a promise to lower the offset threshold, which would benefit some of our smaller screen industry businesses. Yet, again, where is the legislation to enable that? Time after time, this government is failing the Australian screen industry—the very industry that gave me my 0.2 seconds of fame when I appeared in the background of the Australian movie Two Hands. This government is turning its back on the Australian screen industry—unlike the Nationals, who, with Bryan Brown, were able to secure the 40 per cent— (Time expired) Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 80 Report 80 16:20 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I seek leave to table a committee report. Leave not granted. DOCUMENTS 80 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 80 Order for the Production of Documents 80 16:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation concerning the response to the order relating to the Nature Positive bills. In taking note, Acting Deputy President, I'll first say that the new era of transparency the government said they were going to usher in clearly hasn't arrived yet, even though we're on the eve of an election. In much the same way that Senator Lambie earlier showed the chamber just how little respect the Australian Labor government has for democracy and this chamber, I'll point out that the same has happened here. I simply asked, on behalf of all Australians, what dodgy, dirty deal the government had entered into with the Australian Greens and the other crossbenchers to get their nature-positive bills across the line. Well, I asked. I note that in his explanation a little earlier the minister said that they take transparency seriously and, as a result, they've partially released the documents that I was referring to. I have here a 4½-page letter. It says: 'Dear Senator Hanson-Young. I write further to our recent discussions about the nature-positive bills currently before the Senate. The nature-positive bills will deliver—' and then there's a big black box with everything blacked out. On the next page there's a big black box with everything blacked out and then another page with a big black box with everything blacked out. And then we get to the final page—a big black box with everything blacked out. What is it that the government don't want Australians to know about their dodgy, dirty deal with the Australian Greens and other crossbenchers on the nature-positive laws? What is behind these black boxes that is so bad that we must hide it from Australians who are considering how they'll vote at the next election? All of the detail's redacted, so you have to wonder what it is they've offered. Is it a ban on native forestry? Perhaps. We will never know, because this government has decided you don't need to know, Australia. Is it a ban on new coal and gas exploration that would help generate energy and bring down power prices? Again, we don't know. We can only speculate. Is it a ban on new housing developments in certain parts of the country that the Greens don't like? Again, we don't know. What is alarming about this, of course, is the fact that the Minister for the Environment and Water, in thinking it's okay to hide this information from Australians, says that for our second attempt to get this information she had the arduous task ahead of her of going and checking with the recipients of these letters, Senator Hanson-Young and Senator David Pocock, as to whether they were okay with the letters' release. I don't know about you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but for the last two weeks we've been sitting in the same room as these people. It was pretty easy for me to walk up and ask them, 'Do you have a problem with this information being released?' I'll let them speak for themselves, but my impression, from what they had to say to me, was that there was nothing to hide, yet the minister, in her response of 11 February, said, 'I need time to seek advice on the texts of the documents to determine whether I assert public interest immunity.' Well, that information is information she shared with them, and they don't seem to have a problem with releasing it. She 'needs time to talk to them'. Well, I'm sorry; we've been here for two weeks. Again I say: the government promised they would usher in a new era of transparency, yet since the election we have time after time seen the government hide behind bureaucratic reasons and refuse to reveal to Australians what it is they're up to in the smoke-filled back rooms of this building, doing dodgy deals with their coalition partners the Greens. It is not what was promised, and we are falling far short of what we deserve as representatives of the Australian people trying to make this democracy work and make the government accountable. They refuse at every turn. Here we are this afternoon, on potentially the last sitting day of this term of parliament, and it's clear that the Senate has had enough. I do not recall when, in my nine years in this place, we have had three attendances and explanations demanded of ministers, and senators from across the political spectrum have stood to take issue with the ridiculous responses provided. There is no excuse for this sort of response, which is just page after page after page of information blacked out based on spurious reasons. The real reason is that they just don't want Australians to know what they were willing to trade away to the Australian Greens and other crossbenchers to get these ridiculous bills across the line. Let's not forget these are bills the Prime Minister said were dead when he went to Western Australia. 'We would not do deals with the Greens.' He said it himself, black and white—no deals with the Greens. Yet here we have it, a letter outlining deals with the Greens which will kill mining, kill forestry, kill farming and kill fisheries. The government are not interested in job-creating industries. They're interested in deals with the Greens to hang onto government. 16:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I might make a couple of short observations about this question. Senator Duniam, as he knows, is making it up as he goes along. If we want to entertain a world in which letters between the government and former senator Birmingham or letters to Senator Cash or others are suddenly out there, I think that's an interesting set of views about how those sorts of discussions ought to be undertaken. I note that we had a request to table documents from Senator Bragg this afternoon and leave was denied. The course of action before that was a chaotic attempt to derail the procedures in the Senate over the course of the last short period. I don't think that's in the interests of the couple of hours that we have left to us, during which it is anticipated that we'll be dealing with a condolence motion. I think we ought to have some regard to that. The government will not be giving leave for the tabling of documents this afternoon while these procedures are occurring. If the opposition want to posture around questions of environmental management following their period in government, where they had the former Prime Minister simultaneously holding multiple ministries, I'd say their processes around these issues were a complete shambles and open to being knocked over in the courts, which caused a substantial amount of damage and uncertainty because they had so corrupted and debauched the processes of government. Fine. If they want to spend time dealing with that, no problem. If the coalition want to pretend that they are being defenders of the arts and local content, be my guest. Nobody on the planet believes that proposition after their 10 sordid years of offshoring arts and demeaning the arts and all of the associated creative industries. Fine, but it is a symptom of a coalition that doesn't have the wherewithal for policy development but is only interested in parlour games in parliament here. My view is that what we ought to do is deal with the matters in front of us as expeditiously as possible and move through to the condolence motion before we end up not being able to do all the things that we need to be able to do this afternoon to provide an orderly end to the Senate processes. 16:28 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia What an exercise we just saw from the minister! It wasted more time than it would have taken for everyone on this side and on the crossbench to table their reports and wasted more time than it would have taken for every single report to be tabled by leave of this chamber. What a waste of effort from this minister attempting to defend the indefensible. Senator Duniam quite rightly showed this document with its massive redactions of the deals being done between the government and the Greens. One piece isn't actually redacted. Let me read that to you so that those who are listening to this debate actually understand what is at stake here, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. This is talking about negotiations between the Greens and Labor at a time when, supposedly, Prime Minister Albanese had spoken about the nature-positive bill in Western Australia and said it was dead and buried. He said that that was it and that it was off the agenda. Yet here we have negotiations between Labor and the Greens: 'I would be grateful for your confirmation that the Australian Greens will support the bills, including the amendments above'—redacted—'when they come before the Senate. I also seek confirmation, as discussed, that you will support the government on all procedural votes required to ensure the timely passage of the bills'—that is, let's guillotine it—'through the Senate as early as possible this sitting week'—and this is actually in the letter—'including on a guillotine or similar motion.' So the Prime Minister says to Western Australia: 'Nature positive is gone. It's dead.' And here we have the government doing deals with the Greens not just to pass nature positive but to guillotine it through this place before an election. If that doesn't give you an indication of the kinds of arrangements that are going to be made between the crossbench and the Labor Party if they do happen to form a minority government then I don't know what bigger wake-up call the Australian people—and particularly the people of Western Australia—could possibly need. Let me again remind those listening in Western Australia what this nature-positive law is designed to do. If this nature-positive law, as it has been outlined, had been in effect 30 years ago in Western Australia, we would have no mining industry, we would have no gas industry and, in fact, we would have no agriculture industry. We would have none of the industries which make not only Western Australia wealthy but which make this entire country operate, channelling the funds—tax revenue and other revenue—that governments require to actually do the things that Australians like. I ask the people of Western Australia: when we first heard about this nature-positive law, what was the first thing we heard about? I know Senator Smith, a fellow senator from Western Australia, would know the answer. The first thing we heard about was 60 kilometre an hour speed limits in the Pilbara. Think for a moment what it would do to the mining industry of Western Australia if you instituted 60 kilometre per hour speed limits throughout the Pilbara. That was an idea that was thought up in Canberra. That was thought up over here. Nobody who comes from Western Australia or who has ever taken even a passing glance at the mining industry and the way it operates would think that that was a remotely feasible idea, but this is the kind of ideologically driven thought bubble policy development that we get from this Labor government. There are other examples as well. This is the Labor government that promised transparency. This is their transparency—blanking out whole pages. This is their definition of transparency: redacting whole pages of negotiations they're doing with the Greens on nature positive. I also remind you that they actually promised to introduce federal Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. You might remember in Western Australia the amount of damage done by the state Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. But not only do they now have the nature-positive bill tucked away in a secure filing cabinet in the Prime Minister's office—awaiting their deal with the Greens after the next election, if they're so lucky—but they also have that Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation tucked away in there as well. 16:33 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland The former speaker has told of when he first heard of the Nature Positive Plan. I first heard about it the night before the last election. It was the night before the last election that the Labor Party announced this policy. It was on the evening of the election. It's a little bit suspicious. There's something a little bit off about announcing a major policy like that. The Labor Party is right that it will be a big change to how things happen in this country, and they announced it just hours before people began to vote. If it was such a good policy, why wouldn't they announce it weeks before and give people a chance to consider it? A lot of people vote early, so a lot of people had already voted by the time the Labor Party announced this policy. They announced it the night before the election. Why might that be? One suspicion of course would be that, at the election the next day, the Labor Party needed the Greens voters to preference them. That's the only way they win. The only way they win is to have Greens voters across the country preference the Labor Party and get Labor Party people elected, because in lots of seats, the Labor Party don't get enough votes to get elected. In fact the Labor Party primary vote at the last election was the lowest the Labor Party had ever received since 1910! And they actually won the election. They got just a third of the votes from the Australian people directly. Indirectly, they were able to govern through the preferences of the Greens. I've got a lot to say about my Greens colleagues, but they're no fools, and they would have asked for something for their preferences. They would have asked for something to say, 'We're going to give the power for the Labor Party to govern, to become ministers and to be in this place.' They would definitely have asked for something. Maybe—just maybe—what they asked for was a nature-positive plan. That's why it was announced on the night before the election. It was because the Labor Party were a bit embarrassed about it, and they didn't want a scare campaign. They didn't want the truth. A truth campaign is what it would have been. They didn't want a truth campaign to be out there in parts of Western Australia and in Queensland where this is important to my constituents, so they dropped it on the night before the election. That's probably what happened. The previous speaker, my friend and colleague Senator Brockman, spoke about the deals the Labor Party do in this place. We might be just hours from finishing this parliamentary term, and the thing that the Australian public should be wary of in the next few weeks and months is the deals that the Labor Party will do outside this place, because, once again, before the next election there is no doubt the Labor Party will have to enter preference discussions with the Greens, with teals and with crossbenchers. Unlike the deals in this place, we may not have any transparency or know what's going on there. We may not have any idea what they're agreeing to to get those preferences, and the Australian people might be completely in the dark once again if there's a drop on the night before the election of some major policy change that affects this country. This policy was clearly announced without thought and consideration. Otherwise, it would have passed by now. They've had three years to do this. As I said, they promised it three years ago on the night before the election, and they haven't delivered it. They haven't delivered it because it is a complete dog's breakfast of a policy that the whole mining industry is opposed to and that large parts of the country that rely on good, strong industries like mining and agriculture don't want to see. There is very little support for it out there. The scary thing despite that and despite the fact that this massive increase in red tape on the business sector of this country has been stopped in this parliamentary term—it won't happen now for sure—is we may very well get this because there's a very good chance that the Labor Party won't just be needing the preferences at the election; they'll be needing the actual votes of members of the other place after the election to form government and to keep confidence. They may have to form a minority government. That is a real risk. That's why the teals went along to have drinks at the Lodge. Was it last night or the night before? Senator Hughes 273828 Monday night. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Was it Monday night? Time flies this week, but they had drinks the other night this week. There's no doubt that they're being buttered up by the Prime Minister to try and ease and smooth those negotiations with them that might occur in a few months time. Again, the Australian people won't have any knowledge of those or any control of those. The only way the Australian people can stop those backroom deals that may sell out Australia again is to not vote for—and not re-elect—the Labor Party. They're the ones that will do these deals. They're the ones that are already doing it. They're already having these discussions. They're getting ready for it. So if the Australian people don't want that kind of chaos and if they don't want that kind of non-accountability to the Australian people, they can't vote for a box of chocolates, because that's what these guys are. They're a box of chocolates; you'll never know what you're going to get. If you vote for the Labor Party, you might get a nut. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 83 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 83 16:39 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland 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. Today was a demonstration of why this government is not fit to continue as a government because, really, when you are elected and given the honour of being a government by the Australian people, you have two main jobs to do. Your first job is to do what you said you would do. Generally speaking, if you're elected to government, you'll have a list of things that you promised to do for the Australian people, and your first job should be to implement them to the letter and keep your promises. The second job you have is to respond to events. There are things that happen to any government that can't be expected or predicted, and the Australian people expect a government that shows the strength, the wisdom and the consistency to respond to those challenges in a way that pursues our national interest and national harmony. Today, in multiple questions, we saw how this government has failed on both of those questions. It made a number of clear promises—the Anthony Albanese government. Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister himself, made a number of clear and direct promises to the Australian people three years ago. Prime among those was his promise to cut the Australian people's power bills by $275. He said that on almost 100 occasions ahead of the election. He promised that he would, if he got in, have the policies to reduce power bills by $275 by this financial year that we're in right now. Of course, I don't think I need to remind Australians that that promise has not been met. Since three years ago, most Australians would have received around 12 power bills—there are about a dozen bills every quarter—in their letterbox, and it would appear, almost every time, that they get higher and higher and higher. They have not gone down. In fact, the average power bill for the average family has gone up by almost $500 a year, and some big families have faced increases of $1,000 or more since this government was elected. Not only have the bills not gone down by $275; they've instead gone up by this $500 or more. It's not just a broken promise; it's a reverse broken promise. It's gone in the opposite direction than the Prime Minister mentioned, and today, in question time, we had the embarrassing spectacle where the Leader of the Government in the Senate would not answer a simple question about whether that promise had beep kept or not. Instead, the leader of the government just deflected to what our policies were and what different types of energy are banned in this country. She could not stand behind her own promise. The question before the Australian people is, if you couldn't trust them last time, how can you trust them this time? They didn't do what they said last time, so, with anything they say and promise you in the next few weeks, how can you at all trust that they would implement those as well? You can't. The other test that is before any government is how you respond to events. The world has been shocked in the last 18 months by the events of 7 October. They were shocking, tragic and terrible. They were on the other side of the world, but they affected all people that share sympathy with humanity and want to see decency in our world. Unfortunately, in our country, we had the almost immediate rise of tensions and divisions among different communities here in Australia with the shocking events at the Sydney Opera House just days or, I think, hours after the original attacks. Really, from that get go, we haven't had a prime minister that's shown strength and consistency in his response. No-one expects the Prime Minister to solve the issues over there in the Middle East or even completely remove the tensions that result in this country—it's a very emotional issue for people—but, unfortunately, he hasn't shown a level of consistency in responding to this matter, and we've seemingly allowed these issues to bubble over in the past 18 months. We got to the point yesterday, perhaps—hopefully, it will be the apogee of this. Hopefully, we can finally turn the shocking tension and threats of violence around, but the revelation yesterday of two nurses in Western Sydney effectively threatening to kill people or not treat people, to leave them to die, is not something any Australian thought they would see in this country. Today, in question time, it became apparent that the government was not even aware that both of these nurses could still potentially practice outside of New South Wales. I give credit to the New South Wales government for immediately removing their registration, but that had not been done nationally, and the government was not aware. I'm advised now that, since question time, their registration has been removed across the country. I welcome that, but it does raise the question of why this government continues to seem to be flat-footed on these issues and can't respond in a strong way that brings Australians together and draws a clear line that the kind of conduct we saw will never be tolerated in our harmonious and wonderful country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Is no-one from the government seeking the call? Senator Grogan 296331 We're trying to facilitate the moving on of the agenda. 16:44 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales There were plenty of things that you lot could have done today to ensure a smooth day, but, yet again, we see Labor losing control of the chamber. This is absolutely outrageous. This part of the day occurs every day, and I am more than entitled to take note of the pathetic responses that we heard yet again from Minister Wong when it came to the security and safety of Jewish Australians. This was on the day after we saw not only antisemitic rants that called on the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews and Israelis but also nurses in the New South Wales health system declaring that they would personally kill anyone who came into the hospital if they were an Israeli—absolutely disgraceful. Only yesterday we had the Israel caucus here. Those opposite might be upset we're taking note of this, but disappointingly there is not one Labor member of the friends of Israel caucus. There's not one Labor sitting MP, in either this place or the other place, that is a member. That is the respect that they hold Jewish Australians in. Well done to former member Mike Kelly and former member Michael Danby, who restored some faith in the old Labor that used to stand with our Israeli allies, but we know that this government, which is run by the Labor left, is bereft of these principles that had always been upheld with old Labor. That's why it is time for this Labor government to be shown the door. Quite possibly this is the last day of this parliament, and I hope so. I hope Australians have the opportunity to boot this lot out as quickly as possible. Everything that they are doing is putting the safety and security of not only Jewish Australians but all Australians at risk. All Australians are at risk because of the rising tide of antisemitism. We saw a caravan in Dural, and the PM still won't even acknowledge when he was briefed on it, because he wasn't—because he can't be trusted. The AFP and the New South Wales Premier didn't even tell him about a caravan full of explosives in Dural, in New South Wales, which would have had a blast range of some 40 metres, because he couldn't be trusted. That tells you everything you need to know about this Prime Minister. He cannot be trusted. Senator Grogan 296331 I ask that she withdraw that. Senator HUGHES 273828 I will not withdraw. That was not a reflection at all. I will not be withdrawing, because Australians cannot trust this Prime Minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Hughes, I'm required to rule. I will ask you to withdraw. Senator HUGHES 273828 I politely decline. Saying someone can't be trusted is not a reflection. Senator Ayres 16913 I do think that the way we conduct ourselves in these questions, all of us— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 If you can just get your point. Senator Ayres 16913 I intend to—as quickly as I can. It is important for the efficient management of the chamber—all of us overstep the mark from time to time. I did it earlier today, and I withdrew immediately. It's not an opportunity to argue with the acting deputy president. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Thank you. Senator Hughes, you may continue. Senator HUGHES 273828 So sensitive—we can't even criticise the Prime Minister. The lack of trust in the Prime Minister that Australians are clearly showing is being reflected not only in the polls but in the betting markets—they're an absolute cracker. But this lack of trust in the Prime Minister is being shown because all Australians know they are not safe with this Prime Minister. They know that the Jewish Australian community is not safe. A caravan in Dural had a blast radius of 40 metres, and that could have taken out possibly hundreds of people, not just Jewish Australians. In fact, one of the targets is about 300 metres from where I live. Who knows who could have been affected by this? But this Prime Minister couldn't even be briefed on it. Yet today, when they were asked questions about the abhorrent behaviour of these nurses in Bankstown hospital, in my home state of New South Wales—crickets. The Prime Minister has not called for a National Cabinet. The Prime Minister has not done anything. We saw from Minister Wong today a passing of the buck to New South Wales so they can deal with it. They were completely unaware that, even when New South Wales had deregistered these nurses, these nurses could go and work in Victoria, Tasmania or anywhere. Thankfully, since question time, after they were once again led by the nose by the opposition, we've found out that the nurses have now been deregistered across the country. Once again, action is being taken after the opposition has had to bring their attention to their inadequacies, and we see it time and time again. Bring on the election. Give this lot the boot. Stand with Jewish Australians—because the Holocaust didn't start with the gas chambers; it started with the actions that we're seeing on the streets of Sydney. Yet the weak and incompetent leadership that we're seeing, the inaction and ineptitude of this Prime Minister, is absolutely allowing it to fester and develop and grow. 16:50 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia On this the last Senate sitting day before the 2025 election, it's worth reminding Australian voters of one thing. That one thing is that Anthony Albanese in May 2022 promised Australians that life would be better under Labor. Instead, three years later, Australians have got poorer and Australians are less safe. At this election, just weeks away, I ask Australians to think about this seriously: should Anthony Albanese be rewarded for a promise that he has clearly broken? Question agreed to. Tasmania: Bushfires 85 16:50 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to bushfires in Tasmania. Catastrophic fires are burning in Tasmania at the moment, and I want to acknowledge that, in places like Zeehan and Corinna, the fear being felt by people is very real, as the fires are in very close proximity. I also want to acknowledge the bravery of firefighters and other responders, and the danger that they often place themselves in as they respond to the fires. But there is an element of these fires that has not received the attention that it should, and that is the catastrophic impact that these fires are having on unique ecological communities in Tasmania. Absolutely calamitous fires are burning in the Tarkine region right now in north-west Tasmania. This is an area of acknowledged World Heritage value, both Aboriginal cultural heritage value and natural and ecological value. In particular, in places like the Wilson River and its tributaries the Harman River and Yellow Creek lie the most extensive stretches of unlogged and undisturbed Huon pines left on the planet. These are ancient, ancient paleoendemic plant communities, and they're not just at the core of Tasmania's Gondwanan heritage but also actually at the core of the world's Gondwanan heritage. The fires that are burning now have taken grove after grove of Huon pines along the Harman River, including a grove that contained the largest known Huon pine. When I say the largest known Huon pine, we have to all understand what that means. It was a tree estimated to be 3,000 years old, which, because it was the largest known Huon pine in Australia, was actually the largest Huon pine we know of anywhere in the world. At 3,000 years old, it was one of the oldest trees. I say 'was' because it's now a pile of ash. It's now a pile of ash. These are ecological tragedies on a global scale. These fires that are burning in Tasmania are Tasmania's version of the melting ice caps that we see in the world's polar regions. They are Tasmania's version of the dying coral reefs that we are seeing in the world's tropical regions. And these fires are being driven by climate change. Fifteen or 20 years ago, dry lightning strikes were almost unheard of in Tasmania, but on Monday 3 February this year alone Tasmania recorded 1,227 dry lightning strikes. This is the new normal. This is a global catastrophe for these globally unique ecological systems. The technology to detect these lightning strikes exists, but what doesn't exist is the resources invested into aerial and on-the-ground firefighting capacity so that we can respond to these fires as quickly as we need to. The Greens established a Senate inquiry into the terrible 2016 fires that scoured so much of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, and we made recommendation after recommendation which have sat on the shelf and gathered dust under Liberal and Labor governments here in Canberra and Liberal and Labor governments in Hobart in Tasmania. The evidence was clear. You need to get onto remote area fires quickly, hit them early and hit them hard. We didn't do that this time, despite the fact that we should have learned our lessons in 2016. We've got to do better. Yes, there has been aerial capacity deployed to Tasmania in recent days, but there were multiple days after these fires started where aerial capacity was either not deployed or not deployed to the extent that was needed. This is an emergency. It needs an emergency response. We are, in real time, watching a global ecological catastrophe unfolding on our watch. We've got to do better. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 86 CONDOLENCES Moore, Hon. John Colinton, AO 86 16:56 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 22 January 2025, of the Hon. John Colinton Moore AO, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Ryan in Queensland from 1975 to 2001. 16:56 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 22 January 2025, of the Honourable John Colinton Moore AO, former member for Ryan, former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Industry, Science and Tourism, and Defence, 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'm conscious my colleagues on the other side of the chamber will have many comments to make, but I do want to rise on behalf of the government to express our condolences following the passing of former member and minister the Hon. John Moore at the age of 88. As I begin, I wish to convey the government's sympathies to his family and friends—namely, his wife Jacqueline; his children Simon, Sarah and Andrew; his stepchildren Sarah, Caroline, Charlotte and Annie; and all of their families. John Moore was a country boy who never forgot his roots. He was born in Rockhampton on 16 November 1936 and was raised on a cattle station west of Bowen. Before his 26-year career in politics, John was a businessman and stockbroker who formed his own brokerage which he grew into the largest single trading business in Queensland. John was elected to the House of Representatives for the division of Ryan in 1975 and held this seat until his retirement in February 2001. Previously known for his success in business, John forged himself as a formidable and talented coalition minister, serving in three federal ministries and two cabinets across the Fraser and Howard governments. John will be remembered for his commitment to his constituents of Ryan during his two decades of service to this parliament, for his commitment to his party and for his commitment to our country. As Minister for Defence from 1998 to 2001, John Moore oversaw the Australian peacekeeping mission in East Timor. This was the largest deployment of Australian forces since Vietnam as part of the international force for East Timor, a multinational peacekeeping taskforce organised and led by Australia. John will also be recognised for his contribution to the 2000 defence white paper, a paper which set out the long-term future of Australian security. What was clear from John's service last week, which I had the extraordinary honour of attending, was the extraordinary mark he left following two decades of service to the Australian parliament and, of course, to the Liberal Party. After parliament, John continued to serve his community. In 2004, Mr Moore was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia, AO, for service to the community through the Australian parliament. This award recognised his development of the strategic industry policy and of both policy and management reform in the defence sector. John was re-elected nine times by the people of Ryan—quite a feat. Those who knew him best gave heartfelt tributes at the service last Tuesday. They included General the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove AKAC, CVO, MC, (Retired); the Honourable Warwick Smith AO; and Dr Denver Beanland AM. One of the quotes from the tribute was the famous Theodore Roosevelt quote. It's one that was used to sum up John's life and contribution and one that all members of this Senate could reflect on from time to time: It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause. I pay my respects to John Moore and recognise his contribution to our state and to our country. The government expresses its gratitude for the work of the Honourable John Moore AO and extends its deepest condolences to his friends, family and loved ones. 17:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to pay tribute to John Moore. From a childhood on a cattle station in Queensland to the heady world of stockbroking and on to the cut and thrust of federal politics, John Moore lived, without a doubt, a varied and interesting life. John was born in 1936 in Rockhampton, and he was raised on a cattle station west of Bowen. As Tom Switzer noted in his touching obituary for John: He regaled generations of his family with accounts of his half-day horseback commute to the railway station in the company of his favourite Aboriginal stockman. John's early schooling, like that of so many children living in remote areas in those days, was actually by correspondence. Later, he was a boarder at the Southport School on the Gold Coast before attending the University of Queensland, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce. John became a stockbroker in 1960 at the Brisbane Stock Exchange, first working for AR Walker and Co, before forming his own brokerage, John Moore and Company, in 1964. He grew his company into the largest single-trader business in Queensland, opening offices in regional centres in both Queensland and New South Wales. His success in business was not limited to broking, as he also held directorships or board memberships in a number of Australian companies such as Brant Limited and Philips. He was a board member of the Australian subsidiary of some multinational investment firms, including Merryl Lynch and Citigroup. John was appointed to the council of the Australian National University in 1971 and served as a councillor until 1976. John had joined the Liberal Party in 1964, and by 1966 he was serving in the Queensland state executive committee and was twice president of the Queensland party. John won the Brisbane seat of Ryan at the 1975 dismissal election, becoming a backbencher in the Fraser government, which had come to power at that time by taking 30 seats from Labor. He then held the seat of Ryan until his retirement before the 2001 election. John was re-elected nine times by the people of Ryan and, in total, he served more than a quarter of a century in the other place. His first ministerial appointment was as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs from 1980 to 1982 as part of the Fraser government. In that role, John helped to implement the federal companies act and the deregulation of fees in the securities industry. While the Labor governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were in power from 1983 to 1996, John served in the shadow cabinet for several key ministries, including finance, industry, and commerce and communications. John then backed Andrew Peacock in the leadership spill, which saw John Howard toppled in 1989. John later apologised for the fallout which befell the Liberal Party because of his and Wilson Tuckey's regrettable tell-all appearance on ABC's Four Corners. You then had John Howard's Lazarus rising moment, and bitterness between Mr Howard and John was set aside for the good of the party and for the good of Australia. In fact, Prime Minister Howard initially made John his Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. John then went on to help drive investment in and the modernisation of our car and pharmaceutical industries. It was in 1998, though, that John was appointed as the Minister for Defence. In that role, John oversaw the largest deployment of Australian forces since Vietnam as part of the INTERFET role in the East Timorese independence process. He also oversaw the upgrade of the troubled Collins class submarines, ensuring Australia had a truly region-leading capability. John was 65 when he retired from the parliament in 2001. He didn't stop there though. He decided to return to the business world, where he'd first made his mark before politics. For more than a decade after he retired from the parliament, he served as a corporate director and mentor to a number of young entrepreneurs. Some senators may be interested to know that he also pursued his interest in wine, and he actually served as chairman of what is now Wine Australia. But one of his greatest loves was travelling widely and spending time with his family. John Moore was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2004 for service to the community through the Australian parliament for the development of strategic industry policy and for both policy and management reform in the defence sector. On behalf of the coalition, I offer my heartfelt condolences to his wife and the entire Moore family who farewelled John at a state funeral in Brisbane last week. May John Moore rest in peace. 17:07 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On behalf of the National Party, I rise to speak to this condolence motion. Together, we gather to pay tribute to the Hon. John Colinton Moore AO, a distinguished former member of parliament who represented the division of Ryan in Queensland with unwavering dedication from 1975 until his retirement in 2001. Mr Moore's passing on 22 January 2025 at the age of 88 marks the end of a remarkable journey of public service and commitment to the nation. I want to recognise my National Party colleague Senator Susan McDonald who spoke at his eulogy and gave a very heartfelt reflection, particularly as a fellow country Queenslander, who similarly would have gone through an education system in primary years which reflected correspondence. I know she would have loved to have been able to contribute to this condolence motion had it been a little earlier in the day. Born on 16 November 1936, a country boy in Rockhampton, Queensland, John Moore's early life was deeply rooted in regional Australia. Raised on a cattle station west of Bowen, he experienced firsthand the challenges and the virtues of rural life. His initial education was through correspondence and was a testament to the resilience and determination that would later define his career. He completed his secondary education at the Armidale School before earning a Bachelor of Commerce from UQ with a focus on accounting. Before entering the political arena, Mr Moore established himself as a prominent businessman and stockbroker. In 1964 he founded John Moore and Co. which grew to become the largest single traded business in Queensland, extending its reach into regional centres right across Queensland and New South Wales. His entrepreneurial spirit and commitment to regional development were evident in these endeavours, reflecting a deep understanding of the economic landscapes beyond our urban centres. Mr Moore's political journey commenced with his election to the House of Representatives for the division of Ryan in 1975. Throughout his tenure, he held several key ministerial positions, including the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in the Fraser government and the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism and the Minister for Defence in the Howard government. His tenure as Minister for Defence was marked by significant global and regional challenges. He played a crucial role in overseeing critical defence initiatives, including the deployment of Australian forces to East Timor as part of the UN peacekeeping efforts. He was instrumental in strengthening Australia's defence capabilities, particularly through the advancement of the Collins class submarine fleet. Mr Moore also focused on defence procurement reform, ensuring that efficiency and accountability were at the forefront of major acquisitions. His leadership in defence policy helped modernise Australia's military strategy and reinforce the nation's commitment to regional security. One of his most significant contributions to the Australian Defence Force was the release of the white paper Defence 2000:our future defence force, which provided a comprehensive plan for the nation's defence capabilities. Reflecting on its impact, John Howard remarked: The Defence White Paper is the most far-sighted reshaping of Australia's defence capability in a generation. It would not have been possible without John Moore's determination to improve management within Defence and also win new resources for the ADF. When John Howard won power in 1996 after 13 years of hard labour, there were only two men in the coalition at that time who had cabinet experience: John Howard and John Moore. Moore was, of course, an Andrew Peacock man, but, despite these ideological differences, there was a deep mutual respect between these two men. Howard brought him into his office, and together they drew up the first Howard ministry. Wets and drys putting the nation first—a task of significant consequence after years in opposition. The relationship between Moore and the Nationals was not so amenable. John was a blue-blooded Queensland Liberal at a time when the Nationals, under Joh Bjelke-Petersen, were in ascendancy and, at that time, the majority coalition party in Queensland. Those of us outside of Queensland in the National Party looked to Queensland to see what could be possible if the Nationals were the majority party. There was no love lost between the parties in those days—it's now very harmonious in the LNP—with battles over preselections a common occurrence. The great Ron Boswell, a former leader of the National Party in this place, recalled the ruthlessness of the Liberals in attempting to displace Nationals, including Flo Bjelke-Petersen, from the Senate ticket, and he said, 'We clashed like buggery.' I think that quote was from today. For his part, Moore liked to describe the Nationals as the pineapple party. Despite these political rivalries, he was a man who understood and respected the role of regional Australia. His upbringing on a cattle station gave him an intrinsic appreciation of the agricultural sector and the unique challenges faced by rural communities and those of us that live in them. This perspective informed his policy decisions, ensuring that the needs of regional Australia were considered in national discussions. John was a wealthy man from a farming background, and as a stockbroker he regularly took an active interest in the market, even as a minister—back in the day when there was less scrutiny over the intersections between private and public dealings. He brought a business-minded approach to governance, balancing economic pragmatism with political acumen. In recognition of his extensive contributions, Mr Moore was appointed as an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2004. This honoured his service to the community through the Australian parliament, his role in developing strategic industry policy and his efforts in policy and management reform within the defence sector. As we reflect on his life and service, it's essential to acknowledge the personal qualities that endeared him to colleagues right across the political spectrum. He was known for his integrity, dedication and steadfast commitment to the betterment of Australia. His ability to connect with individuals from diverse backgrounds, coupled with his deep understanding of both urban and rural issues, made him a respected figure in this parliament. In remembering John Moore, we honour a man whose contributions have left an indelible mark on our country's history. His legacy will endure as a testament to his contribution to Australian public life and national security. On behalf of the National Party and the Senate, I extend our deepest condolences to his wife, Jacqueline, his family and friends and all who had the privilege of knowing him. May he rest in peace. 17:14 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I must say this condolence motion brings a lot of memories back for me. John Moore was my local member for many, many years, and he was also my sitting federal member when I first joined the Young Liberals in 1987. I became chair of his local Young Liberals branch. Much of what has been discussed during the course of this condolence motion has brought so many memories back to me. I want to quickly make a few points from my perspective, given that context. The first is that John Moore came to parliament with a formidable skill set from the business world and also from his community involvement. He did establish a very success stockbroking firm, one of the most successful in Queensland, and he had a deep understanding of finance and a brilliant and logical mind. He also served as a minister in two different governments—both the Howard government and the Fraser government. At a relatively early stage in his political career, he was elevated to the ministry of the Fraser government. Between 1998 and 2001, he served as Minister for Defence. I want to read a contribution he made during his time as Minister for Defence during an MPI. I won't read the start, where he has, in typical John Moore style, a bit of a stab at the opposition, which was quite delightful, I must say, and brought back a lot of memories as well. I want to quote this in relation to his thinking on Defence. This is from an MPI on 25 August 1999: A new defence white paper is in preparation and will be released by the government next year. A central element of the government's vision for defence is a lean defence force—one that is not hampered by waste and inefficiency. Our Defence Reform Program is a very important means of achieving such a force. The Defence Reform Program seeks nothing less than the fundamental realignment of the way Defence is managed and led. I think, just from that short quotation from Hansard, you can see the intellectual rigour he brought to his portfolio in terms of looking at the big picture and looking forward five years, 10 years and 20 years. I think that should really be appreciated. The next point I want to make is that John was an excellent local member. He was an excellent local member, and he was served by an excellent team of staff. They were very, very loyal to him. I think that says a lot about John Moore—the fact that you can hire such an outstanding team of staff and they stick with you through the high points and the low points. From the party perspective, he also served as president of the Queensland Liberal Party during some of our best moments and some of our less good moments. He served as president of the Queensland Liberal Party between 1973 and 1976, and I can remember him saying—and Senator McGrath might remember this; our headquarters used to be on Wickham Terrace in the city—when he was president, during the 1975 election, he decided to put a bucket out the front of the Liberal Party headquarters on Wickham Terrace because people would actually just stop their cars and throw money into the bucket because that is how desperate they were to get rid of the Whitlam Labor government. He served extraordinarily well through the best times of the Liberal Party. Then we turn to his period as president of the Liberal Party between 1984 and 1990, which were probably the most difficult times of the Queensland Liberal Party. From my perspective, that's where you saw John Moore's character at its best. When the party needed him, he stepped up. Those were very difficult times for the Queensland Liberal Party for some of the reasons that have been referred to, and he was a loyal servant to the party and provided leadership to the party during those very difficult times. So, as a Queensland senator sitting in the Liberal party room, I would like to pay my deepest respects to John Moore for his service to his country, his service to his community and his service in a number of portfolios, and I'd like to pay my deep condolences to his wife, Jacqueline, and their children and family. 17:20 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I would like to join with my colleagues in honouring the public service of John Moore, the former member for Ryan, former minister and, more importantly, a husband, a family man and a Queenslander. It's interesting, listening to the speeches, to reflect on the journey of someone who, as Senator Cash pointed out, used to get on a horse to go to the local train station—and this wasn't like a two-minute ride—to get the train to go down to school. This was a kid from the bush who made his way in life, in business and in politics but stayed true to himself. And in his time on the Brisbane stock exchange, which I think could be described as hectic, he was very successful. This is someone who understood the importance of capital, someone who understood the importance of investment and someone who understood the importance of making sure that business drove the state, because from business came jobs and investment. John went on to represent my state and my party, which was the now Liberal National Party but the Liberal Party here in Canberra. It was a hell of a journey for him. He had ups and downs, but the western suburbs of Brisbane, Brisbane itself, Queensland and Australia are better places because of the service of John Moore in this very building. He was minister for various roles that have been mentioned by my colleagues, but I really do think that it was in his role as Minister for Defence that his understanding of humanity and his understanding of getting things done came to the fore. He made sure that the Australian led peacekeeping mission in East Timor was suitably equipped, and that mission helped lead the East Timor to its independence. He was also responsible for the commencement of upgrades to the Collins class submarines, and he made many other reforms within Defence. We all know that Russell sometimes can be a law unto itself, but he brought rigour to the moneys that were being spent by the taxpayers of Australia. He brought rigour to how those moneys were spent because he wanted to make sure that the men and women who served this country had the equipment and the leadership that they wanted and requested to help make sure that Australia was a safer place. Senator McKenzie made reference to the somewhat boisterous nature—and so did Senator Scarr, actually—between the old Liberal Party and the old National Party in Queensland— Senator Scarr 282997 It's all in the past. Senator McGRATH 217241 And it's all in the past. As Senator McKenzie pointed out, the Liberal National Party— Senator Scarr 282997 It's ancient history. Senator McGRATH 217241 It is ancient history, but the Liberal National Party is a united force in Queensland, and the fact that we hold 70 per cent of the seats, the fact that David Crisafulli is Premier of Queensland and that Adrian Schrinner leads a long-term administration in Brisbane—the largest local government authority in the Southern Hemisphere—is partly due to the leadership of John Moore stepping up and making sure that there still was a Liberal Party when the Liberal Party was at its lowest. I speak as a Liberal. I speak as someone who grew up on a farm. Dad would go out and help the Liberal Party and come back at night and the results would be in and my father would always say, 'The Liberal votes always come in late.' Well, they never came in later. They never came in. To Senator Scarr's point, when the party was at its lowest—and we've had a lot of low points in Queensland—John Moore stepped up, because he knew that part of public service is making sure that your political party, who is a standard-bearer for your beliefs and your values, is an operational political party. If there hadn't been a Liberal Party, there would not be a Liberal National Party in Queensland today. That is thanks to his leadership. John had many friends in the Liberal Party—and Senator Scarr is a leader of the western suburbs and now the greater Ipswich region—but there were fights in the old Liberal Party. John Moore had a lot of enemies, but he had a lot of friends who understood that his heart and his soul were in the right place and that, if John Howard were someone who would have him sitting around his cabinet table—notwithstanding the rather boisterous history between those two—it is a classic case of the party putting their best people forward. So, on behalf of the people of Queensland, on behalf of the Liberal National Party and on behalf of the members of the Liberal National Party, I want to thank John's family and his friends for lending us the service of John Moore. They should all know that our country is a better place because of the life lived by John Moore, particularly the service that he has given to this country. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. COMMITTEES 91 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 91 Delegated Legislation Monitor 91 17:26 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present Delegated legislation monitor 2 of 2025, together with ministerial correspondence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— I rise to speak to the tabling of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2025. This Monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 27 legislative instruments registered between 16 and 17 December 2024. This Monitor contains two new instruments that the committee has commented on. These are the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Food and Grocery) Regulations 2024 and the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Food and Grocery) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024. The principal Regulations set out a mandatory code for the food and grocery industry, to support a competitive and sustainable food and grocery sector. This includes civil penalties that may be imposed on supermarkets with annual Australian revenue exceeding $5 billion. The amending Regulations increase the amounts of civil penalties in the principal Regulations to reflect the strengthened penalty framework provided by Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fairer for Families and Farmers and Other Measures) Act 2024, which is scheduled to commence on 1 April 2025. As the instrument prescribes a mandatory industry code to regulate the conduct of food and grocery industry participants, the committee considers that this instrument provides for significant matters that are more appropriate for parliamentary enactment under scrutiny principle (j). Additionally, the civil penalty provisions for contravening the Code concern matters that are significant in nature, including governing the content of grocery supply agreements and the treatment of suppliers. With the increases to the penalty amounts enacted by the amending Regulations, new civil penalty amounts for contravening the Code can exceed $10 million. The committee notes that the explanatory statement does justify the appropriateness of these high penalties. However, the committee remains concerned as a matter of principle about the significant amount of these penalties as they far exceed the committee's expectations for maximum penalty amounts in delegated legislation—being 50 penalty units for individuals and 250 penalty units for corporations. The committee also acknowledges that the explanatory statement to the principal Regulations states that prescribing these matters in delegated legislation is enabled by the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The explanatory statement explains that prescribing the measures in the Code aims to improve accountability and address suppliers' fear of retribution for exercising their rights under the Code. As set out in Monitor 2, the committee encourages the minister to amend the explanatory statements to each of these instruments to set out why it was considered necessary and appropriate to include such matters in delegated legislation, including significant penalties. This is in accordance with the committee's expectations under principle (j) and as outlined in the committee's guidelines. Given the inclusion of significant elements of a regulatory scheme and significant penalties that are prescribed in these instruments, the committee is drawing this instrument to the attention of the Senate under standing order 23(4). Additionally, the committee is concluding its examination of the National Land (Road Transport) (Parking) Rules 2024in this Monitor. The committee sought the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories' further advice in Monitor 1 of 2025 about the skills, qualifications and experience of APS Executive Level 1 and 2 delegates of the National Capital Authority. While the committee thanks the minister for providing further advice on this matter, the committee emphasises its expectations under principle (c) that an explanatory statement to an instrument enabling delegation below the Senior Executive Service level should include information about the skills, qualifications and experience expected of these delegates. In this regard, the committee notes that it expects this information will be included in the explanatory statement to an instrument replacing the Rules later this year. The committee also sought advice on the specific legal authority for the delegation of powers under section 7 of the instrument, as it was not clear to the committee that the relevant provision of the enabling Ordinance provided this. The minister reiterated her earlier advice, which included that the enabling Ordinance will be replaced this year and will include express authority for delegation. The committee is concluding its examination of the instrument on the basis of this advice and thanks the minister for her engagement on this instrument. Finally, I note that on 10 February, the committee placed a protective disallowance notice on this instrument, which was subsequently withdrawn earlier today as the committee has concluded its consideration of the instrument. In relation to protective notices of motion to disallow, I wish to emphasise that the committee occasionally uses this approach to facilitate additional time for correspondence between the minister and committee, in order to resolve the committee's scrutiny concerns, as was the case with the National Land Parking Rules. Whether the committee places a protective notice of motion to disallow on an instrument is dependent on a number of factors including the complexity of the instrument, the number of scrutiny concerns raised, the engagement by the relevant minister and the Senate sitting calendar. As a matter of practice, the committee lodges any notices of motion to disallow on the last day to do so in order to facilitate the maximum amount of additional time to engage with the minister, and will only lodge notices if there are outstanding scrutiny concerns to be resolved. For example, on 17 September 2024 I placed a notice of motion to disallow on the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Regulations 2024 on behalf of the committee. This was to enable more time to engage with the Minister for Health on several outstanding scrutiny concerns. The iterative process involved much back-and-forth engagement with the minister and led to a series of amendments to improve the explanatory statement. In this instance, a longer period was required for multiple rounds of discussion of the committee's scrutiny concerns and for explanatory statement amendments to be implemented. Nonetheless, the notice was ultimately withdrawn on 5 February 2025 after 15 sitting days. On the other hand, a disallowance motion against the Explosives Regulations 2024 was only in place for two days before it was withdrawn, as the Minister for Defence promptly responded to and addressed the committee's scrutiny concerns. The committee stresses that disallowance motions are a necessary and almost-always temporary measure to ensure time for the minister and the committee to engage and reach an outcome that resolves the committee's scrutiny concerns before the disallowance period on the instrument expires. I would also like to take this opportunity to continue to raise awareness of the committee's scrutiny principles and expectations, outlined in Senate Standing Order 23. In previous tabling statements, I have discussed principles (a), (b) and (c). Today I would like to discuss principle (d), which relates to consultation. Under this principle, the committee scrutinises each legislative instrument as to whether those likely to be affected by the instrument, as well as relevant experts, were adequately consulted in relation to it. The committee expects the explanatory statement to include a detailed explanation of who was consulted, the issues raised during consultation and a summary of the outcomes of the consultation process. If no consultation was undertaken, the explanatory statement should justify why no such consultation was undertaken. It is important to note that the committee's expectations are separate to the obligation imposed by section 17 of the Legislation Act, which requires that the rule-maker must be satisfied that appropriate consultation was undertaken prior to an instrument being made. The committee raised scrutiny concerns under principle (d) 55 times at the agency level in 2024, a significant increase from just four times in 2023. While consultation matters are more commonly raised at an agency level, the committee also raised matters at a ministerial level four times in 2024, an increase from twice in 2023. As concerns regarding consultation are frequent and ongoing, the committee will continue to focus on this issue and draw attention to its expectations under principle (d) in 2025. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated Legislation Monitor 2 of 2025 to the Senate. Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee 92 Report 92 17:26 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the report Wholesale investor and wholesale client tests, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:27 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Very briefly, I will simply take this opportunity to congratulate you, Acting Deputy President O'Neill, on your leadership of the of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for this term of parliament. I think it has been outstanding, and I think this report is an appropriate conclusion to this term of the parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Human Rights Joint Committee 92 Report 92 17:27 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the report Inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence. Treaties Joint Committee 93 Report 93 17:28 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 225th report, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence. Privileges Committee 93 Report 93 17:28 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Brockman, I present the 185th report of the Standing Committee of Privileges, entitled Persons referred to in the Senate: Ms Baylee Neha. I move: That the report be adopted. I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated in Hansard. The statement read as follows— This report forms part of a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified. On 10 February 2025, the President received a submission from Ms Bayley Neha relating to a speech made by Senator Lambie in the Senate on 5 February 2025. The President referred the submission to the committee under Privilege Resolution 5. The committee has considered the submission and recommends that Ms Neha's response be incorporated in Hansard. The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in Privilege Resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question agreed to. Response as recommended by the committee incorporated accordingly— My name is Baylee Neha. I am a New Zealand citizen, a proud Maori woman, and an Australian Permanent Resident. I was an employee of Senator Lambie. My role in the office was as a junior electorate officer. I loved my job, and I was good at it, but at some point, during my employment Senator Lambie decided she did not like me. My employment was terminated by Senator Lambie on 9 October 2025. This termination gave rise to an unfair dismissal claim in the Fair Work Commission (U2024-12717 Ms Baylee Neha v The Commonwealth of Australia, As Represented by the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service). The solicitors for Senator Lambie were Sparke Helmore. I could not afford lawyers, so I was not legally represented. My unfair dismissal claim was settled with the deed citing no blame on any party. This claim, and its outcome, is the subject of a speech given by Senator Lambie during the adjournment debate on 5 February 2025. Due to the high-profile nature of Senator Lambie's office, and it being in the small town of Burnie, my current hometown, I am readily identifiable as the employee the speech is about. The widespread reporting of the speech, including in Tasmanian and national media, has enhanced this. I have received unsolicited contact from friends, family, and former colleagues regarding the speech, and my termination. The claims by Senator Lambie that I painted my nails at work, arrived late, and left early are untrue. The claim that I "started showing up late for work, 22 times in a matter of weeks" is both untrue and absurd. I am disappointed that Senator Lambie has used me in such a political way. This speech, and the untruths within it have caused me great distress. It has invaded my privacy, harmed my reputation and good standing within my community, and caused me personal harm at a time when I am looking for new work. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 94 Scrutiny Digest 94 17:28 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 2 of 2025, dated 11 February 2025, together with the committee's annual report for 2024, dated February 2025, of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Economics References Committee 94 Report 94 17:29 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Bragg, I present the third interim report of the Economics References Committee, titled Improving consumer experiences, choice, and outcomes in Australia's retirement system,together with the Hansard record of proceedings. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Job Security Select Committee 94 Government Response to Report 94 17:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I present the government's response to the Select Committee on Job Security's first to fourth interim reports and final report. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Select Committee on Job Security reports: First Interim Report: On-demand platform work in Australia Second Interim Report: Insecurity in publicly funded jobs Third Interim Report: Labour hire and contracting Fourth Interim Report: The job insecurity report Final Report: Matters of possible privilege Acknowledgement The Australian Government would like to thank the Senate Select Committee on Job Security for its reports into the extent and nature of insecure employment in Australia. The government also thanks the 231 individuals and organisations who made submissions and those who provided evidence over 27 public hearings. Response The government notes all recommendations made by the committee in its four interim reports and final report, and the additional recommendations made by Senator Malcolm Roberts in the fourth interim report (the Reports). Since May 2022, the government has delivered a significant reform agenda to support secure jobs, better wages and a fairer workplace relations system. Many of these reforms were informed by the work and evidence of this committee, and implement a substantial number of its recommendations. As a result of the passage of time since the Reports were tabled and the significant actions taken by the government to respond to key issues raised in the Reports, outlined below, a substantive government response is no longer appropriate. Outline of reforms relevant to the recommendations of the reports Workplace relations The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 introduces a suite of measures to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining. A key aim of these reforms was to extend the benefits of bargaining throughout the workforce, with a particular focus on low-paid sectors. This Act also places limitations on the use of fixed-term contracts, embeds the principles of job security and gender equality in the Fair Work Commission's decision-making processes, and strengthens protections against discrimination. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023 closed the labour hire loophole, criminalised intentional wage theft and improves workplace safety. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 enables the Fair Work Commission to hear disputes about unfair contract terms in services contracts, set minimum standards for employee-like workers and set minimum standards to ensure the road transport industry is safe, sustainable, and viable. This Act sets a fairer test for determining whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee. It also introduces an employee right to disconnect, establishes a fair and objective definition of 'casual employee' reflecting the practical reality of the employment relationship and gives casual employees a clear and simple pathway to permanency. Through Safe Work Australia, the government is also contributing to projects to develop a national policy approach to workers compensation and the gig economy and ensure the primary duty of care under work health and safety laws applies effectively to modern work arrangements, including the gig economy. This work is being progressed through Safe Work Australia's tripartite processes involving worker and employer representatives, in addition to state and territory governments. Care and support workforce The government is investing in the care and support workforce to make sure we can provide sustainable, high-quality care and support for Australians. The government has supported the wage increases determined by the Fair Work Commission in the Aged Care Work Value case and is delivering $11.3 billion to fund the interim 15% award wage increase in response to the Stage 2 decision of the case. The government has committed to provide a further $3.8 billion to fund increases outlined in the Stage 3 decision of the case. The government has also committed to a direct employment preference in aged care and is monitoring of the use of indirect employment by providers through Quarterly Financial Reporting and the Aged Care Workforce Provider Survey. The government is committed to building a stronger National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) workforce and service provider market to support NDIS participants to achieve their goals and receive consistent high-quality care. The government is taking actions to support this commitment, such as through responding to the NDIS Review recommendations and the findings of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Higher education The government is committed to growing secure and better paid jobs in the higher education sector. Issues of job security in higher education have been considered in consultation with the sector and stakeholders through the Australian Universities Accord (the Accord). A panel of eminent Australians led a 12-month review of Australia's higher education system to drive lasting and transformational reform in the higher education sector. The government is acting on the priority actions outlined in the Accord Interim Report, which include working with states and territory governments and universities to strengthen university governance and improve workplace relations compliance. Education Ministers have established an Expert Governance Council to develop new 'University Governance Principles and Recommendations' based on 10 priority areas designed to enhance the accountability, transparency, engagement and representation of university governing bodies. This includes ensuring rigorous and transparent processes for developing remuneration policies and settings for senior university staff. On workplace relations, actions include: new guidance and reporting requirements from the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to ensure higher education providers have governance and management processes in place to meet enterprise agreements and industrial obligations engagement of an independent expert to support the National Tertiary Education Union, Universities Australia and the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association in identification and resolution of priority issues to ensure universities are exemplary employers; and improved staff data collection by the Department of Education on the use of casual and fixed term employment arrangements in universities. Further information on the Accord and the government's response is available at www.education. gov.au/australian-universities-accord/accord-202425-budget-and-myefo-measures. Government employment and procurement Australian Public Service (APS) reform initiatives are improving core capability and job security in Commonwealth employment. The Average Staffing Level cap has been abolished and an APS Audit of Employment has been conducted. Through centralised APS bargaining, common conditions have reinforced the Public Service Act 1999 principle that the APS is a career-based public service with ongoing engagement as the usual basis for employment. Consistent with the government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay and Closing Loopholes reforms, non-ongoing APS engagement is now limited to a total term of 18 months where a merit-based process was not undertaken. In addition, the APS has proactively taken steps to ensure APS casual employees are able to convert to permanent employment while still ensuring appointments to ongoing APS roles remain based on merit. The government is also committed to the establishment of a Secure Australian Jobs Code (Secure Jobs Code) to prioritise secure work in government contracts and ensure that government purchasing power is being used to support businesses that engage in fair, equitable, ethical, and sustainable practices. Work to develop the Secure Jobs Code is underway with options for the scope, design and implementation being considered ahead of consultation with stakeholders and the public. The first steps towards a Secure Jobs Code was achieved through the Commonwealth Supplier Code of Conduct (Supplier Code). The Code outlines the Commonwealth's minimum expectations of suppliers and their subcontractors while under contract with the Commonwealth. The expectations in the Code cover ethical behaviour; corporate governance; business practices; and health, safety, and employee welfare. The Supplier Code came into effect 1 July 2024 and is mandatory for all Commonwealth contracts. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 96 Report 96 17:30 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I know I'm jumping a little bit ahead in consideration of committee reports, but I had discussions with the Opposition Whip earlier about tabling Senator Ciccone's statement on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's Australia's sanctions regime report. I seek leave to have that incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— I rise to take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on Australia's sanctions regime, tabled this Tuesday 11 February. I acknowledge the work of my fellow committee members on this inquiry. In taking note, I want to highlight the work undertaken by this government on sanctions reform and offer some comments on behalf of the Labor senators on this committee. Labor senators appreciate the opportunity this inquiry has provided to closely examine the application of Australia's sanctions regime. We are grateful to all those who made submissions and gave evidence to this enquiry, building awareness of targeted sanctions as one of the ways in which Australia is able to deter and disrupt breaches of international law and human rights abuses. The Committee acknowledged that sanctions are, while imperfect, an essential tool in prosecuting foreign policy. Clearly Labor senators don't agree with characterisation of the Australian Government's commitment to a robust sanctions regime included in the report. We commend the tireless efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), particularly the Australian Sanctions Office, to navigate these challenges and ensure the robust, consistent and effective administration of Australia's sanctions. In taking note of the Committee's report, it is important to also note the broader strategic context in which Australia operates. We are one of the few countries in the lndo-Pacific region that applies autonomous sanctions. Narratives about sanctions are misused by authoritarian countries to undermine the reputation of Australia, our values and interests. It is important to also take note of the unprecedented efforts that the Government has taken to ensure a strong, effective and enforceable sanctions regime. The Albanese government has committed an additional $26.4 million to strengthen the monitoring and enforcement of Australia's sanctions. It has also undertaken the first holistic review of Australia's autonomous sanctions legislation since it was enacted in 2011. The Albanese Government has taken stronger action on Iran than any previous government. In mid-2023, we expanded the scope of the Iran autonomous sanctions regime to specifically capture the oppression of women and girls in Iran and general oppression of the population. We have imposed sanctions on 195 Iranian-linked persons and entities, including almost 100 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) linked officials and entities. This followed not one new sanction placed on the IRGC by the previous government for nine years. The Albanese Government has also taken action to hold Russia to account for its illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine with more than 1,200 targeted financial sanctions and travel bans. This very week, on 12 February, the Albanese Government announced the first Australian cyber sanctions against an entity, after having imposed the first ever Australian cyber sanctions in January 2024—both against Russian cybercriminals in response to the 2022 cyberattack against Medibank Private that affected millions of Australians. And last week, on 3 February, we announced the first eve use of Australia's counter- terrorism finance sanctions against a wholly online entity, the white supremacist and neo-fascist Terrorgram network. Finally, I note that despite the extensive efforts underway to cooperate with international partners, there will necessarily be differences in sanctions listings. We have different legal thresholds and criteria, the potential impacts we can each make varies greatly and we also have our own distinct sovereign interests. Of course, Australia's sanctions regime will need to continue to evolve with shifting geopolitical circumstances. The Sanctions Inquiry has provided valuable perspectives to build upon the actions and achievements made by the Albanese government for a strong and effective sanctions regime. Thank you. Consideration 97 DOCUMENTS 97 DOCUMENTS Consideration 97 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 97 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 97 BUSINESS 97 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 97 17:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That— (a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 25 March 2025 at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and (b) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 97 ADJOURNMENT Liberal-National Coalition 97 17:31 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Later this year, at a date still to be determined, Australians will be faced with a choice. It's a very clear choice of a Labor government with a very clear, strong, sustainable agenda with no secrets, no multiple ministries, no carparks and no sports rorts—just really clear, honest government. The other choice that they have is Mr Peter Dutton, who has been very clear—again, very open and honest—that he is going to cut wasteful government spending. What's not so honest and clear is the fact that he's said he's not going to tell you what he's going to cut. He's just going to cut what he feels like should he get into government. That's hardly the honest and transparent government that this country is looking for—having no intention to tell people where you're going to cut, just telling them you're going to absolutely cut things. There have been some hints on some items that they're obviously in no way supportive of, but they've got two really large policies—just two policies. They're the only two that they've announced. It's not difficult to keep track of them. It's quite straightforward. One is the nuclear plan, Australia's nuclear future according to the coalition, which has a price tag of $600 billion, and that's before we even start unpacking the fact that the plan—it's called a plan, but it's a bit sketchy, let's be honest—doesn't provide anything like the demand for electricity that we have in this country. It's not even close. It is a fraction of what we need. Then of course there's the fact that nuclear is the most water-hungry source of energy. In a country that really has issues with water, we have to be very cautious with our water. Anyway, it's a $600 billion price tag. The second policy—like I said, they're not hard to track because they've only got two—is to have workers pay for their bosses to take long lunches. I'm still scratching my head on this one, because from what I experienced with small business, this isn't their primary issue. But the coalition and Mr Dutton will tell you that it is—that this is their biggest issue. They want to be able to go to lunch and claim it on their tax. I think they're probably talking to way different businesses than I am. What is he going to cut to pay for these things? That is hundreds of billions of dollars on things that aren't going to deliver what they claim to. What are they going to cut? Let's go to the history of the coalition. To be honest, it's not that long ago that we were in a disgraceful decade of the coalition being in government, so you don't have to look far back to see what they did when they were in government. It's not the rubbish they're telling us now. I sit here and scratch my head sometimes at some of the things that they claim to care about now but they spent an entire decade in government not caring about one iota. We know that, when Mr Dutton was the health minister, he was voted the worst health minister in living memory by Australian doctors, which is not really surprising, because he tried to destroy Medicare. He cut money from all parts of the health service. He was the one that introduced the idea—it didn't come off, thank heavens—that you'd pay to go to the emergency department. Every single person would just pay because his basic theory is that, if you don't pay for it, you don't value it. That's all very well to say for a man that wealthy; just look it up. But, for the rest of the population, for ordinary Australians looking to go to the doctor and be bulk-billed—no. He has no history of any credibility in that area. We do. We have restored so many of the things that were crushed by the coalition. We will continue to do so and build Medicare. That's just one area. There's free TAFE. They hate that. That's probably going to go. They hate our historic funding agreements for schools. They had 10 years to bring in the Gonski reforms and did nothing. We did. The tax cut that we expanded to go to low-income and middle-income and all Australians—no. They'll be going straight back to just giving breaks to wealthy Australians. Be careful when you choose. Renewable Energy 98 17:36 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I thank the Senate for giving me a 10-minute contribution during this afternoon's adjournment debate. This morning I missed out on speaking on the Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill, which is essentially a bill on offshore wind. It's a technical legislative change. The Greens support offshore wind and the renewable rollout. Of course, we want this done properly. We're very focused on making sure we have the right processes in place for that. I met with the department a couple of years ago. In fact I met with them on numerous occasions to ask them how they would be rolling out their offshore wind projects and what the consultation processes were around that. I remember being alarmed that the model that they were going to use was similar to what NOPSEMA currently manages as regulator, where zones are permitted and companies can come along and apply for licences. Then, if you get a licence, you go through an environmental impact statement and community consultation. If you get to the end of the road, you can proceed with your offshore wind farm project. Many of the offshore wind zones may not be looking at established projects until potentially the 2030s. It wasn't so much the licence process that I was concerned about, although we obviously want to make sure it's extremely rigorous and that wind farms are put in the right place and have minimal impacts. I was concerned about the social licence for these projects. As I said to the department, if you leave it for five or 10 years and you leave it to these big companies that are going to manage the wind farm process, you may well lose your social licence, because there is an incredible amount of disinformation out there already about these wind farms. That's what I want to talk about today, and I'm glad Senator Scarr is in the chamber today. He gets to hear part 2 of how we have a very organised, very deceitful, very dishonest global disinformation campaign underway in relation to offshore wind farms. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Senator Scarr, you can spend your five minutes responding to me, as you did the other night. I'd be very happy to see that. Right now, before the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, there is a Senate inquiry into the offshore wind consultation process. There's a very important contribution from Dr Jeremy Walker from UTS. He has written a paper for the Senate outlining these disinformation campaigns and how they've worked in the US and how they're now being unfolded here in Australia. There's also some really good research there from the US. I'd urge all Australians who are interested in this and interested in democracy to go onto the environment and communications website and have a look at these public submissions for themselves. He finishes his contribution of 14 pages that he wrote for the Senate by saying: The systemic disruption of offshore wind consultation processes by disinformation and astroturfing, the targeting of Australian local councils and state and federal parliaments, is part of a foreign-influence campaign traceable through local actors to powerful, highly organised, far-right forces bent on preventing democratic governments from protecting their constituents from the catastrophic consequences of the fossil fuel industry. We ignore at our gravest peril the fossil sector's shadowy Atlas Network, its disinformation assault on clean energy, on the integrity of our public sphere and democratic institutions and processes … He has put some meat on the bones in terms of this conclusion in his submission to the Senate. I have already talked about the Atlas network this week but for those who aren't aware—you talk to Australians about this and they haven't heard about it. I must confess, I didn't really know a huge amount about it myself until I did some research on it recently. They've done a really good job flying under the radar, which is amazing considering this US group has 550 global affiliates, all designed to try to prevent action on climate change, progress their conservative agendas and line the pockets of some of their big donors. We have some pretty high-profile subsidiaries here in Australia. Professor Walker talks about the global infrastructure of these think tanks driving disinformation and opposition to clean energy and climate policy since 1988. He said they have been 'targeting community consultation … council, state and federal elections' particularly in Australia in relation to offshore windfarms. It is interesting research that he has attached that traces back to the US. He says: As has been clearly demonstrated by research published by the Climate Policy Development Lab at Brown University, Rhode Island USA, and numerous articles in the US press, the proliferation of 'save the whales from windfarms' articles and memes were first propagated by The Heartland Institute … the Caesar Rodney Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, each of which are or have been listed by the Atlas Network as affiliated organisations, and each with amply documented histories of fossil-fuel derived funding, including from ExxonMobil, the Koch Foundations … Chevron and Alcoa [subsidiaries] … There is a lot more information in his submission about that. He said: Atlas operatives working with these 'institutes' assisted in catalysing the formation of anti-offshore wind 'community' groups near offshore wind zones, mobilising 'community anger' against wind projects based on false claims widely circulating on pop-up Facebook groups that windfarms are causing whale deaths, and setting up anti-wind campaign websites, often disguised in the language of environmental NGOs. The intentional creation and fostering of ostensibly 'grassroots' political action groups by strategic communications experts is termed 'astroturfing', intending to convey superficial authenticity to what are in fact highly professional PR/disinformation campaigns. If you look at the lengths that these organisations have gone to to deceive communities, it is quite extraordinary. I have been a campaigner for 20 years and I have to show some grudging respect to the resources and the lengths these people have gone to, to deceive not just Americans but also Australians globally about the use of wind farms. It's all provided in this really amazing map. These groups include the Save Right Whales group in the US, with its own website, or the Green Oceans group, or the American Coalition for Ocean Protection—not to mention the Environmental Progress group. Go and have a look yourself. These fake groups, set up by the Atlas Network and their subsidiaries, are quite extraordinary. Has it infiltrated Australia? Unfortunately, yes it has. The articles, memes and false claims that wind kills whales, generated since 2023 by Atlas think tanks and spinoff community anti-windfarm groups on the US east coast, are widely circulating in Australia on anti-windfarm groups—not to mention the Facebook pages of a few senators in this chamber. Cloaking pro-fossil-fuel industry narratives in the language of environmental and community concern by slick anonymous websites, this method is identical to the tactics used by the US branch of the Anti-Offshore Wind Network. Much of the groundwork organisation of this anti-offshore wind campaign in Australia appears to be conducted by secretive, strategic communications experts. He actually lists some of the people directly involved in this here in Australia. For example, couched in the language and imagery of environmental concern, websites such as No Offshore Turbines, Responsible Future Illawarra, Australians Against Offshore Windfarms and their associated Facebook groups are notably silent on the catastrophic impacts of global fossil fuels but they're out there saying that wind farms kill whales and they're environmentally unfriendly. He names a number of individuals, including Burchell Wilson and others who are behind these groups that have long-established histories with US Atlas-affiliated think tanks, trained in the US and almost certainly funded by these think tanks in the US. It's going to be really interesting. If we don't get a chance in this Senate inquiry to call these people as witnesses and interrogate their links to these international groups and these awful disinformation campaigns that are slowing down the rollout of renewable energy in this country and elsewhere—on behalf of their big fossil fuel donors, through these shady, dodgy secretive networks—then I would suggest to the Senate that in the next parliament we need a much more substantial inquiry into who's behind these disinformation campaigns. Senator Scarr 282997 I'm happy to sit on it. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I hope you do come, Senator, I hope you do. I'll tell you what, we had a bill in this parliament to deal with disinformation, and it didn't succeed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! We're not chatting across the chamber. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 The Greens weren't supportive of the current framework, but I think we actually got it arse about; I think we need to do it the other way. We actually need to look at who's spreading this disinformation first, understand the lay of the land and then look at what laws we need to put in place to prevent this kind of dishonest rhetoric. It is a target at the heart of democracy, at the heart of climate action and all those who care about our planet. White, Ms Rebecca, Labor Government 100 17:46 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I have the opportunity to correct the public record on the contribution that Senator Chandler made in this place earlier today. The record is very clear. We now have Rebecca White as the federal candidate in Lyons, and the Liberal candidate, who thought she should already pack her bag to come to Canberra, is going to miss out. Whatever the accusations Senator Chandler made about Rebecca White, Rebecca White is the most popular member for Lyons. She has resigned from parliament and will be an outstanding member of the House of Representatives. I would be very, very careful pointing the finger about people who are working on taxpayer money. They ought to look a little bit closer to home. People who live in glass houses should never throw stones. Let's also go to the substance of what we will continue to talk about when we come back in March—that is, the stark contrast between what we have achieved in three years as opposed to those who had almost a decade in office. The leader they now have, Mr Dutton, has an outstanding record in undermining Australian's health and cutting health spending. He has now come to the party and said, 'We are going to cut the Public Service, but we are not going to tell you what services you as Australians are going to lose.' It's so dishonest. Compare that to someone like Minister Butler, who has actually fixed up the mess left by those opposite, who not only failed in aged care but delivering good health outcomes for Australians and protecting Medicare. In contrast to that, we just announced last Sunday $573 million for women's health. Outstanding! I congratulate him. Let's also go to another area that is so fundamentally important to our economy: having a highly skilled workforce. What did they do in the nine years that they were in government? They cut TAFE. We had these shonky schools—private enterprise. Most of them were shonky, and what did we end up with? We lack all our skills. We had the contribution today that we've lost companies manufacturing overseas. For heaven's sake, I could not believe that a Liberal member or a Nationals person would come into this chamber and be so shameful, when they closed down the car industry. They closed it down on their watch. That's why we're investing in bringing manufacturing back here. But they have voted against every single measure that we have put in place to address the cost of living—which started under them. They invested nothing in housing and have done nothing in terms of providing opportunities for Australians. They come in and they bleat about us not having done enough to give energy relief to Australians. They voted against our energy relief, so it's crocodile tears. That is exactly what it is. Under the Housing Australia Future Fund there is $10 billion to provide housing for those Australians most in need, and what did they do? They spent a whole week in this Senate chamber—with their Greens partners! Oh, that's right, we're the ones who have a green tail. It was those buddies getting together. They weren't even prepared to have a vote; they stopped us from having a vote. Then, finally, what did those opposite do? They did what Dutton always does. They voted against everything that is going to help Australians, because it is crocodile tears that they have, absolutely. Let's talk about GPs. They rant about not having enough GPs. We know that, but we've invested. Australians know that it was Mr Dutton and the Liberals who wanted to have a GP tax, and then they froze whatever they were going to get. We know that when they come into office—if that ever happens, God forbid—they will cut Medicare, as they do. We still don't know how much that is really going to cost us. We're saying it will be about $7,200 for every Australian, but mark my words: if they ever get on this side of the chamber again, every Australian will be worse off. They will get no support. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Polley. Okay, Senator Scarr, bring it home. Renewable Energy, Brisbane Valley Highway 100 17:51 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Good try, Senator Polley. There was lots of good TikTok material in that contribution, I'm sure. I would like to address some comments which Senator Whish-Wilson made. He did invite me to make some comments on his contribution, and I would say this to Senator Whish-Wilson: the answer, Senator Whish-Wilson, is blowing in the wind. You talked about wind power. The answer, Senator Whish-Wilson, is blowing in the wind. One of the smartest people I know, my good friend Martin, sent me an article from the Wall Street Journal just a week or so ago, and I want to quote from that article about the economic realities of wind power: Energy giant Shell wrote off its 50% stake in Atlantic Shores— this is a wind farm project off the coast of New Jersey— choosing to take a $1 billion impairment— that's US$1 billion— instead of complete the 2,800 megawatt wind farm. So there you go, Senator Whish-Wilson: the answer perhaps isn't blowing in the wind; it's blowing in the impairment provisions of major energy producers and how they are writing off their investments in wind farm projects. I look forward to joining Senator Whish-Wilson's committee in the next parliament. We're all in politics, so we expect robust debate, and I'm no different. I note that the sitting federal Labor member where my Senate office is located, the Hon. Shayne Neumann, the member for the Labor held seat of Blair, can give as good as he gets. He accused me on River 949, which is a wonderful radio station in South-East Queensland, of not having done my homework. I was always known as a conscientious student, so this was a grave accusation that was being made against me. This was, of course, in relation to the Brisbane Valley Highway. I repeat my call for the federal Labor Albanese government to dedicate an additional $20 million to the Brisbane Valley Highway over and above the existing South-East Queensland City Deal. I'm calling for an extra $20 million for the Brisbane Valley Highway over and above that amount. That is what I am calling upon the Albanese Labor government to do, and I make no apology for it, because that highway is in a deplorable state. I say to Mr Neumann: it is not about the homework; it is about the roadwork. It's not about the homework, Mr Neumann. It's not about the homework; it's about the roadwork. That's what we want to see. When we look at the report card for roadwork in Mr Neumann's federal seat of Blair, what do we find? After 18 years of having a sitting Labor member, the Amberley interchange has not been fixed—after 18 years. After 18 years of Mr Neumann being the sitting Labor member, the Mount Crosby interchange has not been fixed—after 18 years, not fixed. After 18 years of having a sitting Labor member, the Brisbane Valley Highway has not been fixed. The Amberley interchange—was that fixed in Mr Neumann's 18 years? No. Was the Mount Crosby interchange fixed in Mr Neumann's 18 years? No. Was the Brisbane Valley Highway fixed in Mr Neumann's 18 years? No. Senator Chisholm 39801 On a point of order, President: the senator is misleading the Senate with his claims about the 18 years— The PRESIDENT 112096 That's a debating point, Senator Chisholm. Senator Scarr. Senator SCARR 282997 Thank you, President. I say to Mr Neumann: you can't blame the state government. You can't say the state government ate your homework, because, for 14 out of 18 years, there was a Labor state government in Queensland. For 14 out of the 18 years that you've been the federal Labor member for Blair, there was a Queensland Labor government. So you can't say the state Labor government ate your homework. I make no apology for standing up for the people of the Somerset Region or for standing up for the people of the Ipswich region and calling for the Labor government to provide the roads, rail and bridges which the people of Ipswich and the people of the Somerset Region deserve. Senate adjourned at 17:56