2025-03-25 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 25 March 2025

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 1 12:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: That: (1) Today, the hours of meeting be midday to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to adjournment, and the routine of business from 8.30 pm be: (a) Budget statement and documents 2024-25; (b) adjournment proposed; and (c) adjournment. (2) The Senate not meet on Thursday, 27 March 2025. (3) The dates for estimates hearings by legislation committees for the 2025-26 Budget estimates be varied as follows: Thursday, 27 March, Monday, 31 March and Tuesday, 1 April and, if required, Friday 4 April 2025 (Group A) Friday, 28 March and Wednesday, 2 April and Thursday, 3 April and, if required, Friday 4 April 2025 (Group B) (4) Cross portfolio estimates hearings on Indigenous matters and on Murray Darling Basin Plan matters be scheduled for Friday, 4 April 2025. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 1 12:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion related to further revelations about the CFMEU's links with organised crime and the consideration of legislation 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 further revelations about the CFMEU's links with organised crime and the consideration of legislation. Let us be very clear about the legislation that the coalition is seeking to bring on today and pass through the Australian Senate. It is, of course, to restore the tough cop on the beat, the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024. Quite frankly, what we saw on 60 Minuteswere utterly vile revelations. Seriously, you had a health and safety rep—the irony of this person's title—standing there kicking a woman on a construction site. I cannot think of anything more shameful, more degrading and, quite frankly, more in need of this Senate coming together today and restoring the tough cop on the beat to ensure that the construction industry in Australia has half a chance of competing against organised crime. Organised crime in Australia has infiltrated the CFMEU, is running the CFMEU and, in doing that, now controls the construction industry in Australia, and the Labor Party sit back and do nothing. We all know why. It is because in the time that Prime Minister Albanese has been leading the Labor Party the Labor Party has received from the CFMEU $11.5 million either in donations or in electoral support. What an absolute disgrace! Money talks in this country—dirty money flowing from the CFMEU, infiltrated by organised crime, into the Australian Labor Party. A very good question that needs to be asked is: given these ongoing revelations, is the Australian Labor Party going to return that money to the hardworking members of the CFMEU who, quite frankly, are not properly represented by the organised crime that is now allegedly infiltrating them? This is what we saw on that Sunday night. We saw bikies perpetrating domestic violence on job sites for taxpayer funded projects. Someone kicking a woman played out on our TV screens across Australia. We stand here today willing to work with the government to bring on these two bills to restore the tough cop on the beat and ensure that there is legislation to remove these criminals from worksites. We all know that the government hasn't given us leave to do that, and we know why—because money talks. The money this government has taken from the CFMEU is the reason it refuses to do anything about it. But what is worse is that the first thing Mr Albanese did when he became Prime Minister of this country was to abolish the tough cop on the beat, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And why did he do that? Because that was the No. 1 wish-list item for John Setka, the CFMEU and the ACTU. You have to be kidding me—the ABCC. I'm sure those on the other side will stand up and tell us how they were not successful. Well, of course they would! They have a financial interest in ensuring that there is no tough cop on the beat in the construction sector. This is the reality that Australians face at the moment. The CFMEU is a modern-day mafia organisation. The culture of criminality and corruption is now so entrenched—and we saw it again on 60 Minutes last Sunday night—that it will never ever change, especially under a government that is still to this day completely, totally and utterly beholden to the CFMEU. There is only one party that will stand up, and that is the coalition, because we're not beholden to them. 12:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will be opposing this motion. Senator Cash I0M Seriously. Shame! Senator WATT 245759 Deputy President, I might point out that Senator Cash was heard in complete silence. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Yes. Order, please, for the minister! Senator WATT 245759 It would be a good thing if similar respect could be shown to all speakers, whether it be me or anyone else. I know you don't want to hear the arguments against this, but I'm here to provide them to you. The government will be opposing this motion. First of all, it's an attempt to disrupt the program, which has already been set, which is to deal with matters including the workplace gender equality amendment, setting gender equality targets. We've just heard from Senator Cash about why supporting women in workplaces is important, but her political stunt now is about stopping debate on workplace gender equality amendment legislation, which is about setting gender equality targets. So it's a political stunt designed to disrupt a program which has already been listed. But let's go to the substance of what Senator Cash is trying to do. The allegations we saw again on 60 Minutes and in other media reports a week ago were completely unacceptable, were appalling and were the direct result of the investigations commissioned by the administrator of the CFMEU. I know Senator Cash isn't prepared to listen to arguments and would rather yell than listen to those arguments, but the reality is that many of the allegations that we have seen on our TV screens over the last 12 months occurred while the coalition was in power and while it had an ABCC in force. These things were going on under the nose of the ABCC while it was prosecuting workers for putting stickers on their helmets and while it was prosecuting workers and unions for displaying flags on worksites. All of this criminality was not just occurring but flourishing while the ABCC was in place under a coalition government. Do you know what started to change that? It was the actions of a Labor government, which took the unprecedented step of passing legislation through this parliament that enabled the appointment of an administrator to the CFMEU who is beginning the long, difficult job of cleaning up an organisation that desperately needed cleaning up. We also need to recognise, of course, that, as horrifying as some of the allegations we've seen about activities within the CFMEU are—and they are horrifying—there has also been terrible misbehaviour on the part of some employers and some labour hire firm operators in the sector. You never hear anything about that from the coalition; it's only about unions and workers. This government is about cleaning up the construction sector as a whole—including the CFMEU, gangland figures like Mick Gatto and the other corrupt individuals who are involved in this industry. Senator Paterson may have observed that only a week or so ago, as a result of investigations by the CFMEU administrator that are occurring, the Australian Federal Police raided a number of premises that seemed to be connected to these gangland figures. It might be politically convenient for the opposition to argue that things haven't changed enough within the CFMEU in the six months that the administrator has been in power, but the only reason we are seeing these revelations in the media, the only reason we are seeing police raids and the only reason we have seen a number of officials, organisers and delegates sacked from the CFMEU for misbehaviour is the appointment of the administrator. So the administrator should be able, unimpeded by political stunts like this one from Senator Cash, to continue the job of cleaning up the CFMEU and ensuring that workers in the construction sector have a strong and effective union to defend their rights and their safety at work. Just very briefly, in the time I have left, I might go to what Senator Cash's bill seeks to do. We saw that press conference in Melbourne the other day with the opposition leader, Senator Cash and Senator Paterson—and every other senator who wanted to try to get their mug on TV. What did they say they wanted to do and what is contained within the bill? Well, for all their complaints about the activities of the CFMEU and John Setka and people like that, if this bill passes it will deregister the CFMEU. It will mean the CFMEU is not subject to any regulation whatsoever. You are effectively handing the keys for the CFMEU national office back to John Setka. You are handing the keys to the CFMEU back to the criminals and crooks who'd been thrown out of the CFMEU, because you are going to allow them to operate in an unregulated environment. Do you really think that's going to make things better? You will bring back the ABCC, under which this activity flourished with no consequences. You will put in place a police taskforce that already exists. This will let the worst elements back out on construction sites— (Time expired) 12:12 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Well, here we are: another day, another minister standing up running a protection racket for the CFMEU here under the Albanese government. They like to think that, because they've put an administrator in charge, we can now throw the Harry Potter invisibility cloak over the corruption issues within the construction industry in this country. But meanwhile they pay their preselectors, they take the donations, they line their pockets, they take their Senate seats—thank you very much, captains of the construction industry—and we see, in Victoria alone, $5 billion of cost blowouts for infrastructure projects. It is not just the men and women working in this industry day in, day out who are subjected to the horrific behaviour on construction sites around this country that was exposed by the 60 Minutes investigation and by the excellent journalism of the Sydney Morning Herald and Age, including Nick McKenzie—brave stuff, because these are very, very dangerous people, and threatening people's lives is something they do quite easily and willingly. So well done to our journalists. But, aside from the men and women who are being subjected to this type of behaviour on construction sites around the country, it is our infrastructure pipeline of funding where the federal taxpayer is being ripped off. I wrote to Catherine King, the minister responsible, on 17 July 2024, when these revelations first were made and we found out that another $5 billion had to be shovelled to Victoria, not for one more kilometre of road or one more railway station but because of cost blowouts—and we didn't know why. I wrote to the federal minister and said: 'Can you assure me, on behalf of the Commonwealth taxpayer, that this money is not going to the CFMEU and not going to organised crime? And how do you know?' I got a lovely letter back from the minister—and I foreshadow that if the chamber allows me I'll be tabling that letter—wherein she told me that she has directed her state and territory counterpart ministers to account for all their dollars. But it would seem, despite the administrator being appointed and despite Catherine King's explanations that she had it all under control, that it's not all under control. I actually had to write to her last week to ask her whether the Victorian government had complied with her direction about funding, what action the Victorian government and the federal government have taken with respect to the conduct that has been exposed again by 60 Minutes and Nick McKenzie and fellow journalists, and what measures Catherine King initiated to satisfy herself that there had been no improper or unlawful conduct on Commonwealth funded construction sites in Victoria. As yet, there has been silence—silence from the minister. What we know on our side of politics is that this is not just restricted to Victoria. This is not only a Victoria's Big Build problem. We saw evidence to this parliament that construction costs in Queensland had skyrocketed in excess of 30 per cent simply because of the involvement of the CFMEU. That is a fact. That means the Olympics infrastructure will cost more. That means the Bruce Highway safety upgrades will cost more. Australians are getting less for their tax dollar because of this unholy alliance between the Australian Labor Party, the CFMEU and organised crime. You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Stop being apologists for this behaviour, and stand up. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. You've been given the evidence by us, by auditors, by whistleblowers, by construction owners and by the ABCC, and you've done nothing. You do nothing. You stand up in this chamber time and time again, take their money and their votes for your preselections and do nothing against this criminality. 12:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I think it's pretty clear what's on display this morning: two contrasting approaches to a serious public policy issue. One was on display in the contributions from Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie, which were full of mistruths, misstatements about the actual facts on the ground and the steps taken by this government, and misunderstandings about the policy levers that are in fact available to government—the ones that would be effective and the ones that would make the problem worse. That was evident in the alleged solution proposed by Senator Cash, which would indeed make this problem worse and would do nothing to resolve the serious public policy issues that are at play in this debate. As Senator Watt has already pointed out, there is some irony that the stunt being pursued this morning by Senator Cash is displacing time allocated for a debate on women's gender equality at work—the debate that should be taking place at this time. And it's for that reason, amongst other things, that we oppose this suspension. The allegations that were aired of corruption, thuggery, violence—they are sickening, and they are disturbing. There is zero tolerance for criminal behaviour or for gender based violence in any industry. I want to say this clearly: every worker deserves a safe workplace free from violence, free from intimidation and free from thuggery. But the real question to be asked for those opposite is what would be effective in confronting it? All of the things that were done when you were in government were plainly ineffective. The challenges which have built up in this industry built up under the supposed oversight of the body that you champion as the solution to these problems, and it is deeply revealing that you continue to champion those solutions even in the face of all of the evidence that they did not work. We have taken a very different approach. From the very beginning, we took firm steps because, for us, this matters. It actually does matter that there is a good union in this sector—a clean union, a union capable of standing up for workers' interests and a union capable of enforcing and supporting the safety standards that are so critical for people working on building sites. It matters to ordinary Australians that a good, effective, clean and orderly union does operate in this sector. We're determined to stamp out those behaviours that we have seen that are entirely inconsistent with those values. We can't tolerate thuggery. We can't tolerate corruption. We can't tolerate the involvement of organised crime in this sector. Putting this organisation under the control of an administrator is an incredibly important step. It's a step that has allowed investigations to take place to uncover some of these behaviours. It stands in contrast to the proposal from the opposition to put this organisation into deregistration. As the minister has already pointed out, what do people think that that will do? It will remove them from the oversight, the controls and the constraints that exist on any registered organisation. It'll remove them from oversight by the Fair Work Commission, remove them from all of the obligations that attend to a registered organisation and, as the minister has said, hand the keys back to John Setka. That is not an outcome that we are willing to tolerate. I am deeply surprised that it's an outcome that those on the other side are willing to contemplate and to advocate for. This is no solution whatsoever. It does nothing to deal with the challenges of the industry. It does nothing to restore the orderly operation of a clean union in this sector. It is a stunt, and it is a stunt that, on the occasion of today and today's program, displaces our opportunity to deal with a piece of legislation that actually promotes women's gender equality in the workplace. 12:23 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I have to say this and I'm going to call you out today: nine years. You people had nine years to clean up this industry! Let's be brutally honest here. You had Dyson Heydon, who couldn't keep his hands off women, on board and if you had not been so goddamn lazy and done that report properly— Senator Cash I0M Jacqui, you were one of the senators who wouldn't support it. Senator LAMBIE 250026 You've had your time on the floor, Senator Cash. Through the chair, Senator Cash, you've had your negotiations, you've had your time on the floor. Let's be honest. For nine years you had your ABCC going. What did that do? It did nothing! If you think that by deregistering these people that will fix it, you are absolutely nuts. They are one-per-cent biker gang; that is what they have become. They are in construction, and they are one-per-centers. That is all that industry has turned itself into. That is it! If you remove patches off one-per-centers, they drive themselves underground and more destruction is done. That is all you will do with the CFMEU. You will drive them further underground. You had nine years—nine years. This didn't happen just in three years. You had nine years to clean them up and you lost. You lost that fight because you couldn't get the job done. So let's remind people about that. You had nine years. You should have had a look at that person you put up, the judge Dyson Heydon, because he had no credibility to start with, let alone when he was finished, with what we found out about him. You didn't follow through with those recommendations properly, and therefore it has not worked. It has been crap! We've got nothing else left but this administrator and his recommendations, given you had nine years to clean it up and you failed miserably to do that. I would rather let the administrator go and get the job done. That's what I want to see. Honestly, if you think that driving the CFMEU and those thugs underground, where they already bloody belong anyway, is going to help this country, you are terribly, terribly wrong. Now, I don't mind having a go at Labor in Melbourne or in Victoria, because let's face it: they've had their eyes closed. They knew this stuff was going on. This is what has been so disappointing: we—all of us—have known about this stuff for years, but we have not tackled it. We have not tackled it, and it will need to be hard. It cannot be just a one-pronged approach; it will need to be a five- or a 10-pronged approach to take down the CFMEU once and for all. I know people are hurting out there. I know that it's not just women being harassed out there—that belongs to the CFMEU. Quite frankly, you are disgusting individuals. You are disgusting. If you think this is your legacy, Setka, what a disgusting little legacy you have left, you little standover man—you with your man Gatto! Oh, my God! Oh, my goodness! You've got to love that this morning. You've got to love that. So, honestly, if you think this is going to fix it overnight, you are delusional. Nothing is going to stop these people apart from having a hell of a big police taskforce on them for the next five to 10 years and making sure we are on their tails. We have to make sure that the administrator starts to pass them to those task groups, that they are charged and jailed, and that he sets examples. People want people to look up to people in here, and the best way to do this is by action. I want this administrator to get his job done. But to come in here when we've got an economic crisis, which blows me away in itself, when we haven't finished with the administrator, just because this all blew up on Sunday night—by the way, Australians, it is nothing that all of us in here have not known about when it comes to the CFMEU. We've all known about it. Probably some of us haven't known the depth of it, but we've all known about it. I've been up here 10 years. That side couldn't fix it in nine. They couldn't fix it, so for God's sake let the administrator do his job. But, by God, I'm on his tail! I am speaking to him regularly because I am on his tail. He'd want to stay tough and he'd want to start putting them in jail, because that's what I want to see done and that's what the Australian people want to see done, because actions speak louder than words. That is when you will clean up backyards: when you start putting them behind bars so we're not putting up with this goddamn criminal behaviour—the ugliness of it! We want no more of it. It has got to stop. I won't be supporting this. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Paterson, and then after that I note there will be time in the debate for you, Senator Sheldon, because I know you want the call. There should be some— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 There's only five minutes to go, so we'll have to go back to the Liberal side, Senator Sheldon. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We've gone Liberal, Labor— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Wong, we've gone Liberal, Labor. The minister at the time indicated that the call would go to the crossbench, so I've gone back to the Liberals and will then go back to Labor. I've been fair, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU So it should come back to the government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No, because one crossbencher was inserted with the consent of the— Senator Wong 00AOU That means the opposition gets three and the government gets two. That cannot be right. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I was going around the chamber, Senator Wong. 12:29 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria There are many decent, hardworking Australians who are members of unions. There are many decent, hardworking Australians who are union officials. The business model of most unions in this country is to take fees from their members to advocate on behalf of their members and their interests—to advocate for better pay, better conditions and safety in the workplace. They don't deserve to be tarnished by the conduct of the CFMEU. The CFMEU is not a union anymore. The CFMEU hasn't been a union for a long time. The CFMEU is now a criminal enterprise. It has been taken over by organised crime figures and by outlaw motorcycle gangs. Its business model is not to take money from its members to advocate for their interests like reputable unions do; its business model is to engage in criminal standover tactics to intimidate business owners and construction site operators into paying go-away money to criminals to keep industrial peace. The result of that is that taxpayers' money is being siphoned off directly from here in Canberra, on behalf of all Australian taxpayers, and in my home state of Victoria, on behalf of Victorian taxpayers, to criminal elements who are engaging in criminal behaviour on worksites, which puts everyone in danger and threatens everyone's safety on sites, whether they are union members or not. I note that, in the last 24 hours, Mr Mick Gatto has had a few things to say about me and the Leader of the Opposition. All I would say in response to that is: I am not intimidated by Mr Gatto, I will not be retracting any statements I have made about him and I am more determined than ever before to help clean up the building industry and crack down on this criminal enterprise that is the modern CFMEU. The government should know better because the government was warned. The government was warned that, if they voted to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, they would let the CFMEU off the leash and they would allow the CFMEU to return to and expand their criminal ways. And that is exactly what has happened. Yet senators in this chamber voted with the government to support them in abolishing the ABCC and members in the other place, who should have known better, voted with the government to abolish the ABCC. That includes people like the teal so-called Independent MPs, like the member for Kooyong, Monique Ryan, and the member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel. They voted with the Labor Party to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to let the CFMEU off the leash. The consequences of those votes and the consequences of those decisions were put to air for all Australians to see on 60 Minutes just a week ago. Nick McKenzie and his team did incredible work and have shown incredible courage in exposing the criminal conduct of this union and its officials. Although the government might like to give credit to the administrator for the work they've done, the only reason we have an administrator of the CFMEU is thanks to journalists like Nick McKenzie, who took risks to write this story and bring it to the public's attention. Everybody in the government knew about the behaviour of the CFMEU, but they weren't first to do anything about it until that program was put to air last year. They were embarrassed into taking the bare minimum action required to fix the CFMEU. There's no doubt the administrator and his team are doing the best that they can in the circumstances they've found themselves in, but the truth is they've been given an impossible task. They've been asked to reform the CFMEU. The CFMEU is unreformable. Its business model is what it is and it will not be changed by a well-meaning KC or anybody else investigating corruption in the union. The only way to reform the CFMEU is to abolish the CFMEU and start again or to allow other, more reputable unions to step in to represent those workers—unions like the Australian Workers Union, who can step in and represent those workers and their interests capably without involving bikies and organised crime figures like Mick Gatto in their business model. But the government refuses to do that, and we know why. They are hopelessly conflicted when it comes to the CFMEU. They took $11½ million of donations and other campaigning support from the CFMEU on Mr Albanese's watch alone as Leader of the Labor Party to make him Prime Minister and to deliver on their agenda, and they did deliver on their agenda. The key ask of the CFMEU to the Labor Party in exchange for those donations at the last election was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and it was one of the first items of business for this government after they were elected. You are responsible for what is happening on worksites right now. You're responsible for the criminality, you're responsible for the corruption, you're responsible for taxpayers being ripped off and you're responsible for people being assaulted on sites by organised crime and bikies. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The time for the debate has expired. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion to suspend as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:39]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. 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. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 36 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. 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. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 7 BILLS Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025 7

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025

Reference to Committee 7 12:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the referral of a bill to a committee, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator I0U Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the referral of a bill to a committee. We are seeking to suspend standing orders today to bring forward a motion to ensure that in this place, here in the Senate, we can get to do our job properly. There's a piece of legislation that's about to be tabled in the House of Representatives that no-one has really seen—no-one has looked at the detail—and it has not been through a proper process, yet the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peter Dutton, want to have it rammed through this place in under two days. Why do they want to ram this piece of legislation through this chamber by the end of tomorrow? Because they are doing this under the cover of the federal budget, because it is a bill that guts environmental protection. It's a bill that will condemn wildlife in our country to extinction. It is a bill that will give loopholes to corporations to continue to pollute and trash our natural environment, no questions asked. It is a bill that fundamentally undermines any promises that this government has made to protect Australia's environment in this term of the parliament. It shows that this Labor government cannot be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to caring for and looking after our environment. It shows that every time the Labor Party is under pressure from the big, foreign corporations who want to continue to trash, pollute and destroy, they go weak. They go weak because they don't have the guts to stand up to them and to stand up for the protection of our natural environment. How are they getting this done? They are entering into a stinking, rotten deal with Peter Dutton. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party are cuddling up together to do the bidding of the big, stinking, rotten corporations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Hanson-Young, can I remind you to use proper titles. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Mr Dutton and Mr Albanese, the leaders of the Labor and Liberal parties, are showing they've got more care for the stinking, rotten salmon industry in this country than they do for our wildlife or for our environment. The reason this bill needs to go to a Senate inquiry is that it is written in such a broad way. The Prime Minister will want you to believe that it is only about the rotten salmon washing up on the shores and beaches in Tasmania. He'll want to tell the people on the mainland in Australia, 'It's okay; Tasmanians can deal with the rotten salmon but we will look after you on the mainland.' But this bill has such broad, sweeping powers that it undermines environmental protection across the board. This will allow a carve-out and a loophole not just for the rotten salmon industry but also for the fossil fuel industry, for the logging industry, for the big polluters, for the small polluters and for the environmental wreckers. This bill guts environmental protection in the name of profits for the big corporations, in the name of the stinking, rotten politics that dominates the thinking of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. On the eve of the election, under the cover of the federal budget, the Labor Party and Mr Dutton are working together in a stinking, rotten deal to cut environmental protection, to ram through legislation in the middle of the night while no-one is watching. The Senate hasn't even had the opportunity to do its job. We oppose this piece of legislation because it's rotten. It stinks. The Senate should be able to do its job, because the ramifications of this bill for the environment, for other wildlife species, for other parts of nature, for the community and for industry are virtually unknown. This bill was put together in a hasty way so that the Prime Minister had something to sell on his next trip down to Tasmania. This is all about rank, stinking, rotten politics. It is not about policy, it is not about giving the community a voice and it certainly isn't about doing the right thing by the environment. The Prime Minister wants us to chew down on the rotten salmon, and we won't have it. 12:47 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania What we have here is a government that is trying to do something it should have done a very long time ago. While we don't support the reference of this bill to an inquiry and we don't agree with some of the points made there, one thing we can all agree on is that this government has handled the situation before us terribly with regard to the salmon industry in Tasmania, which is why we have legislation here. The only reason there is a bill that has been brought in at the eleventh hour to remedy this terrible, sorry saga is that the Minister for the Environment and Water has not done her job. Salmon workers in the electorate of Braddon in Tasmania have been facing this situation for more than a year—nearly 18 months. For two Christmases, these salmon workers have had no certainty about their employment. Those opposite said: 'We're going to follow process. We're going to follow the laws.' That was until the minister told her party, the government, 'We aren't going to do anything about it.' So the Prime Minister has been forced to bring in legislation relating to this issue. The more bizarre thing about this is who has brought it in. I don't think it's under the minister for environment's name. I don't think it stands in her name; I think it stands in someone else's name, which I find passing strange, given it is a bill to amend the EPBC Act. It does rather speak to some very deep divides within this government. We read reports yesterday with regard to how long the Labor Party's caucus meeting to deal with this issue went on. There are people who are not happy within the government, which makes me wonder whether they are going to stick to their guns with this promise they're making, these laws that they've brought before the parliament. The Prime Minister promised these laws on 15 February—over a month ago—and on that day we wrote to the Prime Minister and said: 'We'd like to see these laws. This is urgent. We've been calling on you to fix this now for the better part of 18 months.' We didn't get a reply, so we chased up with phone calls, we sought briefings and we said we would make ourselves available at any time, anywhere, to understand the legislation they intended to bring in. We got our briefing and the copy of the bill yesterday afternoon, the day before parliament sat and the bill was introduced into the other place. I dare say it was the same for the crossbench as well. That is not good government; that is not good process. I understand why the Australian Greens are frustrated, because this has been rushed in here in the hopes that they can fix a political issue. Rather, it highlights how desperate they're becoming, when, in order to get this thing through the Labor caucus, the Prime Minister has to commit to reintroducing legislation he promised would not come back in the form of the environment protection authority. We were told that in the state of Western Australia. The Prime Minister himself flew over there and took the entire cabinet to assure the mining industry that it was going to be okay. He said: 'There'll be no EPA under me. We will not be legislating to establish a new federal EPA. Don't worry about it.' Then, of course, we learned that secret deals were done between the crossbench and the minister for the environment. We had those big pages of black ink where the details of the deals were redacted. We still don't know what was in them, but here is the Prime Minister saying to his party room: 'Look, I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. We have to pass these laws to win the seats of Braddon and Lyons, and, as a sweetener, we're going to give you an EPA.' It is an EPA we oppose. We say it is bad for jobs and for the economy. In fact, we'll probably unpick anything that the legislation which is the subject of this motion will establish. You have a minister for the environment who has refused to act for 18 months, even at the request of the Prime Minister—so much so that he has been forced to bring in legislation to work around his minister. How is that for good, stable government or good process? It's not in her name. It rather alarms me that this is the situation we're in. We are not even 100 per cent sure that we have a bill that does what it needs to, so we'll see whether amendments need to be made. We have a government going into an election that, if the polls are to be believed, will probably see them end up in a minority government with our good friends down here the Australian Greens. How do you think this little set-up is going to withstand a partnership arrangement? Not very well at all, I would argue. I dare say the people of Braddon and of Lyons whose livelihoods depend on this industry that we're supposed to be protecting here at the eleventh hour would not survive. So I say to the government that we will be opposing this motion, but this government has handled this entire issue appallingly. It is clearly a political fix—not a proper one that should be afforded to the people of Tasmania. 12:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, it's budget day, so the non-government parties are doing their thing, which is a bit of political grandstanding to try to desperately get themselves into a media cycle. Senator McKim JKM This is actually you colluding with them! Senator WONG 00AOU I listened to her in silence. I listened to Senator Hanson-Young in silence. Thank you. We had Senator Cash trying to bring forward a private senator's bill to talk about the CFMEU, because you don't want us to talk about anything other than the cost of living and health or anything other than Medicare and the secret cuts that we know the coalition is planning. Now we have Senator Hanson-Young, who wants to have a debate that she knows she can have tomorrow, but she just wants to have two goes at it. Meanwhile, we know that on the program for the Senate to debate is the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. I'd say to Senator Waters that you are very keen to pass this but not so keen that you would say to Senator Hanson-Young, 'Maybe we won't do the stunt today, because we've got plenty of time to have this argument after we've dealt with the women's gender equality amendment.' It's a bill that could have been passed in February, a bill which is about women's economic security and a bill which the opposition previously supported but now has backflipped on. I would encourage the Senate to get to that legislation which this government wants passed. With that, I move: That the motion be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the motion moved by Minister Wong to put the question be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:58]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)

 28 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 15 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 13:01 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [13:01]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bragg)

 15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 10 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 10 Order for the Production of Documents 10 13:04 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Our government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in continuing to reform the NDIS to get it back on track and to ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the support from the opposition for working together with the government to this end and for voting in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, which passed the parliament on 22 August 2024. The NDIS bill received the royal assent on 5 September 2024 and commenced operation on 3 October 2024. On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released on 7 December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than 1,000 people with a disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions in response to the terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. The NDIS bill was the first legislative step by this government to ensuring this annual growth target is achieved. Following passage of the NDIS bill, discussions will continue with senators across this chamber, as well as members of the other place, to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda that it is pursuing together with the disability community. We look forward to continuing to work with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. In relation to the order being discussed, the government have previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested document, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in addition to the aforementioned review. 13:07 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. In this budget week, I am reminded of the budget just two years ago that slashed billions from the NDIS. This was the Labor government's very first full budget, and the first thing that they did was cut the agency responsible for disability support. They did all of this under the guise of the message headlined 'We'll fix the NDIS'. I asked for the financial sustainability framework in May 2023, only to be told by this government that it did not exist and then that it did exist but we still couldn't have it. Two years later, this is the 19th time that I am again asking Labor to disclose the financial sustainability framework that underpinned, and still underpins, the government's cuts to the scheme. Why is this so important? It's because that sustainability framework was the reason for the existence of the legislation passed by this government against the express wishes of the disability community, our families and our allies in July of last year and that legislation has resulted in over 26,000 reassessments of participants' eligibility. Following these reassessments, over 10,200 participant have lost access to the scheme. These cuts have seen participants and their families thrown unceremoniously into absolute chaos. I'll give you one example: a participant was kicked off the scheme because the NDIS did not believe they had enough evidence of a permanent disability, despite the agency having received 25 pieces of evidence from the participant's file to make that decision. That was 25 pieces of individual reporting, including from psychiatrists, clinical psychs, behavioural support practitioners, occupational therapists, clinical nurses and social workers. It was not good enough, though, for this Labor government. This participant was kicked off the scheme with no supports available, even though the state and territory supports that they're now meant to access do not exist yet. In fact, there isn't even a definition, an agreed idea between the states and territories and the Commonwealth, as to what those supports should be. Without supports, disabled people and our families face very real, very significant risks to our safety, our health and our quality of life. So we have this situation where the states, the territories and the Commonwealth have teamed up to cut the NDIS to save themselves some money. This Labor government refuses to be transparent about that decision. Disabled people lose supports, and there is nothing for us to turn to. While we're at it, let's just recap Labor's track record since being in government in these last few years. Billions of dollars have been cut from the NDIS. They have refused to disclose basic documentation to justify their decisions. There has been no transparency in relation to legislative changes and there has been a completely botched IT system that is creating so much havoc in the lives of so many people. And now, of course, we see coming down the track towards us the implementation of a so-called 'supports needs assessment' that sounds a heck of a lot like the failed independent assessments that the Liberals tried to force on us. And this is just the shortened version of the betrayal, of the underhanded gaslighting from this Labor government that they have perpetrated upon so many disabled people and their families. Well, we're not going to take it anymore. We have tried 19 times to get this information out of you. You're not going to give it to us, so the next thing that we do together is go out to the ballot box and vote for a parliament that will deliver the actual information that is demanded and the transparency and support needed for disabled people and our families. 13:12 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales This might actually be the last time I rise in this place to speak about the NDIS, and I do acknowledge Senator Steele-John, the work that we have done over the past six years on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, work that we have done through the community affairs committee and the work that we have done on every occasion in here demanding this information. With the chamber's indulgence and the chair's indulgence, I'm going to go through what the lack of clarity means for families and means for families like mine. I leave here in great trepidation for what will happen to the NDIS as the parent of a participant who is someone who actually needs the scheme to be sustainable because, when I'm no longer around, when his father is no longer around, my son will need lifelong supports. He has a significant, permanent, lifelong disability, so I need it to be sustainable. I am frightened beyond words that, when I leave this place, no-one will care about that. People will not care because, if you are not part of the NDIS, it's just something that's overblown; it's just something that's costing too much money. But if you, or a loved one, are relying on it to have a quality of life, this is one of the most important issues you and your family face. I had my son's plan meeting a couple of months ago. It took us over three weeks to get the new plan. His plan was due to expire when I sent a message to someone at the agency to say: 'Hey; his plan expires tomorrow. I still haven't got the new one. What happens?' Then it miraculously arrived that afternoon in the new PACE system. It arrived with a cut. So, for everyone playing along at home, just know that it doesn't matter if you're the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, it doesn't matter if you're the shadow assistant minister for the NDIS, it doesn't matter if you've been an advocate for your son for in excess of 13 years and an advocate in the space of children with profound autism and it doesn't matter how well you know the scheme and understand the scheme; participants who need support, participants with permanent and significant and lifelong disabilities, are having their supports cut. We were told by Minister Shorten that there would not be cuts to plans. That was a lie because I can tell you that my son's plan was cut. We had an incident yesterday at his special needs school that absolutely demonstrates why he needs the supports that the OT wrote into the report that cost me a lot of money to have done. The CEO of the NDIA told us at estimates just a few weeks ago that they don't read the reports, so it was a waste of time, effort and money, and the people who are going to suffer the most from this are my son and his family because of the impacts that these changes are going to have on him. Now, I will make it work. I'll fund what I need to fund and do what I need to do to make it work because I know how hard it is for families to go to the tribunal to get appeals and to go through the review process. Quite frankly, after six years of advocacy in this place and, honestly, hitting my head against a brick wall, I don't have it in me to go to the tribunal. And it's not worth it; the cut is not worth doing that. What I do know as well is that millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars are being spent on lawyers, on fighting families who are not getting the supports that they need, for only three per cent of cases to ever go to the tribunal or to not be settled beforehand to give these families exactly what they were asking for in the first place. So the agency is spending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to fight families who are not getting the supports that they need only to ultimately give them what they want on the steps of the tribunal. It is a disgrace. When we talk about efficiencies, which is part of the framework that we're looking at—how they are going to get to the growth—let me tell you that, when moving from the old system to the PACE system, something as simple as bank account details did not transfer over. So, when I went to put in the first of Fred's claims for his new plan, the bank account details didn't transfer. In the old system, you could just go in and update your bank details or change your bank details, but, no, now you have to call the agency and speak to them. They told me: 'We hope that works. Try again in 24 hours.' If that is an efficiency move, I am speechless. I am afraid about what will happen to this scheme when I leave. Senator Steele-John, you and I don't agree on everything, but we do agree on sustainability. We need this to be for the people it was intended to be for, we need it to support the families that need it the most, and there needs to be transparency and support for this vital scheme. 13:18 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia It is with a great deal of sadness that I rise to speak on this motion for the 19th time. I rise with sadness because I reflect on the fact that, four years ago, as the Minister for the NDIS, I saw very, very clearly that this was a scheme that needed significant reform because the original legislation was deeply flawed. The federal government, who was responsible for all of the cost overruns, not the states and territories, had no way of impacting the levers of the insurance scheme—that is, the number of participants in the scheme and the average cost per participant. We also needed to fundamentally reform the intergovernmental agreements with each state and territory so that they had the financial incentive to ensure that this scheme was sustainable. I reached out to Bill Shorten, the shadow minister at the time, and I said: 'These are the reforms that we need to do. Will you work with us?' He agreed to two tranches of reforms for participant protections, which were very important, as long as we didn't tell anyone that he'd actually agreed to them. I'm very proud that we got those pieces of legislation through, but I'm deeply saddened that Bill Shorten instead took the option that he always takes, and that is to play the basest of politics with the lives of the now nearly 700,000 people on the NDIS and their millions of family members. Had Bill Shorten and the Labor Party had the political courage and the decency to work with us to genuinely reform this scheme to ensure that it was sustainable, today, four years later, it would be a very different scheme. It would be a scheme for those it was designed for, the 350,000 or so Australians who had permanent and serious disabilities. They were treated appallingly, largely in state-run facilities, where they were abused. They weren't treated with dignity or respect, and they lived the most miserable of lives. The scheme was designed for those Australians. I think both sides of the chamber have responsibility for the flawed design, but equally we both have a responsibility to fix this scheme. Instead, 19 times the minister has come to this place and said, 'We've run yet another review of this scheme.' There had already been thirty reviews before the government spent the last three years reviewing this scheme. So what have they done? Instead of reforming the scheme, they have made huge, extraordinary, arbitrary cuts to people's plans. They are no further along in dealing with the states and territories in terms of the intergovernmental agreements. As this is likely my last speech on the NDIS, I implore those opposite: after this election, stop taking the easy and politically expedient way and actually work on a multipartisan basis on this scheme. We and the Greens have always been willing to work together with you. Do not allow the political pollution that Bill Shorten has brought into this scheme. Work with us to reform the scheme. Ensure that those who need the scheme the most have certainty for the rest of their lives and, as Senator Hughes so poignantly just said, that their families understand that their children will be taken care of. They are the most terrified people at the moment, as a result of the politics of those opposite. They are desperately concerned that this scheme will implode and they will be back where they started over a decade ago. Yes, we need to make sure that the 12 per cent—in fact, closer to 15 per cent under those opposite—of young boys with autism are on the scheme. Those with the severest form of autism, of course, should be on the scheme, but, with so many other disability types, they should be getting the support in their communities from the state government. After this election, every level of government has to stand up and do the right thing together. Question agreed to. BILLS 13 BILLS Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 13

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

Second Reading 13 13:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise today to continue my remarks on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. The Greens welcome this bill. It is a step in the right direction. We want to see this bill passed without further delay. We were ready to pass it the last time we were here. I'm grateful that it's listed today. Let's hope we can get it done. For years we have been calling for an obligation to not just identify a gender pay gap but to actually close it, particularly for large employers. So it's disappointing that today's bill requires only employers with over 500 workers to take action. In our view, that number should be reduced to 100 workers, and that's one of the amendments that I'll be moving. The 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? I'll also be moving an amendment that requires employers to have a target to close the gender pay gap by a certain amount. There are lots of other good, positive targets that employers can choose from, but the fact that they don't have to pick one that will actually close the gender pay gap is a problem. My amendment would fix that. The government could also stop giving contracts to employers who maintain a gender pay gap and are doing nothing to close it. Unfortunately, though, this bill makes complying with gender pay rules a mere consideration when awarding government contracts. That's not good enough; it should be an absolute barrier. Labor should not be subsidising discrimination. If you're not closing your gender pay gap, you shouldn't get a government contract. That's what my third amendment will do. Sadly, I'm not expecting support for the three amendments that I'll move, on behalf of the Greens, to strengthen gender pay gap action. In fact, I don't believe the Liberal and National parties are supporting the bill at all. The bare minimum is being asked of them, but they're not even able to come up to that. I'm not surprised, though; this is from a party that has an abysmal record on women's rights, a party that's railed against a woman's right to choose and a party that's repeatedly allowed hateful and misogynistic behaviour within these very walls. The coalition's contempt for women is clear. In recent preselections they've chosen just one woman and six blokes to contest the seats their sitting MPs are leaving—so they clearly still have a women problem. And they're now backing in Trump's antidiversity moves. In January Mr Dutton said, 'Positions like culture, diversity and inclusion advisers, change managers and internal communications specialists could be cut because such positions do nothing to improve the lives of everyday Australians.' Senator Price said: There's so much within the space (of DEI) that takes away from the actual day to day work of getting things done. Perhaps that's why they are voting against this bill today. They're being overt about their anti-equality agenda and they're trying to emulate Trump as much as possible, and I think they'll suffer the electoral consequences of that. I don't think Australians want Trumpism here, and they are scared to their teeth that that's what they're seeing from the opposition. Not only that, they do a lot of damage to people. Let's think about the last time the coalition were in government. They cut millions of dollars in funding to frontline services supporting women fleeing violence. They presided over a decade of inaction on gender based violence and economic inequality. Under their watch, the gender pay gap stagnated and access to affordable child care remained out of reach for all but a privileged few—a problem that, sadly, we still have today. Let's be clear; the Liberal and National parties have repeatedly shown their disdain for women. Australian women cannot risk going backwards. If elected, Mr Dutton—he hasn't stopped there; he's gone on his anti-DEI rant, but he's also vowed to repeal working from home for public servants, which would undoubtedly make working life harder for women and workers who might be juggling caring responsibilities or health challenges. We cannot risk another decade of Liberal-National inaction, ever. Women are absolutely over it and women are tired of waiting for fairness. I'm pleased this bill has been listed on the Notice Paper today. I'm hoping the coalition doesn't just talk it out so that we can't get to a vote to pass these improvements. They're not as strong as the Greens want, but they are a step in the right direction, and we will keep pushing for real action to close the gap not in 15 years but now. Women need to be paid what they deserve across every industry, at every level and in every role. It's the last sitting week of parliament and this is our last chance to get action on the gender pay gap. Let's do it by passing this legislation now. 13:29 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to speak on the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024. Labor believes equality for women is not just an add-on or afterthought but absolutely fundamental to our economy and to our society. This is what happens when your government reflects the society that it serves. We are very proud to be the first gender-equal government in Australia's national history— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The time has expired. We will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 14 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Tobacco Regulation 14 13:30 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Australia is not an experiment, and its people are not test subjects, but many times we see legislation that, while proposed for some good reasons, looks at things that just don't work in practice, and we get smacked in the face by reality. There are two things I want to talk about in relation to this. The first is our legislation on illegal tobacco and vaping. Today is budget day, and we're talking about a loss over the forward estimates of $31 billion to $32 billion in sales tax, rebates and excise on tobacco. Who is it being lost to? It's being lost to organised crime, to the crime gangs out there. The numbers are horrific. In the last two years the premises of over 200 tobacconists have been burned to the ground. These are people who did not want to submit to these crime gangs and sell their illegal goods. They're out there, and this move to illegal tobacco is costing Australia $36 billion in excise. They are burning down buildings. They are putting real business owners under threat. A person may have been killed in a burning like this. The reality is that we are taxing too much. The World Health Organization were one of the first to come out and say that taxation, raising the price, was one measure we could use to stop smoking, but they themselves have recognised that if the price goes up too far then people will avoid paying the tax, avoid the legal mechanisms. That's what's happening. It is costing Australia money and costing people their livelihoods, and this policy is driving up profits for organised crime. We can't have that. It is not the intention to drive a debate on the CFMEU—on criminals in the CFMEU and the union thing. That is an unintended consequence. The purpose of excise is not to drive people into criminal gangs, but we're doing it. Our policy is helping the very people we should be punishing in this area. We've had enough. It is time to get a sensible policy with sensible excise and to protect Australians in Australia. Federal Election 14 13:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria In just a few weeks time Australians will have a clear choice to make about our future in this country: building Australia's future under Labor or going backwards under Mr Dutton and the Liberals. Take Australia's manufacturing industry: after a decade under the Liberals, Australia's manufacturing industry collapsed. The Liberals drove our car manufacturing industry off a cliff and more than 50,000 Australian jobs went with it. When it comes to health, Mr Dutton's record is a disgrace. He tried to jack up the cost of medicines. He cut $50 billion from our public hospitals. He was voted the worst health minister on record by Australia's doctors. What is Mr Dutton's plan for Australia's future? No surprises—it's cuts. It includes $350 billion cut from the budget; 36,000 public sector jobs cut; and work-from-home rights cut, hurting Australia's working women and families. This isn't a plan for Australia's future; it is a blueprint for ripping apart the fabric of our society. Labor wants to keep building Australia's future. We're bringing Australian manufacturing back onshore. We are investing in Australian-made steel and aluminium and processing our critical minerals here. We'll use them to back local jobs and build a renewable energy future right here in Australia. We are strengthening Medicare, with $25 PBS scripts. We are making record investments in bulk-billing. We are investing in more Medicare urgent care clinics. We're building a stronger education system, with full funding for public schools for the first time ever. We are delivering a three-day guarantee for early childhood education and cutting student debt by 20 per cent. The only thing Mr Dutton is cutting is $350 billion from Australian families. Television Sports Broadcasts 15 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Watching the football on a Saturday has long been a family staple in many households right across the country. But, of course, thanks to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, who last year colluded to pass legislation to lock Australians out of being able to watch their footy on free-to-air, that's no longer the case. A deal between the Murdoch owned Foxtel and the AFL has meant that football on Saturday is now not free. You've got to whack out your credit card in order to watch your favourite team play. Last weekend, the Adelaide Crows and Port Power were both playing, and South Australians couldn't watch it for free. They couldn't watch it without getting out their credit card, signing up, having a subscription and having to pay. This is un-Australian, anti-sport and anti-community. The Greens fought hard to stop both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party doing this last year, yet they rammed through the legislation in the middle of a busy week at the end of the last winter session. Let me tell you, the Greens will introduce legislation to reverse this and to put football back on free-to-air. The Greens will act, because neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party will. They've locked Australians out of being able to watch their footy for free, and the Greens will bring it back. If you care about footy, don't vote for these two mobs; vote for the Greens. Bui, Dr Cuong Trong, AM 15 13:36 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland This year marks the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon to the Communists. It marks the 50th anniversary of the great exodus of Vietnamese people seeking safety and freedom, many of whom have found a home in Australia. It is a time to recognise the contribution our wonderful Australian Vietnamese community has made to our country over the last 50 years. It is in that context that I pay tribute to a great Australian Dr Cuong Trong Bui, the president of the Queensland chapter of the Vietnamese Community in Australia. He passed away just this month. Dr Cuong Bui was an outstanding leader and an example for all Australians. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his outstanding community service. In 2022, he was elevated to become a Member of the Order of Australia. After his elevation to become a Member of the Order of Australia, I presented Dr Bui with a flag that had flown in this place. When he accepted that flag, Dr Bui accepted it on behalf of the entire Queensland Vietnamese community. The regard in which Dr Bui was held by the Queensland community was reflected in the attendance at his funeral service on 15 March 2024. Hundreds and hundreds of people were in attendance—not only members of the Vietnamese community but also members of the wider community, including other multicultural communities who recognised Dr Bui's service which includes his service as a founding member of the Queensland Multicultural Council. Dr Cuong Bui and his family are part of that story, over the last 50 years, of the contribution made to our beautiful country by the Australian Vietnamese community. Cost of Living, Rural and Regional Health Services 15 13:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Tonight, our good friend the Treasurer, Mr Jim Chalmers, will hand down Labor's fourth budget and will reaffirm this government's commitment to responsible economic management and a fair go for all Australians. In stark contrast, this morning the shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, showed he has no answer to Australia's concerns about cost of living. The only policies he's offered up are his free lunches for bosses and secret cuts that he believes Australians do not deserve to know about till after the election. Peter Dutton and his secret cuts for Medicare, aged care, education and health do not deliver for the people of Australia. Particularly for the resilient and hardworking people who live in the communities of Parkes, Hume, Riverina, Farrer, Lyne and Calare, he's really got nothing to offer. Joining me in the chamber today is Dr Julie Cunningham, Labor's candidate for Calare, who I hope will be sitting on the Greens benches in a re-elected Labor government after the election. In less than three years, Labor has delivered historic investment in regional New South Wales. In my duty electorates, that means an urgent care clinic in Albury—and one for Bathurst too if we are re-elected—and Medicare mental health centres in Wagga, and there's almost certainly one opening very soon in Young. It means $29.9 million for the Wagga Wagga mental health hub. It means $10.6 million for the Brewarrina PCYC Youth Hub and Indoor Sports Centre, $6.5 million towards the Emmaus dementia village in Port Macquarie and $4.1 million for the John Houston Memorial Olympic Pool in Hay. It means $1 million for Moree Secondary College, almost $1 million for new multipurpose courts at Wallamba Netball Club at Nabiac, $900,000 for Boggabilla Central School, $25,000 for Yandelora School in Narellan and $450,000 for Gilgandra High School. It means $2.5 million for dementia beds at the Apollo care centre in Wauchope, $5 million for Glenroi Heights Public School in Orange and $500,000 for Macarthur— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator; your time has expired. Senator O'Neill 140651 But I have— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator O'Neill, your time has expired. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Can I remind senators that interjections are disorderly. Tasmania: Fishery Industry 16 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It doesn't seem to matter how many opinion polls the major parties read about their falling popularity. They just don't get the message. Australians don't trust the major parties. They say one thing in opposition and then another when they're in government, they're not transparent, and they put their political careers before the needs of Australians. You see them come in here with great intentions and have these great speeches they put on, and all of a sudden they're sucked up by the vacuum of the party. 'Just stay there and be silent; otherwise, you're never going to make it to the frontbench'—that's how it works in here. The Labor Party announce 150 bucks off power—not means tested, by the way, because they're such fiscal people over this side!—and what do you know? The blue team supports them. You know what, there must be an election coming up. That's right: there's an election coming up. And the reason you in government have had, to give them that, is you've not fixed the energy problem, so don't start coming at me from that side. Then the Labor Party announced their dirty salmon bill last week, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Reconsiderations) Bill 2025. It's a bill that lets salmon companies off the hook. Mining companies have to clean up after themselves, but apparently the salmon companies get let off the hook. Mining companies have to abide by the environmental laws. But, apparently, no, no, there's a free pass to the dirty stinking salmon over here because the Labor Party and Liberal Party think it will give them a better chance of winning those electoral seats in Braddon and Lyons. How's that going for you? You let me know how that goes for Braddon and Lyons, because you obviously haven't got your boots on. You're not listening to them. They think your dirty stinking salmon sucks. It is filth, and it is going to cause harm to Brand Tasmania. But you don't care because you don't have your boots on. You get the big packets of pay in those brown paper bags, and you buy your states. Well, get your boots on, because we don't want that stinking salmon in that harbour. Queensland: Natural Disasters 16 13:42 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise today to talk about an ex. Like many exes, this one left behind a trail of destruction and heartbreak. Yes, I'm talking about Alfred. I want to take this moment to thank the many volunteers and frontline services, the SES, the councils and even the Australian Defence Force, who sandbagged, who got out there, who prepared and who were on hand literally in the eye of the storm. But I also want to thank those who come along afterwards to help clean up and mop up and to offer support when people are feeling that heartbreak. Thank you to Disaster Relief Australia volunteers, who come in and help with the clean-up, the logistics and the management of recovery efforts. Thank you to the many insurance assessors—yes, believe it or not—and the call centres who are currently dealing with more than 74,000 claims and counting. Please, I ask them, make it as easy as possible for the claimants. Thank you to the charities like GIVIT who are on the ground assisting, assessing the need but also making sure that charity dollars are spent in communities to help local economies recover. And thank you to the stayers—organisations like the Red Cross and others who work in the community recovery centres, who sit down and work with people to support them and address their needs. Those volunteers are there not just for the days and the weeks but for the months and the years that it takes for some of our most traumatised communities to recover. To all those quiet volunteers and supporters I say a very sincere and heartfelt thank you. Cragg, Mr David Keith (Craggy) 17 13:44 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise today to pay tribute to a Labor true believer, David Cragg, who, sadly, passed away recently. A warrior in social democratic values, 'Craggy', as he was affectionately known, was a fixture of the labour movement. He was one of the friendliest, most academically minded and most well-respected people that I've come across in my 25 years in the party. A staunch supporter of workers, David spent his entire career representing them; first as an organiser with the Federated Ironworkers Association in 1986, then at the Victorian branch of the Australian Workers Union from 1991 to 2009 and later as assistant secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council until he retired in 2018. He also worked as an adviser to former senator Robert Ray. Throughout his life, David was a patriot on a number of human rights causes, particularly the rights of minorities living under authoritarian regimes and the need for Magnitsky style sanctions in Australia. He was also a principled supporter of the State of Israel and the United States alliance, even when those causes weren't always shared with comrades in the movement. David always made time to grab a coffee, sharing his knowledge and his wisdom with others with such warmth and enthusiasm. That was David. This was the case for me during my last catch-up with him, over a coffee with Tonya Stevens when she last visited Australia. With his trademark double thumbs-up paired with a heartfelt 'God bless you', he spread his generous spirit and positivity with everyone he crossed paths with. God bless you, Craggy. May you rest in peace. Environment 17 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'd like to do a special shout-out in the Australian Senate today for a very special young man, Spencer Hitchen. Spencer and his family are in Parliament House today. Spencer's been going on a personal journey for a number of months to learn about the endangered maugean skate, and he came into the Australian parliament today to meet with me and other parliamentarians. Spencer is a young environmentalist and educator who's now got an international following, and I wanted to recognise him and his generation for taking the time to learn about the potential extinction of a species. In Parliament House today, I'd also like to give a big shout-out to all the community groups that have come here to speak to politicians to tell them not to pass this toxic legislation that will be before the Senate tomorrow to give a special favour to Labor mates in the salmon industry. Environment Tasmania, Neighbours of Fish Farming, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, the Bob Brown Foundation, the Australia Institute—these are the people that we are supposed to represent in this parliament, not the special interests of big, foreign owned, multinational companies in this country that pay no tax and are pushing a species to the brink of extinction. I'd also like to give a very, very special shout-out to the protesters from the Bob Brown Foundation who protested this legislation in the Marble Foyer today. How sad is it that people are being forced to come and protest because we are not doing the job of representing them in this place? That's what it's come to. The politics of this special favour for the salmon industry that's going to pass through this parliament is as rotten as the salmon that's now washing up on our shores. It is corruption, and it needs to be called out for what it is. Environmental Legislation 17 13:48 Senator DAVID 256136 Australian Capital Territory POCOCK () (): This week the major parties are teaming up yet again to ram through bad legislation without any scrutiny. Our laws are again being changed to suit vested interests while the community loses out. A month ago, it was the major parties feathering their own nests and locking out competition through an electoral reform stitch-up. Before that, it was a shelving of a federal environment regulator to appease the mining and fossil fuel industries in WA. We now hear the Labor Party caucus has rolled over to the Prime Minister on the basis of a promise that he will bring back the EPA next term. This morning, the PM was on the radio claiming that the EPA could not pass because there wasn't support in the Senate. This is wrong, and I'm calling on the Prime Minister to correct the record. The Greens and other crossbenchers cut a deal with the environment minister to pass the EPA bill, and that's in writing. But the PM intervened at the last minute to make a captain's call and deny Australians the EPA promised by Labor at the last election. Here we have another captain's call from the Prime Minister. We are seeing echoes of former prime minister Scott Morrison, intervening over the top of ministers for political self-interest. It seems like the irony is lost on this government. You came in promising so much. You came in off an electorate that voted for change and action on nature, and yet you're here, taking us backwards. I hope Australians see this for what it is and actually see who you're serving in this place, because it certainly isn't them. Housing 18 13:50 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales The Australian dream has long been built on the foundation of homeownership, yet this dream is increasingly slipping out of reach for so many due to Labor's housing crisis, compounded by their cost-of-living crisis. This became even clearer during roundtables I attended, hosted by the Housing Industry Association. I would like to express my gratitude to our outstanding candidates, Laurence Antcliff for Paterson and Emma King for Shortland, for driving these important conversations. Sadly, these roundtables confirmed the growing severity of the housing crisis under this government. On every key metric, housing has worsened under their watch. The government is on track to fall short of its target to deliver 1.2 million new homes by over 400,000 houses. The data is damning, yet the Prime Minister continues to rely on his unfulfilled promises. However, the coalition is the party of housing supply and homeownership through our various commitments to improving this crisis. We are committed to helping first-time buyers by allowing them to access up to $50,000 of their own super to purchase a home because we want Australians to be able to own their own home. Additionally, we'll unlock the potential for 500,000 new homes through our $5 billion housing infrastructure program because we want Australians to be able to own their own homes. We will sensibly manage migration levels that our housing supply can accommodate and implement a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes. This will free up some 40,000 homes in the first year alone, because we want Australians to be able to own their own home. The coalition is committed to restoring the dream and opportunity of homeownership in our country. Queensland: Parliamentary Representation 18 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This is my last opportunity to speak directly with the Australian people in the 47th Parliament. I thank Queenslanders for the opportunity you've given me on two occasions, in 2016 and 2019, to represent your interests in the Senate. It's an honour to serve you, and I hope the duty that comes with service has shown in my work. I'm contesting the Senate election in Queensland with One Nation. I look forward to continuing my service to the people of Queensland and Australia in the 48th Parliament. I thank my wife, Christine, for her continued love and support in what can be a demanding role. I'm standing in this election because Australians deserve honest representation and the Albanese Labor government must be defeated. Under Labor, Australians and Australian families have gone backwards further than at any time since the Great Depression 95 years ago. How can a government fail so badly and still have the hide to ask for the public's vote? As I travel across Queensland I hear many stories of life becoming harder, families having to choose between buying groceries and paying bills, and stories of rents or mortgages which can only be paid for by foregoing spending in other areas. I hear stories of young Australians who've studied hard, graduated with a degree or trade, who have a good job and still can't pay their rent and their HECS debt, let alone save for their own home, and who now feel betrayed and robbed. Australia has imported so many people in such a short space of time that falling living standards for those already here were foreseeable. Indeed, 29 years ago Senator Pauline Hanson warned Australia this would happen. I will continue my campaign against the UN and against the World Economic Forum and their billionaire owners who have our Prime Minister on speed dial. I will continue my campaign to bring those responsible for harm during COVID to justice. The hardship many are feeling can be turned around, and One Nation's election platform will do just that. It's time to vote differently for a change—a real change. Vote One Nation and let us restore wealth and opportunity for all. Homelessness 18 13:54 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland It is disgraceful that, during a housing and homelessness crisis, Moreton Bay local council, followed closely by Brisbane City Council, announced that they would be evicting homeless people living in tents from parks and public spaces—not evicting them into any form of housing but just moving them on with absolutely nowhere to go. This is a step towards criminalising homelessness. And Moreton Bay council, I might add, has the longest social housing waiting list in all of Queensland. We know that there are about 37,800 people experiencing persistent homelessness around Australia, and more than one-third of those are women and children affected by family, sexual and domestic violence. These thousands of Australians have been abandoned to long-term homelessness because successive governments have chronically underfunded housing and homelessness support services. They've been abandoned to long-term homelessness because the two major parties prefer to spend more on tax handouts to wealthy property investors than they do on housing and homelessness support. Every single person in this country deserves a secure place to call home and support to stay in housing for the long term. The Greens are fighting to make housing a right and for policies that put people first. Our plan to end homelessness would provide 50,000 permanent homes with wraparound support services to those experiencing chronic homelessness. We would double housing and homelessness funding to states and territories for homelessness services and public and community housing, and that's on top of our plan to build homes at prices that people can actually afford through a public property developer, to stop unlimited rent rises and to end the billions in tax breaks to wealthy property investors. We could do this by making the big corporations pay their fair share, including the big banks. With more Greens in parliament, we will take action on the housing— (Time expired) Defence Recruitment 19 13:56 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Since my questioning in estimates of the Defence Force about recruitment, I have been overwhelmed by a large number of constituents who have contacted me to say that they have been unable to enter the Defence Force. What's particularly worrying about this is that the application process for our young men and women in this country to join the Defence Force is taking not months but years. And, in many cases, these applicants have been told that they aren't suitable for our Defence Force. Questions really need to be asked of the Defence Force. Why are they taking so long to process so many young, patriotic Australians? Why are they are actually knocking back so many young patriotic Australians who are more than capable of serving in the military? Many of the families that have contacted me are actually long-serving, multigenerational military families. Clearly their children—their young adults—are keen to join the military. They have a love for their country and they want to serve their country, so I can't, for the life of me, understand why the military is dragging the chain on this. And it's not only disappointing that many of these young people can't join the military; it's also disappointing that it's taking so long. Some of these people have finished high school. They want to actually join the Army or the Air Force straight out of high school and they've waited over a year, only to be eventually knocked back. That is not good enough. I call on the Australian Defence Force to lift their game in terms of the speed it takes to process these applications and not to be so selective in knocking back our young, patriotic Australians who are fit and able-bodied and are keen to serve their country. Leader of the Opposition 19 13:58 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Could the coalition possibly be in more disarray than they are today? You'd think, after nearly a decade of chaos in government and three years in opposition, that they might have developed some policy ideas by now. So far, all we've heard from the Leader of the Opposition is a series of thought bubbles that evaporate into thin air, quite often before lunchtime. Take last week, for example. We heard that Mr Dutton wanted to have a referendum on deporting dual citizens that break the law. Where have I heard about that before? I heard about Mr Dutton's idea at about 9 am, but it soon became clear that he had not consulted with his party on this one. By lunchtime, this latest insane idea was all but dead. Speaking of lunchtime, that leads me to another of the coalition's crazy ideas. Mr Dutton and those opposite want the taxpayers to foot the bill for business lunches. They want taxpayer subsidised business lunches. Is that what this country needs? Forget about education, forget about health care, forget about the economy, forget about energy policy—unless, of course, you include their biggest thought bubble of all, nuclear energy. Remember their nuclear energy idea? All the independent experts agree that it'll be slow to deliver, it's too expensive and, in a renewables-rich country like Australia, it's economic insanity. Mr Dutton won't even reveal what cuts he's going to make until after the election. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time has expired, and we'll move to question time. MINISTRY 19 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 19 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Gallagher will be absent from question time today, obviously on account of commitments related to the presentation of the budget. In her absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letters circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 19 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Thursday last week, at a press conference, the Prime Minister was asked: 'Prime Minister, what did you make of the treatment of women in those allegations that surfaced from that 60 Minutes report?' The Prime Minister's answer was: 'Oh, they were appalling.' He then moved on to take the next question. Minister, do the women bashed, harassed and treated appallingly by CFMEU members in that 60 Minutes report not deserve more than four words from the Prime Minister? Doesn't the Prime Minister of our country have more to say than just four words on this matter of national importance, which is tearing our construction industry apart and costing Australians billions of dollars? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you. First, the allegations and the footage that were aired on 60 Minutes were sickening, and we are very clear that everyone in this country deserves a safe and respectful workplace, and these women should not have been subject to such hostile and offensive behaviour. I understand that Senator Watt has referred the matter to the Victorian Deputy Premier as the Minister for WorkSafe and asked that appropriate action be taken in this jurisdiction, and the allegations of violence have been referred to the Australian Federal Police, where they fall within the AFP's jurisdiction. But let's be clear about what Senator Cash is actually suggesting and what Mr Dutton is actually suggesting. They are proposing to deregister the CFMEU, which would hand the keys back to Mr Setka. I want to be very clear about the proposition that those opposite, who are seeking to gain as much political division around this as possible, are making. Their so-called solution would actually hand the keys to the CFMEU back to John Setka, the person who the Prime Minister kicked out of the Labor Party. Let's be clear. That is the action— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I have Senator Cash on her feet. Senator Cash I0M Thank you. It's a point of order in relation to relevance. The question was specifically in relation to the Prime Minister's almost dismissal of the allegations that women were bashed, harassed and treated appallingly by CFMEU members. I'd ask you to draw the minister to the question, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 The matter was about the 60 Minutes program. Yes, you did refer to the Prime Minister, and the minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The Prime Minister and everyone in this government stand against violence against women, full stop. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, it's Australia's mums and dads who pay for Labor's failure to stamp out criminality in the construction sector. Mum and dad pay more for hospitals, roads and schools, and they pay every day through lost opportunities. There are very real concerns that taxpayer money is flowing into the pockets of bikies and that CFMEU members of outlaw motorcycle gangs are reportedly being paid up to $10,000 a week for jobs that require little or no work. Minister, can you confirm if these concerns are true or not? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I can confirm is that many of the allegations have surfaced—and they are appalling allegations—as a result of the administrator's investigations. What I can also confirm is that a number of these events occurred on your watch, when the ABCC was still in place. What I can confirm is that your policy would ensure that those criminal elements could gain control again of that organisation, could be back in workplaces and could be back in the employment circumstance without regulation. What I can confirm is that this would mean that you would be giving the keys to the CFMEU back to Mr Setka and his cronies. We are clear: organised crime has no place in the Australian trade union movement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, are you still a member of the CFMEU, and is this why you're so keen to defend them from any scrutiny? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, I haven't called you. I'm waiting for order. Minister Wong, please continue. 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm very happy to answer this very personal question. I am a member of the furnishing division. I was a member of the furnishing trades union, including the loggers, who stood up with timber workers and timber owners in support of the timber industry. It is the furniture and manufacturing sector. And this really shows that you don't understand who is standing up to organised crime in the trade union movement. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber. Minister, have you finished your answer? Senator WONG 00AOU As I was saying, it really shows that those on the other side just have a general anti-union attitude. Those divisions of the CFMEU have stood against criminal elements inside the union because we do not believe our movement should have any truck with organised crime. You don't even understand who has stood up in our movement against organised crime—including the Prime Minister. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators, when I call order I expect order. Cost of Living 21 14:07 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. We know Australians have been facing cost-of-living pressures and that access to affordable health care is a concern. How is the Albanese Labor government strengthening Medicare and making it easier and cheaper to see a doctor? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Smith, thank you for your question. I know that you, Senator Smith, and all of the senators on this side and the whole Labor team understand that the cost of living is the most important issue for Australians at the moment, and that is why it has been front and centre in every budget Labor has delivered. We have been working hard to clean up the Liberals and Nationals' mess, especially in health. We have made the largest investment in Medicare in more than 40 years. We have expanded bulk-billing so it's no longer in freefall so more Australians can see a doctor. We're training more doctors in our cities and in our regions. We've opened 87 urgent care clinics and we've promised to open 50 more. We're making medicines cheaper. We've invested more than half a billion dollars to deliver more choice, lower costs and better health care for Australian women. What is clear, Senator Smith, is that all of this is at risk under a potential Dutton, Liberal-National government. What is clear is that Mr Dutton would seek to cut so much of this cost-of-living support that the government is providing. We know he's already promised cuts. The shadow Treasurer said on the weekend that they would cut everything they'd opposed in opposition. Senator Hume has confirmed that Labor has spent around $374 billion more than what the Liberals would have. That accounts for all the additional expenditure this term—everything from indexation of pensions to national security and defence spending. But of course they refuse to outline exactly what they'd cut to pay for the $600 billion nuclear scheme. But, if you listen carefully to Mr Dutton, Senator Hume and Mr Taylor, what we know is that those opposite would gut Medicare, wind back Labor's investments in women's health, stop funding urgent care clinics and make it harder and more expensive to see a GP. He cuts; you pay. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Last week the Albanese Labor government announced that it is making cheaper medicines even cheaper. Having already slashed the cost of medicines with the largest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 2023, Labor is now going further, with a script to cost Australians no more than $25 under the PBS. Minister, can you explain why Australians can only trust a Labor government to invest in health, make medicines cheaper and strengthen Medicare? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Why do we know this? Because, as Mr Dutton said, 'Past performance is the best indicator of future practice.' Let's have a look at Mr Dutton's past performance. In 2013 the Liberals promised no cuts to health, and then Mr Dutton cut $50 billion from hospitals. Just months later, as health minister, Mr Dutton tried to introduce a GP tax on every single Australian patient, and, when he couldn't get it through parliament, what did he do? He started a six-year freeze of Medicare rebates—the Dutton Medicare rebate freeze. No wonder doctors voted him the worst health minister in the history of Medicare. Senator Ruston confirmed, 'We have never said that Australians will get access to free GP services.' She let the cat out of the bag. Mr Dutton and the Liberals can't be trusted with Medicare. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Marielle Smith, a second supplementary question? 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Minister, as you mentioned earlier, the Liberals and Nationals confirmed on the weekend that they plan to cut all of the cost-of-living measures they opposed in this chamber, from cheaper medicines and urgent care clinics to tax cuts for every taxpayer. Can the minister highlight how Labor's cost-of-living relief is helping Australians and what is at risk from promises to cut Labor's measures? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Albanese government have been working to put in place responsible measures to help Australians with the cost of living, and our plan is working. Those opposite—the Liberals and the Nationals—still don't have a plan, and all cost-of-living measures are at risk. And do you know what? Their own party room knows it. Last week a senior Liberal told theAustralian it was unclear what Mr Dutton stood for, while the Liberal MP labelled the shadow Treasurer a dead weight. We saw the dead weight on show in the disastrous interview on Sunday, when he managed not only to confirm they will cut everything that they've opposed but also to contradict Mr Dutton on their divestiture policy. They contradicted Mr Dutton on the citizenship referendum. They made unbelievable claims about the cost of Mr Dutton's nuclear reactors, and he managed to split with the shadow finance minister on public sector cuts. What an extraordinarily bad interview— (Time expired) Racism 22 14:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Australian Labor Party posted a meme on their social media platforms on Sunday which is based on a notoriously offensive T-shirt that is currently held by Museums Victoria as an artefact of racism in Australia. The original version of this T-shirt has been worn by white supremacists to express racism sentiments, including by neo-Nazi Michael Harcrow. Will the minister make a clear promise to the Australian public that the Labor Party will not promote any further racist, hate based material in their desperate pursuit of a baseless scare campaign? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I invite Minister Wong, I am failing to see how this relates to portfolio matters. I'm advised by the clerk that she is struggling to see that as well. I invite Minister Wong to respond to the question in whatever way she thinks is appropriate. 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We are a party that has a long history of standing against racism, and we always will. Unlike those opposite, we do not believe people have a right to be a bigot. Unlike those opposite, we do not believe people have a right to offend others. It was you and your party, including Senator Cash and Senator Paterson, who wanted to remove those protections from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Our position on racial discrimination is clear, it is consistent and it will always be thus. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a first supplementary question? 14:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Minister, in reference to the article in the Sydney Morning Herald today, the Australian Labor Party has defended the use of this racist and offensive T-shirt by stating that your party is 'seeking to reach everyone with our message'. Is this an acknowledgment that the Labor Party is so desperate to whip up a new scare campaign that you're even willing to promote racist material used by white supremacists? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. Again, that is not a portfolio-matter question, but the minister is entitled to respond if she so chooses. 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my previous answer. Opposition against racism is clear across our party. Can you say the same, Senator? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ruston is on her feet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, order! Senator Ruston, second supplementary? 14:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Senator Wong, given the article in the Sydney Morning Herald today and the Prime Minister's response to that article, where he failed to condemn it, you say that the government and the Labor Party do not stand for racism or support this kind of behaviour—white supremacist support. Can you be clear and give a full condemnation of the post? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I am ruling the question in order because it refers to a statement made by the Prime Minister. 14:16 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order! I am asking for order and silence. Senator Ayres 16913 You must have had a pretty ordinary tactics meeting this morning. Senator Paterson 144138 You think it's a joke. A racist T-shirt's a joke? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson and Senator Ayres, order! If you can't remain silent, leave the chamber. Silence is what I've asked for. Senator WONG 00AOU I condemn racism in all its forms. I condemn racism and prejudice when it is—how is that not relevant? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a point of order? Senator Ruston 243273 I draw your attention to the question and relevance. I was asking about a condemnation of a post, not a general view. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is just into her response and, so far, I think she is being relevant. Please continue, Minister. Senator WONG 00AOU We condemn racism is all its forms, in all circumstances. I condemned it when your Attorney-General stood here and said, 'People have a right to be bigots'. I don't remember any of you condemning it then. We condemned it when you, Senator Cash, and you, Senator Paterson, said that the protections for people in this country against offensive language, language that was designed to offend—we said no to your desire to take those protections out of the Racial Discrimination Act. It is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, a point of order? Senator Ruston 243273 On relevance, I've merely asked the minister if she will condemn the post. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, the minister is in order. I invite the minister to continue her response and I expect her to be heard in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU Absolutely. I'm surprised I would even have to say this. Of course we should all stand against white supremacism, and I for one have been on the receiving end of some of what they have said and done. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator McKim. It's disrespectful to me, when I've asked for silence—and I heard Senator McKenzie first, immediately. Senator Cash and Senator McGrath, 'silence' means silence. Be respectful towards my orders. Environmental Legislation 23 14:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, is the Prime Minister aware that industrial salmon-farming corporations in Tasmania are responsible for millions of fish deaths in the last month alone—egregious animal cruelty by suffocating countless live fish—devastation of the marine environment by blanketing vast swathes of the sea floor with sludge and slime, pollution of much-loved beaches to the extent that people can't go swimming without bumping into rotten salmon carcasses or walking on beaches without their feet being coated by stinking, congealed remnants of dead salmon, and the looming extinction of an ancient species? Why, in the middle of a social, environmental, animal welfare and extinction crisis, is the Prime Minister choosing to work with Mr Dutton to gut Australia's environment protection laws for the benefit of multinational corporations who pay no tax? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator, for the question. This is a specific amendment to address a flaw in the EPBC Act, and what I would say to you, Senator, is we're not going to stand by and see workers lose their jobs because the law is broken. I know that we are the Labor Party and we care about jobs, and I know that— Senator Paterson 144138 Doesn't Tanya know that? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Henderson ZN4 What happened to Tanya? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Henderson, which part of 'order' doesn't apply to you? Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I know that Senator Urquhart and all of the Tasmania Labor senators know firsthand the importance of Tasmanian jobs, and I know that your party doesn't have the same view about Tasmanian jobs, Senator. That is— An honourable senator: It's inconvenient. Senator WONG 00AOU You make assertions about the motivation for this and you like to use the word 'corporations'. You don't talk about workers; you don't talk about jobs. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. When I call for order, it also applies to the party at the back of the room. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU You talk about corporations; we talk about workers. We don't hear you talking about workers and jobs and the communities who rely on them. What I would say to you, Senator, is we know these laws— The 10000 Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, you are drowning out the minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, you are not in an argument with me. I want there to be silence, and I expect silence. Senator WONG 00AOU It is unfortunate that these laws over the last 10 years have not been reformed, and it's also unfortunate that we haven't been in a position to gain sufficient support in this place, and also through the community, for reform to these laws that—I think there is broad agreement from both sides of the debate—are broken. I think there is broad agreement that the environmental laws of this country are broken and that they don't— Senator McKim JKM They don't protect the environment. They're broken because they don't protect the environment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKim, I should not have to be calling out individual senators. I've asked for silence. You are being disrespectful towards me. Save your comments for taking note of answers or some other time. Do not direct them at me when I've called for order. Senator WONG 00AOU These laws don't protect the environment sufficiently, nor do they protect workers and the community they— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, why is the Prime Minister claiming that the legislation is limited in effect to salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour when, in fact, it is not? Can you confirm that the legislation to amend the EPBC Act, just introduced in the House, contains nothing whatsoever that would preclude it from preventing the environment minister from reconsidering fossil fuel projects, other mines, land-clearing actions or large industrial developments? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There are two points I'd say. The first is these are specific amendments to address a flaw in the EPBC Act, and the second is I predict that it doesn't matter what my answer is; you're going to make those scare campaigns anyway because you don't support these changes. That is the approach the Australian Greens take. I've seen this over many years. That is the approach you will take on these issues. I think it is very clear that there is a problem with these laws. It is something that has been identified over a number of years, including under the previous government, and the fact that this legislation is having to come forward is a demonstration of the flaws in the current act. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, you say that the legislation is to correct a flaw in the EPBC Act. Is the flaw that your government has discovered that, in a limited range of cases, the act actually does give effect to protection of the environment? Is that the flaw that you are referring to? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia No, that is not the case. That is not what I mean. The existing law means an industry has to shut down overnight when an environmental assessment commences. Senator WONG 00AOU Why is it that you cannot listen to me without shouting? Would you like me just to sit down? All you are doing is shouting. If you want shouting time, not question time, I'm happy to sit down, and you can just shout for a while. Senator WONG 00AOU If the clock's being run out, look in the mirror. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, I invite you to respond to me. Senator WONG 00AOU Sorry. They just seem to have difficulty not shouting. Senator McKenzie 207825 I move shouting time! Senator WONG 00AOU You move shouting time, but they will probably second it! I suspect that we would lose that vote. The existing law means an industry has to be shut down when an assessment commences. It's not acceptable for the government, and I venture to suggest that it's not acceptable to the community. Cost of Living 25 14:26 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Cost-of-living pressures are top of mind for Australian workers and households. While we are starting to see real wages growing, unemployment at record lows and inflation coming down, there is still more to do. How is the Albanese Labor government helping Australian workers earn more and keep more of what they earn? How are the government's workplace relations reforms helping Australian workers deal with cost-of-living pressures? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Green, for the question. Three years ago Labor promised to get wages moving again, and three years on the Albanese Labor government has delivered. When Australians voted out a coalition government three years ago, they had enjoyed five consecutive quarters of real wages falling, wages going backwards. And now, after three years of the Albanese Labor government, we've seen five consecutive quarters of real wage growth, wages going forwards—literally a mirror image of the coalition's policy of deliberately keeping wages low. Labor is unapologetically for working people getting ahead, and we've delivered higher wages, low unemployment and lower inflation, with interest rates now starting to come down. There is still more to do, but our changes to workplace laws mean there's more money going into people's pockets. The average Australian full-time worker is now earning over $200 a week more under Labor than they were under the coalition, and more Australians are in work than ever before. While we're focused on growing jobs and lifting wages, all we hear from those opposite is about cutting jobs and cutting pay. Just yesterday on the ABC, I sat across from Senator Hume as she repeatedly suggested jobs should be cut from—wait for it—the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator Hume said, 'If it's a backlog that you're clearing in Veterans' Affairs, why do you need permanent staff now?' So, after Labor has finally cleared the backlog of 42,000 veterans claims left behind by the coalition, Senator Hume and the coalition reckon we can cut those workers again, starting the backlogs again. Despite Peter Dutton telling people there won't be frontline job cuts, his own shadow minister is out there telling us their real plan. It is becoming very clear that we can expect the same thing to happen in Australia with the 36,000 job cuts because, when Peter Dutton cuts, you pay. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Mr Dutton and the coalition have voted against every single one of the government's cost-of-living support measures. Now Mr Dutton is promising a suite of cuts but refuses to outline what is on his chopping block. Why is it so important that the rights of Australian workers don't end up on Mr Dutton's chopping block? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We do know that workers' rights are on the chopping block at this election. Already Mr Dutton has promised to cut the right to disconnect; same job, same pay; and casual protections. Just recently he told women working from home they could job-share, halving their pay. But we still don't know what other cuts Peter Dutton has planned, because he won't be honest with the Australian people. He won't tell Australians what jobs he will cut amongst the 36,000 Public Service job cuts. He won't tell Australians what the extra targeted repeals of workplace laws will be when his shadow Treasurer promises there will be more. Senator Cash won't even turn up and debate me at the National Press Club during the campaign; that's how much they don't want to tell people. What we do know is they're taking their marching orders from their mates in big business. We had the HR Nicholls Society recently hand over their election wish list, and that includes things like abolishing all awards and the conditions that come with them. And what do the coalition say? Michael Sukkar said, having had that detailed work, they can now crack on and get moving quickly with their— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:30 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Given everything is on Mr Dutton's chopping block, especially workers' pay and conditions, why is it so important that no cuts are made to workers' wages and entitlements? 14:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We know the working people of Australia won't stand for Peter Dutton's cuts, and I reckon some of those opposite are starting to know that too. As we heard on Insiders over the weekend, the coalition are turning on each other more every day. They've started leaking, briefing against the Leader of the Opposition and undermining the shadow Treasurer. One described the shadow Treasurer's Insiders interview as 'very strange'—putting it kindly! We even heard on the weekend that, apparently, supporters of Angus Taylor are keeping a hit list of people who have been leaking against him. They're checking that list twice and they're going to find out who's naughty and who's nice, because Angus Taylor is coming to town! Even today we see a new article in the Sydney Morning Herald headlined, '"The leaking has to stop": Dutton warns dissent will cost seats.' They are now leaking about directives not to leak against each other: Several MPs at the meeting, not authorised to speak about it publicly, said Dutton warned internal dissent could cost a few seats— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles. Energy 26 14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister McAllister. How many households with an income of $200,000 or more will receive the $150 energy bill rebate? 14:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As has been clear, our approach in providing energy bill relief has been to make sure every household gets access to this. I understand that you may have a different view about whether that is necessary, but we take the view that families across the country are under pressure and we do what we can to help. We've known that addressing the cost of living is a significant priority for this government across the entire term. It's why we've taken the steps we have: delivering tax cuts, delivering energy bill relief for households, getting wages moving again, making medicines cheaper and making it easier to see a GP. All these steps have been put in place so as to— Senator David Pocock 256136 Point of order on relevance: I had no preamble. It was a very tight question. I understand their rationale. I'm just asking how many people who earn more than $200,000 a year are getting these rebates. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister has been relevant to your question. Senator McALLISTER 121628 We are clear that every household will receive bill relief. In addition to that, many, many businesses—around one million small businesses—will also receive relief. In the long term, we know that the transformation of the energy system is necessary to get prices under control. We came to government and faced a very serious situation in the energy system. We had almost a decade of failed energy policies—22 policies, and none of them landed. Senator David Pocock 256136 On relevance: I had absolutely no preamble. I had a one-sentence question: 'How many people who earn more than $200,000 a year are receiving the rebate?' How is that relevant? The PRESIDENT 112096 That's the same point of order you stood on before, and I've ruled on that. The minister is being relevant. Senator McALLISTER 121628 As I was indicating, we came to government under circumstances where there had been 22 failed energy policies and none of them had landed. There was significant work to do—to restore order, to restore confidence in the electricity system—and we've set about taking the necessary steps to make that happen, to restore confidence in the investment community— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie? Senator Lambie 250026 A point of order on relevance: it's a simple question. How many people on $200,000 is this going to— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, there is no— Senator Lambie 250026 If you don't have a number, it's because you have not done your homework. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, resume your seat. First of all, direct the point of order to me. You're not raising a point of order with the minister. That's the third time that point of order has been raised. The minister has answered a question and is being relevant. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, resume your seat, unless you have a question towards me. Senator Lambie 250026 I have a question, if you could explain to me how that is relevant to the question. I'm sorry: I must be stupid, but perhaps you could explain the relevance to me, so that I understand your thinking, because I'm not accepting what is— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie— Senator Lambie 250026 I just want an answer—the relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, you're not in a debate with me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, come to order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, come to order or you'll be named. The 10000 Senator Pocock has asked the question. The minister has answered the question. It may not be in the terms that specifically meet your needs, but she has answered the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, resume your seat! Senator McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thanks, President. To say it for the third time, this is a measure that applies to all households, Senators. So, it applies to all households, irrespective of the level of income of that household. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary. 14:36 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory That's incredibly disappointing, given what in the last three years we've heard about preambles and relevance. I don't know. We'll have to look at what can be done, because I don't accept that that was relevant. Minister, how many households could have been supported to install batteries for the $7.8 billion total cost of the ongoing energy bill relief measures, and how much ongoing savings would that have given? 14:37 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Your question acknowledges that the government is providing an additional $150 in energy bill relief, and that extends the existing bill relief arrangements to the end of 2025. And, as I indicated in response to your primary question, that means that every household will receive support to bring down their energy bills. But it is also true, Senator—and we are in agreement here—that there are other opportunities to support households to bring down their bills. Those opportunities include investments in solar at home and in batteries at home. And our energy-saving package, which we've canvassed on a number of occasions in this chamber, is doing exactly this. So, we are delivering energy saving upgrades to around 100,000 social housing residents across the country, with the Social Housing Energy Performance Initiative. We've provided $1 billion to turbocharge lending through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, working with banks and other lenders to finance energy upgrades for 110,000 homes, and we're funding ARENA to do electrification trials. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary. 14:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, will the government commit to structural reform and a substantial electrification and energy efficiency package to get households off gas and substantially reduce household energy bills, rather than constant bandaid fixes? 14:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Well, obviously I don't agree with the assessment Senator Pocock makes of the cost-of-living support that is being provided to every household. Our government thinks that is important. Our government thinks it is important, when households are under pressure, to provide them with support where we can. That is the approach we've taken right across the term. But, Senator, your question seems to imply that it's an either/or, and we don't accept that, either. We do think there are opportunities to support households to build their own energy resilience and to make enduring savings on their bills. That is precisely why we've made the investments that we have, over this term, to support households to do just that. I talked about some of those in my answer to your last question. Those households are already seeing results. The amount of investment necessary for each household depends on your circumstances. But there are things families can do, and we're taking every step that we can to help them do that. Migration 27 14:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. According to ABS data—that's Australian Bureau of Statistics data—last month 201,490 new foreign students arrived in Australia. This is a new record for the month of February. Where are these people going to sleep? 14:40 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Roberts. For starters, obviously, this government has done more in three years to build new housing than we saw in almost 10 years under a coalition government. That's the first thing. Of course, what we know is that every measure this government has introduced to build more housing while the coalition have been in opposition they've voted against. So, for almost 10 years in government, they did nothing about housing, didn't build a single public home and didn't build a single social home; they get into opposition and they vote against everything we do to build more homes. That's the first part of the answer. Senator Roberts, as you'll recall, not that long ago, this government sought to pass legislation that would reduce overseas student numbers, because we did recognise there had been an increase to that. Who voted against that as well? That was the opposition that voted against that. Who was the shadow education minister who led the charge against that? That was Senator Henderson. She's got a lot to say now, but she led the charge against our legislation to try to introduce caps on international student numbers. We will continue to act on both of these things. We will continue to deliver the housing that the opposition voted against; we have taken different measures outside of legislation to deal with the number of international students. I might also make the point that, in the meantime, our government has acted, and migration levels are coming down as a result of the measures that we've taken. In fact, there are fewer people arriving into Australia now than when someone else was the home affairs minister. Who would that be? Peter Dutton—Mr Dutton. So, for all of the promises Mr Dutton is making about immigration now, when he was actually the minister in charge of this, there were more people moving to Australia and migrating to Australia than there are now. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland On 11 December 2023, the then home affairs minister, Clare O'Neil, issued a press statement, which included the comment, 'We are going to make sure we bring numbers back under control.' Minister, clearly you have not succeeded in getting the numbers back under control. Can you please explain the reason why this government has not been able to control how many people arrive in Australia? 14:42 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said, as a result of the actions this government has taken, we are seeing migration numbers fall in Australia compared to what they were when we came to office, as a result of the policies of the opposition. In fact, to give you a few more statistics on this, Senator Roberts, there were 10,000 more overseas student arrivals in Australia in January 2019, when—guess who—Mr Dutton was in charge of our borders. More importantly, the number of student visa applications in Australia has dropped by 30 per cent compared with this time last year. This is proof that our measures are working, despite the coalition voting to block our plan to cap overseas student numbers. We've all seen, over the last couple of years, the results of Mr Dutton leaving us with a broken migration system—the Albanian crime gangs who have been rorting our visa system and more still. We have been dealing with that and cleaning it up, and we're now seeing the results with migration numbers falling. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In the June quarter of 2022, just after your election, housing starts were 47,000. The latest ABS data for the September quarter last year shows just 42,000 starts. You are building fewer homes but bringing in more new arrivals and that has caused the housing catastrophe. If this government is not controlling immigration numbers, who is? Is it the bureaucrats? Is it the universities? Is it the Chinese and Indian governments? Who is in control of Australia's immigration program? 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I can assure you, Senator Roberts, it's not the one world government in control of our policies. That's definitely not the case. The Australian government, of course, is in charge of our migration policies, and it's the Australian government who has reduced migration numbers over the last three years through a variety of measures— Senator WATT 245759 including a number of measures that the very vocal Senator Canavan over there voted against. They've got a lot of things to say from the cheap seats over there in the opposition, but, whenever they get the chance to vote on something, they vote against it. Senator Roberts, I don't know whether the figures you have just quoted about the number housing starts are correct or not; I'd have to check them. But what I do know is that the construction of new housing being funded through our Housing Australia Future Fund was held up for month after month after month by the unholy coalition of the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation and the Greens. They blocked our legislation and prevented spending on housing that has finally been passed by the Senate, still with the opposition of this lot over there. We're now getting on with building those homes. Critical Minerals Industry: Liberty Bell Bay 28 14:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science and comes to the financial implosion of Sanjeev Gupta's GFG Alliance. The Liberty Bell Bay manganese smelter is one of the biggest manganese smelters in the world, is one of the greenest—thanks to our hydropower—and is one of the largest manufacturing operations in Tasmania. The 260 workers employed at the smelter are extremely worried about their future—and with good reason, as you would know. We now know that Mr Gupta's company, Liberty Onesteel (Primary) UK granted security over its entire holding in Liberty Bell Bay to the American vulture capital firm White Oak Global Advisors. What specific measures is the government prepared to take to ensure this vital manufacturing facility and Tasmanian employer will be protected and not ravaged and sold with no regard for Australia's national interest or the future of its employees in Tasmania? 14:46 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Senator Lambie, for your interest in this company. I know you have taken a great deal of interest in it and I know your colleague in South Australia, Mr Rex Patrick, has also taken an interest in Whyalla. The short answer is that we believe in this industry. This government has shown, by the way in which it has stepped into one of Mr Gupta's other businesses—namely the Whyalla Steelworks—that it is prepared to put its money where its mouth is in terms of supporting jobs and the 261 workers that you have talked about here and, of course, many more workers in Whyalla. One of the reasons that we had to intervene in the Whyalla operation was that the company was in severe financial trouble. It was close to going into administration. The very fine South Australian government, led by the very fine Premier, Mr Malinauskas, worked very closely with the federal government and, again, the terrific Minister Husic, who I know you have been talking with, to ensure the long-term security and the ability of this country to continue to produce steel, which is absolutely vital to a future made in Australia. We have the same concerns for the workers in Tasmania. It's a little bit unclear to— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The South Australian Treasury estimated that the Whyalla Steelworks needs roughly $3 billion. Since then, KordaMentha have found GFG has run the Whyalla Steelworks into the ground. A variety of packages and amounts have been mentioned, ranging from $1 billion to $2.4 billion. How much Commonwealth funding will be made available to support fixing up Whyalla and, given that manganese from Liberty Bell Bay is vital in steel production, are some of these funds being considered for Liberty Bell Bay? 14:49 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The short answer to your question is that, to the best of my knowledge, the funding that the state and federal governments have provided is for Whyalla. I will consult with Minister Husic to find out whether or not there is a request from the Gupta operations in Tasmania. I'm not aware of any, but that's not to say that they're not there. I'm happy to follow that up. The priority at the moment has been Whyalla. If you can keep the Whyalla Steelworks going, as this rescue package does, that's obviously of benefit to the Tasmanian operations because, as you say, they are supplying product into Whyalla. I was up in Whyalla a few weeks ago with Premier Malinauskas. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Given the sorry state of the steelworks and the turmoil in global trade thanks to President Trump's tariff war, how can the government be confident that KordaMentha will find a new buyer that is also prepared to invest in the scale required to transform the now terribly degraded Whyalla Steelworks? Does the government still rule out nationalising the Whyalla Steelworks today? 14:50 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her second supplementary question. The steelworks and its associated minerals are, I believe, a long-term going concern. It was a profitable business in the way in which it was previously run. Under Mr Gupta, there have certainly been a range of issues, and you've mentioned some of them, including the fact that maintenance had not been conducted on the site. I'm confident that at the end of this process the Whyalla Steelworks will be a going concern and that there will be other businesses— Senator Lambie 250026 On a point of order: I was just wondering whether the government was still ruling out nationalising Whyalla. Is it on the table or is it just sitting there? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Lambie. The minister is being relevant to your question. Senator FARRELL I0N What I'm saying to you, Senator Lambie, is that I don't think that's going to be necessary, because I believe this is an ongoing— (Time expired) Tropical Cyclone Alfred 29 14:52 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator McAllister. Just over three weeks ago, Tropical Cyclone Alfred was bearing down on South-East Queensland and northern New South Wales. While we're all so thankful that the impacts weren't as extreme as feared, many have felt the impacts of flooding and other damage caused by the storm. How are affected communities responding to the aftermath of Alfred, and can you outline any support that might be available? 14:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This has been a really challenging time for communities in South-East Queensland and in northern New South Wales. Tropical Cyclone Alfred was not unprecedented, but it was highly unusual. It was category 2 cyclone bearing down on one of the most densely populated regions in Australia. I know that the thoughts of all Australians were with those potentially in its path. At one point during the event, 450,000 Australians had lost power in perhaps the most significant power outage in Australia's history. We saw, through this event, the hard work of emergency services personnel, ADF personnel, local government employees, energy and telco personnel, and thousands of volunteers to keep communities safe. The Albanese government worked very closely with the Queensland and New South Wales governments to support the households that were impacted by ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. For example, supports were jointly funded for people if they lost essential services, such as power, gas, water and sewerage, for more than five days; if they needed help to cover the cost of emergency essentials, like food, clothing and medicine; or if their home became structurally unsafe to live in. We have also, of course, provided Commonwealth-only assistance in the form of the Australian government disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery allowance. The latter payment supports people who are unable to work for a period as a consequence of the event. We know that this will have a cost on the budget, and the Treasurer has made that clear in recent days, but we think this expenditure is worth it, we think it is critical and we will stand by the people of South-East Queensland and the people of northern New South Wales as they begin their journey of recovery. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:54 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The Albanese Labor government has been committed to strengthening the Australian government's capacity to respond to events like these and to help people recover, including by establishing the National Emergency Management Agency. What measures were put in place by the government to prepare for this high-risk weather season, and how has that effort made a difference on the ground? 14:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales A key priority for our government has been to rebuild capability in disaster resilience, response and recovery after the coalition's disastrous period in office. We have established the first ever emergency stockpile. During ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred the stockpile deployed 125,000 sandbags to Queensland and six large generators to New South Wales to support the response. We've increased the national aerial fleet investment, and states and territories now have access to a large air tanker and three federally funded heavy-lift helicopters. During Alfred these were pre-positioned in Bundaberg and Coffs Harbour. We have funded Disaster Relief Australia, and, again, in Alfred DRA staff were deployed to help with the clean-up in Queensland. We know that the climate is changing and Australians will face more severe events of this kind, and that's why we have made these investments. It's in stark contrast to those opposite. Their promise of reckless cuts will send a chill through communities affected by natural disasters. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:56 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I want to commend all the work done by emergency management personnel and public servants when they work so hard to help their fellow Australians in times of need. With all the good work of our Public Service in a crisis, it beggars belief that, in the days leading up to Alfred's impact, the shadow minister could not rule out cuts to the National Emergency Management Agency. What would cuts to NEMA mean for the Australian government's capacity to support communities through natural disasters? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Before I call the minister, there will be order! 14:56 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The National Emergency Management Agency was created by our government, and I think it has shown why a well-coordinated and properly resourced agency is so important in keeping Australians safe. Whether that is running the national situation room, delivering hundreds of thousands of sandbags to Queensland councils or working to maintain and establish supply chains, that capability has been widely recognised as changing our ability to support the states in managing natural disasters. That refusal by the shadow emergency management minister to rule out job cuts to NEMA is disturbing, but of course that has her boss's fingerprints all over it. Mr Dutton is a person who has described Labor's investments in Public Service capability as wasteful spending, and he is committed to cutting 36,000 public servants. The PRESIDENT 112096 Withdraw those comments, Senator Ruston. Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw. Senator 121628 I think the question is this: who is it that the coalition plans to fire at NEMA if they win the election? Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 31 14:57 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On 16 March 2025 there were news media reports in the Age and 60 Minutes of sickening violence and rorts on construction sites. Minister, were any of these incidents reported by the Age or 60 Minutes on Commonwealth funded infrastructure projects? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, obviously, as I said in response to the first question from Senator Cash, the allegations and the footage were abhorrent. I would also make the point—I appreciate you don't agree with this—that appointing an independent administrator to clean up the CFMEU was the strongest action the government could take. The deregistration of the union, as proposed by you and your colleagues, would have allowed those elements to operate without regulation, including on construction sites, including on Commonwealth construction sites. Senator Cash I0M Not true. Senator WONG 00AOU The leader says 'not true'. That is clearly the case, and I think the minister's made that clear. I don't have in my head the list of all the sites on which those allegations were uncovered— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I don't. But I would make the point that the administrator has removed dozens of officials, organisers and delegates and that the allegations— Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on relevance: it was a very direct question about whether any of these sites where this sickening behaviour was evidenced were Commonwealth funded infrastructure projects. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, the minister has answered that part of your question. You also referred to media reports, and the minister has answered that part of your question that you raised in the point of order. Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I was trying to answer the question. I said I don't have that in my head. What I can say to you is, first, that a number of the allegations were investigated or unearthed in part or wholly because of the work that the administrator has undertaken. I now have been provided with some information about the infrastructure portfolio. Obviously I'm not representing the minister for infrastructure. I'm advised that, where the Commonwealth has a direct funding and contracting role, Ms King has asked her department to provide advice. She has also written, with the Minister for Finance, to the chairs of ARTC, WSA and National Intermodal, seeking assurance of compliance with relevant laws. Where we have Commonwealth partnerships with states to deliver projects we have embedded requirements in our funding agreements to prevent these issues from occurring. She has written to state and territory counterparts to say that proper conduct should be— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 15:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Last year I wrote to the minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development regarding the unlawful activity by the CFMEU on Commonwealth funded infrastructure projects, and she advised that she had asked state and territory ministers to report to her any activity. Has the Allan government in Victoria provided any reports to the Commonwealth of unlawful CFMEU behaviour on Commonwealth funded infrastructure projects, as my letter requested, as her response said and as your answer to my first question outlined? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I will draw to your attention that infrastructure minister questions should be directed to Senator McCarthy, but I think Minister Wong has indicated that she can answer parts of your question. Minister. 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I understand, first, that the minister has written to state and territory counterparts to convey that any information regarding improper or criminal conduct should be reported immediately to the relevant regulator. In relation specifically to your question about Victoria, the advice I have is that the minister has previously made clear to her counterparts the expectation that illegal conduct, or suspicions of such, on Commonwealth funded projects be reported to the department. I'm advised that, prior to the allegations, neither—I'm coming to it, Senator— The PRESIDENT 112096 You were standing, Senator McKenzie. You're sitting down again. Thank you. Senator WONG 00AOU She's taking me on faith. Prior to these allegations, neither the minister's office nor the department had received any information from Victoria. Following these allegations, the minister has written to her Victorian counterpart to seek an explanation and to underline her expectations on reporting. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria What action has the minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development undertaken to satisfy herself, given these public reports, that Victoria is indeed complying with her direction that she made last year and that, it seems, she has had to make again? The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I will remind you once again, Senator McKenzie, that Senator Wong is not the representing minister for Minister King. As I said in relation to your previous question, the representing minister is Senator McCarthy. But I'll invite Minister Wong to answer the question in whatever way she thinks represents your question. 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll provide what answers I can and if there is further information I will provide it to the Senate. The government has, first, supported the Fair Work Commission appointing an independent administrator to the construction division of the CFMEU. We've asked the Fair Work Ombudsman to undertake a targeted review of all enterprise agreements made by the Victorian branch of the construction division of the CFMEU that apply to Big Build projects. We've requested the AFP investigate allegations to ensure that enterprise agreements in government funded projects are genuine agreements and that workplaces are free from coercion and intimidation. Where the Commonwealth partners with states to deliver a project, we have embedded requirements in funding agreements to prevent these issues from occurring, including emphasising the importance of engaging delivery partners who prioritise ethical practices. With that, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 32 DOCUMENTS Department of the Treasury 32 Order for the Production of Documents 32 15:05 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to standing order 164(3) I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer for an explanation as to why order for the production of documents No. 767, agreed to on 10 February, concerning the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donation to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 and other matters, has not been complied with. The order required the documents to be tabled by 5 pm on 11 February. 15:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm repping the Treasurer and I'm not sure I was aware this would happen, but you are generally very courteous. I will just check. The duty minister will answer the question. 15:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Senator Smith refers to Senate order 767, which I think was agreed to by the Senate in February. There was a letter from the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, the Hon. Dr Andrew Leigh MP, provided on the following day. He advised the Senate in that correspondence that the requested documents could not be produced by the deadline and that work to compile and review the necessary material was actively being progressed. The letter confirms that it is the government's intention to comply with the order and notes that a response is expected to be tabled once those necessary steps are complete. It is important to note that this government, with a demonstrated commitment to standards of integrity and transparency and accountability far stronger than that of the previous government, is working through the necessary steps that are required to comply with this order. The numbers of Senate estimates questions on notice, parliamentary questions on notice and orders for the production of documents have all skyrocketed to an industrial scale in the 47th Parliament. In fact, the number of OPDs has also doubled during the 47th Parliament and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. It's important that we consider whether answering all of them is the best use of public sector resources. For example, a recent order agreed to on the motion of Senator Kovacic required the return of tens of thousands of pages of documents. I hope senators paid attention to them and sat down and read them all carefully! It took public servants, who the opposition treat with contempt when they provide these draft orders with massive scopes, thousands and thousands of hours at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. However, I can advise in this instance that the documents requested in relation to OPD 767 are being actively progressed and that the government expects to provide them soon. 15:08 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. What Senator Ayres says with regard to the government's demonstrated standard of integrity and transparency is actually very heavily contested in this Senate as we stand almost on the eve of a federal election. I would make this point too: it is not the number of OPDs that is the issue for the government to consider. That is actually immaterial. It is not at the discretion of the government, nor is it at the discretion, in this case, of the Treasury, to determine what documents will and will not be released. In actual fact, the order has been agreed by a vote of the Senate. So the Senate as an institution, the house of review, has exercised its judgement that the order to produce these documents—the type that are contained in the resolution that gave effect to the OPD—should be agreed and should be complied with. I'd add that on 11 February, 43 days ago, this Senate agreed that documents, emails, correspondence between treasurers and correspondence between the Treasury and various Treasury ministers, on the matter of a tax incentive for food charity donations, were worthy of being revealed, worthy of being detailed and laid before this Senate. So, 43 days later, nothing has transpired, except words. And Senator Ayres's words were not that it will be complied with this afternoon; they were not that it would be complied with by tomorrow. It would be complied with 'soon'—43 days soon? What does that mean? Why is this an important issue? It is an important issue because, in addition to the cost-of-living crisis that has been endured by Australian families, Australian charities have been enduring a cost of doing charitable business in this country, because inflationary pressures apply equally to charitable organisations. We know there's been an increase in the level of demand, in this particular case for food donations from and amongst food charities. And we know that probably for the first time in living memory in this country working families, many of them on dual incomes, have been forced to seek support and seek relief from charitable food organisations—like Foodbank, like OzHarvest, like SecondBite and like many of the ones I have visited over the past three years in local communities across the state. In this OPD we also asked for the government and the Treasury to reveal what general work they had been doing on the idea of a tax incentive in regard to food donations. Why did Senator Smith lodge this OPD? It was not a fishing exercise. When the Senate economics committee was inquiring into this bill—which happens to be my private senator's bill—Treasury officials had been asked to do an analysis of the private senator's bill, and those officials said that this was an 'uncommon experience'. In actual fact, you'll often hear the government say they do not support private senators' bills, because they would prefer to bring their own initiatives to the Senate chamber. That's why this OPD asks the government and the Treasury to reveal what general work they have been doing on a tax incentive for food donation charities. Why does Senator Smith have an inkling that the government might be doing this work? It is because the House agricultural committee last year—chaired by Labor and controlled by Labor members of the House of Representatives—issued a report, and a recommendation of that report was that it agreed that legislation of this kind, providing a tax incentive to support charitable giving to food charities, would be in the national interest. Indeed, organisations like Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite wrote to the Treasurer in 2023 suggesting that it would be a really good and timely idea to provide relief to Australian food charities. And what did they get back from Dr Jim Chalmers? Silence. So we on this side say that if no work is being done then there is no OPD to comply with. Senator Ayres could easily have said: 'Senator Smith, there's no work being done. Sorry for the 43-day delay. There's nothing to see here.' Instead, we have had delay and obfuscation. It may well be that Dr Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, stands on his feet tonight and says there's a tax incentive initiative contained in the budget for food charities. On this side, we would say: 'Well done, Dr Jim Chalmers. We're disappointed it took you so long and disappointed you couldn't be more transparent with the food charity sector across our country, but we applaud that measure as a way of dealing with your terrible cost-of-living crisis that you've inflicted on Australian families and charities.' But that's not what is being said. We have delay and obfuscation, and, for me and food charities across this country, this is a powerful demonstration of why this government is not interested in transparency and not interested in integrity measures. In summing up, let me explain why this matter is urgent for Australian families and why it is particularly urgent to Australia's charity sector. The Foodbankhunger report 2024 found two million Australian households, or 19 per cent, experienced severe food insecurity in the past 12 months. This was evidenced by increased demand for food relief by organisations such as Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite. Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a survey conducted by the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal last year had skipped meals, and 45 per cent had had to choose between paying household expenses and buying food. Most confronting, 27 per cent had had consumed expired or spoiled food. This is not my report; it's by the Salvation Army in this country, no less. In addition to that, we know that cost of living continues to be the main contributor to food insecurity, with increased living expenses identified as a factor by 82 per cent of food-insecure households. This food insecurity trend is occurring at a time of extensive food wastage, with more than 7.6 million tonnes of food dumped each year—much of it perfectly edible—because it's more commercially viable to dump it than it is to donate it. Think about that for a second. It is more commercially viable to dump it than it is to donate it. The private senator's bill that sits before this Senate, or any tax incentive, would aid the distribution of that food, out of being dumped, into food charities across this country, and for three years the government has sat on its hands. A tax incentive to support the donation of food that would otherwise end up in waste is supported by no fewer than 60 organisations across the country—everyone from Foodbank, OzHarvest and SecondBite to the Trucking Association, the National Farmers Federation and the Country Women's Association. It enjoys wide support. In addition to that, we know that Labor members of the House of Representatives who participate on the House agricultural committee also support it. We know that the Australian Food and Grocery Council supports it. We know that AUSVEG supports it. AUSVEG says: Notably, the tax incentive— of any kind— will particularly benefit smaller farmers who may struggle to absorb the costs associated with surplus food and are more likely to resort to wasteful disposal. By standing here this afternoon, I'm seeking to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that this Senate said it was necessary and proper and issued an order that the government, supported by the Treasury, would release these documents. Forty-three days later, the documents have still not been released. I'll take Senator Ayres on his word, and I hope that 'soon' is defined as the next 24 hours or the next 36 hours—most definitely before the Senate economics committee meets on Friday at the Treasury estimates. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 34 15:18 Senator McGRATH 217241 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 Senators Cash and McKenzie today relating to the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. It does disturb me, Deputy President, that with that wry grin that you have on your face, I think I might possibly be breaching the standing orders, and I think that's an outrageous allegation for your face to make. I do wish to comment on the answers made by Senator Wong concerning the CFMEU, and I take note that today in Queensland my Premier, the Queensland Premier, David Crisafulli, has made a substantial and brilliant announcement concerning the Olympics coming to Queensland in 2032. The reason this is relevant to the answers put forward by Senator Wong in relation to the questions is that the construction industry in Queensland, over the last decade or so, has suffered under a CFMEU tax. Builders in the private sector and builders in the public sector have had their costs blow out consistently because of the actions and the activities of the CFMEU. We're going to see in Queensland an Olympics that is delivered for all of Queensland, whether it is archery in Maryborough, equestrian events in Toowoomba or sailing and cricket all the way up the coast of Queensland. And it will come on a budget, because the state LNP government is getting a grip with the CFMEU. But, sadly, across the country we're seeing the results of the Labor Party's historic but also ongoing connections with the CFMEU. In particular, I make reference to the $11½ million that the Labor Party has received in donations and in benefits of a kind from the CFMEU. It is no good for Labor Party cabinet ministers to come into this chamber and say that they are standing up to the CFMEU and taking action against the CFMEU when their party, their organisation, has benefited to the tune of $11½ million. If the Labor Party were serious about saying they are going to take a big stick to the CFMEU, they would hand the money back to the unions—and by that I mean hand it back to the members of the unions. The $11.5 million doesn't come from a union; it comes from those workers who are effectively forced, sometimes coerced, into joining the CFMEU, who are coerced and forced into joining what is a criminal organisation. What is very sad is that every time Labor get elected they abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is the honest cop on the beat who holds the criminal elements within the CFMEU to account. This is a police service to try and stop bad people from influencing unions and workplaces across the country. It is an organisation the coalition has introduced twice and an organisation the Labor Party have abolished twice. Why is that? Is it anything to do with the millions of dollars the CFMEU give to the Labor Party? It would be very cynical for someone so young to suggest such a thing, but I am going to suggest that you follow the money trail here. The Labor Party are in hock to the CFMEU. There is no point in Labor ministers and Labor senators getting up here and saying, 'We've done this; we've appointed this KC to look into them,' until they hand back the $11½ million. Words mean nothing, but we know the Labor Party won't hand the money back, because the Labor Party need the money to run their scare campaign. The Labor Party need the millions of dollars to run their scare campaign because the Labor Party cannot run on their record over the last three years. The simple question most Australians are asking themselves is, 'Are we better off today than we were three years ago?' The answer is, of course, no, they're not. The next question is, 'Will I be better off in three years time, having had six years of a Labor-Greens government?' Of course, the answer is no. Once we get through this election, the Labor Party will give the CFMEU a free pass, and they'll come back on board, because they know the CFMEU will give them more money to help with campaigning against those who wish to hold them accountable—that is, the coalition. Follow the money. I say to the Labor Party: hand the money back. 15:23 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria In budget week, just weeks from an election, senators on this side of the chamber and Australians are asking themselves whether Mr Dutton and the Liberals, those opposite, have any policies they'd like to share with the Senate or with the Australian people other than the deregistration of the CFMEU, other than their policy to cut $350 billion from the federal budget and other than their policy to cut 36,000 Public Service jobs. Australians are asking: do the Liberals—does Mr Dutton—have any policies other than cutting the services that those public servants provide today? We know that Senator Cash has a lifetime achievement award for seeking to deregister unions. We know that. We know that Senator Cash and Mr Dutton want to focus on anything other than budget week and their complete absence of any policies to help Australians with the cost of living. We know that Mr Dutton is desperate to hide the one policy he has attempted to articulate to the Australian people: cutting $350 billion from the budget. He wants to hide his cuts so much that he won't tell Australians what he will cut until after the election. All that Australians know today is that Mr Dutton cuts and they pay. Mr Dutton cuts, and Australians pay. Mr Dutton wants to cut 36,000 Public Service jobs right around the country, including in my home state of Victoria. He wants to cut those jobs. He wants to cut the services that those public servants are providing as well, including critical services like processing the tens of thousands of veterans payments that were held up by the Liberals and their understaffing of our Public Service, that were held up by the Liberals and their contracting out of our Public Service, and that were held up by the Liberals and their waste of billions of dollars on outsourcing and consulting. All of the progress that federal Labor has made in just three years is at risk from Mr Dutton—make no mistake. The progress we have made in rebuilding Medicare is at risk from Peter Dutton. Our $25 PBS prescriptions are at risk from Mr Dutton, our bulk-billed doctors visits are at risk from Mr Dutton, and our historic investments in women's health are at risk from Mr Dutton. We know that, when Mr Dutton was health minister, he cut $50 billion from our public hospitals and he was voted the worst health minister on record. By whom? Australia's doctors. And Mr Dutton recently said that past performance is the best indicator of future practice. These are his words. That is one thing we can agree on, because, when it comes to Medicare, Australians would be worse off under Mr Dutton, the man who was voted the worst health minister on record and who, when he was health minister, cut $50 billion from our public hospitals. He cuts, you pay. That is what Australians can expect from Mr Dutton. Right now in Australia, after three years of Labor, jobs are up. Over a million new jobs have been created. Wages are up. There have been five consecutive quarters of real wages growth. Inflation is almost a third of what we inherited when we took office. Interest rates are heading down in the right direction. We are rebuilding the foundations of a good life in this country and providing the relief Australians need. Mr Dutton and the Liberals have nothing but cuts—$350 billion of cuts that they won't tell you about until after the election. Peter Dutton cuts, and you pay. That is what is clear today. 15:28 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The real problem the Australian people have is that for three years they've had a government that is only focused on the narrow vested interests of the people that support the Labor Party: the unions and the big super funds—the people that man their polling booths, fund their campaigns and are involved in the inner workings of the labour movement. For three years, the government has funnelled cash and policy exclusively to these narrow vested interests. That is why they've had no time to solve the grave problems facing the Australian people, which is evident, and they are the cost of living, housing and inflation. The government has been so focused on narrow vested interests that it has had no time to solve the great economic problems of the day. That is a structural problem for this Labor Party because it is literally owned by the union movement. When the Nine newspapers exposed this massive corruption and wrongdoing last year, they were all so surprised and shocked. It was like a newsflash. But everyone knew the dirty little secret. Everyone knew about the corruption, the bikies and the malfeasance. It was not news to everyone else. The people who are paying the CFMEU tax are the people of Australia who want to buy their first flat or who want to drive on a public road. They're paying a 20 or 30 per cent premium to people who don't want to actually work, who want to be paid for doing no work, because they want to pretend that they are part of a construction project. What they really are is part of a massive corruption scheme that has been supported by this Labor government for the last three years. One of the reasons that housing is out of reach for young Australians is that new apartment buildings are inflated in some parts of Australia by 20 or 25 per cent because of these CFMEU mafia style racketeering tactics, which are a huge stain on the labour movement. I understand that every political party has problems, but this is a structural problem where it turns a blind eye to corruption—so much so that wrongdoing is pushed under the carpet. In the case of the CFMEU, it is still allowed to own a major superannuation fund. It is allowed to own 21 per cent of the Cbus fund. The Labor Party has a national president who is also the chair of the Cbus fund, which has failed to pay 10,000 death claims for people. When someone dies, they should be able to have their death claim paid if they have paid their insurance premiums. I think that is a reasonable expectation. But Cbus asks people to get two death certificates and to deal with six to nine or 12 months of bureaucracy at perhaps the worst time in their lives. Can anyone seriously imagine having a person as the head of any other political party who remains the chair of a major fund—it's a compulsory scheme nonetheless—and is allowed to continue? When Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, was asked about a scandal at Westpac, he said, 'We should throw the book at these people.' He's right; malfeasance is malfeasance. But, when it's to do with Wayne Swan and Cbus, there's silence, nothing. In fact he said, 'We don't comment on cases before the courts.' Well, he did when it was Westpac, and he does when it's any other organisation—a supermarket, perhaps. This double standard goes to the heart of this issue that the Labor Party is a party for vested interests. It is a government for vested interests that abolished the Building and Construction Commission because the CFMEU asked it to, because of services rendered at the last election campaign where they supported the Labor Party. They have done the same throughout this term of government in relation to these scandals in the super sector, in relation to the Cbus fund. A fair minded person would find it very hard to believe that a union in administration is allowed to own a compulsory pension fund with billions and billions of dollars. It is unbelievable, but it shows the government for vested interests in action. 15:33 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'd like to make a contribution to this debate too. I want to applaud Senator Walsh for the magnificent contribution she made. I'm the same as Senator Walsh: we're in budget week and here we go again. We see the opposition, potentially weeks out from an election being called—I have no idea what day that will be—and what do we get on the first day sitting back here in question time? We get the hearty old annuals from the opposition: union bashing and superannuation bashing. They wave the racism flag. The immigration flag pops up all the time. They are the same old hoary chestnuts that they go to when they are at the lowest of their low. You'd think that, leading into an election campaign, some of them on that side—excluding you, Mr Deputy President—on the front bench would actually be switched on. Anyway, I better be careful that I don't mislead the Senate and have people think that they are switched on. But I really have to take—through you, Mr Deputy President—a challenge to Senator Bragg. Senator Bragg has been here for about three years, and it's a well-known fact that Senator Bragg hates industry superannuation. He makes some comments and he chucks in the word 'corruption' and all this sort of stuff around union super funds. There is a misconception out there in the public that all us senators in here, when we leave, are going to walk out with some pot-of-gold superannuation payout. I have to tell you that some of the good investors will, but we don't have the old superannuation fund that John Howard—we're not arguing; we're just proud and happy to be here representing our states. But I am still in my industry fund. When I was a young truck driver, at the age of 26, at TNT, I was given the opportunity to have superannuation as part of my remuneration. At 26, I said, 'What am I going do with this $2.60 a week?' I had no idea. At 65, I'm so glad that we had industry super funds who had our best interests at heart. And let's not forget that—most people out there do know this—superannuation is not given to you because your employer loves you; superannuation is given to you because it's part of that magnificent opportunity of collective bargaining. We have, over the years—I know I've done this—traded off wage rises to get superannuation increases. You listen to Senator Bragg and his one-eyed hatred of superannuation funds—I don't know what's wrong with you, Senator Bragg; I don't know what happened in your previous life. There are thousands and thousands of Australian workers who, thank goodness, have an industry fund. I want to get this out there very clearly: my industry fund, the TWUSUPER fund, which has now amalgamated with the Mining and Energy Union and is called Team Super, has a lazy $33 billion, and I am so glad. But these funds, if you listen to Senator Bragg, have the mafia and bikies running them. I take offence at that because my superannuation fund, like every other industry superannuation fund, has equal representation on its board. You listen to the nonsense that comes out over there—mafia, corruption and bikies. I can tell you now that there are no mafia members of the board at Team Super and there are certainly no bikies. There are union officials, national and state union secretaries, who have equal representation with the employer bodies. At Team Super, I can tell you that there is TWU representation on one side and the ARTIO, the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, on the other side. And, for those out there who think they're normal bedfellows, they have the greatest of respect for each other, but they are the employers' and employees' representatives. Serious businesspeople are looking after the investment for the members of those funds. I know, on the Mining and Energy Union side of it, it's the same deal: half union and half employers—that is, the NSW Minerals Council and the Queensland Resources Council. So I take great umbrage when Senator Bragg gets on his high horse and is very happy to defend the likes of AMP and these other BT funds, all these other ones who gleefully take members' money and charge exorbitant charges compared to the industry super funds. Check out all the returns the bank ones get and compare them to the industry super funds. I tell you that, after 45 years of being in the super fund, I am so damn glad that I have an industry super fund. And let's not forget that great reason we have it: so we're not a burden on the taxpayer when we retire. 15:39 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I might try a slightly novel approach and return to the question, which is that the Senate take note of answers given by Labor ministers to questions asked by Senators Cash and McKenzie, because what we have heard in taking note today from Labor members opposite is no words at all in relation to the questions that were asked by Senators Cash and McKenzie. As I watched that 60 Minutes program recently—we're talking about it today because it's the first opportunity we have had, because we're back here in the parliament this week—I lamented what had happened to the industry that I worked in for 25 years before coming to this place. To see the corruption, the violence, the disgraceful activity and the actions that are being facilitated by the legislation passed by this government and denied by this government—let's not forget the words in Senator Cash's question. The Prime Minister gave this issue four words. That's four more words than we heard from those opposite in response to the motion that we're debating. He doesn't talk about it and he doesn't want to know about it. He wants to pretend it's something else. So what do Labor do? They talk about us and they talk about our leader. They're not prepared to go anywhere near addressing the issues relating to corruption, violence and disgraceful behaviour in the CFMEU, particularly in Victoria but now spreading to other states of this country. They're not prepared to address the fact that construction projects where the CFMEU are engaged cost 30 to 40 per cent more because of the activities of the CFMEU. They do, however, continue to take the CFMEU's money, as Senator McGrath quite rightly said. I lament what has happened to my industry. Over the 25 years that I spent in construction, I worked with a lot of union members who were fervent in their support of people working in the sector. They played a pretty hard game at times, but nothing like this. We didn't have bikies, we didn't have standover—well, not so much standover, but we didn't have bikies. We didn't have people doing jobs where, as was disclosed on 60 Minutes, they were paid $10,000 a week to do nothing. Yet this government gets rid of the ABCC, which had a 91 per cent success rate in prosecuting union misconduct—and employer misconduct, for that matter. This is not one-sided and this is not just about the unions. Employers have a role in this as well and should, equally, be held to account for the behaviour. Even the administrator, Mark Irving KC, has admitted that the union's corruption is worse than initially reported, and Labor revert to one thing: it's the coalition's fault. Yet they were the ones who changed the legislation so that it is the unions who decide who you work with, not a business. A business doesn't decide who its subcontractors might be; the unions get to decide that. That is corruption, and the Labor Party legislated for that to occur. They are the facilitators of this activity and they should be condemned for it. Every time we tried to change industrial relations, they ran a scare campaign against us. They opposed the reintroduction of the ABCC—they have killed it off twice—yet its success rate is a matter of public record. Corruption investigator Geoffrey Watson SC, who was appointed by Mark Irving, the administrator, has accused the Victorian Labor government of running a protection racket. This government pretends they haven't seen or heard anything about this matter. It's an absolute disgrace. Question agreed to. Environmental Legislation 37 15:44 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Australia's environment laws. Before the last election, the Labor Party promised to fix Australia's broken environment laws, and they've broken that promise. They've abjectly failed to deliver. It's a clear breach of the trust of the Australian people. Not only have they failed to strengthen Australia's environment laws, as they committed to do before the last election; they have now introduced legislation to gut Australia's environment laws. They've done that because they want to back in the profits of multinational salmon farming corporations in Tasmania, in the full knowledge that it's the actions of those very same corporations that are driving an ancient, iconic fish species, the maugean skate, into extinction. This situation has come about because the Labor Party—who are claiming, by the way, that they are doing this for jobs, when they stood silent as these very same multinational salmon farming corporations shed job after job in a relentless process of automation over the last 20 years—believe that they need to do this in order to either win or save seats in my home state of Tasmania. This is a broken promise. The introduction of laws to gut environment protections in Australia is a broken promise. The Labor Party committed to the Australian people that they would act to strengthen environment laws. In fact, Minister Wong admitted in question time today that our environment laws are broken because they don't protect the environment. Well, if the environment laws are broken because they don't protect the environment, introduce laws to fix our environment laws so that they better protect the environment. Don't come in here and introduce laws that gut environmental protections in Australia. That is what the Labor Party are doing. They are doing this in the midst of an animal welfare catastrophe in Tasmania, in the midst of an environmental calamity in Tasmania, in the midst of social upheaval. People can't go swimming at their local beaches without bumping into dead, rotten, stinking salmon carcasses, and they can't walk along the sand of their local beaches in their bare feet without their feet getting coated in this fatty, stinking, slimy substance that is washing up on beaches right around the south-east coast of Tasmania, down the D'Entrecasteaux Channel, down the Huon and over to beautiful Bruny Island. In the middle of this social, environmental and animal welfare catastrophe, in the middle of an ancient and iconic fish species being driven into extinction, what does our out-of-touch Prime Minister do? He promises to legislate on behalf of the corporations that are actually delivering this animal misery and delivering these environmental and social catastrophes. He's going to legislate on their behalf so they can continue driving the maugean skate into extinction. That's what's going on here right now. The good news in Tasmania is that people are rising up against industrial salmon farming. They are rising up and demanding that these big, environmentally destructive corporations be held to account. They are rising up to reclaim their waterways, which are being privatised, and reclaim their coastlines, which are being polluted and poisoned. They are rising up for the marine environment, and they are rising up to try and save the maugean skate from extinction. I'll tell you what: the Labor Party is going to pay at the ballot box for what it is trying to do to Australia's environment laws this week—gut them on behalf of big salmon corporations. It's going to pay at the ballot box not just in Tasmania but right around Australia, because Tasmanians have shown for many, many decades now that they will vote to defend their environment, and people around Australia have shown that they will vote to defend their environment. Gone are the days when the Labor Party actually took votes from the Liberal Party by promising to do things like save the Franklin River. Now the Labor Party is promising to do things for polluting, toxic salmon farming corporations. Shame on you! Question agreed to. NOTICES 38 NOTICES Presentation 38 Presentation 43 15:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to various bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for the bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in the Hansard. Leave granted. The statements read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2025 AUTUMN SITTINGS ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AMENDMENT ( RECONSIDERATIONS) BILL Purpose of the Bill The bill would amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). The amendments, proposed by the Government, would update reconsideration provisions to provide greater certainty, including removing the ability of the Minister for the Environment to reconsider a past decision relating to whether an action needs to be assessed and approved under the EPBC Act where certain criteria are met. The purpose of the bill would be to support the Government's commitment to providing certainty and fairness for ongoing industry, workers and communities affected by reconsideration of decisions. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the bill in the 2025 Autumn sittings is required to support the Government's commitment to providing certainty and fairness can be provided to ongoing industry, workers and communities as soon as practicable. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2025 AUTUMN PARLIAMENTARY SITTINGS PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS RESOURCES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGE) BILL 2025 Purpose of the Bill To delay the transfer of the administration of certain Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 (PBR Act) resources from the Department of Finance to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (IPEA), currently scheduled to occur on 1 July 2025, until 1 July 2026. This will minimise the degree of change shortly after the forthcoming federal election, where there will be a heightened need for advice and support to ceasing and commencing parliamentarians and their staff. It will also allow for maturation of the broader operating environment and substantial recent reforms to Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces that have occurred. A 1 July 2026 transfer date would also allow sufficient time for IPEA to settle its administration of the transferred resources prior to the next independent statutory review of the PBR Act, which is scheduled to occur in late 2027. The statutory review could consider IPEA's administration of the transferred resources as part of its review of the operation of the PBR Act, in accordance with the requirements of section 56 of the PBR Act. Reasons for Urgency Passage of the Bill in the 2025 Autumn sittings is important to delay the transfer of PBR Act resources from the Department of Finance to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority which would otherwise occur on 1 July 2025. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE OF THE 2025-26 BUDGET-RELATED BILLS SUPPLY BILL (NO. 1) 2025-2026 SUPPLY BILL (NO. 2) 2025-2026 SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2025-2026 Purpose of the Bills The 2025-26 Supply Bills will provide legislative authority for appropriations to fund expenditure to be incurred in 2025-26 should the Budget Bills not be able to be passed by Parliament over the course of the usual Budget process. Reasons for Urgency The 2025-26 Supply Bills will propose appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to fund government expenditure to be incurred in the first five months of 2025-26 to ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the operation of Commonwealth entities. Full passage of the Supply Bills before the 2025 Federal Election will ensure continuity of the Government's programs and the Commonwealth's ability to meet its obligations for the first five months of the 2025-26 financial year. Should full passage not be granted before the 2025 Federal Election is called, the government will not be able to operate after 30 June 2025 in the event the Budget Bills are not able to be passed. CONDOLENCES 44 CONDOLENCES Crowley, Hon. Dr Rosemary Anne, AO 44 15:50 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 1 March 2025, of the Hon. Dr Rosemary Anne Crowley AO, a senator for the state of South Australia from 1983 to 2002. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 15:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 1 March 2025, of the Honourable Dr Rosemary Anne Crowley AO, former Minister for Family Services, former Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, and former Senator for South Australia, places on record its gratitude for her service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to her family in their bereavement. I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the death of former senator and minister the Hon. Dr Rosemary Anne Crowley AO at the age of 86. At the outset of my remarks I convey the government's condolences formally to Dr Crowley's family and friends, particularly Stephen, Vincent and Diarmuid, Leo and Ella, Peter, Eileen and Gabrielle, and I welcome members of her family who have joined us in the Senate today and again extend my personal sympathies to them. Nineteen years Rosemary Crowley served in this place—part of consequential reforms, part of a generation of gutsy Labor women who changed this country for the better. Rosemary Willis, later Crowley, was born in Melbourne in 1938. Her convent education was pivotal for the way in which it instilled in her a passion for social justice and community service. Coupled with this was the role of government support, with scholarships enabling her to complete secondary schooling, matriculation and then a medical degree at the University of Melbourne. Her marriage to James took her to Berkeley in California, a heady place to be in the 1960s, amidst the political activism of the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam war protests. She used this time to complement her qualifications in medicine, training as a children's and family counsellor, before settling in my hometown of Adelaide and beginning her medical practice. She found her calling in community health care. Of course, we know that the winds of change were sweeping the campuses of California at that time, and they were well and truly blowing in Adelaide. Rosemary became politically active in the Dunston decade. Active in her local sub-branches in Adelaide's inner south, Rosemary made two—and I say, for the nation, thankfully—unsuccessful tilts for election to the South Australian parliament. At the 1983 simultaneous dissolution she became the last of the 10 senators elected from our state. In all, she would be elected four times to this place, an achievement that places Rosemary Crowley among the most consequential legislators ever to represent our state of South Australia. Rosemary's political career and advocacy centred on health care, community services and the rights of women. She arrived at the right time to advance these issues and served alongside other intrepid Labor women senators of the era, like Susan Ryan, Pat Giles, Jean Hearn and Olive Zakharov. We on this side remember these women, not just because of what they did—and they did a lot—but also for the legacy they left, because we talk a lot about how Whitlam and Hawke and Keating modernised Australia, but we don't talk enough about the seismic change that is the legacy of these women. Rosemary and her sisters made the change they recognised was long overdue in policy, in politics and in the culture. They ensured that issues important to women were placed on the political agenda and they also ensured that our party and our parliament now looks more like Australia. I stand here as leader in a government comprising a majority of women in a chamber comprising a majority of women, including my ministerial colleagues Senator Gallagher, Senator McCarthy and Senator McAllister. Now, some might take the progress achieved by these women lightly, but let's remember what it was like back then for them. In her first speech, Rosemary noted she was one of just 13 women in the government, seven of whom were senators, equating to 12 per cent of the Labor caucus. Now, more than half of the Albanese government are women. That is an extraordinary achievement in itself and such a change from Rosemary's time and also a change from the start of my career. Rosemary Crowley was the first South Australian Labor woman to come to Canberra; I was the third. Rosemary argued that: …when women were given a voice: 'they opened huge possibilities for the whole of society. They dramatically extended the agenda, they broadened the topics for discussion …' and that '… it is striving for fair recognition of the variety of talents and contributions that women can make … it is a matter of justice, it is a matter of equity and it is also a matter of best practice'. Rosemary Crowley was right. Part of the point of equal representation is to see interests represented more equally. We see that every day. We see it in outcomes that improve the lives and livelihoods of women and girls around Australia. We see it in how we are closing the gender pay gap and in higher salaries in feminised industries so women can be paid what they deserve. We see it in better health care for women, with more contraceptive options and menopause options on the PBS, new and bigger Medicare rebates for women's health and endometriosis clinics across the country. We see it in accessible child care. I spoke at Rosemary's memorial service of the continuing of these reforms today and of the groundbreaking reforms Rosemary was deeply involved in, like Medicare and the Sex Discrimination Act. Remember, until then it had been legal to discriminate on the basis of gender, on the basis of marital status and on the basis of pregnancy. Remember, women were locked out of education, jobs and opportunity, were refused access to home finance and faced the sack for being pregnant. In her work as a doctor and counsellor in the community, Rosemary Crowley had seen many challenges could not be solved at the individual level. Structural problems like health care, unemployment and lack of transport required political action to fix. But she won arguments for publicly funded, needs based child care, child support and enforcing child maintenance arrangements. The pinnacle of Rosemary's career was her three years as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and as Minister for Family Services. She said she was interested in the advancement of opportunities for women—all women—in whatever choices they are making about their lives. She had the opportunity to address the United Nations General Assembly in 1995, as minister, and she oversaw this nation's contribution to the International Year of the Family in 1994. I had the honour at quite a young age of being appointed by Rosemary to the National Council for the International Year of the Family. She progressed and implemented reforms: enhancements to family payments, additional payments for low-income families, maternity allowances, disability support programs, carers pensions, student assistance and youth training allowances. She introduced legislation for cash rebates for the cost of child care for working families and home childcare allowances. I believe Rosemary would be so enormously proud of the reforms the Albanese government have made and how we are supporting cheaper child care, higher wages for early childhood educators, and the three-day guarantee. When Labor went into opposition in 1996, Rosemary Crowley continued with no diminution in her drive, chairing many committee inquiries into education, employment, health and community affairs. On leaving this place, she spoke about her love of the great Australian Labor Party—in her words, 'warts and all'—and she remained a member the rest of her life, attending local sub-branch meetings where she could pass her wisdom, expertise and passion to new generations of members. Rosemary Crowley was many things—the first South Australian Labor woman to be elected to the federal parliament, the first woman from South Australia to be a federal minister, and a doctor who prioritised medical care and counselling for women and families at a time when this was far from standard—but, most importantly to her, she was a mother to three beloved sons and a grandmother to two cherished grandchildren. In her first speech Rosemary spoke of what motherhood meant to her, but perhaps the most poignant acknowledgement came from her own children. In Vincent's eulogy he spoke so movingly of the lessons Rosemary had taught her sons—lessons in courage. He spoke of her many passions. Among those passions, he said: 'She loved people, not all people all of the time, but lots of people, lots of the time. Meeting people, talking to people, hearing their stories, telling her stories, arguing, analysing, conceptualising, counselling, celebrating. She loved her friends. She loved her family. She loved her grandkids, Ella and Leo, and I think she mostly loved being a mum too.' To her family, she gave so much. To a nation, she gave so much and yet, still, she had more to give. She was a mentor to me and to many others. This came naturally to her, so too did her trademark wit. Nurturing and mentoring came naturally because, as Vincent so beautifully described, 'she cared deeply about people'. She saw the innate value in everyone. She believed in humanity and she believed in human potential. At International Women's Day breakfasts, rather than clamouring over the assembled great and the good, she was often in the wings talking to the staff about their lives and struggles. At the university, where her prolific archives were being preserved, she would stop and chat with a student or an academic, asking what they were studying; how they were finding it; what they found difficult. And, invariably, she would buck them up. As I said at her state funeral on Saturday, her fortitude was osmotic. Certainly, that was my experience as she went out of her way to encourage me in my own political career. In a business that can be transactional and performative, Rosemary was genuine and generous. She took me out to lunch and offered me her support when I was thinking about standing for preselection. It is hard to express how much that meant, to have the backing of a woman who I admired and looked up to. My Labor Party colleagues will also understand what it meant to have a woman not from my faction supporting me. But, most importantly, she was a woman central to the generation of women who transformed our party and our country. I've had the benefit of her support of me for my entire time in the Senate. And each year I'm proud to take forward her legacy as the custodian of the International Women's Day breakfast in Adelaide. More than 3,000 South Australian women assemble in a tradition that she began and led for 10 years and which she handed on to me. True to how she valued inclusion, Rosemary always asked how we could keep the cost of attending the breakfast as low as possible. Whenever the menu was discussed, she suggested a cup of tea and a piece of toast. She believed women attended to hear a great speaker and to be in a room with other feminists—not to have a hot, cooked breakfast. Rosemary founded the biggest women's day event in Australia. That tells you she knew what she was talking about. She knew what this meant to all of us. Each year, I am moved by the power of that breakfast, by the chance for women to learn from each other, what it says about feminist solidarity and what it says about how we inherit progress and how we take it forward for our daughters. This year, I had the sad duty to inform the gathering that Rosemary had passed the week before. In 2015, Rosemary Crowley was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia. She was one of a great generation of women who forged the way with all the boldness and courage that's demanded to beat down doors and the humility, humour and perseverance that's demanded when doors sometimes slam in your face. She never let up in the pursuit of a more equitable and just society. She never lost her sense of humour or her sense of fun, whether laughing at herself or tempering the egos of others with her famous sharp wit. In his eulogy, Vincent recalled: 'She loved humour, the bawdier the better. When I was a kid, I remember the moment I realised with surprise that not all mums told dirty jokes.' I know how much her family grieve her. We all grieve Rosemary Crowley and we will all miss her. But, as I have said, I have no doubt she would rather that we channelled our grief into resolve: resolve to continue the work she and her sister started, to make this—and to keep making this—a more equal country, a more just country, where all and each of us is nurtured and valued as we should be. That is how we can show our gratitude and that is the respect she has earned. Drawing inspiration from the struggles of those who have gone before to strengthen our resolve today is something we, in the Labor Party, well understand. Dr Crowley did this herself in her first speech when she quoted from 'Bread and Roses'. It is a song associated with the struggle of working women—working women protesting sweatshop conditions and child labour and demanding women's suffrage in 1908. I wish I could sing, because it is much better sung, but I will read this part of the lyrics: As we go marching, marching in the beauty of the day, A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill-lofts gray Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses, For the people hear us singing, 'Bread and Roses, Bread and Roses.' I express again, on behalf of all of us, our condolences to her friends and family. 16:05 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise, on behalf of the opposition, to pay tribute to Dr Rosemary Crowley AO. Rosemary, without a doubt, created some history in this place, being only the fourth woman elected to the federal parliament from South Australia and the first from the Australian Labor Party. She was the only female ALP senator from South Australia throughout her 19-year term and the first female minister from South Australia. Rosemary was frequently invited to speak on issues of women and parliament. She argued for initiatives to return more women to parliament, believing that when women were given a voice: … they opened huge possibilities for the whole of society. They dramatically extended the agenda, they broadened the topics for discussion— and that— it is striving for fair recognition of the variety of talents and contributions that women can make … it is a matter of justice, it is a matter of equity and it is also a matter of best practice. She was an ardent advocate of having 50 per cent representation of women in the parliament. Rosemary Anne Willis was born in Melbourne on 30 July 1938, the second of six children of Monica Mary Willis and Everard Joseph Willis, an accountant. She was raised as a Catholic, and her primary and secondary education at Kilmaire Brigidine Convent in Hawthorn was between 1943 and 1955. Rosemary's Catholic education, combined with her family upbringing, instilled in her a passion for social justice and community service. She won a junior government scholarship in grade 8, which then enabled her to stay another four years at school. After school, Rosemary was accepted into the University of Melbourne on yet another scholarship, a Commonwealth scholarship. It was there that she completed a medical degree, from 1956 to 1961. After university, Rosemary became a junior resident medical officer, then a senior RMO at St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, in 1962 and 1963. In 1964 Rosemary married James Crowley, and they moved to Berkeley, California, where James was studying for a PhD, from 1965 to 1969. Berkeley was at that time seething with political activism such as civil rights, the anti-Vietnam-War movement and draft resistance, and the beginnings of a women's movement. In Berkeley, Rosemary trained as a children's and family counsellor. The Crowleys returned in 1969 to Adelaide, and Rosemary continued working in the medical profession in a variety of roles. But Rosemary's experiences in the US had whet her political appetite, and she became active in the Australian Labor Party. The dismissal of the Whitlam government, which she described as an injustice, helped to fuel Rosemary's political ambitions. She served as a junior vice-president and president of the ALP's Mitcham branch before securing a South Australian Senate spot in the double dissolution election of 1983. In that year she was fifth on the ALP ticket, but she would be elevated to pole position in the subsequent four elections she contested. Rosemary was an enthusiastic and energetic member of the new Hawke government, contributing to Labor's 'towards equality' women's policy statement. As a backbencher and committee member, she campaigned with gusto on the issues dearest to her heart: welfare reform; needs based child care; community health; disability and aged care; occupational health and safety, especially for union workforces; and arms reduction—even joining a protest group of women at Pine Gap. When Bob Hawke proposed a Medicare co-payment, Rosemary opposed her own party's policy. She subsequently threw her support behind Paul Keating when he challenged Hawke for the leadership. After the 1993 election, Rosemary was appointed Minister for Family Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. As minister, she initiated a program of financial assistance and support for low-income families, disabled Australians, carers and students. Child care was one of her key areas of focus and passions. In 1996, after Labor lost the election, Rosemary returned to the Senate committee work that she had always loved. She headed an inquiry that led to recommendations to improve the participation of women in sport and associated media coverage. Rosemary, without a doubt, inspired and mentored many women, especially in the Labor ranks. She was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for her parliamentary service and for promoting the status of women. On behalf of the coalition, I offer my deepest condolences to all who loved Rosemary: her family, especially her sons Stephen, Vincent and Diarmuid; her friends; her Labor Party colleagues. May she rest in peace. 16:11 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I rise today on behalf of the Nationals to acknowledge the life and passing of the Hon. Dr Rosemary Anne Crowley, former senator for South Australia, medical practitioner and minister. I'm reflecting on Senator Wong's and Senator Cash's contributions and reflecting on former senator Crowley's contribution. We now have in the Senate a female leader of the National Party, a female leader of the opposition and a female leader of the government as the parties of government, something that I'm sure former senator Crowley would have really appreciated, given her longstanding service towards promoting women not only into parliament but into leadership. Dr Crowley served in this chamber from 1983 until her retirement in 2002, representing the Australian Labor Party and the people of South Australia with commitment and sincerity, and we rise today to acknowledge her contributions to Australian public life and in tribute to a life lived in service. I also want to acknowledge Senator Wong, who knew Rosemary for many years and had a deep personal friendship. Rosemary Crowley nee Willis was born in Melbourne in 1938, part of a generation that came of age in a rapidly changing postwar Australia. She attended Kilmaire College in Hawthorn, where she was a recipient of a Junior Government Scholarship, enabling her to continue through to secondary college, and was one of just five girls to graduate in 1955. After graduating, she pursued medicine at the University of Melbourne—no small undertaking for a woman in that era—and she graduated as a doctor. After doing her residency at St Vincent's Hospital, she would go onto specialise in paediatrics at Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital, undertaking work that placed her in close contact with young families and children, particularly those doing it tough. Her experience as a doctor, particularly with children, gave her a strong foundation in practical care and advocacy, and helped shape a sense of empathy that she carried with her for her entire political career. Her later roles, in Adelaide Children's Hospital and as a parent education counsellor at the Clovelly Park Community Health Centre, reinforced her longstanding commitment to community wellbeing and family support. It was during this time in Adelaide that Dr Crowley became actively involved in her local Labor branch. Her growing involvement saw her become president of the ALP's Mitcham branch, and, in 1982, she ran unsuccessfully for preselection in the Unley seat in the parliament of South Australia. However, in 1983, she was successful in being preselected fifth in the double dissolution Senate ticket and was elected to the Australian Senate, becoming the first female Labor senator from South Australia. She would serve the Senate for just under two decades, an impressive tenure by any standard, and was present during the Hawke, Keating and Howard years. Her time in this place coincided with major debates in social policy, health care and gender equality, and she was known within her own party as a consistent voice on issues related to family services, health education and the status of women. In 1993, she was appointed Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women under Paul Keating, and by December 1993, she was appointed as Minister for Family Services. I'm reliably informed that she took her ministerial responsibility seriously and was respected by her colleagues for her thorough approach and considered contributions. During her time as Minister for Family Services, Dr Crowley was instrumental in delivering a range of social policy initiatives including the Childcare Rebate Act 1993, and her work focused on strengthening the support for families through expanded maternity allowances, increased financial assistance, enhanced disability services and the introduction of carers' pensions and youth training programs. Following her departure from federal politics, she continued her involvement in public life by remaining engaged in issues related to education, community service and health, and she was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2015. This national honour reflects a lifetime of dedication to public service across multiple domains, both within and outside of politics. Her background as a doctor gave her a grounding in practical, real-world challenges, and she used that experience to guide her in her parliamentary career. In reflecting on her life, I'm reminded that, while we may come to this chamber with different political beliefs, we're all driven when we are at our best by a shared commitment to serve the Australian people. Dr Crowley exemplified that ethos through her work as a doctor, a senator and a minister, and, on behalf of the National Party, I extend sincere condolences to her family, former colleagues, friends and all who mourn her loss. We honour her service to this nation and to this parliament, where she served for nearly two decades. May she rest in peace. 16:16 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Unlike Senator Wong, I did not know Dr Crowley personally, but her contribution and the contribution of her peers at that time in this parliament deeply shaped my own thinking about Labor, its purpose and the role of women in the Australian Labor Party. I think that is true for many of the women of my generation. Rosemary had a life of firsts. She was a foundation member of the South Australian Mental Health Review Tribunal, the first South Australian woman to be elected to parliament, the first and only female ALP senator from South Australia throughout her 19-year term and the first female minister from South Australia. Like so many of our party's trailblazers, she lived her values with courage and with wit, and you really do need both of those things if you are going to attempt to push through doors that have been barred by others. Rosemary spent her career in this place and afterwards unpicking the ingrained political, social, medical and economical constraints and restraints on women. She wanted to create spaces for women where they could thrive as equals, whether that be in politics or on the netball court. Her campaign slogan, as Senator Wong alluded to in her contribution, was Bread and Roses, and she talked about that in her first speech. She said: These words capture exactly what I want to offer as my contribution to politics. This is because the bread and roses must go together, not bread first and roses later … A person may have adequate food, clothing, shelter, a bed to sleep in and even books and paper, but the loss of freedom means a starving heart. And Rosemary's work did help ensure bread and roses for a whole generation of women. In 1995, Prime Minister Keating circulated a document entitled Agenda for Families, and it showcased Minister Crowley's achievements. The introduction of a six-week maternity payment, increased family payments, cash rebates for child care for working families, and childcare centre accreditation—these were all key reforms that began to break down the economic shackles that have constrained too many women. Many of her fights were not as public. There were internal battles in this place and elsewhere to make sure that women were in the room where the decisions were made or even on the record, like ensuring that a childcare centre was included in the planning of this building or that our words were recorded as they were spoken, changing Hansard's practice and arguing that they should cease the practice of converting pronouns in speeches into the masculine gender. No achievement is realised in isolation, and we all inherit progress. That is true of the work that the Albanese government has done this term, whether it's our work on women's safety, sharing and valuing care, economic equality, women's health and women's leadership and representation. All of this was built on the work of Rosemary Crowley and her generation of colleagues. There would be no universal child care without her ministerial work and no paid parental leave as it exists today without the maternity payment. I know many people here in this place were mentees and close friends of Rosemary, including Senator Wong, who took over her Senate spot when she retired. To them and to her family I offer my heartfelt condolences. On behalf of women in our party and this side of the chamber, I thank her family for sharing her with us. Her legacy impacts those who never met her, but many have opportunity and a seat at the table because of her lifetime of work. 16:20 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise to speak on the condolence motion for the Hon. Dr Rosemary Anne Crowley AO, and I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. Dr Crowley was a passionate former minister, but, most importantly to me, she was a senator for my home state of South Australia. She was massively respected in her own community and was a very respected member of the medical community, having made very significant contributions to health and family services during her time both as a medical specialist and in this place. They are contributions which no doubt have made a lasting impact on the lives of many South Australians and Australians alike. Dr Crowley's unwavering commitment to bettering the lives of South Australians is something that should be not just acknowledged but greatly admired. This commitment certainly extended beyond her important work as a medical practitioner and as an educator. She was an inspiring woman in her own right. She was a great advocate for social justice. She was committed to the principles of fairness, equality and opportunity. Her leadership as the first female Labor senator from South Australia helped pave the way for women in politics and in the Public Service. It's a legacy that transcends the political divide. Notably, Dr Crowley founded the now quite famous Adelaide International Women's Day Breakfast. This year, it was quite inspiring to be at that event—sadly, without Rosemary being there, as she has been every other year that I've been able to attend. But I think she would have been incredibly proud to see how many people now attend that event every year. Over 3,000 women came out on International Women's Day. An event that started off as just a small thought in Rosemary's mind and grew has now grown into one of the most important events in the South Australian calendar. It continues to inspire and empower women across the state every single year. I'm sure that's what she intended. As I said, it was a privilege to attend the breakfast because it gave everyone in that room the ability to acknowledge the extraordinary work of this extraordinary woman and this extraordinary South Australian. I send my heartfelt sympathies to Dr Crowley's friends and family and acknowledge her family that are here today. I know her passing is a great loss to Australia and to South Australia but it is the greatest loss to you. There is no doubt that her contributions will endure. They will endure across the whole of Australia. Today we pay our respects. Vale the Hon. Dr Rosemary Anne Crowley. 16:23 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to give a short contribution in the debate that we're having today. I do so acknowledging that I didn't have the privilege of meeting Dr Rosemary Crowley, but I also would like to associate my remarks with Senator Catryna Bilyk, who did have that opportunity of meeting Rosemary, in her role as Minister for Family Services, when Catryna was an ASU delegate and organiser coming up here and talking about child care. I rise because I think it's important to acknowledge the contribution of women that go before us in the Senate, who pave the way, making it easier for other women to follow, and who break the glass ceiling. That's what Rosemary did. Rosemary's reputation went before her. She was someone that was deeply admired within the Labor Party. She was a trailblazer in Australian politics and health care. A medical doctor who turned senator, Rosemary dedicated her life to public service, fighting for the rights of women, children and the broader Australian community. Her career spanned nearly two decades in the Senate, where she played key roles in shaping policies on health care, family services and gender equality. As has been stated, in 1983 she made history as the first woman for the ALP in South Australia to be elected to the Senate. I have to say, when I look from the Tasmanian branch view, there weren't too many women that came from Tasmania to the Senate either. Rosemary's efforts changed it for all of us, I believe. During her time in parliament, Rosemary was a strong advocate for universal health care, contributing to Medicare reforms and championing policies that supported family, women and children. Being Minister for Family Services saw her push for improvements in child care, parental leave and protections against sexual discrimination. She also served as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, working to elevate the role of women in Australian society. Rosemary Crowley retired from politics in 2002 but remained active, as we've heard in the contributions here today, in community life. In her valedictory speech to the Senate, Rosemary reflected on her career with humour and warmth. She spoke of her passion for Medicare, child care and gender equality, emphasising the importance of women in politics. She acknowledged the barriers women faced in parliament but remained steadfast in her belief that progress was being made. In 2015, Rosemary was appointed an officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of her long, distinguished service to the parliament and her dedication to promoting the status of women. Rosemary Crowley's impact on Australia's Australian politics and society is undeniable. As a doctor, senator and advocate, she dedicated her life to improving the lives of Australians, particularly women and children. Her leadership in the Senate helped shaped policies that continue to benefit Australian society. She will be remembered by her Labor family as a fierce advocate for justice, a pioneer for women in politics and a compassionate leader who fought for a fairer and more equitable society. Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence. BUSINESS 50 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 50 16:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day No. 64, the Criminal Code Amendment (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes) Bill 2024, be considered at the time for private senators' bills on Wednesday 26 March 2025 Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 50 16:28 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Fawcett for today on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 50 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 50 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 50 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 50 16:29 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Rennick has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today as shown at item 15 on today's Order of Business: The two major parties have no vision for our children's future. Their profligate spending over the last two decades has left our children facing record levels of debt, unaffordable housing, and a lack of essential services due to underinvestment in infrastructure and high immigration. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 With the concurrence of the Senate the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:29 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Here we are on the eve of the budget and the Australian people are clueless. They are clueless. They are out there hoping that the Albanese government may be able to provide some solutions to the economic malaise that we have found ourselves in thanks to two decades of reckless economic management by both of the major parties. If what we've seen so far is anything to go by, it looks like it is just going to become a spend-a-thon by the two major parties—being led, I might add, by the Labor Party, and then the Liberal Party is pretty much just rolling over within minutes, matching every spending announcement by the Labor government. This sort of reckless expenditure has to stop, because the Australian people can't afford it and, more importantly, our children can't afford it. In 2007, when John Howard left office, the Australian government had no debt, yet here we are, 18 years later, and we have $1 trillion in debt. Of course, that excludes the liability for the defined benefits scheme for retired bureaucrats, and it also excludes, I might add, the $482 billion sitting in franking accounts that no-one seems to want to talk about anymore. We have got a great deal of economic reform ahead of us if we want to provide our children with the same opportunities as our forefathers gave to us. It's a very sad day when a minor party like People First, for example, has all the major solutions, because we know that the major parties only have minor solutions. Of course, those minor solutions are just spending more of taxpayers' dollars without any real long-term economic benefits. These little sugar hits are like giving a child candy all the time. You are not going to breed good behaviour. What you need to be doing is actually looking at developing and building and tapping into the great untapped wealth of this country. We at People First have a great vision for this country. We know how to get the country back on track, and that is by building infrastructure in the same way that our forefathers did. When they came here, there was very, very little in the way of economic opportunity, but our pioneering forefathers had great vision. They knew that with seven million square kilometres of abundant land, massive rainfall—albeit, some of that rain needs to be redirected into drier locations—a beautiful coastline, and millions of acres of fertile, black soil you can build a prosperous country. We've seen that happen over the last 200 years. We saw a prosperous country built, yet in just two decades we've seen the two major parties squander it through nothing but fearmongering and lies. We saw the fearmongering through COVID and the lies about climate change. We've seen the constant repetition of these two major parties putting foreign interests and the interests of multinationals in front of the Australian people. I literally just got off the phone with a constituent that works in outsourcing, and he was saying that the banks are outsourcing thousands of jobs to the Philippines and India. They can pay people in the Philippines and India $15,000 and save $150,000 here, and our governments do nothing about taxing the wealth that is being transferred offshore. They do nothing about it. I literally just refreshed myself on the 2018 paper that I got the Parliamentary Library to write up about the petroleum resource rent tax and how we are letting billions of dollars go offshore for our gas, yet the two major parties do nothing about it. Likewise, with renewables, we import foreign made renewables. Seventy per cent of renewable energy companies in Australia are foreign owned, yet we close down our own homegrown industries, like coal—not so much gas—in favour of foreign renewable companies. When are the two major parties going to bite the bullet and start to put Australians first? 16:34 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Senator Rennick's motion this afternoon is very timely because we know that we'll have a federal budget soon, in the next few hours, and in a few days we'll have the calling of an election, and within two months we'll have the outcome of that election and know who will be trusted to govern this country and chart the path forward. This election will be about who can manage the economy better and allow Australians to get ahead. Australia cannot continue on its current path. Under Labor, inflation is higher, interest rates are up, sharply, and Australian households have had the largest fall in living standards in our history. Housing is unaffordable, and our country and our communities are less safe. As a nation we must do better to rebuild our economy and to get Australia back on track. On Thursday night we'll hear from the man that deserves to be the Prime Minister of our country, Peter Dutton, because he has the experience, conviction, energy and enthusiasm to put this country back on track. The coalition will deliver something different to what has been delivered to Australians over the last three years. The coalition will deliver low inflation by cutting wasteful spending and reducing tax and red tape. The coalition will deliver cheaper energy with a mix of renewables, gas and zero emissions nuclear energy. The coalition will deliver more affordable housing by funding critical infrastructure and restricting foreign investors. The coalition will deliver on safer communities by getting tough on violent crime, boosting border security and improving online safety for children. And the coalition will deliver and sustain quality health care by funding more GPs and more bulk-billing, including more Medicare subsidised mental health sessions. Across Western Australia, whether I'm travelling in the far north or across the Great Southern, Western Australians know, and have been telling me, that they can't afford another three years of Labor. They know Labor has failed them in Western Australia, failed to manage the economy, failed to keep them safe and failed to keep us united. Under Labor, Australians are paying more for food, more for rent and more for power and gas, and the dream of homeownership for young Australians has almost evaporated. Australians have had the largest fall in living standards in the developed world under Labor. Small-business bankruptcies are at record highs under Labor. Anthony Albanese said in May 2022, almost three years ago, that life would be cheaper under Labor. He failed. More than that, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be weak, distracted and focused on the wrong priorities. The Prime Minister is out of his depth. He is incapable of fixing the problems facing Australia. Australians feel let down, and Australians deserve better. Tonight's budget is a test for Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers. It's a test to see if Labor can deliver a budget for the next five years, not the next five or so weeks. Labor budgets, thus far, have been wasted opportunities. Australians have seen two windfall gains completely wasted, and tonight they will see a sea of deficits as far as the eye can see. Tonight the coalition will be looking for a budget that can restore a standard of living that has been lost under this Labor government. Australian living standards have collapsed further and faster than ever before. At the election, Australians will have a clear choice. Can they guarantee, for their children and their grandchildren, living standards that are comparable to those that they've enjoyed for themselves or that their forefathers and foremothers enjoyed? The answer is simple: under Labor, you cannot be guaranteed a quality of life in Australia. 16:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales If the children and young people who come to visit this parliament to watch what happens only knew how their future was being sold here, they'd be horrified. In a world where the changed climate is likely to have the most significant impact on the lives of young people, the calculated destruction of a liveable future brings shame to every person in this place who is involved in it. And you can't say you didn't know. Their future is in the balance, and you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on AUKUS instead of investing in a safe climate and giving everyone a home. Do you know what won't help young people when their communities are facing devastating floods and fires? Do you know what doesn't build local resilience and help people survive when the climate crisis turns up in their local hood? I'll tell you what: nuclear submarines. The government know that climate change is the biggest threat to the security of this country, and in typical fashion for Labor, they are trying to hide the fact. They commissioned a report on it through the Office of National Intelligence—reassured the media and the public how seriously they were taking it. Then, when the report came back, they hid it under a rock. Apparently, the national security impacts of climate change are too scary for the public to even know about—and that should terrify us all. What are they hiding? In an attempt to curry favour, they gave some independent MPs a confidential briefing on the report, and then they swore them to secrecy—another classic Labor strategy of gagging your critics. The thing is, from flooded communities across Brisbane to the Northern Rivers in my home state of New South Wales to the fires burning near Ballarat, people can see the truth about the climate crisis. We can see the impacts of massive droughts, unseasonal cyclones and catastrophic rainfall in our country. We can see the truth of what the climate crisis is doing to our region and, fundamentally, to our national security. Our Pacific neighbours are going under water. Our region is going to be dramatically destabilised if we don't deal with climate change as coastal cities are inundated and food security is ravaged. Now, we can either pretend that none of this is happening, or we can get serious about climate action, keep coal and gas in the ground and support efforts for climate resilience in our country and our neighbourhood. What I can say is that when climate change seriously hits the fan we won't all fit on a handful of near-mythical AUKUS nuclear submarines. 16:42 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I'd like to thank Senator Rennick for raising this important matter about empowering our next generation of younger Australians. It seems a bit cheeky, though. He's been out of the coalition opposition for two hot minutes and he's already kicking them in the guts on the way through about having no vision for our children's future. But he sat on that side of the chamber and voted every time, as long as I've been here, against the measures we've brought to this parliament that build Australia's future, particularly for our children. But sure: let's kick your former colleagues in the guts on the way through—and I'm happy to do a bit of that, too. Senator Scarr 282997 Thank you—very gracious of you. Senator STEWART 299352 I know. Thank you very much—senator of the people. For a generation of Australians, homeownership feels too far away, and being a renter feels too insecure. Too many people spend their weekends in rental queues, lining up for a home they don't really want to live in. We've got a generation of Australians who are stuck in rent traps, who feel anger and despair that homeownership might not ever happen for them. We've got Australians making major life decisions—delaying having children or giving up precious time—to spend two hours a day in the car commuting to work, all because they can't get the stability of a place near where they want to live. We've also got the brilliant idea of Mr Dutton to force everyone back into the office and spend more time in their cars. We know that the state of housing in our country isn't good enough, and there's plenty that our government is doing about it. Every Australian deserves a healthy and affordable place to call home. The country's housing crisis has absolutely been decades in the making. We know that one of the main barriers to the construction of more homes is a lack of basic infrastructure. That's why the Albanese Labor government is building Australia's future and tackling the housing crisis caused by 10 years of coalition neglect. We're making it easier to buy, we're making it more affordable to rent and we're building more homes faster through our 'home of your own' plan and expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. In stark contrast, and here are some of the comparisons, Senator Rennick and the coalition's version of prioritising the future of our children and younger Australians involves consistently voting against every measure that the Labor government has brought into this chamber. It might be worthwhile to spend a bit of time having a look at their voting record. They voted against increasing funding for public schools. They voted against increasing funding for early years educators. They voted against increasing housing affordability for younger Australians. They voted against increasing the youth allowance rate. They voted against removing children from immigration detention. What an absolute joke. Labor's expanded Home Guarantee Scheme delivers lower deposits for first home buyers, which has helped twice as many people as under the former government. We're also supporting Australians with smaller mortgages under our Help to Buy shared-equity scheme. Our plan will help hundreds of thousands of first home buyers over the next few years, getting you into your own home sooner. But we know the long-term fix for housing is to strike the right balance between the number of homes that we have and the number of homes that we need. That's why we're starting the largest house-build in Australia's history. We have an ambitious target of 1.2 million new homes, and we're delivering 55,000 social and affordable rental homes. We're directly investing in building new homes, just like we used to and just like your federal government should do. To unlock these homes in our cities, suburbs and regions, we're training more tradies, building more infrastructure and cutting red tape. We're also banning the foreign ownership of homes and bringing immigration down to sustainable levels. On top of that, we've delivered two budget surpluses, we've got inflation under control and we're helping Australians who are doing it tough. 16:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I thank Senator Rennick for this opportunity to speak about One Nation's policies and note that, in March, his statements and policies are becoming increasingly loaded with One Nation policies that we released earlier the month before, in February. In that, it's like Labor and the LNP too, who are copying elements of our policies. For the entire time I've been in this Senate, I've spoken on the need to restore Australia's productive capacity through the construction of new infrastructure. It's a simple metric: the living standard of each Australian is expressed as our gross domestic product divided by population. With five million new Australians in the last 10 years, 2½ million of those under this Labor government, our gross domestic product is being split into new slices for the new arrivals faster than it's growing. As a result, the standard of living of individual Australians is going backwards and has fallen by eight per cent since Labor took over. Did anyone hear Prime Minister Albanese promise in his 2022 election pitch to reduce the living standards of everyday Australians by eight per cent? I didn't. The answer is clearly and certainly to reduce immigration, although the government must embrace the other side of that equation as well, which is building new infrastructure to grow our productive capacity. One Nation are taking a platform to this election that includes building a national rail loop to take hundreds of thousands of truck movements off the roads, making freight handling cheaper and more efficient, reducing supermarket prices and making Australia more competitive. That's vital in a large country with a small population; logistics is tops. Our platform also includes a new northern rail crossing from Port Hedland to Moranbah and the Port of Gladstone in Queensland to open the east Pilbara and the north-west minerals province in Queensland to the international market, facilitating exports worth hundreds of billions of dollars and tens or hundreds of thousands of breadwinner jobs. There's also a multifunction corridor to take water, power and internet along the new northern crossing railway to bring town services to more than 100 remote communities across the Top End; Hells Gates Dam in Far North Queensland to provide flood mitigation, water security and hydropower; and the Urannah water project and pipeline, amongst others. What will be the source of these funds? There will be $90 billion from cutting waste and duplication, itemised. See our website; it's fully costed. Each year, we will put $40 billion of that back into people's pockets. For example, couples with children income-splitting will save almost $10,000 a year. It's fully costed. Each year, we will invest $20 billion in infrastructure to increase productive capacity to increase our children's wages. Each year, we will pay down record debt of $30 billion, which is estimated to become $50 billion the year after next per year, to reduce interest. Only through building our productive capacity can we hope to provide for the millions of new arrivals, generate new government revenue from increased economic activity and restore wealth and opportunity to all who call this beautiful country home. 16:50 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Federal budgets provide an opportunity to get an insight into the priorities of a government. They're an opportunity for a government to present a vision about the sort of country that they want to see; an opportunity to pave the way towards a more fair, just and equitable future; and an opportunity to deliver more than just polished talking points and instead announce measures that will make everyday people's lives better. Unfortunately, I fear that the government's budget will fall short on many of these measures, because a fair budget wouldn't see government taking in much more from student debt repayments than the petroleum resource rent tax. A just budget wouldn't have nurses, early childcare educators and teachers paying more in tax than some fossil fuel companies. An equitable budget wouldn't make it easier for someone who owns seven homes to buy their eighth home than for someone to break in and buy their first home. Of course, the Greens have reached out to the Labor government to try to 'Mr-Dutton-proof' key measures, including slashing student debt and expanding bulk-billing, but Labor decided that an election carrot trumped the alternative of helping people right now. Of course, the other side's no better. They are proposing to rob people of their super with their short-sighted housing policy. Intergenerational inequity is the shameful legacy of both major parties in this place. The two parties have relied on the complacency that their terrible decision-making creates. I'm pleased to say that across my home state of Victoria young people are not being complacent. Instead, they're channelling their frustration into action and running as lower house candidates across the state because they believe in a more just, fair and equitable future. There is Reuben Steen in Aston, Avery Barnett-Dacey in Bendigo, Ravneet Garcha in Calwell, Tim Randall in Chisholm, Mitch Pope in Corangamite, Emilie Flynn in Corio, Amy Mills in Deakin, Matt Maber in Dunkley, Alana Galli-McRostie in Goldstein, Thuc Bao Huynh in Gorton, Martin Barry in Hotham, Jy Sandford in Jagajaga, Marley McRae McLeod in McEwen and Sarah Newman in Hawke, with more young people to be announced. Thank you all for your leadership. Budgets are a question of priorities. Politics is a question of priorities. Leadership is a question of priorities. Whether it's ripping off our kids with negative gearing tax breaks or working to gut our environmental laws as they're doing just this week it begs the question: what are the priorities of the major parties in this place? What could possibly be more important than safeguarding the future for our kids and their kids? This election, vote for the future. Vote for the Greens, because nothing changes if nothing changes. 16:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria A lot of the decisions being made by those in power go against the best interests of young people in this country. This includes children from migrant backgrounds who are beloved members of our communities and some of the most vulnerable, especially those seeking asylum and refuge here. All children deserve access to the opportunities that are available in this country. They have the right to safety, education, housing, food and freedom from discrimination and criminalisation. There are basic fundamental rights enshrined in international law. Yet successive governments have, by design, systematically underfunded our essential services and have instead created an economic apartheid, where the ability to access safe, ongoing, quality health, housing or education is dictated by the colour of your skin and the money in your bank account rather than the fundamental need. We have transitioned seamlessly from a welfare to a carceral state. We know that black kids in this country only ever experience the carceral state and, since colonisation, have been defined by policies designed to punish and destroy rather than care and nurture. Black kids in this country are on a fast-track pipeline from child protection to incarceration from before they're even born. First Peoples understand that rights come with the responsibility to care for our mother country, our community, our waterways and the air that we breathe—as our ancestors did, protecting this country for future generations. Policies that pursue profit, privatisation, war and the destruction of country and culture go directly against the real law of this land, the law that's been here since before the ancestors of anyone else in this room right now. The law of this land was to protect our future generations. But the law in this chamber and this building is to demonise our children and threaten our children's future. 16:56 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In November 2024, for the first time, cost of living featured as the No. 1 issue in Mission Australia's annual Youth survey report. The percentage of young people worrying about the issue has more than doubled in two years, and it is by far their biggest concern. This is the time in the lives of these young Australians when they should be focusing on study, enjoying their first job or completing their apprenticeship. They should be having the time of their lives, without carrying all this adult stuff around with them. They should be being teenagers, being young people, but we haven't allowed them to do that. Instead, they are struggling to find housing, struggling to pay university and HECS fees and even struggling to feed themselves. This is taking an unacceptable toll on their mental health. We are all part of that. We are part of the toll that it's taking, because we are not making the right decisions. These young people, particularly those in rural and regional areas like Tasmania, often can't afford, or even get, an appointment with a mental health professional. We had nearly 10 years under the coalition, and that didn't help, and in the last three years under Labor we haven't done much better. It's like you've got no idea how to handle the situation. It's absolutely shameful. What do we do with the younger population? How do we help them? Really, you in here have no idea. The Labor government hasn't brought down the cost of Arts fees. Even though you went on and on against this side, you've done nothing—silence, crickets. The government could do something about this. Instead of pushing through your stinky salmon bill, how about raising Newstart? You could have done that if you'd bothered to means test when it came to energy cost support. How about raising youth allowance? Like I said, there's no means testing. In Tasmania we have troubled kids locked up in a detention centre even though the Tasmanian government says it should be closed. They are planning to build another one on a barren piece of land between two motorways. How healthy is that? They put you in prison and put you near the highway. You can listen to the trucks all night and suck in the diesel. No worries! That's great. What a great move that is! I reckon the Tasmanian government's got something more coming on that, and I'm coming for them on it. The second main concern young Australians have is about the environment and climate change. If we just showed a little imagination we could address this as well. We could look at reducing HECS fees in return for a bit of service to country. How about that? We could talk to unis, TAFEs and schools about integrating volunteering. We could help prepare and arm our young Australians with the resilience they need to face the challenges of the future. I've got a feeling they're going to need everything that they can get. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The time for the discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 55 MATTERS OF URGENCY Energy 55 16:59 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator Scarr: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: "The need for the Albanese Labor Government to admit that power bills across Australia have increased significantly since coming to office, despite Prime Minister Albanese saying 97 times before the election that power bills would be reduced by $275 by 2025." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Labor Government to admit that power bills across Australia have increased significantly since coming to office, despite Prime Minister Albanese saying 97 times before the election that power bills would be reduced by $275 by 2025. I'm very pleased my colleagues supported the discussion of this very important matter of urgency. In the weeks leading up to the next federal election, now is the time for the people of Australia to consider the promises that were made by the now Labor government before the last federal election. Now is the time for the Australian people to write the report card of the Albanese Labor government. Now is the time to consider the promises that were made before Australians voted and to look at the reality after three years of the Albanese Labor government. Now Prime Minister Albanese promised 97 times to cut power bills. On 3 December 2021, he said that the Labor Party's plan: … will cut power bills for families and businesses by $275 a year for homes by 2025, compared to today. We're now in 2025, and what's the result? Power bills have gone up, not down. They've gone up. Our Powering Australia Plan will create over 600,000 jobs. It will reduce energy prices in the national energy market for households by $275. That was the Prime Minister at a doorstop on 4 December 2021. I've got pages and pages of these quotes. No fewer than 17 times in December 2021, the now Prime Minister promised that power bills would decrease by, on average, $275. He promised it 17 times in December 2021. Then we go into January 2022. It was the same thing. I quote from a press conference on 3 January 2022: … reducing energy prices by $275 for the average household. That's what the now Prime Minister said on 3 January 2022. This is what he said on 7 January: It'll cut average power bills for households by $275 by 2025. At a doorstop on 7 January, he said: … reducing power bills for households by $275 by 2025. It goes on and on. Here's a great one; this one is one of my favourites. On 12 January 2021, this is what the Prime Minister said: It would see— that's the Labor Party's power plan— 640,000 jobs created and a reduction in power bills on average of $275 by 2025. It's a practical plan. That's what the Prime Minister said at a doorstop on 12 January 2021. Another 10 times in January, he said that power prices would go down by, on average, $275. And then there's more. In February and in March, there were more of these promises. In my home state of Queensland, at a rally on 3 April 2022—about three years ago—he said that the Albanese government would: … lower household power bills by $275 a year by 2025. That was the promise that the now Prime Minister made to the people of my home state of Queensland. What's the reality? Power prices have gone up. They haven't gone down; they've gone up, on average, by $1,000 for your average household. We've seen wholesale prices skyrocket by 83 per cent in the past year, with record highs in New South Wales and Queensland, proving that Labor's 2022 pre-election energy modelling was a complete and utter fantasy. Labor's energy approach has, in fact, come at five times the cost that Australians were initially promised. So where my office is located, in the federal electorate of Blair, households in Ipswich and the Somerset region are under financial stress. They are struggling to make ends meet. 17:05 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Right now, every Australian family knows that cost of living is front and centre, and it is front and centre for the Albanese Labor government too. We know that one of the points of pressure on household budgets is the power bill, and that's why, instead of just talking about it and fearmongering about it, the Albanese Labor government has made energy bill relief a top priority. We have delivered three rounds of direct relief. That's $75 deducted from your bill each quarter. Go and have a look at the black print on your bill. It shows that we're trying to help, because we know that this is an issue for you. In addition to that, we've acted to cap gas and energy prices, and now we're going to go even further in helping you with your household bill by taking another $150 straight off your power bill—and it'll be written there for you to see—so that we honour our commitment to you, because, when families are doing it tough, we in the Labor Party and in the Albanese Labor government understand that it's time for us to take responsibility and to step in and help. What we're doing is real, practical support, and it's also sound economic management. We want to provide relief to you while keeping downward pressure on inflation. The reality is that those opposite talk a big game on economics but, when Peter Dutton and his team last left office, inflation had a six in front of it and interest rates were climbing. Now, under the Albanese Labor governments responsible economic management, inflation has a two in front of it and, thankfully, interest rates are falling. While we're focused on supporting Australians, what's Mr Dutton doing? Well, let's be clear. He stood in the way. He said no. He opposed the $300 energy bill relief that we put in place to help you, and, instead of a real plan, he has cooked up a reckless $600 billion—with a 'b'—nuclear scheme, or fantasy. Really, that's what it is; it's a fantasy so costly that he will have to cut Medicare and slash essential services to pay for it. Let's be clear. Peter Dutton's cuts mean you pay. What's worse is that Mr Dutton's desire to go nuclear won't deliver. Mr Dutton's own modelling shows that his nuclear gamble won't lower bills. It'll lock in more of the expensive, ageing coal plants already pushing up our prices. The Australian Energy Regulator has made it clear. Coal plants break down, especially ageing ones, and that's what we've got in Australia. Transmission bottlenecks drove 23 high-price events in just the last quarter, because what's really intermittent in our system now is our ageing coal fired power plants. They're past their use-by date. We're focused on the future, and that's why, in contrast to Mr Dutton, every step we've taken has been to expand renewables and put downward pressure on prices. We did that in 2022. It was true then and it's true now, and that's why we're reforming the whole electricity system to make it easier for Australians to switch to better energy deals, remove excessive fees and ensure everyone gets the concessions that they are entitled to. Last week's default market offer highlighted the urgency of this task, which we are taking seriously, but it also showed that competition is working. Plans up to 25 per cent cheaper than the benchmark are out there, and we want every family to check that they are getting the best deal. Visit the Energy Made Easy website. Don't leave money on the table for the energy providers; keep it in your family's income and in your own budget. Let me be clear, Australians face a real choice: a government that's honest and that backs them in tough times, or Peter Dutton, whose cuts you will pay for. Don't take the risk. 17:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland No-one trusts politicians, because of lies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised Australia that power bills would come down $275 by 2025; 2025 is here and power bills have never been more expensive, and they're still increasing. Australians are constantly told wind and solar are cheapest. That might be the greatest lie in Australian political history, and that is saying something. Well, after 20 years of connecting all the wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro to the grid, power bills have never been higher. This is a motion from the Liberal Party, complaining, yet it says nothing about the reason power bills are still so expensive. There is a reason why Queenslanders are worried about running their air conditioning and why local small businesses are closing: that's net zero. There's only one elected party in the Senate that opposes the net zero scam, and that's One Nation. We are the only ones that truly believe in making power bills cheaper. Labor is committed to wind and solar—super expensive. The Liberals the Nationals are committed to wind, solar and nuclear—very expensive. None of them will promise that your power bills will come down under their plan, because they can't. The truth is that under net zero Australia faces decades of increasing power prices. There's a big secret that every politician in this room knows yet won't say out loud: the absolute cheapest way to run an electricity grid today is coal. Even if you believe in net zero, let's have a serious look. Australia's annual carbon dioxide production is 465 million tonnes. India and China together are 16 billion tonnes, 35 times as much. India and China are allowed to buy Australia's coal and use it, yet Australians can't use their own coal here in our country. One Nation would get rid of this nonsense. We have a plan to bring down power prices permanently. Right now, baseload power is told to immediately shut down whenever wind and solar unpredictably turn on. Coal is what's known as baseload power; it's designed to run effectively and efficiently, 24/7, up to 98 per cent of the time. Turning baseload power off completely in unplanned ways is a huge problem. This leads to much higher prices, increased maintenance costs and, in some cases, power stations breaking down owing to the abuse they weren't designed for. The solution is very simple: just guarantee baseload power the minimum time needed to keep spinning. Wind and solar can fill in the rest if they happen to turn on. The most conservative scenario is that this will bring down power prices 20 per cent immediately. Taken to full effect, this could bring power bills down 50 per cent. The Liberals, Labor and the Nationals will never bring down your power bills like this, because they are completely committed to net zero nonsense—net zero lies. One Nation, and only One Nation, will put more money back in your pocket. 17:13 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I rise to talk to you about the urgency motion on power bills and the need for the Albanese Labor government to admit that power bills across Australia have increased significantly since they came to office and made this promise—nearly 97 times—that power bills would be reduced by $275. Instead, the exact opposite has happened. In fact, power bills have increased by around $1,300. Now, if there's something you can say about Labor, it is that they are even-handed, because not only have they put downward pressure on big business but they've also put downward pressure on small business, and that results in downward pressure on families. It is families who are bearing the brunt of the Albanese government's rush to renewables—this crazy, 'all eggs in one basket', physics-defying energy policy that they have embraced. What do higher prices mean? They mean that big businesses that manufacture are having to load share. They are having to stop work. They are having to reduce profitability and productivity and, in some cases, put off jobs. What do they mean for small businesses? Since Labor got into government, 29,000 small businesses have gone to the wall—due, in large part, to the increase in power prices. What does that mean? It means that those businesses don't operate. It means that they don't pay tax. They certainly don't employ people, and they don't employ apprentices or people in regional places—places where there aren't government jobs. Finally, what do they mean for families? If it's not bad enough that you might be paying so much more for electricity that you're having to choose whether or not to send the kids to sport or enjoy some time as a family going to the movies or doing something else—and we're seeing homelessness peak under this Albanese Labor government—we're also seeing families losing jobs in big businesses and small businesses that have already been put to the wall by this Labor government. We're coming up to an election very soon, and there is a very clear decision for Australians. Under the Albanese Labor government, another three years will cripple Australia. It will cripple Australian families and businesses; it will cripple jobs and future prosperity. That's what another three years of this economically destructive government looks like. Or you could choose a different path, a path back to prosperity and being the nation that we have enjoyed, with opportunities for all. If you care to work hard, move to regional places, build your own business and raise your family, that can be a great life. But, under the Albanese Labor government, Australians are looking at a very grim future. The upside is, of course, that Labor governments, both federal and state, can feel very pious about what they believe they're delivering with a renewables-only energy plan—but it also looks like Australians being very poor. That is not an acceptable choice in a country that is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, whether it be uranium, coal, gas or, yes, sun and wind. Under the Albanese Labor government, we're going to disregard all of those blessings. We are going to continue down a road where we provide subsidies for energy bills that will cost the Australian taxpayer $6.8 billion but leave them with nothing after paying that bill. The coalition is proposing structural change to energy plans and energy delivery—something that will leave Australians more prosperous, with more jobs, more industry, more taxes and more ability to deliver the important programs, like Medicare and the NDIS. We are economically responsible to deliver that. 17:18 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to support this motion. This motion is 100 per cent correct. Prime Minister Albanese said a number of times that he was going to lower power prices. He didn't. But do you know what? That's yesterday's news. That's yesterday's news in the sense of what we are going to do about it. I have to call out my good friend and former colleague Senator Scarr here. I'm disappointed he's not in the chamber to hear this, but I hope he's listening. Senator Scarr is someone with a finance background who should be talking about the solutions. He is better than just whingeing and wailing. I have to say one refreshing thing about being up in this end of the chamber is that I no longer have to sit there and beat out the same old boring talking points about how bad Labor is. You know what? I've got news for you two major parties: the Australian people are sick of government, period. They see it as toxic, weak and insipid. What they want for a change is some politicians to come out and offer some solutions. We can all sit in this chamber day in, day out and beat each other up, but the people out there listening to this want to know what we are going to do about it. In business, in the real world, this is not the way things are done. It is not the way business is conducted. We sit down and we look for solutions, so I say to Senator Scarr and the Liberal Party—with the greatest respect to the Labor Party, I joined the Liberal Party, so I expect more from them—lift your game. Come in here and talk about your solutions and how you're going to provide better opportunities for your children. I see Senator Scarr and Senator McDonald sitting here whingeing, and then there is People First. We are a better option because we've got solutions. 17:20 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I thank Senator Scarr for putting this motion forward because it's important to remind the Australian people that those in the now opposition, who vote against every cost-of-living measure, including energy relief, were in government for a decade. They had 22 policies in this area and delivered not one of them. It is a great opportunity to remind the Australian people of what we have done as a government, coming into government after the huge debt we inherited from those opposite, who made a complete mess. What we already invested in helping Australian families and small businesses with energy costs was so welcomed by the Australian community, and tonight's budget will see another $150 going to Australians and to Australian businesses. What we haven't got from those opposite are any policies other than nuclear, and the shadow Treasurer can't even put a cost on nuclear energy. What we've got is the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, trying to ensure they are a small target. He's on a very tight chain. He can't be allowed to have a complete media conference, because people are very concerned about what he might say. This government has done everything that it has been able to do to relieve the cost of living for Australian families. We believe in renewable energy. We believe that is the way of the future. As senator for the great state of Tasmania I know what hydro energy has done for our community. Australians will always look to a government to show leadership in this area. We have introduced measure after measure, whether it was increasing Medicare or energy relief for people to get through the cost of living. We have put our money where our mouth is, we have outlined what our policies are and we are very proud to stand behind those. The opposition think they can go to this next election without any policies apart from nuclear. They can't even put a figure on how much that's going to cost, let alone when it's going to be introduced, but what we know from people who have the expertise is that it's going to cost Australian families and businesses more money. We have seen those opposite trying to rewrite history. They voted against every cost-of-living measure, then all of a sudden they vote for the first round of energy relief. They opposed it, but now because there's an election coming we have Mr Dutton wanting to be seen to be supporting this and supporting that. The Australian people see through that, and they know that, if you vote Liberal in your local electorate—like in the seat of Bass, if you vote for the current member—the reality is you're going to end up with Peter Dutton as the Prime Minister. That is a risk to the state of Tasmania and to the country that I believe the Australian people will think very seriously about, because they are concerned about someone they know nothing about, who makes gaffe after gaffe. We've got a cyclone about to hit Queensland and northern New South Wales and what does he do as leader? He goes off to a Liberal Party fundraiser. He's the first to point the finger at everyone else, but he has shown that he doesn't have the leadership skills. He's come out with a policy of cutting. He's going to cut, cut, cut. What he's saying to the Australian people is: 'I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to cut, other than we're going to cut the Public Service. Just trust me.' Well, there's a history of Australian people trusting Liberal opposition leaders and ending up being very, very disappointed. After the time that the coalition have had in opposition and the fact that they can't come up with any policies—they've got a shadow Treasurer who can't—it's going to be really interesting on Thursday night. I can hardly wait for the puppet show on Thursday night—that the Liberal Party have finally found a heart. I put my faith in the Australian people that they see through Peter Dutton and that they also see through the Liberals and the Nationals, whom they've been let down by time and time again. They won't tolerate this by putting them back into government this election. 17:25 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I would like to thank Senator Scarr for bringing this matter of urgency before the Senate, because he's right: the matter at hand is urgent. Australian power prices have skyrocketed under this government. It's important that we point that out, despite what Senator Rennick said. We need to hold government to account. That is our job in opposition. It is not okay that Australians are worried when they get their electricity bill. They're worried about how high it's going to be this time and whether they're going to be able to pay it. 'Do I have to go into a payment arrangement with my energy supplier, and how long before I can pay it off?' That is entirely unacceptable, but it is the lot of many Australians when they get their power bill. These costs have skyrocketed despite the Prime Minister promising 97 times before the last election that power bills would be reduced by the magical figure of $275. We've talked about that a lot because we need to talk about it a lot. We need to point out this fundamental failure. This wasn't something that was mentioned once or twice, or offhandedly here and there. It was mentioned 97 times prior to the last election. It's what is called an election promise. This government was elected on the back of promises that this Prime Minister has failed to keep over and over and over again. Few were of greater significance than their energy policy, and they made some grand promises. Not only has there not been a cut of $275 but power bills have risen, on average, by $1,300 for households in my state of New South Wales. This is more than a mere inconvenience. It is a massive economic blow. It is even worse for small-business owners. It's a massive impost on their costs, where their bills have doubled and tripled. Across the nation this is having catastrophic consequences. We have seen 29,000 businesses close their doors under this government's watch. Energy prices are a key factor in this business failure epidemic. Wherever I go and speak to small-business operators, and ask them what their one most significant impact is in terms of costs, they always mention their energy costs. It's another layer in Labor's cost-of-everything crisis. What is Labor's solution? It's a $150 rebate. That's right—$150. Let's spend $6.8 billion of taxpayer money on an attempt to subsidise energy bills. Yet, despite this colossal expenditure, energy prices will continue to rise. This $150 rebate is nothing more than a short-term fix designed to buy votes before an election. The truth is that $150 will not even come close to covering those costs. It is an insult to the Australians who are struggling to pay their bills, who are working their guts out and who still can't pay their bills. They can't afford the things that their family needs, not because they are not working—it's not because they aren't trying; it's not because they aren't doing their best—but because the cost of everything is spiralling out of control. Not means testing this rebate is another failure of this government. It means that households who do not need financial assistance are getting it anyway. They will receive the same $150 rebate as those people who are struggling to pay their bills, the same rebate that small businesses who are on the brink, who are closing their doors, will get. This is a flawed and inefficient system that fails to target relief where it is truly needed. In Australia, a family with a typical mortgage has paid an extra $50,000 in interest payments since Labor came to government, and Labor wants us to think that $150 off your electricity bill is going to help. I think there might have been a better way to invest $6.8 billion of taxpayer money, and it is an insult to all of us that they have decided to do this yet again. Labor's inability to manage the economy has left Australians and small businesses vulnerable to rising costs, and they're struggling to survive. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion as moved by Senator Scarr be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Blyth, L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. 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. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 60 DOCUMENTS Consideration 60 Tabling 60 17:42 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I table the fifth Islamophobia in Australia report, compiled by the Islamophobia Register Australia and Monash University, as circulated. BUDGET 60 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 60 17:42 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the chairs of the respective legislation committees I present additional information relating to estimates. Budget estimates 2024-25—Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Additional information. Budget estimates 2024-25 (Supplementary)—Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Documents presented to the committee and additional information. Estimates Committees 60 17:42 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the chairs of the respective legislation committees I present reports in respect of the 2024-25 additional estimates. COMMITTEES 60 COMMITTEES Legislation Committees 60 Report 60 17:42 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the chairs of the respective legislation committees I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 31 October 2024. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 60 Report 60 17:43 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the 509th, 510th and 511th reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 61 Report 61 17:43 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on Australia's thematic sanctions framework. Human Rights Joint Committee 61 Report 61 17:43 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present scrutiny report No. 2 of 2025 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Public Works Joint Committee 61 Report 61 17:43 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the first and second reports of 2025 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Treaties Joint Committee 61 Report 61 17:43 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the 226th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Select Committee 61 Additional Information 61 17:43 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Tyrrell, I present additional information received by the Select Committee on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. 17:44 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Well, for nearly two years the Albanese government has stood by while Tasmania's producers, exporters and families have been punished by high inflation, rising shipping costs and a freight equalisation scheme that hasn't kept pace with modern freight realities. The Labor government, under Anthony Albanese, has ignored repeated calls from Tasmanian industry bodies, including the Tasmanian Logistics Committee and the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association. The Labor government has allowed shipping and logistics cost pressures to compound under its economic mismanagement, and this has led to unfair cost burdens for Tasmanian primary producers and manufacturers under the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. It means they are unable to compete fairly against mainlanders when it comes to exporting their high-quality goods. The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said that a properly functioning scheme is vital to ensuring that Tasmanian businesses can continue to participate in increasingly competitive national and international markets. Its CEO, Michael Bailey, has said that the scheme is plagued by restrictive timeframes and 'weird anomalies'. Cabinet-makers can claim for wood coming into Tasmania but not for things like hinges and door handles, which really impacts their profitability. Cherry grower and president of Cherries Tasmania Orchards Nic Hansen believes the scheme was good 25 years ago but has not seen it change in that time, and it's no longer fit for purpose. He said: It costs us 50 per cent extra to send a pallet of fruit from here in Grove— in Tasmania— to Melbourne than it does from Melbourne to Hong Kong So this scheme is a fundamental pillar in an equity arrangement to ensure that Tasmanian producers and manufacturers can compete on an equal footing against their mainland cousins. The coalition recognises Tasmania's unique geographic position and the critical importance of freight and passenger transport to the state's economic future. Our Tasmanian team has been fighting for changes to that scheme for some time, and I would like to pay tribute to the Liberal candidate for Braddon, Mal Hingston; the Liberal candidate for Lyons, Susie Bower; and the member for Bass, Bridget Archer—three people who have championed reform of this scheme on behalf of their primary producers, their small businesses and manufacturers, and, indeed, residents in Tasmania who want to see changes to the passenger vehicle equalisation scheme as well. Recently, I had the pleasure of joining Peter Dutton to visit Grant and the team at Spreyton Cider Co., who've been experiencing the same problems faced by many growers, manufacturers and businesses in Tasmania. We were able to make the commitment that, within the first 100 days of a newly elected coalition government, we will be reviewing the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, as was recommended by the select committee. We will also expand that review to cover the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme. Whilst that review is being undertaken, while it is examining the issues raised throughout the Senate select committee's inquiry, we understand that exporters in particular will still be subjected to an unfair regime. That's why we've put interim assistance to the tune of $62 million on the table to support Tasmanian businesses whilst we undertake that urgent review of this scheme, because we know this scheme is not fit for purpose; we have heard the concerns of Tasmanian businesses, manufacturers and primary producers; and we want this scheme to be futureproofed so that, going forward, it will no longer be a political football to be used to the detriment of businesses on the island. The industry have advised that the calculated freight cost disadvantage and increased intermodal costs are driving them to the wall. If we're serious about supporting them, we need to address the issue that Labor, through the increased cost pressures, increased energy prices and increased input costs across the board, have been impacting Tasmanian businesses. This concerns both northbound and southbound freight. We also want to look at the freight issues between the Flinders and King islands and Tasmania itself. We want to ensure that this scheme is fit for purpose, and this review will be done urgently if we are successful at the next election. Peter Dutton said a coalition government will ensure the two schemes are fit for purpose, and he acknowledged that Anthony Albanese has stood by and done nothing while Tasmanian businesses have been punished by Labor's high inflation and rising shipping costs. We know the coalition has a strong track record of ensuring Tasmanian businesses and farmers aren't disadvantaged in selling their goods interstate or exporting to the world, and we plan to continue that. This scheme was set up to ensure that Tasmanian businesses could compete equally with mainlanders. The objective of the scheme is to ensure that, as freight crosses both sides of Bass Strait, Bass Strait is treated like any other highway in our national highway network. Over recent years, we know that hasn't been working for Tasmanian businesses, and they're rightly frustrated, and that's why we are going to urgently put the issue through an independent review and fix this inequity once and for all. It's equally important that the review consider the design and settings of the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme because many Tasmanians use that service to access the mainland for education opportunities, to connect with family and friends and, importantly—and increasingly, sadly—to access critical medical services. We want to ensure a fair go for Tasmanian industries as part of our plan to deliver a strong and secure economic future for Tasmania and to get our country back on track. We will also be exploring, as part of the review, the model commercial environment facing Tasmanian businesses and ways to cut red tape and make the scheme simpler and more responsive. We've heard from businesses that the paperwork associated with the scheme is onerous and there are much swifter and easier ways to ensure businesses can access the support under the scheme in a timely manner. Many Tasmanians depend on the ferry system, the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme, particularly those who are older and who don't appreciate flying. The design and the operation of the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme must work for people, not just for those who can afford what is often an unaffordable airline ticket. These schemes were established because Bass Strait shouldn't be a barrier to opportunity. It shouldn't be more expensive to move things across Bass Strait than on any other major highway across the country. Communities in Tasmania are telling us that the scheme is outdated by its design, is too slow in reimbursement and is misaligned with the real costs of intermodal freight in 2025. It's time to give Tasmanian world-class producers and exporters a fair go. That is what Susie Bower is fighting for, that is what the Liberal candidate for Braddon, Mal Hingston, is fighting for, and that is what the Liberal member for Bass, Bridget Archer, is fighting for. Only votes for the Liberal candidates in Lyons, Bass and Braddon will deliver the reforms that the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme needs not just to fix the disincentive and the inequity that exists right now but to futureproof the scheme in coming decades so it can no longer be used as a political football by different sides of politics. If the Labor Party were serious about backing Tasmanians—if Anthony Albanese was serious about backing Tasmania's potential as a producer and exporter of world-class product, he would be reforming this scheme and giving Tasmanians a fair go. 17:54 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I also rise to provide a brief contribution in response to the tabling of additional information for the Senate committee report on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. This was an incredibly important inquiry, and the report in relation to it demonstrated very clearly that the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, the TFES, is not fit for purpose, and the degradation of the scheme over the last three years, in particular, has been putting Tasmanian businesses at a severe disadvantage. That is why the coalition has announced that we will commit an immediate $65 million to support Tasmanian industry and address the increased costs of transporting products to and from Tasmania and the mainland. While the Albanese government has sat on its hands and allowed Tasmanian businesses, consumers and travellers to pay the price for rising costs, the Dutton led coalition is acting. The announcement by Peter Dutton has been warmly welcomed by Tasmanian businesses and industries over the last few days. The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the coalition's announcement was 'a fantastic outcome for Tasmanian businesses'. CEO Michael Bailey said: The TCCI along with the Tasmanian Fruit Growers Association and a range of other businesses have been calling for action on the TFES and it's great that the Coalition has been listening. Mr Bailey went on: Tasmanian exports to the mainland and overseas are valued at more than $26 billion each year. The businesses that produce those exports employ thousands of Tasmanians and support hundreds of communities right around the State. This commitment will back in those businesses, secure jobs and support those communities. Over the last few years, I've engaged with Tasmanian fruit growers, farmers and many incredible Tasmanian businesses who use our fresh produce to make high-value products that are then sold all over the world. They've all told me how the degradation of the TFES is putting their businesses at risk. You cannot have Tasmania producing billions of dollars of world-class fresh produce and then make it punitively expensive to get that produce to the millions of people around the world who want to buy it. This select committee heard time and time again that that is exactly what has been happening in recent years. As my colleague Senator Colbeck and I said in our additional comments to the report: It is not acceptable for Tasmanian businesses to be disadvantaged because the support provided by the TFES is falling behind the necessary levels of support. We went on: Liberal Senators on the committee support the work done by the inquiry and are convinced that the outcome must be urgent modernisation of the TFES to meet the current and future requirements of Tasmanian business and industry. This report was finalised and released late last year—2024. We are now a third of the way through 2025 and the Albanese government is yet to make any changes to respond to what is clearly an urgent need to support Tasmanian growers and producers. The agreed committee report signed up to by Labor senators on the committee calls for a review of the TFES. The coalition supports the review taking place, but we have been clear that we feel that doesn't go far enough. That is why we have announced an immediate increase of $65 million in funding to reduce the costs for Tasmanian businesses and travellers. That money will flow immediately into the scheme without needing to wait for another review to be completed. But where is the government on this? They have had months to announce immediate responses and put in additional investment to support Tasmanian businesses, and yet they have done nothing. As the opposition leader said in Spreyton last weekend: Mr Albanese has stood by and done nothing while Tasmanian businesses have been punished by Labor's high inflation and rising shipping costs. He also said: Tasmanian producers and businesses are responsible for some of the finest foods and products. The ability to get these products to markets around Australia and the world is critical to sustaining and growing jobs in Tasmania, and underpinning investment in key industries. Peter Dutton understands the importance of this scheme to Tasmanian businesses and to Tasmanian manufacturers, as do the member for Bass, Bridget Archer, and our federal candidates: for Braddon, Mal Hingston; for Lyons, Susie Bower; for Franklin, Josh Garvin; and for Clark, Marilena Di Florio. Of course, over many years the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team have been strong supporters of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and have helped secure improvements to the scheme on many occasions, just as we did this weekend just gone. Credit goes to the chair of the committee, Senator Tyrrell, for initiating this inquiry and for her comments on the call for action and not just another review. That is precisely what the Dutton coalition's $65 million commitment to Tasmanian producers and farmers is all about. 18:00 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to make a contribution with respect to the Senate Select Committee on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Along with my colleague Senator Chandler, I was pleased to play an active role in the hearings of the inquiry, which were conducted on King Island, in Hobart and in Longford, in Tasmania. As colleagues have indicated, the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme is a critical measure of support for the Tasmanian economy. It not only supports goods coming from Tasmania to the mainland and to export markets, which has been commented on by my colleagues who made contributions earlier in this debate, but also supports southbound goods, which are inputs to the manufacturing sector in Tasmania, and therefore the competitiveness of the Tasmanian manufacturing industry, much of which is food based. One of the things Tasmania is really good at is producing high-quality food for national and international markets. The inputs into those industries and the costs of transporting goods in those industries are absolutely critical. That's why, in the coalition's response we announced last Friday, supported by our leader, Peter Dutton, ensuring that not only northbound goods but also southbound goods were included was absolutely critical. Aside from that, there are the two Bass Strait islands. As I said, the freight equalisation select committee went to King Island and spent a day there taking evidence. We heard, from a number of people across the King Island community, how important that scheme is to their economy but also, importantly, how the decay in the support that was being provided by the freight equalisation scheme is putting their economy, their community and their manufacturing sector under stress. From the day that I spent there with the select committee and from another couple of days I spent with the Liberal candidate for Braddon, Mal Hingston, what was clear to me was the importance of the road freight disadvantage—which is the measure supported by the freight equalisation scheme—being properly calculated and embedded into the design of the scheme. That's what the review announced by Peter Dutton on Friday will do—ensure that there is an appropriate level of road freight disadvantage incorporated into the new design of the freight equalisation scheme and that, while we're waiting for that to happen, there is immediate support for the Tasmanian economy, including that of the two Bass Strait islands, to compensate for the significant decay in the support for road freight disadvantage in the current legislative measures. I also spent a couple of days on Flinders Island with the member for Bass, Bridget Archer, specifically talking to the community over there about freight equalisation. It's a critical part of their economy, just like it is on King Island and for the rest of the Tasmanian community. Ensuring that both Flinders Island and King Island are appropriately supported in the review of the scheme, as well as the measure that was announced last Friday, is absolutely critical from my perspective and of course for Mal Hingston, Bridget Archer and so many of those industries and businesses throughout the large electorate of Lyons, which takes in the largest proportion of the Tasmanian landmass. And ensuring support for the businesses that Susie Bower is supporting in Lyons is also critical. There was some excellent evidence provided to us by submitters during the inquiry. I was particularly taken with the evidence provided by the TCCI and representatives from Norske Skog, who are significant users of the scheme—particularly Norske Skog—but have a very mature attitude to the way that the scheme should operate. Their description of how the class system that operates within the freight equalisation scheme has become misaligned over the years, and therefore the road freight disadvantage rebate decayed over that period of time, was quite compelling evidence as part of the inquiry. Also compelling was the evidence they provided to the committee that, if CPI had been applied to the intermodal costs since the turn of the century, since about the year 2000, the intermodal element of the freight equalisation scheme would now be paying out about $200, which is double what it's paying. Clearly there's an urgent need for the intermodal costs to be recalculated, and in my view they should be indexed to CPI into the future. That's a view that I came to based on the very good evidence that was received by the committee during the hearings. It is so closely aligned. When you do the calculation of CPI to the intermodal cost from 2001 to about now, it is within a few cents of being $200 instead of $100. These changes will make a significant difference to the competitiveness of business and the capacity of business in Tasmania to compete in national and international markets. The $65 million that was announced on Friday—with $3 million of that to conduct the review and $62 million to support industry through the realignment of the fees and the support of the road freight disadvantage—is very important. Likewise, the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme, which was introduced by the coalition government back in 2004, is the reason we have two ferries on Bass Strait now. The then Premier was going to buy one. When he heard of the introduction of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, he made a decision to buy two, which significantly increased the capacity across Bass Strait. The original intent of the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme was that you bought a ticket on the ferry and your car travelled for free. Can I tell you, that was a huge advertising boon for the Tasmanian tourism industry and the Tasmanian economy. Off the back of the introduction of that scheme and the two ferries, there was a significant surge in the Tasmanian economy—as there has been on each occasion when there has been a reduction in the cost of getting to Tasmania or an increase of capacity on Bass Strait. The Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme was a significant element in the then Tasmanian government's decision to purchase two ferries and significantly increase the capacity on Bass Strait. Those two ferries are now a very valued part of the Tasmanian economy. But, of course, given time, and the fact that a subsidy is not necessarily a guarantee of price, cars no longer travel for free. So I think the decision by Peter Dutton to announce a review of the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme, as well as the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, is a very important one for Tasmania and for the Tasmanian economy, to make sure that both of those schemes can be futureproofed. One of the things that happened in recent years was a recommendation that updates to the road freight disadvantage be taken out of the scheme as an automatic feature. I think they should go back into the scheme so that we don't have a continued argument or a decay of the scheme by the fact that there's no indexation. We've seen that with the intermodal costs and likewise with the road freight disadvantage calculation. I think they should go into the scheme. The recommendation from the coalition senators was that we should have a review of the scheme every two years to make sure it keeps up with current costs. We saw, particularly over the last few years, how damaging a high-inflation environment is. The high-inflation environment of the last few years has been one of the significant factors in the decay of the support that the scheme offers to freight users, and I'm delighted that this coalition party has made a decision to put the significant support in place that was announced last week. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Cost of Living Select Committee 65 Additional Information 65 18:10 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Hume, I present additional information received by the Select Committee on Cost of Living. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 65 Report 65 18:10 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I present an advisory report to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I want to spend a very brief moment here to say thank you to everyone that did present and make a submission to the PJCIS inquiry. The bill that's before the Senate seeks to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. Threats to Australia's transport security have evolved since these acts were first introduced more than 20 years ago. Whilst terrorism and serious crime persist as threats, it's prudent to consider the other risks that could cause serious disruption to our national security. Many systems used in the transport industries have evolved to digital settings. This dependence on network connectivity means that malicious cyberactivity is a real and present threat. Globally we've seen acts of foreign interference and espionage disrupt our systems. With over 99 per cent of Australian imports arriving by sea, it's imperative that our ports are resilient to any threat that could impact their operations. Only a few years ago, our nation felt the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our supply chains as the availability of certain imports declined. Aviation transport security is also of great importance. Australians value our freedom of movement, and, due to the vast size of our country, we're often dependent on air travel. Security threats to our airport infrastructure and airlines that keep the country connected must be mitigated. Substantial transport security reform is timely, and, prior to the introduction of this bill, significant work and consultation was undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs and the maritime and aviation industries. A careful balance needs to be struck between the need of the Australian government to mitigate evolving threats to national security and, at the same time, to ensure that the transition to a new transport security framework doesn't create confusion or generate a disproportionate regulatory burden in the aviation and maritime sectors. The committee made several recommendations for the government to consider, including recommendations that related to the Department of Home Affairs's role and the need to continue industry consultations so that any changes to subsequent regulations are clear and accessible, that the department helps reduce the regulatory burden on industry through guidance and training and that the duplication of reporting requirements across Commonwealth agencies be addressed, notably in relation to cyber reporting. The committee also makes recommendations to amend the bill itself, relating to reporting self-related offences, safeguards around the use of expanded security direction powers and the consideration of an extended implementation framework for smaller affected entities. The committee recommends that, subject to implementation of these recommendations, the bill be passed. On behalf of the committee, once again, I thank those who did participate in this inquiry, and I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. PETITIONS 66 PETITIONS Education 66 18:14 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland by leave—I present to the Senate a petition relating to saving students from toxic culture, with 20,326 signatures. Copies of this petition have been provided to the whips. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 66 Report 66 18:14 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I rise to make some comments on the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the shutdown of the 3G mobile network and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. A major issue has emerged for many people in rural Australia over the last few months. Many people may not realise that from late last year the 3G network was switched off in Australia. It was one of the first countries in the world to do that. Along with other senators—Senator Colbeck has been involved and Senator Roberts has been heavily involved—I have been going around the country and seeking to understand whether the switch-off was, firstly, a good idea and, secondly, being planned properly. Unfortunately, the government has botched this switch-off. It has only impacted a relatively small number of Australians, but just think about how you would feel if you had no access to telecommunications after having had access. It's not good enough that thousands of Australians have effectively been cut off from communications with loved ones, friends and business as a result of poor planning from this government. The 3G switch-off was long in the planning. It was announced under the former government five years before it was due to be switched off. There is a good reason to turn off the 3G network. By doing so, we free up bandwidth and spectrum in our mobile networks. That allows that spectrum to be reallocated for other uses. The government itself will potentially make a lot of money, eventually, when it decides to auction off some of the freed-up frequencies. Of course, the telecommunications services themselves will then make money selling services on that spectrum. Obviously, there's enormous demand for new spectrum, particularly with the use of data and new technologies, so that made some sense. But, unfortunately, from the get-go, the government had not done its homework to get this switch-off right. There was less than a year to go till the switch-off when the government finally got serious about working out how many handsets would not be able to be used after the switch-off. They initially felt that only some very rare handsets in Australia—that either go back to when the 3G network was the only network around or had perhaps been imported from other countries in the interim—would be affected. After that investigation, it finally became clear that a number of 4G phones, while notionally still able to work for normal calls, would not be able to access the emergency telephone number—the triple 0 number—because they reverted to the 3G network for those calls. That was a pretty big misstep. Fortunately—and I do give some credit to the telecommunications companies—once it was realised this was an issue, the telecommunications companies worked very hard to track down all the people with such handsets. At times, they provided them with free, alternative handsets or encouraged them to update to more modern infrastructure. Senator CANAVAN 245212 Gesundheit to Mr Ciccone on the other side of the chamber. This scheme was already on the skids here. We did then learn, in the last week before our inquiry finished, that there were a number of industries that had not been contacted by the government that were potentially affected. Keep in mind that a lot of non-telephone electronic devices and communication devices had been using the 3G network. It had been well publicised that some health instruments and tools—things like health monitors, which are very, very important for older people in particular—may not work after the 3G switch-off. There are little things like when you're in a lift and you get stuck—fortunately, touch wood, I've never been stuck—and you would like to press the button that you see, but would hopefully never have to use, to make a phone call to let people know you are stuck. Well, a lot of the lifts relied on the 3G network. The government only discovered that a few weeks before the network was due to be switched off. They did then finally contact the industry about that. Our initial draft report from mid last year recommended a delay in the switch-off to work these issues out. The government did finally accept that delay. I thought it was a little bit too short. It was only a few months delay. But that did allow some issues to be worked out. We still had a problem though. The network was switched off, and we never really knew how much coverage 3G got in the past. What I've learnt through this inquiry is that the government and the industry do not have a good handle on exactly how far their coverage extends across the country. We have probably all seen the coverage maps. You can see them on the websites of Telstra or other telecommunications companies. But they're not that accurate. They are based on modelled outcomes, not real-world outcomes. So they often failed to capture what the industry came to call 'fortuitous coverage', which is areas that hadn't been identified but actually got 3G coverage and were making calls. They maybe didn't have 4G—they only had 3G—but they could still make calls et cetera. So, when the network was switched off, all these people in those areas which weren't covered by the maps suddenly lost their service and could no longer make calls when they could before. It seemed to me it came as quite a shock or surprise to both the industry and the government that so many people were affected. But, unfortunately, once it was switched off it was too late. The committee had some subsequent hearings on this issue. We heard harrowing stories of rural families who have had their worlds turned upside down by this and, really, of a lack of action from both the government and the industry to try and rectify and change this. So we've made additional recommendations here. As I said, it's too late to turn the network back on now, but it's not too late to do something to help these people in these poor circumstances. There are some technological solutions that can be used and can be helpful for some people. You can buy what are called boosters. You might have a small signal in parts of your property, and you can buy something that will boost that signal to the remaining parts of your property, particularly your house. However, as we heard in this inquiry, they can cost up to $10,000 to $15,000 to install. That's an enormous cost. So an obvious recommendation that we've made is that the industry, probably with the government, given the money they're going to make out of this, fund a scheme to help people cover these costs. It won't need to be an excessive amount of money. We're probably talking about thousands of people, not tens of thousands, but every one of those people has been affected very dearly. I think this is a sensible recommendation and I hope whoever is in government post the election takes this up and does something for the people of rural Australia, particularly given that the industry and the government actually benefit from the switch-off. They make more money from it. This is a small reinvestment to try and make all Australians whole. Another recommendation we made was that we fast-track the rollout of phone calls over low-Earth-orbit satellites. I come across a lot of people, including in rural Australia, who don't yet realise the revolution that's about to come to mobile telephony in this country. Already, just in the last few months, in the US, mobile phone calls over the Starlink network have been switched on. Now, with at least one telecommunications company in the US, you can make a phone call anywhere in the country. I don't really know what the equivalent of 'the back of Bourke' is in the United States, but presumably you could be in the Grand Canyon and make a phone call, as long as you have line of sight to the sky, through the Elon Musk Starlink system. It's an amazing revolution. That technology is slated to come here. Both Telstra and Optus have signed agreements with Starlink to bring that technology here. Imagine just what that would mean for our country and for all of us, not just those who live in rural Australia. Most of us have probably driven through black spots from time to time. Even in our cities, there are these things. But, in the future, with just your normal handset—you don't need any more technology or anything else; you don't need a satellite dish on the roof of your car—you will be able to make a phone call anywhere in the nation. When you consider that the actual footprint of our mobile phone network covers 98 per cent of our people but only a few per cent of our land mass, this is a massive game changer for our nation. Admittedly this is just phone calls and texts to start with, not data. They think they might be able to work on data long term. Nonetheless that is still a massive game changer for people who live and work in rural Australia and for all of us who have to get around the need to have continuous connectivity in our modern lifestyles. It's an amazing thing. We're asking for the government to fast-track that. I know Elon Musk might not be the flavour of the month for the people on the other side of the chamber here, but isn't the connectivity and the health of Australians—this is a health issue for many of us. You could have an accident in rural Australia, and you could get cut off. This can save lives. So, hopefully, we put aside our particular political differences on individuals and we deliver a result for people, for Australians, that can improve their lives and save their lives in many circumstances. There are apparently still some regulatory approvals that Telstra, Optus and Starlink need to get this going. That's why we recommend there be a real effort here to accelerate that rollout that will completely change our country for the better. Yes, a lot of mistakes have been made in the switch-off and a lot of those mistakes now can't be completely rectified. But we can ameliorate those mistakes now by advancing these technologies and changing the lives of many Australians for good. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 68 BILLS AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025, Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2025 68

AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025

Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2025

First Reading 68 18:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 68 18:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2025 and I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— AUSCHECK AMENDMENT (GLOBAL ENTRY PROGRAM) BILL 2025 The AusCheck Amendment (Global Entry Program) Bill 2025 enables the expansion of Australia's participation in the United States' trusted traveller Global Entry program. Australia's participation in the Global Entry Program will improve the border entry experience for the multitude of Australians who visit the United States every year. The relationship between Australia and the United States is built on strong people-to-people links, based on common values and our deep historical and cultural bonds. A significant number of Australian citizens travel annually to the United States and its territories, including tourists, students, professional workers, temporary business travellers and working holiday makers. The Global Entry Program is a voluntary program and provides an avenue for eligible citizens of trusted partner countries to have access to faster entry at US airports. The opportunity to access expedited clearances when crossing US borders is already available for citizens of other nations and we also want to make this available for Australians. This Government has entered into an arrangement with the United States that enables Australian citizens to join this program, which is a sign of the closeness and trust between our two nations. Implementation of this arrangement was announced to the public on 6 August 2024 by Senator the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Foreign Affairs at the Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations forum. As a requirement for participation in the Global Entry Program, the Australian Government must complete background checks on applicants who are Australian citizens. This Bill includes amendments of the AusCheck Act 2007, to provide a legislative basis for Australia's participation in the Global Entry program. The Bill will amend the regulation-making power in the AusCheck Act to allow regulations to be made for the purpose of coordinating and conducting background checks of an individual, to enable participation in the Global Entry Program. AusCheck, situated within the Department of Home Affairs, has a long history of providing background checks for various national security related background checking programs. It has well-established controls and processes in place, and the expertise and experience necessary to undertake background checks for the high volume of applicants expected to apply for the Global Entry Program. Background checks are managed through a cyber-secure system, which limits unauthorised access to applicants' information. The system features integration with checking partners to ensure a secure and efficient end-to-end process for assessing applications. Utilising the existing AusCheck framework will provide a streamlined background checking process for Australian Global Entry Program applicants. The Bill also allows regulations to be made that prescribe the criteria for background checks for Global Entry Program applicants. The proposed criteria would align with the eligibility criteria established by the US Government for the Global Entry Program. The amendments will also allow for regulations to prescribe how decisions are to be made and how the results of background checks are to be communicated. This includes communication of results to the applicant, to an entity who applied on the applicant's behalf, and the US Customs and Border Protection. The amendments in the Bill will also expand the scope of what background checks may be conducted under the AusCheck Act to allow an assessment of whether an applicant has been convicted of particular offences under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. This amendment is necessary to align with the requirements specified by the US Government for eligibility into the Global Entry Program. Personal information collected by AusCheck as part of undertaking background checks for Global Entry Program applicants will be subject to the existing information handling protections as set out in the AusCheck Act. This will safeguard the personal information of all Australian applicants, regardless of when they submitted their application. A small number of Australian citizens have been able to apply through Phase One of Australia's participation in the Global Entry Program, which commenced on 17 January 2025. We are seeking to progress these legislative reforms to enable Australia's ongoing participation in the Global Entry Program, and open up the program to an unlimited number of Australian citizens. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee have considered the Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues on this committee for their consideration of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT (SECURITY OF AUSTRALIA'S TRANSPORT SECTOR) BILL 2025 Our aviation, maritime, and offshore facility sectors are integral to Australia, as they connect us to the world. It is more important than ever for us to work closely with these sectors to ensure their security and resilience. As Government, we share the responsibility to safeguard the transport industry, and with it, the travelling public from current and emerging threats. The Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill is an essential part of helping to discharge this responsibility. The transport sector is critical for sustaining Australia's social and economic prosperity and for facilitating the provision of essential goods and services. A secure and resilient transport sector is one where supply chains and essential services are maintained, bolstering trade networks and economic growth. If a security threat materialises in Australia, it could result in loss of life, and compromise the reliability, continuity, and security of Australia's transport sector. This would have subsequent adverse impacts for Australia's prosperity and security by disrupting essential services, as well as eroding public confidence. Australia faces an inherently complex security environment. Threats to our airports, ports, and other parts of Australia's critical infrastructure continue to be significant and far-reaching. In the last twelve months alone, Australia has experienced security incidents in the transport sector ranging from breaches of secure areas, failure to detect or prevent prohibited items from entering into sterile areas and a cyber incident crippling a port operator's operations. The transport security legislative frameworks were enacted when terrorism was the greatest threat to the transport sector. But while the threat of terrorism remains, we now must protect against nation states and other actors targeting our critical transport infrastructure through espionage, sabotage, and foreign interference: all significant and evolving threats. In the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's (ASIO) Annual Threat Assessment for 2025, Mike Burgess AM, Director-General of Security, noted the most confronting thing about the new security environment is that there is no single security concern. Malicious cyber activity also remains a threat: according to the Australian Signal Directorate's recently released Cyber Threat Report 2023-2024, there is still a cyber incident in Australia reported every six minutes. Catastrophic natural hazards and the COVID-19 pandemic have also exposed vulnerabilities and cascading consequences for Australia's critical transport infrastructure and supply chain resilience. The strategic threat environment continues to evolve at pace and our regulatory frameworks must be able to evolve too. This Bill will strengthen Government and industry's resilience to current and emerging threats, and will provide the chance for Government and industry to strengthen its capabilities and partnerships. This Bill reaffirms the Government is committed to Australia maintaining world-leading transport security settings. In September 2021, the former Government commissioned an Independent Review into Australia's Aviation and Maritime Transport Security Settings, led by Ms Kerri Hartland. This Bill includes targeted, high-impact legislative amendments which seek to respond to the findings of the Independent Review. This Bill will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to: enhance Government and industry's resilience to current and emerging threats enable Government to effectively respond to intelligence provide for robust and proportionate regulation under responsive and fit-for-purpose compliance and enforcement powers and align the security obligations of the transport sector with other critical infrastructure sectors in Australia The Bill introduces a number of key security initiatives to: amend the definition of 'unlawful interference' to capture threats that are not bound by physical or geographical location, including cyber security incidents. Mandatory cyber security incident reporting is being introduced, which will align the transport sector with other critical infrastructure sectors and will ensure that Australia is meetings its international security obligations. introduce an all hazards security framework that will require entities to proactively identify and mitigate risks to physical security, personnel security, cyber security, supply chain resilience, and natural hazards. This reflects the shift away from a counter-terrorism focus towards a more proactive, holistic approach to current and emerging threats. amend the definition of 'test weapon' and introduces a regulation making power to define items as test weapons. This enhances the Department of Home Affairs ability to operate an agile, risk-based system testing program that uses genuine threat items based on intelligence, and use a variety of weapons that mimic potential attack pathways to protect the travelling public. extend system testing to the maritime sector to support industry capability and responsiveness to security threats and ensure consistent compliance and enforcement tools are available across the transport sector. introduce vulnerability testing in the aviation and maritime sectors to allow the Department to assess what security improvements need to be made to people, processes technology, and legislation. Vulnerability testing will assist the Department to test the limits of a system's capability to improve Australia's aviation and maritime security settings and partner with industry to identify potential vulnerabilities to remain resilient to current and emerging threats. broaden and align the Secretary's power across the legislative frameworks to issue a security direction where a specific or general threat of unlawful interference is made or exists, or a change in the nature or risk of an existing threat of unlawful interference. extend the demerit points system to the air cargo sector to align scalable and proportionate enforcement options across the aviation sector to address serious and ongoing patterns of non-compliance. amend the definition of port, security regulated port and port facility in the MTOFSA to clarify the scope of facilities, functions and capabilities that are contemplated in the definitions. This will ensure the relevant entities who contribute to the overall functioning of the port can be captured and provide the maritime industry with the tools to facilitate an all hazards approach to strengthening the security and resilience of the Australian maritime sector. introduce amendments to streamline processes; modernise language, and achieve proportionate regulation for a small cohort of dual purpose vessels, as well as vessels that infrequently travel internationally. The Bill also contains government amendments in response to recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's review of the Bill. These amendments include: increasing penalties for offences across the ATSA and the Bill that expressly apply to airport operators and aircraft operators, from 200 penalty units to 300 penalty units In subsequent regulations the department will develop an escalating regime which allows for lower value infringements for lesser or single failures increasing to higher value infringements for multiple breaches or egregious non-compliance. This approach will provide a stronger response for persistent security failings increasing the penalty for offences that expressly applies to screening authorities, from 200 penalty units to 300 penalty units (consistent with the increase for airport and aircraft operators) amending the regulation-making powers in the ATSA that expressly allow regulations to prescribe offences and penalties for airport and aircraft operators, to increase the maximum penalty that may be prescribed for those operators from 200 penalty units to 250 penalty units amending some of those same regulation-making powers that are relevant to screening-related offences, to increase the maximum penalty that may be prescribed for screening authorities to 250 penalty units (consistent with the increase for airport and aircraft operators) amending the general regulation-making powers in sections 388, 74K, and 133 of the ATSA, to increase the maximum penalty that may be prescribed for offences made under those provisions from 50 penalty units to 250 penalty units, and clarifying the application of subsection 48(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 in relation to them and introducing a requirement for the Secretary to notify the Minister for Home Affairs after issuing a special security direction under the ATSA and MTOFSA. This will enhance the existing safeguards and provide an accountability measure for the Secretary. Penalty provisions encourage entities and individuals to take reasonable care in complying with their security obligations. Raising the maximum penalty units will allow the penalty regime to be responsive and proportionate to serious and ongoing instances of non-compliance, and increase the compliance and enforcement options available to the department as part of its regulatory toolkit. The continued focus on proportionate regulation acknowledges our shared responsibility for security with industry, and ensures both proactive and reactive measures are in place for ongoing protection against current and emerging threats. Naturally, there will be costs incurred while industry raises their capability and becomes compliant with these reforms. However, the prevention of security incidents and their cascading consequences is a benefit we cannot understate. Recognising the importance of these reforms and the shared responsibility with industry for Australia's transport security, the Government consulted widely over the course of 2023 and 2024 to ensure the proposed measures were appropriately designed and targeted. This comprehensive consultation process provided the transport sector with an opportunity to ask questions and provide invaluable feedback, which helped shape this Bill. Industry has generally been supportive of these measures. The Department is committed to continuing to work closely with industry during the implementation of these legislative reforms, through the development of the regulations, and as we progress future stages of the reform agenda. Future stages of the reform agenda will include subsequent legislative and regulatory amendments, as well as initiatives to improve Government and industry capability and partnerships. This Bill and the stronger security measures it contains will significantly contribute to addressing threats against, and ensure the continued reliability, continuity and security of, Australia's transport critical infrastructure. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025 71

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

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

Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025

Returned from the House of Representatives 71 Navigation Amendment Bill 2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025, Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025, Customs Amendment (Expedited Seizure and Disposal of Engineered Stone) Bill 2024, Early Childhood Education and Care (Three Day Guarantee) Bill 2025, Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025, Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024, Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024 71

Navigation Amendment Bill 2024

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2024-2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2024-2025

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2024-2025

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025

Oversight Legislation Amendment (Robodebt Royal Commission Response and Other Measures) Bill 2024

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

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

Defence Service Homes Amendment (Insurance) Bill 2025

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

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

Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Scams Prevention Framework Bill 2025

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024

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

Assent 71 Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 71

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

Second Reading 71 18:28 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Walsh, I understand you are in continuance. 18:28 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I am in continuance, and I look forward to continuing for another couple of minutes on this important legislation. As the first majority female government with the first gender-equal cabinet in Australia's history, we are 100 per cent committed to impactful reforms for Australian women. This bill is the next step in that journey. The Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Bill 2024 is a vital part of the ongoing reforms that our government is delivering for Australian women. The data collected by WGEA has allowed us to track progress and increase transparency on workplace gender equality, including the gender pay gap. But we can't stop there. This bill introduces a world-first targets scheme aimed at accelerating action on gender equality by large Australian employers. It will require organisations with 500 or more employees in Australia to commit to achieving measurable targets for gender equality in their workplaces. Whether it's reducing the gender pay gap or improving gender diversity in leadership positions, employers will be required to set ambitious, transparent goals. We want employers to walk the talk on gender equality, and setting targets will help them do just that. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 20:30 BUDGET 72 BUDGET Statement and Documents 72 20:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table the budget statement for 2025-26 and other documents listed on the Dynamic Red: The Budget 2025-26—Statement by the Treasurer (Dr Chalmers), dated 25 March 2025. Budget papers— No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook. No. 2—Budget measures. No. 3—Federal financial relations. No. 4—Agency resourcing. Ministerial statements— Regional Ministerial Budget Statement 2025-26: Building regional Australia's future—Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Ms C King) and Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories (Ms McBain), dated 25 March 2025. Women's Budget Statement 2025-26—Statement by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Women, Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Government Services (Senator Gallagher) and the Treasurer (Dr Chalmers), dated 25 March 2025. I seek leave to move a motion relating to the statement and documents. Leave granted. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I move: That the Senate take note of budget statement and documents. Debate adjourned. Proposed Expenditure 72 20:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table particulars of proposed and certain proposed expenditure for 2025-26: Particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026. Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026. Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026. Particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026 [Supply Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026]. Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026 [Supply Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026]. Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2023 [Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026]. I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees. Leave granted. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I move: That the documents be referred to committees for examination and report. Question agreed to. Portfolio Budget Statements 73 20:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 I table portfolio budget statements for 2025-26 for the Department of the Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Portfolio Budget Statements, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 73 20:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table the portfolio budget statements for portfolios and executive departments as listed on the Dynamic Red: The list read as follows— Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2025-26—Portfolio budget statements—Portfolios and executive departments— Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. Attorney-General's portfolio. Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio. Defence portfolio. Department of Veterans' Affairs. Education portfolio. Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health and Aged Care portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Albanese Government 73 20:31 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Tonight, as a Labor government, we have handed down our fourth budget. This is a responsible budget that helps with the cost of living and, most importantly, builds Australia's future. This budget builds on the progress we've made over the first three years. Inflation is down, incomes are rising, unemployment is low and interest rates are coming down. Debt is down and growth is picking up with momentum. We've come a long way since we took over the government benches, but there is so much more to do. We've been cleaning up the mess that those opposite left Australia with when they were voted out of office. Our responsible budget helps Australians now and will help build the future in five key ways. We're delivering cost-of-living relief with two new tax cuts, another $150 energy bill rebate and cheaper medicines. We're strengthening Medicare, which is part of our DNA, with more than 50 new urgent care clinics where all you need is your Medicare card, we're giving more funding for public hospitals and we're increasing bulk-billing so that all Australians can see a GP for free. We're making it easier to buy and rent a home with an expansion of the Help to Buy scheme, building more homes faster and incentivising the training of more construction workers. We're investing in every stage of education, with more funding with public schools to put them on a path to full and fair funding. We're expanding access to early education and care for our most vulnerable and most precious little people. We're cutting student debt and offering 100,000 free TAFE places every year. We're building a stronger economy with competition policy reforms like progressing national licensing for electrical trades—what an amazing opportunity for young Australians! We're reforming non-compete clauses, investing in jobs of the future and increasing support for small businesses—unlike those opposite who failed Australians! They neglected to build the houses that Australians need. They neglected to support our young people and families to have a home. They abandoned skills and didn't encourage further training in this country. We have priorities that Australians need, and we put Australians first and foremost at every opportunity. I am so proud to be a Labor senator and to be there tonight to witness the budget that was brought down by Jim Chalmers. In our first two years we posted back-to-back surpluses. It had been nearly two decades since that was last achieved. That is what we did when we came to office. The myth that the Liberals and Nationals are better economic managers has been shown to be totally untrue, because we put people first. We believe in Medicare because it's in our DNA. We believe a country that makes and manufactures things here at home will make a prosperous Australia. We actually believe that, unlike those opposite. It's in their DNA. They don't believe in Medicare. They don't believe in universal health, but we do. So this budget will have an enormous impact on my home state of Tasmania. We have seen the changes that have been brought about with the tax cuts that we have delivered. Let's not forget that it is those opposite who voted against every cost-of-living measure we have introduced since being in government, but all of a sudden Peter Dutton has seen the light and is now starting to say, 'I will support this.' The Australian people are not that naive. They see Mr Dutton for who he really is—the worst ever health minister of this country. That doesn't say much when people are concerned about health and having access to their GPs. He was the one who wanted to have the GP tax. I think it's going to be a very interesting couple of months going forward, because I have a lot more faith in the Australian people being able to differentiate between us and those who left an economic mess, who neglected the Australian people, who did nothing to ensure that people have the opportunity to have a house and to be skilled, and who did nothing to invest in manufacturing. They were the government that allowed the car industry to leave this country. They did nothing about investing in manufacturing, and they will be judged accordingly. (Time expired) Budget 74 20:36 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Tonight the government faced a test. Tonight's budget was a test to see if Labor could deliver a budget for the next five years, not for the next five weeks or so, and they have undoubtedly failed that test. Their budgets so far have been lost opportunities. We have seen two windfall gains completely wasted and now we have deficits far into the future—a further impost on young Australians. Strong gains have been squandered, with Labor locking in deficits for at least the next decade. Despite the messaging of those opposite over the last three years, this Labor budget reveals $1 trillion in debt in 2025-26. Sadly, it reveals that Australians will pay almost $10 billion more in income taxes over the next five years, and our superannuation accounts will be hit with almost $10 billion in extra taxes over the next five years. Australians needed a budget that showed courageous leadership, a budget that restored the standard of living that has been lost under this government. Under Labor, Australians' standard of living has collapsed further and faster than ever before. This budget needed to be one that restored our prosperity and opportunity for all Australians—a budget that restored the fiscal guardrails, the disciplines and the honesty that have served Australians well in past budgets. This budget has failed. But Peter Dutton and the coalition have a plan, and the Australian people will hear that plan on Thursday night. We have a plan to restore prosperity, to get cost of living under control by tackling inflation head-on and sustainably, to reduce energy prices, to deliver affordable homes, to deliver quality health care and to keep Australians safe with safer communities. No matter what tricky lines the Treasurer dreamt up tonight, they cannot stop the reality. We are paying more for rent, more for food, more for power and more for gas. Under Labor we've had the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. Since the last election, the price of everything remains nearly 11 per cent higher than at the last election. Food is up 13.3 per cent, housing is up 14.4 per cent, rent is up 18 per cent, and gas is up 34.2 per cent. A family with a typical mortgage has paid an extra $50,000 in interest payments since this government came to power. And we'll keep repeating that fact because that is a painful fact—an extra $50,000 in interest payments since this government came to power. That's $50,000 that those households will never get back. The Labor government has consistently made bad decisions and held the wrong priorities throughout the entire term of this parliament. This fourth budget is unlikely to do anything to restore what Labor have cost Australians, and we cannot afford another three years of them. Small businesses have endured the worst of Labor's incompetence. Despite claims from those opposite that the Australian economy has turned the corner, fresh ASIC business insolvency data reveals a grim reality—2025 has had the worst start of any year on record for business failures. In January alone, 727 Australian businesses became insolvent, breaking a 12-year record. February saw 1,214 businesses close for good, smashing a 13-year record. Those are month-on-month records. The Prime Minister has now overseen the collapse of 28,962 businesses since taking office, and the responsibility for these failures lies squarely at his feet. Our iconic cafes, restaurants and small businesses have been hammered by Labor's high-cost economy, and we have lost one in 10 hospitality businesses as a result. With business failures on the rise, the need for change is clear. As we see rising bankruptcies and closures, Australians cannot afford another three years of a government that has failed to protect those who drive our economy forward. The reality is that the $150 subsidy barely scratches the surface, and, for many Australians, it won't even cover anticipated increases in energy prices. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald tonight, economics editor Ross Gittins sums up the ambition of this government perfectly: 'The government is timid, uninspired and uninspiring. This budget fits it perfectly.' (Time expired) COVID-19: Response 75 20:41 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia It's now five years since COVID fear gripped this nation, and we can't forget. People were left to die alone in hospital beds, with their families prohibited from visiting them, and funerals were restricted, with those in attendance being forced to wear masks and to socially distance. People bumped elbows instead of shaking hands, and children and young people were locked in their homes away from their peers. Today the COVID narrative has fallen apart, yet sadly the entire episode has triggered a 25 per cent spike in youth anxiety and depression. But, when it was in force, people were afraid to contradict the narrative, thanks largely to the messaging of the mainstream media, which refused to question the restrictions and signalled that to do so was to confirm a person as being a conspiracy theorist, a social menace or a threat to public health. Almost every media outlet, with a few notable exceptions, let the fear porn for lockdowns travel. They pilloried those who questioned mandates and they ignored the actual truth of the fatality rates and the glaring harms of the restrictions. Lockdown critics were branded selfish, and the lockdowns themselves were praised. In fact, an article from the Adelaide Advertiser said: 'Take a deep breath. COVID-19 lockdown is helping SA's environment as air pollution plunges and more of us get back to nature.' Later, when the antilockdown protests took place, those who attended—many of whom were generally peaceful—were portrayed as a bunch of rabble-rousers, rather than everyday people concerned about government overreach. These were people who'd been through a lot, but that wasn't the end of the bad press. Indeed, the antilockdown movement was often characterised as far-right. Today, lockdown defenders are actually scarce in numbers. Everyone knows they were wrong, but the truth is we didn't need the hindsight. The damage was predictable, and those who saw it coming and talked about it were ignored and even mocked. So what do we do? Well, cue the inevitable revisionism from the media. In South Australia, the Advertiser newspaper has recently produced a four-part series featuring interviews with parents and students reflecting on the lockdown experience, and it's called Lockdown Kids. It depicts how lockdowns unsurprisingly brought on a wave of depression and isolation, the loss of opportunities and, tragically, sometimes even the suicide of our young people. We know; we tried to tell you five years ago. But there were people who weren't silent about this at the time, and we were dismissed, ignored and mocked. While media outlets and government departments now act as though the damage from lockdowns was unforeseeable, we know it wasn't. Those of us who said so just weren't listened to at the time. Pointing that out was obviously madness, and that's what was called 'madness'. Everyone now wants to pretend they were against all of this—mandates and lockdowns—but we need to ensure that we never let fear drown out reason again. When fear drives policy, dissent is silenced and the madness of the crowds prevails. But it's the courage of the few—the people out there who spoke truth in the face of hysteria—that'll ultimately safeguard our society. Valedictory 75 20:45 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales This might be my last opportunity to address this chamber. I'm an optimist, generally, so I had hoped to make my valedictory speech after the election, perhaps even from the seat I sat in when I came to this place—on the other side of the chamber. But, just in case I run out of time, I want to take the opportunity tonight to recognise some people who've played such an amazing role over the past six years. I will start with my staff. Abbey Neeham and Callum Gurney have been with me from day one. We will have spent the whole term together. Abbey, the kindest person in the world, has the most incredible way of dealing with constituents and anyone who needs assistance, across a raft of issues, especially the NDIS and immigration. 'Sorry, Abbey' is folklore in our office, and I hope you keep your cross-stitch forever. When Callum came to me, he, as someone with autism, started with some of the most basic of tasks. He has grown in his role, now managing the mail-out process, amongst other tasks, and I'm so proud that my office has supported, encouraged and nurtured Callum—has walked the walk about hiring people with a disability and growing their skills and future opportunities. Callum is also our karaoke aficionado, and I'm sure he will now have much more time to take those private karaoke bookings. To Kate Johansen, who is the person who keeps me in order, asks more questions than anyone I know and is just an all-round organisation queen—she's the only person I'm scared of, so there's a little secret for you all; I will never go outside the lines while I have Kate—thank you for everything you have done. Jonathan Maran, otherwise known as 'my Jonno' due to the high volume of Jonnos in this place, what a rock star you have been. Plucked from Sky, he has done the most incredible job assisting me with policy and is an estimates legend. He will laugh and maybe physically assault me if I actually read this speech, given he writes me speeches on many occasions which I then prefer to freelance on. Coming to me straight after school, Kira Dickie has become our socials and video go-to girl over the past 18 months. It's been my absolute pleasure to see her blossom from a schoolgirl to someone with a really bright future who we have loved having as part of our team, encouraging her to try new foods, with all of us learning that hard Solo is the drink of this generation. I note her mother, Senator Davey, is sitting behind me. I could go on, but I'll have plenty more to say to them privately as there are a lot of in-house jokes in my office. I've had some other staff over the years, part time and full time, and a lot of them have gone on to much bigger and better opportunities. To Aerin Gordon, Amy Lehmann, Candice Steffensen, Tom Byrnes, Jock Bell, Harriet Heffernan, Jack Morrish, BJ Yde, Jen Havilah, Karen Howard and Lachlan Deveridge, who have all played such a positive role in my office and who have continued to attend our legendary boat cruise Christmas parties and come back for regular visits or casual jobs: thank you, thank you, thank you. Nothing could have been achieved without all of your hard work and support. I also want to acknowledge the people who've always been on the end of the phone whenever required. I know this list is not complete, because, if it were to be, I would be here until well after the election was over. But to Bill Heffernan; my former flatmate, Alex Hawke; Nicole Rogerson; Julie Singleton; Marie Simone; Tim Smith; Brian Marlow; Dean Shachar; Milton Dick; and my refresh group, Michael Tiyce, Lee Furlong, Adla Coure and Annie Elias: over the past six years, your love, support and advice has been irreplaceable and highly appreciated. I do want to cover off a few of the issues that have taken up a huge amount of time and focus in this place for me, but I need to thank my family. It's been a busy six years—a divorce and a wedding, and I have lost both of my parents. The last six years have been filled with challenges and change, but the one constant is my amazing children, my favourite people in the world: Millie, Fred and Rupert. I've often felt that I've watched you grow up from afar over this period, and you have been amazing in your resilience and understanding that mummy's job wasn't like the other mummies' jobs. You are my inspiration each and every day, and that will not change, ever. To my daughter, who will be 18 before I leave this place: you are a beautiful, smart woman, and I couldn't be more proud of the young woman you're becoming. I know your future will be filled with adventures and success beyond what you can possibly imagine. To my Freddo, you are just the best. In every challenge and every adversity, you give it your all. You will get there, my baby—or my man, as you tell me now. You inspire me to work so hard for you and also for every person with profound autism, whose autism places real hurdles in front of them every day. To my littlest baby, who's almost 15, and much taller than me: this growth spurt, Rupert, I fear has ruled out a career in the front row, but a bright future in the second row beckons. I play politics like you play rugby. You are the kindest soul to have ever lived, who cleans out the rucks and does the work that will see you go wherever you want to go. You all make me laugh and make me proud every day, and I couldn't love you all more. I cannot wait to be with you all so much more post 30 June. I also want to acknowledge their dad, Stewart. Without his love for all of our children, we could never have made this career work. To my husband, Richard: you came into my life just over three years ago, even though I've known your family for in excess of 35 years. We got married in September 2023, and it was the best decision I've ever made. A fun future with lots of adventures awaits us, and I can't wait. You were a conscript to this life. You've seen the good and the bad. I do love your interpretation of politics, the Liberal Party and so many other things—again, something we will share more privately. When I took on the shadow assistant minister roles of climate change and energy, you were an invaluable source of information. Since I have moved into the NDIS, mental health and suicide prevention, you've been my rock. I love you, honey, and I cannot wait for us to start our new life and to see you in just a couple of days. For those of you that were here for my maiden speech, you'll have noticed that I actually did manage to have everything still with me, and I didn't have to get Raff to go and send his staff to help me. I'm not even sure most people understand that story, but when I lost most of my maiden speech and noticed it was missing, it was the gorgeous Senator Ciccone, my Raffie, who went to his office and said: 'Her staff are going to be absolutely freaking out. Get yourselves up there to help out.' The only thing I said to Raff that I was cranky about was: 'You should have brought the speech into me yourself, because that would have broken the chamber!' I haven't mentioned any colleagues in this place tonight—I mentioned Milton Dick and Alex Hawke—and there are many others who have been wonderful supports, and many of you are sitting here right now. As I said to Patto today, when we were sitting in question time, a lot of those thankyous will come a little bit later with a lot of wine, so I look forward to seeing you all to do those thankyous properly. The one thing that I have treasured in this place, in the Senate, and that I hope the people that come after us and that are here understand is the importance of the collegiality we share in this place, the committees we serve on together and the amount of work we do together. That isn't partisan—or it can be; sometimes it is, but sometimes there's an awful lot of work that gets done in the background to make sure policies are implemented without unintended consequences. Without naming names—and I haven't talked about any of the issues I wanted to talk about, so I will have to come back for that valedictory—to all my colleagues across the chamber who I have enjoyed working with on so many committees, thank you so much. If I don't get the chance later, I wish you all the best in the future. Budget 77 20:55 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales In this budget, the Albanese government has again completely failed refugees. The Labor Party went to the last election with a national platform saying that they would increase the humanitarian intake for Australia from 20,000 people who need refuge to 27,000 people. After three years, what do we see now in this latest budget? Another broken promise from Labor, leaving the humanitarian intake at an almost record low of 20,000. It is an appalling breach of faith from the Albanese government to refuse to even match the very modest goal in Labor's national platform to increase the refugee take to some 27,000 a year. With that failure, with that broken promise, we look at the budget and see asylum seeker support payments under Labor are also at a record low—down to just $20 million in this budget to support people who have come to Australia, having sought asylum. They have gone from $300 million a decade ago to just $20 million a year under the Albanese Labor government—literally starving people who have come here seeking support. While those payments are at historic lows, we see massive expenditure—a huge $200 million increase in the amount budgeted for onshore detention, largely going to private, bottom-feeding multinational prison corporations like MTC. Labor is now budgeting to spend $1.36 billion—up from $1.16 billion last year—on largely private, corporate run onshore detention facilities in Australia. There's always money for Albanese Labor to give to US multinationals to do harm but never money to give to families who have come here, sought asylum here, to do good. Extraordinarily, Labor is spending over half a billion dollars on offshore detention. That's money going to Nauru and also, probably, to PNG to keep offshore detention centres open or to open new ones in the forward estimates. They show no intention of ending that cruelty. The government is refusing to tell us how much more it's giving to Nauru in its most recent bribe to send people to Nauru under its Trump-like deportation laws. All we see from the budget papers is a note that they will be only partially met from the existing resourcing. Heaven knows how much Labor is giving in its multimillion-dollar bribe to Nauru to deport people who have come here and been found to be refugees to Nauru. We know, though, that the Nauruan president has come out and said that, no matter how much Labor pays it, Nauru intends to deport them back to the country from which they fled persecution. This is a gross breach of trust from Labor when it comes to multicultural Australia, to treating refugees fairly and to prizing the contributions that immigrants make to this country. Shame on Labor for those budget allocations. The Albanese government, in this budget, has decided to double down on Donald Trump, double down on AUKUS and double down on nuclear submarines. You couldn't write this stuff with a straight face, unless you'd seen it happen in real time. While Donald Trump is out there threatening to invade Canada, Greenland and Panama; tearing up NATO; and leaking war plans to journalists by Signal, the Albanese government says this is the time to drop an extra $6 billion into AUKUS. That's what the Albanese government did tonight. In the morning, Donald Trump and his mates leaked war plans via Signal, and in the afternoon Anthony Albanese decided to give them another $6 billion towards AUKUS, increasing the spend over the forward estimates from $12 billion over four years to $18 billion over four years. It's basically a tribute payment to Donald Trump, begging him to be nice to Labor and begging him not to withdraw his nuclear submarines. Are we delivering this as a tribute payment in rubies and wheat as our ambassador goes? It is pathetic. But it's worse than pathetic. Imagine! On the same day that those bozos in Washington are out there leaking war plans on Signal, Anthony Albanese decides to give them an extra $6 billion for nuclear submarines we'll never see. You couldn't make this stuff up. But this is a Labor-Liberal joint policy. No matter how mad Donald Trump is and no matter how dangerous he is, they want to give him more money for nuclear submarines we'll never get. But that's not all. Also in this budget is a $1.6 billion spend to build a nuclear submarine base at HMAS Stirling, off Perth, for nuclear submarines we don't own. They want this up and running in a couple of years. Even in the most wild, drug fuelled dreams that the Albanese government and the Dutton coalition have about when they're going to get nuclear submarines, the submarines won't come until 2033 or 2034. But this budget plans to build a nuclear submarine base at HMAS Stirling in the next four years and have it up and running at a cost of $1.6 billion to Australian taxpayers—when nobody says we'll have a nuclear submarine. We're literally spending $1.6 billion to build Donald Trump a nuclear submarine forward-attack base off Perth—paid for by Australian taxpayers—and we'll then agree to take on board the nuclear waste generated from that stuff. Did the Albanese government go out and tell the Australian public, 'By the way, the reason we can't afford to build you new housing is that we're giving $1.6 billion to build a US submarine attack base off Perth'? There are no increases to any payments like Newstart or JobSeeker, and did the Albanese government say, 'That's because we're delivering $6 billion in extra tribute to Donald Trump so he'll be nice to us. Please make him be nice to us! Is $6 billion enough?'? No, they didn't. Anyone with a brain knows we won't get nuclear submarines under this deal and we're just spending $1.6 billion to build the US's brand-new submarine base off Perth. Even US hawks say that what that does is paint a big nuclear target on Perth, because that's a high-profile target in any conflict. We're paying $1.6 billion to paint a nuclear target on Perth. That's the budget that Anthony Albanese has delivered. The total cost of defence is increasing to almost $59 billion a year in these forward estimates, up over $2 billion from where it was last year. A large chunk of that is the increase in pre-program tribute payments for AUKUS, and none of that will be making us any safer. There's an extra $61 million to 'provide regulatory safety and policy advice in support of AUKUS'. That's $60 million just for regulations in relation to AUKUS. Only Defence can swallow up $60 million and have nothing to show for it. And, remarkably, there's $28 million in this budget going to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade next year to provide 'international policy advice and diplomatic support for the Nuclear Powered Submarine program'. That's basically a fund to send people to Washington to beg the Trump administration to please not be mean to them—$28 million on DFAT personnel to go and beg Donald Trump for stuff. How does this get through? The icing on the cake is this: over the next four years, Labor has us spending $445 million on nuclear powered submarine sustainment—when we don't own a single nuclear submarine. How does this get through? Archer, Councillor Elsia, OAM, Albanese Government 78 21:05 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I begin this evening on a positive note by paying tribute to my friend and an absolute stalwart of the Kimberley, Elsia Archer. The Kimberley, in the far north-west of Western Australia, is a very special place, from its stunning natural beauty to its important role in our state and national economies. It's as unique as it is isolated. It also has more than its fair share of challenges, and that makes the strength of its communities and their leaders absolutely vital. So I acknowledge Elsia Archer, a noteworthy member of that Kimberley community and the Derby community in particular. It's no overstatement to say that Elsia has dedicated her entire life to fighting and delivering for the Kimberley region. She has lived, worked and raised a family in the historic town of Derby for 70 years. Twenty-seven of those years were at the Shire of Derby, West Kimberley, where she was the shire president for 17 years. But her service doesn't stop there. She has served her local communities by being in board and committee positions on the Kimberley Regional Group of Councils, the Western Australian Local Government Association state council, Australia's North West tourism council, the Kimberley Small Business Support Council, the Regional Development Council, the Kimberley Development Commission, Roadwise, Derby Health Consumers and, of course, the Regional Development Association of the Kimberley. I've worked with Elsia mostly in her role at the RDA, where she took on a voluntary position as its chair, a ministerial appointment recognising her experience and her unwavering dedication to the north of Western Australia and its tremendous potential. It was no surprise to those of us who know her and know of her contribution that she was honoured with the Medal of the Order of Australia. Elsia is hanging up her hat for now—at least from her role at the RDA, although she'll remain an indefatigable local champion for many years to come, we're sure. I was so disappointed to have missed, just last week, a sundowner that the RDA Kimberley held to celebrate Elsia's remarkable achievements for her local communities in Broome, but I will make one of my regular visits again soon to extend my personal thanks and appreciation for Elsia's stewardship of Kimberley communities and her strong and trusted friendship with me. Elsia, from so many of us: thank you for all you have done. Derby and Kimberley would not be where they are today without your efforts. The people and the issues of the Kimberley now must find a new voice and a new champion. Elsia Archer, your example is one that many can follow. This is far from the first time I have risen in this chamber to highlight the damage the Albanese government continues to do to my home state of Western Australia. But it is now inescapable. On almost every metric, life in Western Australia has become harder on Labor's watch—the total opposite of what Anthony Albanese promised to a Perth audience in May 2022. According to recent data provided to me by the Reserve Bank of Australia, nearly one in 10 Western Australians are spending more than 30 per cent of their income on their mortgage repayments. It is little wonder, when you consider that those mortgage repayments have doubled in 180 Perth suburbs since Labor won office. In fact, Perth has experienced the largest increase in mortgage repayments of any Australian capital, with the top 50 worst affected suburbs facing, on average, a 154 per cent increase in their monthly mortgage repayments. Labor held seats are feeling it also. In Kelmscott, a suburb in the electorate of Burt, mortgage holders are paying an average of $1,848 per month more than they were in 2022. It's no wonder, then, that our standards of were living have suffered such a historic collapse under Labor. Australians are finding it harder to keep their heads above water, let alone thrive and save for the future. Instead of finding solutions, the Albanese government has been at best distracted by the wrong priorities. At worst, it has been hell-bent on actively jeopardising Western Australia's economic strength and prosperity. Take, for example, the North West Shelf gas project, a crucial part of our energy security and economy. It has provided millions and millions of dollars in royalties and, closer to home, driven the expansion of regional communities across the Pilbara and the Kimberley. Labor clearly doesn't understand its value to Western Australia. I say that because, instead of the North West Shelf's continued operation being approved in a timely fashion that gives investors confidence, this vital project has instead become a victim of Labor politics and Labor seeking to appease the Greens in inner-city seats. Labor's characteristic delay, damage to confidence and stifling of investment now threaten the prosperity of Western Australia. Equally ill advised are the nature-positive laws, which will hang over the heads of Western Australia and the resources sector for as long as the Albanese government remains in power. While they may not have come to pass in this parliament, make no mistake: a future Labor or Labor-Greens minority government will continue to use nature-positive laws to undermine and attack the mining industry in Western Australia, and nature-positive laws will be the new spearhead of Labor's anti-Western Australia movement. If that's not enough anti-WA rhetoric from Labor, let's look again at what Labor is doing to farming communities across Western Australia. Western Australian farmers are facing the complete shutdown of their live sheep export industry, without proper and thorough consultation. This, of course, presents dire consequences for the many communities that have relied on the industry for generations. Their frustrations were evident even in the recent state election. It goes without saying that an elected coalition government would reverse this decision as a key priority. While Labor couldn't care less about our farmers, they will always look after their unions. It has been impossible to miss coverage of recent union activity in the Pilbara, where unions are taking the economic engine room of WA and the country hostage with their self-interested agenda. It's a risky road that Western Australians cannot afford to head down. So, while the Prime Minister might try to spin himself as a good friend of Western Australia, his government's record tells a very different story. It's something Western Australians must consider at the ballot box in just a few weeks time. The options are real and severe for Western Australia. A Dutton led coalition government will protect Western Australia and its agricultural and mining interests. An Anthony Albanese led Greens-Teal-Labor alliance will serve only to hold Western Australia back and damage its future prosperity. Budget, Pauline Hanson's One Nation 79 21:13 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland This budget that we've just had delivered is a mockery of governance that seeks to make Australians reliant on government handouts, ensuring power is no longer vested in us, the people, but instead is vested in them, the bureaucracy. The world has been here many times before, and clearly Treasurer Chalmers has failed to study history. The more government borrows—$44 billion in this budget—the less private enterprise has available to invest and grow the economy for all who are here. And there are too many here: five million new arrivals in the last 10 years—five million. There have been 2½ million under this Labor government in just the last three years. This is the major reason for the cost-of-living and housing catastrophe. The more the government spends, the less is available for private enterprise to create real, productive jobs and the more reliant everyone becomes on the government. One Nation is offering the Australian people a comprehensive economic plan to restore wealth and opportunity for every Australian. One Nation will immediately return $40 billion into the pockets of everyday Australians, funded through savings of $90 billion, which will also enable us to pay off an additional $30 billion from our national debt and invest $20 billion a year for 10 years in the infrastructure to grow our economy. Here's how we'll be putting more money in people's pockets—more money in your pocket. No. 1 is reducing electricity prices by 20 per cent to save $6 billion. Currently the system of priority dispatch turns coal-fired power stations off during the day to make room for solar and wind. Operating a coal plant this way causes damage which shows up in much higher maintenance costs and breakdowns, increasing the price of coal fired electricity. One Nation will turn priority dispatch around and run coal plants to at least 80 per cent capacity 24/7. We expect this power will be sold into the grid at around $55 per kilowatt hour, compared to the average price last quarter across all types of power of $120 per kilowatt hour. That's less than half of what it has been. This should reduce power prices by 20 per cent immediately, and, over time, as we build new coal plants, it should cut power prices by 50 per cent. The government pays for the electricity it uses, so this will reduce the government's electricity costs by $3 billion and save consumers and businesses $6 billion a year. That's more money in your pocket. No. 2 is income splitting to save $8 billion. One Nation will introduce income splitting, allowing a couple with at least one dependent child to split their income between both partners. If there's only one breadwinner earning the average wage, the family will save $9,500 a year in tax. That's $9,500 that stays in your pocket. This measure will cost $8 billion a year, offset in part from tax on the resulting higher economic activity. And we expect more parents to be able to afford to stay home and mind their children, reducing government subsidised childcare. No. 3 is $13 billion a year in excise cuts. One Nation will cut the fuel excise by 26 cents a litre for three years and then review it to see if it continues. The ACCC monitor fuel prices daily, and I'm confident the reduction will be passed on to consumers. Fuel is an input cost right across the economy. Lowering fuel prices lowers commuting costs for consumers and transport costs across the economy, including for groceries, saving consumers and industry $8 billion a year. That's more money in your pocket. We will remove the GST on insurance policies, saving consumers $3 billion a year. And we will remove the excise on alcohol sold in hospitality venues. This will save consumers more than $1 billion a year. That's more money in your pocket. This policy is not about drinking; it's about supporting hospitality venues and offering Australians a safe place to drink in a social environment—a community. No. 4 is increased funding for the ACCC. In February One Nation called for an increase in funding for the ACCC to enable a thorough investigation of supermarkets, airlines and insurance companies for profiteering and dishonest business practices. I note that Treasurer Chalmers tonight in the budget has required the ACCC to spend $38 million on policing supermarkets, which will be hard after he cut the ACCC's budget by $48 million. One Nation will provide whatever it takes to investigate and prosecute illegal behaviour from supermarkets, airlines and insurance companies. Prices must come down, and profit margins should not be excessive in these essential industries. No. 5 is increasing Medicare funding by $3 billion a year. One Nation will prosecute fraud in the Medicare and PBS system, which the government knows is happening yet does not have the courage to solve. We will impose longer wait times before new arrivals can access Medicare and review drugs being offered under the PBS that received emergency-use authorisation during COVID. This $40 billion of more money in your pocket will be paid for with the following spending cuts to cut government waste. We will abolish net zero and climate change measures. One Nation will withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto protocol and the Paris Agreement. We will end net zero. We will abolish the department of climate change and their agencies, schemes and boondoggles. Existing solar and wind contracts will be honoured. No new subsidies will occur. Today's budget reveals that the whole climate scam costs the government $35 billion a year. The cost to the private sector is anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion depending on who's doing the numbers. This is a massive cost on Australian households that One Nation will abolish. One Nation will return the NDIS to its original purpose, helping the severely disabled, and introduce means testing, saving $20 billion a year and improving care. We will withdraw from the World Health Organization and ban the World Economic Forum. For too long Australia has been held hostage to unelected, unaccountable, corrupt foreign bureaucrats at the World Health Organization and predatory billionaires operating their puppet organisation, the World Economic Forum. It's a cabal which, during COVID, transferred $5 trillion from everyday citizens into their own pockets. One Nation will withdraw from the UN World Health Organization and will only provide cooperation where we believe it will assist in world health. We will withdraw from the World Economic Forum and the World Bank, saving around $1 billion a year in contributions, administration and in the costs of implementing policies such as One Health, which can only be described as anti-human. We will end mass immigration. There are 75,000 people in Australia illegally, right now, mostly with expired visas. One Nation will deport them all. There are 1.1 million people here with student related visas, which are students and their families, who can now accompany students. Australia only has 480,000 student places, so clearly there are people who are rorting the system, at our cost. One Nation will send home any student and their family who is not following the terms of their visa, which are to study and to complete their course. One Nation's policy will initially result in a negative net immigration of 90,000 a year, meaning more people will leave than enter, because with around 220,000 departures a year we will only allow 130,000 people a year to enter. Ninety thousand more people will leave than enter. This will put downward pressure on the cost of housing and free up homes for Australians who are currently living in tents or who are underhoused. Unlike under Liberal and Labor policies, all people who enter will be skilled. Education is a state responsibility. Yet we have federal bureaucrats telling state bureaucrats telling regional bureaucrats telling headmasters telling teachers what to teach—too many mouths to feed along the way and harming educational outcomes. The Program for International Student Assessment, PISA, is an OECD program which assesses reading, mathematics and science literacy of 15-year-old students. Australia is not in the top 10 nations, and our latest ranking shows a score below the OECD average. We will abolish the federal Department of Education, including the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority and NAPLAN, saving $2 billion a year, and return education to the states in accordance with the federal constitution. Last year the Allianz insurance company found Australian businesses were spending $27 billion on DEI and related mental health measures in 2024-25. While One Nation supports legitimate mental health concerns, there's clearly a significant cost involved in DEI. If half of this $27 billion is for DEI, and the government is a quarter of that, then DEI is costing taxpayers $3 billion a year and adding $10 billion a year to the cost of goods and services in Australia. One Nation will abolish woke and bank these savings for taxpayers and the Australian public. Next, One Nation will end foreign multinational gas companies rorting the natural gas royalties. We will change from where royalties are levied from profits and switch to point of production—that makes perfect sense—and create a domestic gas reserve, raising up to a $13 billion a year from offshore sales. We will reduce foreign aid, saving $3 billion a year, with the remaining aid being targeted to those in need instead of being a slush fund for political influence. We will abolish the white and black Aboriginal industry. As already announced, we will replace the national Indigenous grants agency, the Aboriginal units across every department and agency and associated programs and boondoggles. We will replace that parasitic mess with direct grants and essential remote infrastructure based on need not race, saving $12½ billion and getting better care to the Aboriginals in the community. Taken together, these savings will total $90 billion a year, with $40 billion going back to taxpayers and $20 billion going to infrastructure, which I discussed this afternoon. One Nation's plan is a real economic plan, designed to lower the cost of living while expanding the economy and restoring wealth and opportunity for all Australians. Budget, Queensland: Community Organisations, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chinese Museum of Queensland, Wang, Mr Jimmy 81 21:23 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland The Treasurer has brought down his budget, and I say to the people of Australia: all you need to do is go to page 63 of Budget Paper No. 1 and have a look at the reconciliation of general government sector underlying cash balance estimates. What do you see? A sea of red ink as far as the eye can see. Senator Ayres 16913 An improvement on 2022. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Order! Senator Ayres, you're warned. Senator SCARR 282997 A $27 billion deficit, 2024-25, a $42 billion deficit, 2025-26, a $35 billion deficit, 2026-27, a $37 billion deficit, 2027-28, a $36 billion deficit, 2028-29—a sea of red ink is what we've gotten from the Labor Party after three years in government. Australia cannot afford another three years of Labor. Since being elected in 2019, I've had the privilege of rising in this place to speak about the achievements of our wonderful Queensland African community. Many of those achievements occurred under the outstanding leadership of Mr Beny Bol OAM in his capacity as President of the Queensland African Communities Council. Beny has now retired as president and has become the managing director of Village Support Ltd, where he will continue to play a key role in delivering youth and community engagement projects through the African village model. I congratulate Beny's successor as president, Mr Faysel Ahmed Selat. I worked closely with Faysel when he was President of the Somali Community Association of Queensland. I thank the elders of the Somali community in Queensland for all the support and mentoring that you've provided Faysel. Faysel is an outstanding leader, and it brings great honour to the Somali community in Queensland that he is now President of the Queensland African Communities Council. I congratulate our wonderful Eritrean community on their support for Queenslanders in need during the floods caused by ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred. The Eritrean Community Association in Queensland mobilised over 30 volunteers to assist people seeking refuge at the Bethania Community Centre. Working in 24-hour shifts, the volunteers provided essential services, including cooking, cleaning, offering emotional support and advising residents who sought refuge in the community centre on the free services available at the centre. In many cases, the volunteers took on significant risks, navigating flood-prone suburbs to provide support to their fellow Australians in their time of need. I say 'thank you' to our wonderful Queensland Eritrean community. Your actions reflect the very, very best of Australian values. On Sunday 23 March, I attended a candlelit vigil convened by members of our Syrian community. In the last month, there have been horrific attacks on the Alawite community in Syria, including the slaughter of innocent civilians. I spoke to members of the community on Sunday night, and their stories were absolutely heartbreaking. Whilst the Australian government has rightly condemned the violence, we have a moral obligation to our Syrian community, including our Alawite community, to do more. I call upon the Australian government to advocate, through all international forums, the protection of all minority groups in Syria, including Alawites, the Druze and Kurds. I call upon the Australian government to listen to the concerns of our Syrian community with respect to the availability of humanitarian visas for Syrian minorities who are being persecuted. In particular, I refer to a matter which was raised with me on Sunday evening by members of the community. There are practical difficulties facing applicants who have Australian family connections and who are currently hiding in Syria and unable to make applications from outside Syria. Those practical considerations need to be considered by the Australian government. Now is the time for all of us to do whatever we can to support our Syrian community. Earlier today, on the lawns outside Parliament House, the Congolese community presented me with a letter addressed to all members of the Australian parliament. It calls for the Australian government to do all that it can to use its influence to bring about justice and peace in the DRC. Australia must bring our international influence to bear to stop foreign interference in the DRC and the pilfering of the mineral resources of the DRC. These resources should be for the benefit of the people of the DRC, not outsiders who illegally mine and export those resources for their own profiteering. International pressure should be exerted upon Rwanda to stop its support for the M23 rebel group. Rwanda's support for the M23 rebel group is clearly documented in the UN Group of Experts report which was delivered to the Security Council on 27 December 2024. Australia should increase its humanitarian aid and make sure that aid reaches those in need. That was a point which was stressed to me by members of the Congolese community earlier today. The government should also provide support to the community in Australia as it deals with the horrendous trauma that has been caused by years and years of violence in the DRC. I thank the members of the Congolese diaspora from all over Australia who came to the lawns of Parliament House to deliver their message, and I now convey that message to all of the members of the Australian Senate on their behalf. Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, I'm sure that, as a Queensland senator, you agree that Queenslanders of Chinese heritage have made an outstanding contribution to our home state of Queensland. This contribution is celebrated in the Queensland Chinese Museum, which is an online virtual museum. The Chinese Museum of Queensland was relaunched; it's a museum which is available on the internet, a virtual museum, and it documents the stories and records of the Chinese community since the mid-1800s. In exploring the website, I was very deeply moved by the telling of the story of the anti-Chinese riots in Brisbane on 5 May 1888, on the night of a Queensland election. An alcohol fuelled mob attacked Chinese businesses, including the successful trading business owned by Sum Chick Tong and Leong Way Ting. After the disastrous attack, their business, which they'd worked so hard to build up, not just in Brisbane but also in Stanthorpe, entered insolvency as a direct result of that attack on that dreadful night. It is a heartbreaking story but a story which must be told. I pay my heartfelt thanks to the founders of the museum and the management committee, and I pledge my support to realise the dream of a physical museum, a just tribute to Queenslanders of Chinese heritage both past and present. Finally, I should note the passing of our good friend Mr Jimmy Wang a number of weeks ago. Jimmy was a wonderful member of the Liberal National Party family. After arriving in Queensland, he built a successful small business, and he was also chair of our Chinese heritage branch. He worked extremely hard promoting the values of the Liberal National Party. He was a tireless worker for everything we believed in, and I'd like to say to Jimmy's family that we will continue to honour Jimmy's contribution and we should all reflect on the contribution which Jimmy made to political life in this country, including the extremely important task of advocating for the values which our party believes in to new Australians. Thank you, Jimmy Wang. My heartfelt thanks, Jimmy, for your service to our party. Media Ownership 82 21:33 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania There has never been a more important time than now for strong public interest journalism. There's never been a more important time than now for journalism to be free of commercial and political interference. Many Australians are aware that there's been a push for years to get a royal commission into the Murdoch press and its influence on our democracy. This idea is already under relentless assault from commercial and political interests. But, unfortunately, and very concerningly, there's been a new development, a new assault on public interest journalism. I wanted to talk tonight specifically about Australian Digital Holdings, ADH. Last year, in November, the Guardian published an article written by Amanda Meade, 'Fears for local news diversity if rightwing startup buys Southern Cross regional TV network'. It goes on to say: Fringe news streaming channel ADH TV, which launched with Alan Jones at the helm, confirms offer for 93 regional free-to-air stations— and talk about concerns, including from Matthew Ricketson, a professor of communication at Deakin University, who said: We already know that the provision of locally gathered and reported news and current affairs in regional and rural Australia is stretched almost to breaking point … If what gets added in there now is slanted heavily to one side of politics or another, does that serve rural and regional audiences in being provided with good quality public interest journalism? It was then reported not long ago, on Friday 28 February, that conservative news operator Australian Digital Holdings had purchased Southern Cross Austereo's television assets. This was in an article by Josh Duggan at the ABC, and he mentions that Nightly News 7 Tasmania has the highest ratings and the most eyeballs. If you read Mr Duggan's article, he talks about concerns from Channel 7 staff, expressed in representations made to him privately, about their editorial independence, given the ultraconservative background of Australian Digital Holdings. So what is Australian Digital Holdings? Australian Digital Holdings TV launched in December 2021 with Alan Jones at the helm—and some other shady characters. But, most tellingly, it is chaired by Maurice Newman, the co-founder of ADVANCE. Senator Scarr, you get to hear me talk about this again tonight. For those who don't know, ADVANCE is the Liberal aligned and Liberal funded—through the McCormack foundation—astroturfing group that led the campaign against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and a string of other conservative campaigns. You'd probably have to be living under a rock to not know that they're the group that are going after the Greens. They see the Greens as enemy No. 1 in our democracy and are boasting to be spending up to $15 million to wipe us off the electoral map. Let's just say that they're trying to be significant players in the Australian landscape, and we don't really know much about them except that they are aligned with the Liberal Party directly and are funded by the Liberal Party. We also know they're aligned with the Atlas Network, a conservative think tank out of the US that has over 550 subsidiary organisations, including many here in Australia. Yet, throughout all ADVANCE's toxic campaigning, they've refused to front the media, despite authoring and publishing vast quantities of disinformation. Not only is Australian Digital Holdings TV chaired by the co-founder of ADVANCE—as I mentioned, Maurice Newman—but, until February 2025, it even listed ADVANCE as one of its official partners on its website. This, clearly, gives rise to concerns that Australian Digital Holdings TV would not only join the likes of Rupert Murdoch's Sky News in operating a deeply conservative news channel—which, of course, it has a right to do—but will operate as ADVANCE's very own media mouthpiece. To your point there, Senator Scarr, it would be one thing if Australian Digital Holdings TV were to remain a fringe media entity, which it is—as is Sky TV, by the way. However, as I mentioned, on 28 February, they purchased 93 regional free-to-air stations owned by Southern Cross Austereo—including, unfortunately, Nightly News 7 Tasmania, which is the biggest and most popular commercial TV network. These assets also included Network Ten affiliates in Tasmania, Darwin, the Spencer Gulf, Broken Hill, Mount Isa and remote central and eastern Australia and Channel 9 regional affiliates in the Spencer Gulf and Broken Hill. As I mentioned, staff at Channel 7 in Tasmania are among those already raising concerns about ADVANCE's ultra-right-wing leanings. When asked about ADH TV's listing of ADVANCE as one of their partners on their website, ADH director Jason Morrison blatantly lied, telling journalists the partnership never existed. Yet we have screenshots of the site listing from February—which we were using in our research, coincidentally—which mention ADVANCE and a number of other very interesting official partners. Journalists who have been looking at this can also confirm the listing using Wayback Machine, an online internet archive that fields a digital library of internet sites. Another question: who is ADH director Jason Morrison? Mr Morrison is a former adviser to mining magnate Gina Rinehart and has been a vocal supporter of Peter Dutton's nuclear plan. In 2014 he even confirmed he was interested in standing for one of the safest state Liberal seats in New South Wales. Senator Scarr 282997 How dare he! Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Well, of course, he's allowed to do that. But if you join a few dots here, Senator Scarr, a very clear picture emerges of another media outlet in this country that was claiming until recently that it was directly associated with ADVANCE and, therefore, the Liberal Party. In addition to purchasing 93 free-to-air stations owned by Southern Cross Austereo, ADH TV has launched the Australian arm of American right-wing media company Newsmax. Newsmax Australia's YouTube channel currently hosts programs with former Australian Christian Lobby head Lyle Shelton, former federal Liberal candidate and anti-trans rights advocate Katherine Deves, David Flint and Chris Smith, and has older videos from the Jones program. Where is the money to pay for this coming from? We're not sure who the other backers are—apart from the fact James Packer has invested some money in ADH TV. As for ADVANCE: according to AEC disclosures, ADVANCE amassed over $5.2 million in donations in 2023 alone. It's hardly a grassroots movement and we know it's bankrolled by a number of very wealthy billionaires, some of them with direct connections to fossil fuel industries. It's no secret—it's on the public record—that backers include Sam Kennard, vitamin mogul and Australian rich-lister Marcus Blackmore, coal barons like Trevor St Baker and multimillionaire investment bank managers like Simon Fenwick. They're not trying to hide that; that's all on the public record. Who were the other partners of Australian Digital Holdings on the website that they secretly took down and then denied ever existed? They mentioned the Centre for Independent Studies, the Institute of Public Affairs, CPAC, Samuel Griffith, all Atlas organisations and all our favourite Australian subsidiaries of Atlas organisations. However, they also included One Nation and Family First; both have also been funded by the Cormack Foundation, as has ADVANCE. Here we have a shady, dodgy network of right-wing think tanks, all associated with an international umbrella group of think tanks, the Atlas Network, all associated with the Liberal Party—and now they're buying our media assets. As I mentioned earlier, there has never been a more important time than now to invest in public interest journalism and have a media that is free of commercial and political interests. Senate adjourned at 21:43