by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Birmingham will be absent from the Senate today for personal reasons. In his absence, I will be Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

I wish to make a statement to the chamber. After yesterday's debate, Senator McKim asked me to reflect on the right of senators to raise points of order. The issue of points of order arose during the debate on the motion moved by Senators Faruqi and Waters. Senators will recall that at the outset of the debate it was impossible to hear Senator Faruqi's contribution, because of the level of interjection. I called senators to order on several occasions, asking that they respect the right of senators to be heard in silence in what was clearly a sensitive debate.

I considered that the best approach I could bring to maintaining order was to require the debate to proceed without further interventions. This is not an approach I would ordinarily take, but I thought it was warranted on this occasion. I appreciate that some senators found this approach frustrating, and I thank Senator Waters for discussing these matters with me.

I do recognise that senators ought to have the opportunity to raise points of order in relation to matters then before the Senate, as provided in standing order 197(2). I remind senators that in raising points of order all of us have a responsibility to raise those points of order in a serious and sensible and practical manner. Of course, the parliament should be a place of robust debate where ideas are put, contested and sometimes agreed, where these ideas are put in a respectful way and acknowledged in a respectful way.

The Jenkins review urges us to prioritise a safe and respectful culture and model safe and respectful behaviour. The burden of this cultural change in this workplace rests on all of us. It is up to each one of us to take positive steps and set the gold standard of what is and is not acceptable conduct. Thank you, senators.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

ator DAVEY (—) (): I rise to speak on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022. I want to point out that the opposition will be supporting this bill, because this bill, in fact, mirrors a coalition initiative announced in our 2022-23 federal budget, which we titled Maintaining Incapacity Payments for Veterans Studying. I'm pleased to see that the government has effectively picked up our policy and will now deliver on it.

This policy is very important because it supports veterans in their rehabilitation, particularly those veterans who are studying, ensuring that they don't lose funding, or that their funding is maintained for longer. We established a trial for this program, which was to expire on 30 June 2022. Our policy was to extend the trial for a further 12 months, which we fully funded in our last budget, to the tune of $7.1 million, extending it to 30 June 2023. This bill effectively matches our commitments. Prior to the trial, eligible veterans had their pre-injury earnings reduced to 75 per cent after undertaking 45 weeks of study. This bill will effectively provide extra financial support to allow those veterans to continue taking their further study. It's estimated that this bill will benefit 600 veterans once it's passed. I acknowledge that it also has a backdating mechanism so that veterans who've been on the trial, which expired at the end of June this year, won't be worse off and won't be out of pocket.

Each year about 6,000 service men and women leave the defence forces to return to civilian life. Many of them have an opportunity for a long career ahead of them, and a lot of them undertake further study in this transition to better prepare for civilian life. We know that we need to support our veterans in this transition to ensure that they have the best chance possible for a successful transition to civilian life. We also know that vocational rehabilitation equips veterans with the support and the resources that they need for the most successful transition, and we want to make it as simple as possible.

We will not be standing in the way of this bill, because support for veterans is not a political game and should not be a partisan game. We really need to ensure that we support those who have sacrificed so much and dedicated their time to ensuring the safety and security of our nation.

When we were in government, the Liberals and the Nationals invested over $11.5 billion each year to support the wellbeing of around 340,000 veterans and their families, and we want to ensure that this support continues and is improved on, because we recognise that we can always make improvements. We understand that the royal commission into veteran suicides is ongoing. We know that those veterans who successfully transition to a civilian career go on to make vital contributions to our society. So we thank the government for bringing forward this bill, and we will be supporting it.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 as well as the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988.

There was a trial which ran up until 1 July 2022—indeed, it ended on 30 June 2022—which provided that the calculation of incapacity payments would be based on 100 per cent of normal weekly earnings for veterans engaged in approved full-time study under a DVA funded return to work rehabilitation program. As you would be aware, Deputy President, incapacity payments are compensation payments available under that 2004 compensation act as well as the defence claims act of 1988 for a loss of earnings incurred as a result of a service related physical or mental health condition. Many veterans who weren't part of this trial were literally making a choice between study and payments. Incapacity payment recipients are, in fact, required to participate in a DVA rehabilitation program wherever they have the capacity to do so. This bill proposes to extend what has been a four-year trial which was first implemented in the 2018-19 budget and which actually removed the longstanding step-down for incapacity payments for veterans who were undertaking approved study. Unfortunately, that trial ended on 30 June 2022.

For many veterans, being able to undertake further study to obtain qualifications to further their steps towards a career post defence is perhaps one of the most critical measures that they can take to get their life back on track and to get their career back on track. Of course, these are veterans who have suffered an injury. We've seen the scale of the injuries suffered by veterans too often. There are psychological injuries caused by some of the brutal conditions under which they served—some of them unnecessarily brutal, caused by the culture and nature of the Defence Force.

Application provisions in the bill will ensure that student veterans who should have been eligible to continue to receive the higher rate of payment from 1 July 2022, and those who received reduced payments after that date, will now be eligible to receive back payments to cover the period from 1 July 2022 until today. So one of the reasons the Greens have supported this bill moving as rapidly as possible through the parliament is that we've now had a number of these veterans engaged in study who haven't been receiving the full payment. That's tough, and the information that my officers heard from veterans organisations is that these veterans need this support now.

I do want to acknowledge the ongoing work of my colleague Senator Steele-John in relation to his support for veterans. When I took over the portfolio, he raised this issue directly with me and said that we need to do whatever we can to maintain those payments and to support the passage of this bill as rapidly as possible. I acknowledge his work and the connections that he's made to many veterans and veterans organisations in supporting their right for fair compensation and decency.

We support this bill. We support the bill rapidly passing through the Senate and we support the urgent restoration of these benefits to veterans.

I thank the senators who have contributed to today's discussion on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment (Incapacity Payments) Bill 2022. I note that both senators observed the urgency of the passage of this bill. It's regrettable that the measures in this bill were not enacted in the last parliament. It has, as Senator Shoebridge observed, created the circumstances where people are presently not receiving payments who would otherwise be entitled to them. I do wish to highlight to the Senate that one consequence of this bill will be to backdate payments for those veterans.

Again, I acknowledge the significance of supporting our service personnel, veterans and families. I thank those people who contributed to the development of this legislation and who are participating in these activities, particularly those who contributed to this debate who have served in our defence forces. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

I move:

That the bill now be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022 mirrors one that was brought in by the coalition in March this year that, had it passed, would already be in effect. It was due to commence on 1 July. However, unfortunately, it wasn't dealt with and lapsed with the last parliament. I commend the government for bringing forward this bill, which responds to recommendations from both the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee inquiry into veteran suicide and the Productivity Commission's report, A better way to support veterans.

We support this bill because it is reasonable and practical. It harmonises veterans' entitlements across three veteran related acts. It extends the eligibility for support packages to family members of working-age veterans and removes the requirement for the veterans to have undertaken war-like service. We know that we need to support our veterans, because the statistics show us, and because of the harrowing personal evidence that has been presented to the royal commission into veterans' suicide. We know we haven't got the best record when it comes to supporting our veterans and we know we need to do better.

I don't want to put people off a career in the defence forces. Indeed, I spent 15 years in the Australian Army Reserve and I really loved every minute of it. Many of our Defence Force personnel have good experiences, make a successful transition to civilian life and have a long and flourishing second career. Unfortunately for some, they need support, and their families need support. This bill ensures that support can be provided and wrapped around the families when they need it. Importantly, this bill allows programs to be tailored to unique family circumstances. We know that everyone's experience is different and every family is different. What they need and when they need it varies greatly between circumstances.

Families are absolutely integral to supporting our veterans. We've heard through the royal commission that often it's the families who are left picking up the pieces when our veterans feel isolated, alone and broken. I thank our veterans' families, who do so much to support their family members—these people who have given service to our nation. This bill is designed to ensure that those families have the support they need so they can support their veterans.

Support services can vary, from psychological services, to in-home services, to gardening, and this is why this is a very important and integral bill. Many of our veterans live in regional Australia, and we need to do more to support our veteran community. That's why, when we were on the other side of the chamber, our government had committed $5 million to support veteran wellbeing centres in areas of high veteran numbers around Australia, like in areas of Page and Cowper. In fact, Dr David Gillespie made this point in the other place when he spoke in support of this bill but pointed out that the government is yet to commit to adopting that $5 million grant for veteran wellbeing centres.

As I said, these centres were going to be strategically located. They were to be established in partnership with ex-service organisations, like Hunter Anzac Memorial Ltd and like the Mid North Coast Veteran Wellbeing Network. These organisations do so much to support our veterans. They are volunteer organisations, but they came together with a realistic proposal for wellbeing centres, which we were going to fund and which we announced prior to the election. But we have not heard from the government what their plans are for that funding and those wellbeing centres. We know that our veteran network is crying out for this sort of support.

These wellbeing centres were part of our government's national approach to delivering integrated support services to veterans and their families by working with these local organisations, with our veterans community and with our defence community. I call on the new government to commit to these centres but also to commit to them where they're needed, which is where the veterans live, and not to move them into areas of political convenience. The sacrifice our veterans and their families have made for the defence and security of our country is incredible, and I thank all veterans and, indeed, current serving personnel. We need to make sure we look after those who've looked after us. So I commend this bill to the chamber.

I, too, rise to address the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022. This bill, as has been stated, was originally brought in by the former government, but in large part it is in response, by both the current government and the former government, to an inquiry that was undertaken by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which issued a report in 2017 called The constant battle: suicide by veterans. That report made 24 recommendations after a fairly extensive period of engaging with veterans and, particularly, families around the nation and hearing about the various aspects of interaction with the military, particularly post military life, and some of the frustrations with the different legislation, the bureaucracy and the lack of resources, which had a significant impact on the mental health of veterans. I'd like to talk a little about the background to some of these measures, because it highlights the role that individuals have played in bringing about change and highlights that our parliamentary democracy does work.

First off, the chair of that committee was the late Senator Alex Gallacher. Senator Gallacher did a power of work in this area, and it's a highlight of how the different political parties in this place, including the crossbench, can work very constructively on issues that are of national significance. That's not the impression the Australian public often have, but the reality is that, in some of these areas, this work is very constructive. So I thank Alex for his leadership of that committee.

I want to touch very briefly on some of the statements in the chair's foreword to this report:

For modern veterans, it is likely that suicide and self-harm will cause more deaths and injuries for their contemporaries than overseas operational service.

That's a pretty stark observation on the situation facing some people. The foreword goes on to say:

However, it is also important to recognise that the majority of ADF members will leave their service enriched by the experience and will go on to be successful in their civilian endeavours. The members of ADF receive some of the best training in the world and leave service with valuable skills and experience that can be transferred to benefit the Australian society in a broad field of endeavours. Veterans are an essential part of the fabric of our society. The inquiry has highlighted the number of persons with military experience contributing in politics, business, health services, public service, charities and civil society.

Not all the examples provided to the committee have been negative ones. There have been many instances of veterans pulled back from the brink by partners, friends, advocates and health professionals. DVA clients have expressed their gratitude with the assistance they have received from DVA and other agencies.

I think it's important to highlight that, because often when we talk on these issues people will get the sense that to be part of the military and all it does for Australia is overwhelmingly negative, whereas that is not necessarily the case. I certainly speak from experience, having had over 20 years in the regular Army and another period in the active reserve. I believe that it has provided a fantastic foundation for many of the things that I have subsequently undertaken in this place and beyond.

For those in the veteran space, the last part of the foreword I would like to quote, which goes to the two pieces of legislation we're considering today, is a paragraph that says:

A unique aspect of this inquiry has been examining the framework of military compensation arrangements and their administration through the lens of the issue of suicide by veterans. This focus has highlighted the burden of legislative complexity and administrative hurdles on veterans who are often seeking support at a vulnerable period of their lives.

I would add to that that often those hurdles exist for the families of veterans as well as veterans themselves, which brings me to this bill.

As has been outlined by my colleagues, this bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations of that Senate report, particularly on harmonisation of those three pieces of legislation, but also remove some of the hurdles that have faced people. 'Warlike service' is an example. For many years, you had to have actually served in a war or warlike service, whereas we see some veterans and their families who are facing significant issues because of accidents and issues that occur during training and in peacetime. In South Australia just recently a veteran, Mr Darren Harvey, led an effort to get recognition for veterans who were training at Singleton more than 30 years ago. He, along with his fellow recruits, was on a range at Singleton. A recruit kicked a grenade which was unexploded, and it exploded and resulted in Mr Harvey being in hospital for an extended period of time. He still has physical issues from that. Thankfully, the Army has, after 30 years, provided recognition to those recruits for their service. But this indicates that there are people who haven't necessarily conducted warlike service but have received injuries and need the support of the government.

Specifically, this bill responds to recommendation 19 of the report, which is on the ways to support families. It includes, amongst other things, expanding the eligibility of those who can receive support. Importantly, the bill also ensures that payments to veterans and their families are exempt from income tax and are not included as income for the purposes of social security determinations. That has been a bugbear for veterans for many years.

Going to the point that I made at the start, I'd like to highlight that the parliamentary process works, in that representative democracy works. I'd like to highlight here, particularly, the role of Ms Ellen Gillespie, a lady from South Australia who brought to our attention the effect of the rules and guidelines which are currently in place. You could be the spouse of a veteran and support that veteran for decades—giving up your career, travelling, moving, nursing, supporting through post-traumatic stress and a whole range of issues. If that relationship broke down, the veteran would move on and continue having the support of the community, but, if the spouse were now, perhaps, at the end of their working age, the spouse would be left with little or no superannuation and no entitlement to benefits, after supporting a veteran for all those years. This situation would be particularly exacerbated if there was domestic violence involved in the break-up of that relationship.

Ellen's advocacy and her willingness to talk about her story, have brought about changes that have already been put in place. I thank, in particular, the Deputy Commissioner of DVA, Ms Janice Silby, in South Australia, who engaged and listened and brought Ms Gillespie into various opportunities to explain, so that the bureaucracy could understand the situation for what is a relatively small group but a group that we, all the same, should be looking after. I'm pleased to see that this bill recognises that eligibility should be expanded to family members of working-age veterans who are at risk of, or in, crisis, along with working-age widowed partners of deceased veterans and former partners, under certain circumstances. I wish to thank Ellen for her courage in speaking up. I thank her for her care of her former partner over all those years. I also want to highlight that our parliamentary democracy works. Our representative democracy works, and this is a good example of it, so I am pleased to lend my support to this bill today.

I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022, but with some reservations and concerns.

This bill amends the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. The purpose of the bill is to extend eligibility to veterans and their family members who are covered by each of those three acts. It does it for those veterans and family members who are at risk of, or in, crisis. Critically—and this is one of the key reasons the Greens support the bill—it extends the criteria for access to veterans whether or not the veteran is participating in a rehabilitation program or has rendered warlike service.

The bill is a further response to recommendation 19 of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report, The constant battle: suicide by veterans. Suicide by veterans is a deeply, deeply tragic story in Australia. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few decades, more veterans have lost their lives through suicide than in armed conflict. When you look at the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, you will see that in many ways the system that's meant to be supporting veterans is, indeed, tearing them down. It is denying them support and putting them through torturous processes and, in far too many cases, is aggravating the harm that they suffered while on service. This bill is an attempt, at least, to respond to that in part.

Why do we have recommendation 19? And why do we have this bill? It's useful to go back to the Senate committee report to see why recommendation 19 was put in. That report said:

… a consistent theme from the evidence received was that there was a lack of support for the partners those veterans who have mental health conditions or have acquired severe disabilities arising from their service. The partners of veterans often act as the keystone of support for veterans, some as full-time or part-time carers. The situation of veterans often markedly declines when these relationships fail. In the view of the committee, this is a critical area for DVA to investigate and develop further measures of support.

And that's why we have recommendation 19, which reads:

The committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs review the support for partners of veterans to identify further avenues for assistance. This review should include services such as information and advice, counselling, peer support and options for family respite care to support partners of veterans.

A similar bill was introduced by the coalition in the last parliament—and I won't review the history; I know my colleague Senator Steele-John was critical of the delay, and for good reasons—but it was not passed before the 2022 election.

The main changes proposed through the Family Support Package are as follows: removing the eligibility requirement for veterans to have had warlike service—we give that a tick; removing the requirement for eligible veterans to be participating in a rehabilitation program—we also give that a tick; allowing veterans and families of veterans with service prior to July 2004 to access the program; and increasing the amount of assistance available and removing the limits for specific services so that families have flexibility to access the assistance they need.

The cost of this package over four years is very modest, particularly in the scale of the defence budget. One of the reasons it's modest is the limitations the government is proposing for it. A key eligibility criterion is that individuals or family members need to be in crisis or at risk of a crisis. That's not defined in the bill, and perhaps that's a good thing. It could be set out with more granularity in the documents that follow the passage of this bill. The bill also places a new age cap of 65 years to access the program. That is a red flag for us, and it's a red flag for many veterans. The current program provides access to veterans aged up to the age of disability eligibility age, which is currently 66½ years. The reason that's a red flag for us and a very real concern is that, if you go back to that same report—the Senate report, which drafted recommendation 19—the paragraph that follows that very recommendation reads:

The committee was also concerned to receive evidence regarding the challenges which may face veterans moving from DVA support into aged care. It was apparent that loss of access to services such as Veterans' Home Care and the Rehabilitation Appliances Program could have serious implications for elderly veterans transitioning to aged care. Although this was not a focus during the inquiry, the committee notes the importance of this issue given the large number of elderly veterans.

My colleague Senator Steele-John, in reviewing the coalition's bill in the last parliament—and this very closely matches the coalition's bill—had it costed what it would be to remove that age cap and retain two, three or four years of additional support and benefits to veterans. Whilst the support would require a real financial contribution from the government, the contribution would be, if you put it in the context of the defence budget, entirely appropriate to support veterans as they make that transition. Removing the age cap and providing five years of family support under the coalition's bill—and I say again that this closely matches that—would cost $115 million in the first year. Doing it in the third year would cost some $300 million. I'm not pretending, and the Greens aren't pretending, that that isn't a significant cost to budget. But what cost do we put on supporting veterans? Well, we what cost the government has put on supporting veterans in this bill, a little bit under $40 million. But we know from the findings of the Senate report that it's as veterans transition into aged care and they age out of the system that they're losing these supports and they are especially vulnerable.

My office had a series of repeated discussions with the minister. Those discussions with the minister were not able to move the government on this. But we urge the minister—we did it in those discussions; we do it again today in this chamber—to lift the eligibility cap, because that hard and fast ageing out of support isn't the support that veterans need. It's not the support that families need.

The Greens will be supporting this bill because it takes us forward. It provides critical additional benefits consistent with that recommendation from the Senate committee, but there is so much more work to be done here, and we cannot and we will not forget those veterans who are heading into aged care and moving to retirement age.

I rise to respond to the contributions of senators on the Defence, Veterans' and Families' Acute Support Package Bill 2022. I thank the senators who have contributed to this debate. Can I start by acknowledging the contribution of Senator Fawcett, who appropriately and generously recognised the contribution of both the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee and its chair at the time, the late senator Alex Gallacher. I was very pleased to hear Senator Fawcett provide that acknowledgement of our friend and colleague Alex, and I wish to associate myself with his remarks in that regard. It seems appropriate to also acknowledge that Senator Fawcett served on that same committee during that period. Having served with him on other committees—I served with him for an extended period of time on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—I know that Senator Fawcett brings, routinely, that same good-faith engagement to his committee work. I'm sure it's very pleasing to him to see the work that he undertook in that period on that committee brought forward in legislation today.

Senator Shoebridge, thank you also for your contribution. I acknowledge the engagement that you have had with the government and with the minister. I know that you are concerned about the cap. I might provide this information for the benefit of the chamber. It is true that the current program is targeted at working-age families under 65 who face challenges following the death of their veteran or due to that veteran's incapacity for work. It's not intended to support older families, for whom a range of other supports are available. The new program takes into account the typical retirement age for veterans based on when they served. However, we do intend to continue working with the veterans community and consulting with the veterans community about the forms of support that are required. I would also observe that the package intends to complement other forms of support available to veterans and their dependants. It's not designed to support families in the long term. It is for families facing immediate challenges arising from the incapacity of the veteran.

Perhaps in summing up I can simply say this. This parliament has been confronted on many occasions now by harrowing stories of hardship experienced by people serving in the Defence Force and by veterans. Our government is determined to work with the veteran community and with serving defence personnel to ensure that we provide the best possible support to people who make an enormous contribution to our nation. We acknowledge, too, that for many people the experience is very positive, but, for those for whom it is not, we need to provide support. The Australian community has a clear expectation that veterans and their families will be well looked after. The bill before us is just one step in a series of measures we are taking to improve the wellbeing of veterans. I commend it to the Senate and again thank senators for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

We have no circulated amendments. Does any senator require that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole? If not, I call the minister to move the third reading.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

It won't come as a surprise to people, but the opposition will be supporting the substantive elements of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 because this bill actually gives effect to coalition initiatives when the coalition was in government previously.

At a very high level, let me just recap for people that this bill delivers on an election commitment of the former coalition government to increase the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card. The coalition at the time understood, as it does today, that that every dollar counts when older Australians are looking to meet what are escalating cost-of-living challenges for them and their families when they're no longer working. Senior Australians have worked very hard to make Australia all that it is today, and the coalition believes it's important that the country takes care of them in return. The coalition commitment is the first major change of indexation to the income threshold of the Commonwealth seniors health card in over 20 years, so we are grateful that the government has adopted the previous government's measure and brought it to the parliament for legislation.

It's worth noting that, during the election, Labor quickly adopted the coalition's policy, and Labor is shamelessly rebranding it as one of its own today. However, now we see the Albanese government has pushed the start date back beyond 1 July, the start date that was announced during their campaign. I think many Australians would see this as yet another Labor broken promise.

What this bill does is shine a light on another very pressing issue in our country at the moment, and one that the government has been slow to respond to. That pressing issue is the rising cost-of-living challenges in our country. That issue is compounded by the fact that there are severe labour shortages across our country. They are two issues compounding and working against each other and making life very difficult for older Australians. This is an opportunity this morning to do more for older Australians than the government is proposing, so I'm foreshadowing that the opposition will be moving amendments to this social security bill to make it easier to incentivise older Australians to go back into the workforce.

Many people will know anecdotally, from walking around their communities, that there are many older Australians who would like to work more but don't do so because the financial system as it currently operates significantly inhibits them from doing that. The amendments that we will be moving to this social security bill will do a number of things, and one is to raise the work bonus limit from $300 to $600 a fortnight. Older Australians and veterans today can only earn up to $300 a fortnight before they face a very harsh tax system that then punishes them for 50c in every dollar they earn over $300. The amendment that the opposition will be moving will lift that to $600 a fortnight, and we believe, as small businesses across the country believe, as associations for older Australians believe, this will be a significant improvement to incentivising this older Australians back into the workforce. Through our amendment, this will be a permanent measure, unlike other initiatives which I'll come to in a moment which are temporary measures. If this amendment is successful, it will be a permanent feature of the Work Bonus system and it will allow older Australians to come back into the workforce and, in doing so, alleviate those very, very real challenges that are being faced by small and medium-sized businesses across the country.

This is not a new issue. In fact, this issue has been top of mind for older Australians and top of mind for businesses for a very, very long time. Last week, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee heard evidence from a whole variety of organisations across our country that reinforced the fact that more needs to be done by this government to alleviate labour shortage issues across our community and to better incentivise older Australians into the workforce. What does Treasury think about labour shortage issues in our country? Last week, officials from the Treasury said that 'labour shortages currently across the economy are quite severe'. The government's own Treasury officials are saying that labour shortage issues in our country are severe.

A month ago, the government had its Jobs and Skills Summit. Some people criticised it as a talkfest; other people were prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. So why is it that, a month later, this parliament has not yet seen the legislation that was going to give effect to what the government called 'one of its most immediate and urgent initiatives'? Where is it? It may well be that the legislation will appear in the House of Representatives today, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it has taken one whole month for the government to bring forward an initiative that it thinks will improve worker shortages and incentivise older Australians into the workforce.

People have got a right to ask: why is the government dragging its feet when older Australians are living with real cost-of-living challenges now? Why is the government dragging its feet on giving small businesses and medium-sized businesses in our economy the opportunity to hire local older Australians and veterans and start to fix those labour shortage issues immediately? Why are we waiting? By his own admission, the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said this week that cost-of-living challenges were skyrocketing. The Treasurer says that cost-of-living challenges in our country are skyrocketing, and, a month after the jobs summit, we still don't have any news of Labor's initiative that would help older Australians back into the workforce and, in doing so, alleviate labour shortage issues. That's why the opposition is stepping forward and is going to seek to amend the government's bill to import a mechanism that will provide cost-of-living relief immediately for older Australians and go some way to meeting those severe labour shortage issues that the Treasury thinks exist. We in the opposition believe that the best, most effective and most timely way to do that is to increase the Work Bonus scheme that currently exists in our social security arrangements by raising it from $300 a fortnight to $600 a fortnight, and we expect that will have a positive impact on attracting older Australians and veterans into the workforce.

Labour shortages in our country are widespread. This is what Grain Producers Australia had to say last week, noting the severe workforce shortages across our country:

We have got a massive pool of very skilled people out there that have … retired and that are willing to come back and help part time. They like job sharing and they don't like really long hours, but they are willing and able to contribute to our economy. If we look at the red tape and the complex superannuation laws and pension earning laws et cetera—

we can find a way to provide a better incentive for them to enter the workforce.

A key benefit of the opposition's initiative is that older Australians living in regional communities will be able to go and work in their regional cafe or petrol station or on their local farm and go some way to alleviating these labour shortage issues across our country. I suspect that the new Labor government are half hearted about giving older Australians the opportunity to enter the workforce and about correcting labour shortage issues in our country, and that's why their initiative from the job summit, which we still haven't seen in the parliament, is temporary and less generous than the coalition's. Wow! This is a bad way to start. The Treasurer is saying cost-of-living issues are real and severe and are skyrocketing. The Treasury is saying that labour shortage issues are severe. Why is the government waiting? The government could take the coalition's initiatives and amendments and put them in their own name, and we would have a partial solution to those issues immediately. We could leave this parliament this evening having given older Australians and small businesses a better solution. I will give way to other coalition senators who I know want to make a contribution, but the challenge now is for the government to step up, act now and provide an immediate solution for older Australians and small businesses.

I'll begin by foreshadowing that the Greens will be supporting the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. We're supporting it because we believe that Australia needs a more generous income support system across the board.

I do note, however, that some submissions to the Senate inquiry raised concerns about the government's approach. ACOSS said that it was 'not well targeted' and that expanding the income test will not help those who are most in need. There were submissions, of course, that supported it. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said:

The ANMF supports the proposed changes to the Bill, particularly with regard to the positive health impacts it would have where the increased income test limits will allow more individuals access to relevant pharmaceutical and medical benefits, and lower GP co‐payments where applicable.

The Council of the Ageing were also supportive, saying:

COTA Australia supports the proposed lifting of the income limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card …

The Greens will support it as well. Clearly, enabling people who are of age pension age and aren't receiving other social security payments to receive some extra benefits is something that will be very much appreciated and of much value to people while the cost of living continues to increase. It's something that, given the struggles for people to survive and the increasing costs of living across the board, is of value.

But we continue to have a central concern that, while Labor—and, indeed, the Liberal Party, including with the amendments that Senator Smith has foreshadowed—have introduced policy proposals and bills in relation to age pensioners, there have not been enough proposals put forward to address the giant gaps in our social security system across the board for everyone who is trying to survive on income support. This bill recognises that older people with incomes of up to $90,000, in fact, need extra support through having access to a healthcare card, which will enable them to have access to the extended Medicare safety net and cheaper medicines under the PBS. It recognises that, even if you have an income of up to $90,000, you are not living in luxury and that having access to those extra benefits will help you deal with the increasing cost of living.

But that's for people with incomes of up to $90,000. How about thinking about other people in our community who are surviving on incomes way, way less than that—people surviving on JobSeeker, on youth allowance, on student allowance or on parenting allowance? The rate of JobSeeker is $47 a day, which adds up to an annual income of $17,155. The poverty line in Australia, the Henderson poverty line, has been re-established today. The Melbourne Institute have put out their three-month update of what the Henderson poverty line is. It's $88 a day, or $32,000 a year. That is what the Melbourne Institute, what the Henderson poverty line, says people in Australia need to not live in poverty. Here we are with this bill, recognising that people on incomes of up to $90,000 need extra support, yet we have got people absolutely languishing in poverty, not able to afford medicines, not able to put food on the table, not able to afford their rent—and not only people at risk but people who are homeless who are trying to survive on income support because they've been turfed out of their houses by increasing rent. We've got people who are struggling, who are ill because they can't afford medicines to treat their illnesses. We've got people who have undiagnosed illnesses because they can't afford the gap payments to see specialists to have diagnostic tests done.

I had a story shared with me recently of a student who was living on student allowance, who, despite surviving with dumpster diving and second-hand clothes and walking to his courses rather than catching public transport he couldn't afford, fell ill and could not afford to get the diagnostic tests done to determine what his illness was. He struggled and suffered, and took much longer to finish his studies because he was ill, because he had an undiagnosed illness. Then we had the wonderful experiment during the COVID crisis where we doubled the rate of income support and doubled the JobSeeker allowance, and suddenly people who had been struggling in poverty found they could afford to feed themselves. They could afford to use public transport. They could afford to go and get tests done. This student then got the test done, had their illness diagnosed, had surgery and got well. And now they are working and paying taxes.

This is what we need to be doing. We need to be supporting everybody in our community who is currently living on income support to live a decent life. We need a guaranteed liveable income for all. It's not just good for the individuals; it is good for our whole community. We need an overarching, complete, structured reassessment of our income support system, and we need to have everybody living above the poverty line.

So, yes, we will support this bill because it's going to make life easier for people who are struggling with the cost of living. We acknowledge that; that's why we're supporting it. But there are so many people who aren't going to have their poverty addressed by this bill. We have an appalling gap in the rate of payments between what people are struggling on and what they need to survive. People are being forced to rely on income support payments that are way below the poverty line. We will support this bill. It's a good step forward. We need to be increasing our rate of support payments but we need to be doing more. We call upon this government, and we will keep calling upon this government, to raise the rate of income support across the board.

I thank both the opposition and the Greens for their preliminary indication that they are supporting this legislation.

The bill gives more self-funded retirees access to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, easing some of the cost-of-living pressures they currently face. The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card is available to Australians who have reached aged-pension age and are ineligible for income support payment due to their income and/or assets. Account holders gain access to Commonwealth health concessions, including concessional co-payments for Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme medicines and concessional thresholds for the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme safety net and the extended Medicare safety net. State and territory governments and some private entities may offer additional concessions at their own discretion.

The income limit for a person who is single will increase from the current $61,284 to a new limit of $98,054. This single income limit also applies to a person who is a member of an illness separated couple, a member of a respite care couple or a member of a couple whose partner is in jail.

The income limit for each member of a couple will increase from the current $49,027 to a new limit of $72,000. This means the Commonwealth seniors health card income limit for a couple will increase to $144,000 of combined income.

This bill was due to commence on 20 September 2022. However, due to the suspension of parliament following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the bill could not be passed in time for the increase to be implemented on 20 September 2022, as was originally intended. As a result, the government will move amendments to allow the increase to the income limits to take effect seven days following the royal assent to the bill.

The Albanese government is committed, as we know, to easing cost-of-living pressures. This bill is a practical example that will support older Australians.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

I move opposition amendments on sheet 1643:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after proposed table item 1), insert:

(3) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(4) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(5) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(6) Page 2 (after line 14), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review and expiration of Schedule 4

Review

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act.

(2) The persons who undertake the review must:

(a) without limiting subsection (1), consider as part of the review, the merits of continuing the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act taking into account:

(i) changes in overseas net migration levels; and

(ii) the unemployment rate; and

(iii) the workforce participation rate; and

(iv) utilisation of the work bonus; and

(b) give the Minister a written report of the review no later than 30 days before the sunset day mentioned in subsection (4).

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

Sunsetting of amendments

(4) The amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act cease to be in force at the start of the day (the sunset day) after the end of the period of:

(a) 12 months beginning on the day Schedule 4 commenced; or

(b) each successive 12-month period after the day referred to in paragraph (a);

unless subsection (5) applies.

(5) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, determine that the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act do not cease to be in force for a period of 12 months if the Minister is satisfied, after considering the report mentioned in subsection (2), that the amendments should remain in operation.

D efinition of Minister

(6) For the purposes of this section, Ministermeans the Minister administering the Social Security Act 1991.

(7) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Commonwealth Seniors Health Card income test limits".

(8) Page 4 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Suspension of benefits and entitlements instead of cancellation

Part 1 — Social security amendments

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 95C

Insert:

95D Age pension — suspension instead of cancellation under section 93 or 94

Application

(1) This section applies if:

(a) age pension ceases to be payable to a person because the rate of the person's pension is nil; and

(b) the rate of the person's pension is nil because of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances (the income-related event) that results in the person's income reduced rate (see subsection (2)) being nil; and

(c) the person is required to inform the Department of the income-related event within a specified period (the notification period) because of a notice given to the person under subsection 68(2); and

(d) but for the person's income reduced rate being nil, age pension would have continued to be payable to the person; and

(e) the person's pension is to be, or has been, cancelled under section 93 or 94 because the pension ceased to be payable for the reason mentioned in paragraph (b); and

(f) at the time of the cessation, the person's ordinary income (as used to work out the person's income reduced rate) includes income for remunerative work performed by the person in Australia as an employee in an employer/employee relationship.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person's income reduced rate is the rate worked out at step 8 of the method statement in point 1064-A1 in Module A of Pension Rate Calculator A.

Suspension determination event notified within notification period

(3) If:

(a) the person informs the Department of the income-related event within the notification period; and

(b) the person's pension has not yet been cancelled under section 93;

the Secretary may determine that:

(c) section 93 does not apply to cancel the person's pension; and

(d) the person's pension is suspended for a period of 2 years with effect from the day the pension would otherwise have ceased to be payable under section 93.

(4) If:

(a) the person informs the Department of the income-related event within the notification period; and

(b) the person's pension has been cancelled under section 93; and

(c) within the period of 2 years after the cancellation, the ordinary income of the person is of an amount that would not preclude the person from receiving age pension;

the Secretary may determine that:

(d) the person is to be treated as if section 93 had not applied to cancel the person's pension; and

(e) the person's pension is suspended for a period of 2 years with effect from the day the pension had ceased to be payable under section 93.

Suspension determination event not notified within notification period

(5) If:

(a) the person does not inform the Department of the income-related event within the notification period; and

(b) the person's pension has been cancelled under section 94; and

(c) the Department subsequently becomes aware of the income-related event; and

(d) within the period of 2 years and 14 days after the cancellation, the ordinary income of the person is of an amount that would not preclude the person from receiving age pension;

the Secretary may determine that:

(e) the person is to be treated as if section 94 had not applied to cancel the person's pension; and

(f) the person's pension is suspended for a period of 2 years and 14 days with effect from the day the pension had ceased to be payable under section 94.

Residency requirement

(6) The Secretary must not make a determination under subsection (3), (4) or (5) unless the Secretary is satisfied that the person is residing in Australia.

Resumption of age pension after suspension

(7) If:

(a) the Secretary suspends a person's age pension under subsection (3), (4) or (5); and

(b) within the period the suspension is in effect, the Secretary reconsiders the decision to suspend; and

(c) as a result of the reconsideration, the Secretary is satisfied that:

(i) the person did not receive age pension that was payable to the person; or

(ii) the person is not receiving age pension that is payable to the person;

the Secretary is to determine that age pension was or is payable to the person, as the case requires.

(8) The reconsideration referred to in paragraph (7)(b) may be a reconsideration on an application under section 129 or a reconsideration on the Secretary's own initiative.

(9) A determination that age pension was or is payable to the person under subsection (7) takes effect:

(a) if the person applied for reconsideration under section 129—on the day the application was made; or

(b) in any other case—on the day the Secretary starts to reconsider the decision to suspend.

Cancellation of age pe nsion after period of suspension

(10) If:

(a) the Secretary suspends a person's age pension for a period under subsection (3), (4) or (5); and

(b) the suspension continues in effect throughout the period;

then, at the end of the period, the determination granting the person age pension is, by force of this subsection, revoked.

2 At the end of paragraphs 96(1)(d) and (3)(d)

Add "with effect from the day the pension would otherwise have ceased to be payable under section 93".

3 Paragraph 96(3A) (c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) as a result of the reconsideration, the Secretary is satisfied that:

(i) the person did not receive disability support pension that was payable to the person; or

(ii) the person is not receiving disability support pension that is payable to the person;

4 Subsection 96(3A)

Omit "is payable to the person", substitute "was or is payable to the person, as the case requires".

5 After subsection 96(3B)

Insert:

(3C) A determination that disability support pension was or is payable to the person under subsection (3A) takes effect:

(a) if the person applied for reconsideration under section 129—on the day the application was made; or

(b) in any other case—on the day the Secretary starts to reconsider the decision to suspend.

6 At the end of subsection 96(6)

Add "for the period of the suspension of the person's disability support pension".

7 At the end of paragraph 97(1)(e)

Add "with effect from the day the pension had ceased to be payable under section 93".

8 At the end of sub section 97(2)

Add "for the period of the suspension of the person's disability support pension".

9 At the end of paragraph 97(3)(d)

Add "with effect from the day the pension had ceased to be payable under section 93".

10 At the end of subsection 97(4)

Add "for the period of the suspension of the person's disability support pension".

11 Paragraph 97A(6)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) as a result of the reconsideration, the Secretary is satisfied that:

(i) the person did not receive disability support pension that was payable to the person; or

(ii) the person is not receiving disability support pension that is payable to the person;

12 Subsection 97A(6)

Omit "is payable to the person", substitute "was or is payable to the person, as the case requires".

13 At the end of section 97A

Add:

(8) A determination that disability support pension was or is payable to the person under subsection (6) takes effect:

(a) if the person applied for reconsideration under section 129—on the day the application was made; or

(b) in any other case—on the day the Secretary starts to reconsider the decision to suspend.

14 Paragraph 97B(5)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) as a result of the reconsideration, the Secretary is satisfied that:

(i) the person did not receive disability support pension that was payable to the person; or

(ii) the person is not receiving disability support pension that is payable to the person;

15 Subsection 97B(5)

Omit "is payable to the person", substitute "was or is payable to the person, as the case requires".

16 At the end of section 97B

Add:

(7) A determination that disability support pension was or is payable to the person under subsection (5) takes effect:

(a) if the person applied for reconsideration under section 129—on the day the application was made; or

(b) in any other case—on the day the Secretary starts to reconsider the decision to suspend.

17 After section 97B

Insert:

97C Age pension, disability support pension and carer payment — suspension instead o f cancellation under section 93 or 94 (partners)

Application

(1) This section applies if:

(a) one of the following determinations (a suspension determination) is made in relation to a person who is a member of a couple:

(i) a determination under subsection 95D(3), (4) or (5) suspending the person's age pension because the pension ceased to be payable to the person;

(ii) a determination under subsection 96(1), 97(1), 97A(1) or 97A(2) suspending the person's disability support pension because the person ceased to be qualified for the pension;

(iii) a determination under subsection 96(3), 97(3) or 97B(1) suspending the person's disability support pension because the pension ceased to be payable to the person;

(iv) a determination under subsection 56ED(3), (4) or (5) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act suspending the person's age service pension, invalidity service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment because the pension, supplement or payment ceased to be payable to the person; and

(b) immediately before the suspension under the suspension determination, the person's partner was receiving an age pension, disability support pension or carer payment; and

(c) the partner's pension or payment ceases to be payable to the partner because the rate of the partner's pension or payment is nil; and

(d) the partner's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the person's cessation of payability or qualification that gave rise to the person's suspension determination; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the person's cessation of payability or qualification; and

(e) because of the partner's cessation of payability, the partner's pension or payment is to be, or has been, cancelled under section 93 or 94.

Note: For suspensions when a person's partner has been receiving service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment, see section 56EE of the Veterans' Entitlements Act.

Partner suspension determination

(2) The Secretary may determine that:

(a) the partner is to be treated as if section 93 or 94 does not apply or had not applied (as the case may be) to cancel the partner's pension or payment; and

(b) the partner's pension or payment is suspended with effect from the day the pension or payment would otherwise have ceased to be payable under section 93 or 94, for a period of:

(i) if section 94 would otherwise have applied—2 years and 14 days; or

(ii) in all other cases—2 years.

Resumption of partner's pension or payment after suspension

(3) If:

(a) the Secretary suspends the partner's pension or payment under subsection (2); and

(b) within the period the suspension is in effect, the Secretary reconsiders the decision to suspend; and

(c) as a result of the reconsideration, the Secretary is satisfied that:

(i) the partner did not receive pension or payment that was payable to the partner; or

(ii) the partner is not receiving pension or payment that is payable to the partner;

the Secretary is to determine that pension or payment was or is payable to the partner, as the case requires.

(4) The reconsideration referred to in paragraph (3)(b) may be a reconsideration on an application under section 129 or a reconsideration on the Secretary's own initiative.

(5) A determination that pension or payment was or is payable to the partner under subsection (3) takes effect:

(a) if the partner applied for reconsideration under section 129—on the day the application was made; or

(b) in any other case—on the day the Secretary starts to reconsider the decision to suspend.

Cancellation of partner's pension or payment after period of suspension

(6) If:

(a) the Secretary suspends the partner's pension or payment for a period under subsection (2); and

(b) the suspension continues in effect throughout the period;

then, at the end of the period, the determination granting the partner pension or payment is, by force of this subsection, revoked.

Partner ceasing to be member of couple

(7) To avoid doubt, subsections (3) to (6) apply to the partner even if the partner ceases to be a member of the couple after the Secretary suspends the partner's pension or payment under subsection (2).

18 Application provisions

Amendments relating to suspension of age pension

(1) Section 95D of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) age pension ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) age pension ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

Amendments relating to suspension of disability support pension

(2) The amendments of subsections 96(1), (3) and (6) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Part apply in relation to a determination made under those subsections on or after the commencement of this Part.

(3) The amendments of subsection 96(3A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Part apply in relation to a determination made under subsection 96(1) or (3) of that Act before, on or after the commencement of this Part.

(4) Subsection 96(3C) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to a determination made under subsection 96(3A) of that Act on or after the commencement of this Part.

(5) The amendments of subsections 97(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Part apply in relation to a determination made under those subsections on or after the commencement of this Part.

(6) The amendments of subsection 97A(6) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Part apply in relation to a determination made under subsection 97A(1) or (2) of that Act before, on or after the commencement of this Part.

(7) Subsection 97A(8) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as added by this Part, applies in relation to a determination made under subsection 97A(6) of that Act on or after the commencement of this Part.

(8) The amendments of subsection 97B(5) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Part apply in relation to a determination made under subsection 97B(1) of that Act before, on or after the commencement of this Part.

(9) Subsection 97B(7) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as added by this Part, applies in relation to a determination made under subsection 97B(5) of that Act on or after the commencement of this Part.

Amendments rel ating to suspension of partner's pensions

(10) Section 97C of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension or payment first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

Part 2 — Veterans' entitlements amendments

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

19 Subsection 56(2) (note)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note: In some circumstances, the Commission may decide that the pension, supplement or payment is not cancelled but suspended (see sections 56ED and 56EE).

20 Subsection 56A(2) (note)

Repeal the note, substitute:

Note: In some circumstances, the Commission may decide that the pension, supplement or payment is not cancelled but suspended (see sections 56ED and 56EE).

21 After section 56EC

Insert:

56ED Suspension instead of automatic termination under section 56 or 56A

Application

(1) This section applies if:

(a) service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment ceases to be payable to a person because the rate of the person's pension, supplement or payment is nil; and

(b) the rate of the person's pension, supplement or payment is nil because of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances (the income-related event) that results in the person's income reduced rate (see subsection (2)) being nil; and

(c) the person is required to inform the Department or a specified officer of the income-related event within a specified period (the notification period) because of a notice given to the person under section 54; and

(d) but for the person's income reduced rate being nil, the pension, supplement or payment would have continued to be payable to the person; and

(e) the person's pension, supplement or payment is to be, or has been, cancelled under section 56 or 56A because the pension, supplement or payment ceased to be payable for the reason mentioned in paragraph (b); and

(f) at the time of the cessation, the person's ordinary income (as used to work out the person's income reduced rate) includes income for remunerative work performed by the person in Australia as an employee in an employer/employee relationship.

Note: When a person's pension or supplement ceases to be payable in the circumstances set out in this subsection, the person will generally continue to be eligible for fringe benefits for up to 2 years (see subsection 53A(3)).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person's income reduced rate, in relation to a service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment, is the rate worked out in relation to that pension, supplement or payment at step 6 of method statement 1, step 6 of method statement 5 or step 6 of method statement 7, as the case may be, in Module A of the Rate Calculator.

Suspension determinat ion event notified within notification period

(3) If:

(a) the person informs the Department or specified officer of the income-related event within the notification period; and

(b) the person's pension, supplement or payment has not yet been cancelled under section 56;

the Commission may determine in writing that:

(c) section 56 does not apply to cancel the person's pension, supplement or payment; and

(d) the person's pension, supplement or payment is suspended.

(4) If:

(a) the person informs the Department or specified officer of the income-related event within the notification period; and

(b) the person's pension, supplement or payment has been cancelled under section 56;

the Commission may determine in writing that:

(c) the person is to be treated as if section 56 had not applied to cancel the person's pension, supplement or payment; and

(d) the person's pension, supplement or payment is suspended.

Suspension determination event not notified within notification period

(5) If:

(a) the person does not inform the Department or specified officer of the income-related event within the notification period; and

(b) the person's pension, supplement or payment has been cancelled under section 56A; and

(c) the Department subsequently becomes aware of the income-related event;

the Commission may determine in writing that:

(d) the person is to be treated as if section 56A had not applied to cancel the person's pension, supplement or payment; and

(e) the person's pension, supplement or payment is suspended.

Rules f or suspension determinations

(6) The Commission must not make a determination under subsection (3), (4) or (5) unless the Commission is satisfied that the person is residing in Australia.

(7) A determination under subsection (3), (4) or (5) takes effect on the day on which, but for the determination, the person's pension, supplement or payment would be cancelled under section 56 or 56A.

Cancellation of pension, supplement or payment after 2 years

(8) If:

(a) the Commission makes a determination suspending a person's pension, supplement or payment under subsection (3), (4) or (5); and

(b) the determination continues in effect throughout the period of 2 years from its date of effect;

then, at the end of the period:

(c) the suspension ends; and

(d) the pension, supplement or payment is cancelled.

Note: The Commission may end a suspension if satisfied that a person's pension, supplement or payment is payable to the person (see section 56F).

56EE Suspension instead of automatic termination under section 56 or 56A — partners

Application

(1) This section applies if:

(a) one of the following determinations (a suspension determination) is made in relation to a person who is a member of a couple:

(i) a determination under subsection 56ED(3), (4) or (5) suspending the person's service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment because the pension, supplement or payment ceased to be payable to the person;

(ii) a determination under subsection 95D(3), (4) or (5) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 suspending the person's age pension because the pension ceased to be payable to the person;

(iii) a determination under subsection 96(1), 97(1), 97A(1) or 97A(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 suspending the person's disability support pension because the person ceased to be qualified for the pension;

(iv) a determination under subsection 96(3), 97(3) or 97B(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 suspending the person's disability support pension because the pension ceased to be payable to the person; and

(b) immediately before the suspension under the suspension determination, the person's partner was receiving a service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment; and

(c) the partner's pension, supplement or payment ceases to be payable to the partner because the rate of the partner's pension, supplement or payment is nil; and

(d) the partner's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the person's cessation of payability or qualification that gave rise to the person's suspension determination; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the person's cessation of payability or qualification; and

(e) because of the partner's cessation of payability, the partner's pension, supplement or payment is to be, or has been, cancelled under section 56 or 56A.

Note: For suspensions when a person's partner has been receiving age pension, disability support pension or carer payment, see section 97C of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Partner suspension determination

(2) The Commission may determine in writing that:

(a) the partner is to be treated as if section 56 or 56A does not apply or had not applied (as the case may be) to cancel the partner's pension, supplement or payment; and

(b) the partner's pension, supplement or payment is suspended.

Note: When a partner's pension or supplement ceases to be payable in the circumstances set out in subsection (1), the partner will generally continue to be eligible for fringe benefits for up to 2 years (see subsection 53A(5)).

(3) However, subsection (2) does not apply if:

(a) the suspension determination referred to in paragraph (1)(a) suspended the person's partner service pension; and

(b) the partner was receiving income support supplement or veteran payment.

When suspension determinations take effect

(4) A determination under subsection (2) takes effect on the day on which, but for the determination, the partner's pension, supplement or payment would be cancelled under section 56 or 56A.

Cancellation of partner's pension, supplement or payment after 2 years

(5) If:

(a) the Commission makes a determination suspending the partner's pension, supplement or payment under subsection (2); and

(b) the determination continues in effect throughout the period of 2 years from its date of effect;

then, at the end of the period:

(c) the suspension ends; and

(d) the pension, supplement or payment is cancelled.

Note: The Commission may end a suspension if satisfied that the partner's pension, supplement or payment is payable to the partner (see section 56F).

Partner ceasing to be member of couple

(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) applies to the partner even if the partner ceases to be a member of the couple after the making of a determination under subsection (2).

22 Paragraph 56F(a)

Omit "or 56EB", substitute ", 56EB, 56ED or 56EE".

23 Paragraph 56M(2)(b)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(b) ending when the suspension ends:

(i) under a determination of the Commission (under section 56F or 56L); or

(ii) because of the operation of subsection 56ED(8) or 56EE(5).

24 After paragraph 57(2)(b)

Insert:

(ba) making, or refusing to make, a determination that a service pension, income support supplement or a veteran payment be suspended instead of cancelled under section 56ED or 56EE; or

25 Application provision

Sections 56ED and 56EE of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, as inserted by this Part, apply in relation to:

(a) service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension, supplement or payment first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

(9) Page 4, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 2), add:

Schedule 3 — Extended qualification for pensioner concession cards

Part 1 — Former recipients of age pensions

Social Security Act 1991

1 After section 1061ZC

Insert:

1061ZCA Extended qualification rule: former recipient of age pension and partner

Qualification

(1) Subject to subsections (8) and (9), a person is qualified for a pensioner concession card for the period of 2 years starting on the day on which this section begins to apply to the person.

Former recipient of age pension with employment income

(2) Subject to subsection (6), this section applies to a person if:

(a) the person has been receiving an age pension; and

(b) age pension ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension is nil; and

(c) the rate of the person's pension is nil because of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances that results in the person's income reduced rate (see subsection (3)) being nil; and

(d) but for the person's income reduced rate being nil, the person would have continued to be qualified for a pensioner concession card because age pension would have continued to be payable to the person; and

(e) at the time of the cessation, the person's ordinary income (as used to work out the person's income reduced rate) includes income for remunerative work performed by the person in Australia as an employee in an employer/employee relationship.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person's income reduced rate is the rate worked out at step 8 of the method statement in point 1064-A1 in Module A of Pension Rate Calculator A.

Partn er of former recipient of age pension with employment income

(4) Subject to subsection (6), this section applies to a person who is a member of a couple if:

(a) the person's partner is qualified for a pensioner concession card under this section because subsection (2) applies to the partner as a result of age pension ceasing to be payable to the partner; and

(b) immediately before the partner's cessation of payability, the person was receiving an age pension, disability support pension or carer payment; and

(c) the person's pension or payment ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or payment is nil; and

(d) the person's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the partner's cessation of payability; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the partner's cessation of payability.

(5) To avoid doubt, if the person ceases to be a member of the couple after the person's cessation of payability, the person's qualification for a pensioner concession card because of subsection (4) is not affected.

Residency requirement

(6) This section only applies to a person while the person is residing in Australia.

Note: If the person is temporarily absent from Australia, the person continues to be qualified for a pensioner concession card for a maximum period of up to 6 weeks (see Division 4).

(7) However, this section applies to a person in relation to a day if:

(a) the person is in Australia on that day but not residing in Australia; and

(b) the age pension, disability support pension or carer payment that the person had been receiving was received solely because of the operation of the scheduled international social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

No double qualification person receiving certain other social security payments

(8) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of a social security pension that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

(9) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of:

(a) a youth allowance while subsection 1061ZA(2A) applies to the person; or

(b) a jobseeker payment while subsection 1061ZA(2B) applies to the person; or

(c) a benefit PP (partnered) while subsection 1061ZA(2D) applies to the person;

that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

2 Subsection 1061ZEA(1)

Before "1061ZD", insert "1061ZCA,".

3 Subparagraph 1061ZUC(1)(a)(i)

After "1061ZC,", insert "1061ZCA,".

4 Application provision

Section 1061ZCA of the Social Security Act 1991, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension or payment first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

Part 2 — Former recipients of disability support pensions

Social Security Act 1991

5 Section 1061ZD (at the end of the heading)

Add "and partner".

6 Before subsection 1061ZD(1)

Insert:

Qualification

7 Subsection 1061ZD(1)

Omit "52 weeks", substitute "2 years".

8 Before section 1061ZD(2)

Insert:

Former recipient with 30 hours per week employment

9 Before subsection 1061ZD(3)

Insert:

Former recipient with increase in empl oyment income

10 After subsection 1061ZD(3)

Insert:

Partner of former recipient with employment

(3A) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to a person who is a member of a couple if:

(a) the person's partner is qualified for a pensioner concession card under this section because:

(i) subsection (2) applies to the partner as a result of the partner ceasing to be qualified for disability support pension; or

(ii) subsection (3) applies to the partner as a result of disability support pension ceasing to be payable to the partner; and

(b) immediately before the partner's cessation of qualification or payability, the person was receiving an age pension, disability support pension or carer payment; and

(c) the person's pension or payment ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or payment is nil; and

(d) the person's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the partner's cessation of qualification or payability; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the partner's cessation of qualification or payability.

(3B) To avoid doubt, if the person ceases to be a member of the couple after the person's cessation of payability, the person's qualification for a pensioner concession card because of subsection (3A) is not affected.

11 Before subsection 1061ZD(4)

Insert:

Residency requirement

12 Before subsection 1061ZD(5)

Insert:

No double qualification person receiving certain other social security payments

13 Subsections 1061ZD(5) and (5A)

Omit "52 weeks", substitute "2 years".

14 Before subsection 1061ZD(6)

Insert:

Residency requirement exception New Zealand agreement

15 Paragraph 1061ZD(6)(b)

Omit "disability support pension", substitute "age pension, disability support pension or carer payment".

16 Before subsection 1061ZD(7)

Insert:

No double qualification person with partial capacity to work

17 Application provisions

(1) The amendments of subsections 1061ZD(1), (5) and (5A) of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Part apply in relation to a person who receives a disability support pension on or after the commencement day (whether or not the person was receiving the pension before the commencement day).

(2) If:

(a) on a day during the period:

(i) starting on the day that is 52 weeks before the commencement day; and

(ii) ending on the day before the commencement day;

section 1061ZD of the Social Security Act 1991 (as in force on the relevant day during that period) begins to apply to a person; and

(b) on the day before the commencement day the person is qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD or subsection 1061ZA(1), (2A), (2B) or (2D) of the Social Security Act 1991;

the amendments to the period a person is qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD, as made by this Part, apply in relation to the person.

(3) Subsections 1061ZD(3A) and (3B) of the Social Security Act 1991, as inserted by this Part, and the amendment of paragraph 1061ZD(6)(b) of that Act made by this Part, apply in relation to:

(a) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement day (whether the pension or payment first became payable before, on or after the commencement day); and

(b) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement day.

(4) In this item:

commencement day means the day this Part commences.

Part 3 — Former recipients of veterans' entitlements and certain partners

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

18 Before subsection 53A(1)

Insert:

General rule

19 Before subsection 53A(1A)

Insert:

Certain persons eligible before 1 January 2017

20 Before subsection 53A(2)

Insert:

Certain recipients of invalidity service pension who cease to be permanently incapacitated for work

21 At the end of section 53A

Add:

Former recipients with employment income

(3) If:

(a) a person is receiving service pension or income support supplement; and

(b) the pension or supplement ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or supplement is nil; and

(c) the rate of the person's pension or supplement is nil because of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances that results in the person's income reduced rate (see subsection (4)) being nil; and

(d) but for the person's income reduced rate being nil, the person would have continued to be eligible for fringe benefits because the person would have continued to receive the pension or supplement; and

(e) at the time of the cessation, the ordinary income of the person (as used to work out the person's income reduced rate) includes income for remunerative work performed by the person in Australia as an employee in an employer/employee relationship;

the person remains eligible for fringe benefits for the period of 2 years beginning on the day the pension or supplement ceased to be payable to the person.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person's income reduced rate, in relation to a service pension or income support supplement, is the rate worked out in relation to that pension or supplement at step 6 of method statement 1 or step 6 of method statement 5, as the case may be, in Module A of the Rate Calculator.

Partners of certain former recipients with employment

(5) If:

(a) a person is:

(i) eligible for fringe benefits under subsection (3) because the person's pension or supplement ceases to be payable to the person; or

(ii) qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZCA of the Social Security Act because subsection (2) of that section applies to the person as a result of age pension ceasing to be payable to the person; or

(iii) qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD of the Social Security Act because subsection (2) of that section applies to the person as a result of the person ceasing to be qualified for disability support pension; or

(iv) qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD of the Social Security Act because subsection (3) of that section applies to the person as a result of disability support pension ceasing to be payable to the person; and

(b) immediately before the person's cessation of payability or qualification, the person's partner was receiving service pension or income support supplement; and

(c) the partner's pension or supplement ceases to be payable to the partner because the rate of the partner's pension or supplement is nil; and

(d) the partner's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the person's cessation of payability or qualification; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the person's cessation of payability or qualification;

the partner remains eligible for fringe benefits for the period of 2 years beginning on the day the pension or supplement ceased to be payable to the partner.

(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) applies to the partner even if the partner ceases to be a member of the couple after the day the pension or supplement ceased to be payable to the partner.

22 At the end of subsection 56(1)

Add:

Note: If a person ceases to receive a service pension or income support supplement, the person's eligibility for benefits under Division 12 will generally cease.

23 At the end of subsection 56A(1)

Add:

Note: If a person ceases to receive a service pension or income support supplement, the person's eligibility for benefits under Division 12 will generally cease.

24 Subsection 56E(1) (note 4)

Omit "also cancelled", substitute "generally cancelled too (but see also sections 56ED and 56EE)".

25 Subsection 56EA(2) (note 3)

Omit "also cancelled", substitute "generally cancelled too (but see also sections 56ED and 56EE)".

26 Application provision

Subsections 53A(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, as added by this Part, apply in relation to:

(a) service pension or income support supplement ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension or supplement first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) service pension or income support supplement ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

Part 4 — Certain partners of former recipients of veterans' entitlements

Social Security Act 1991

27 After section 1061ZDA

Insert:

1061ZDB Extended qualification rule: partner of former recipient of veterans' entitlement

Qualification

(1) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), a person is qualified for a pensioner concession card for the period of 2 years starting on the day on which this section begins to apply to the person.

Partner of for mer recipient of veterans' entitlement with employment income

(2) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to a person who is a member of a couple if:

(a) the person's partner is eligible for fringe benefits under subsection 53A(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act because the partner's service pension or income support supplement ceases to be payable to the partner; and

(b) immediately before the partner's cessation of payability, the person was receiving an age pension, disability support pension or carer payment; and

(c) the person's pension or payment ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or payment is nil; and

(d) the person's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the partner's cessation of payability; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the partner's cessation of payability.

(3) To avoid doubt, if the person ceases to be a member of the couple after the person's cessation of payability, the person's qualification for a pensioner concession card because of subsection (2) is not affected.

Residency requirement

(4) This section only applies to a person while the person is residing in Australia.

Note: If the person is temporarily absent from Australia, the person continues to be qualified for a pensioner concession card for a maximum period of up to 6 weeks (see Division 4).

(5) However, this section applies to a person in relation to a day if:

(a) the person is in Australia on that day but not residing in Australia; and

(b) the pension or payment that the person had been receiving was received solely because of the operation of the scheduled international social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

No double qualification person receiving certain other social security payments

(6) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of a social security pension that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

(7) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of:

(a) a youth allowance while subsection 1061ZA(2A) applies to the person; or

(b) a jobseeker payment while subsection 1061ZA(2B) applies to the person; or

(c) a benefit PP (partnered) while subsection 1061ZA(2D) applies to the person;

that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

28 Subsection 1061ZEA(1)

After "1061ZDA", insert ", 1061ZDB".

29 Subpa ragraph 1061ZUC(1)(a)(i)

After "1061ZDA,", insert "1061ZDB,".

30 Application

Section 1061ZDB of the Social Security Act 1991, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension or payment first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

(10) Page 4, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 3), add:

Schedule 4 — Increasing the work bonus for pensioners and veterans

Social Security Act 1991

1 Subsection 1073AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)

Repeal the examples, substitute:

Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. David's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Amy's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.

2 Subsection 1073AA(4) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Bill's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.

Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.

Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.

3 Subsection 1073AA(4A) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

4 Paragraphs 1073AA(4C)(a) and (b)

Omit "$300", substitute "$600".

5 Subsection 1073AB(2) (example)

Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

6 Subsection 46AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)

Repeal the examples, substitute:

Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. David's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in a pension period. Amy's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.

7 Subsection 46AA(4) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. Bill's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.

Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.

Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.

8 Subsection 46AA(4A) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

9 Subsection 46AA(4C)

Omit "$300", substitute "$600".

10 Subsection 46AC(2) (example)

Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".

11 Subsection 46AD(3) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

12 Application provision

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to an instalment period that starts on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a pension period that starts on or after the commencement of this item.

As briefly mentioned in my contribution on the substantive bill, the coalition is moving a number of amendments which will give effect to providing immediate relief to small businesses across our country who are suffering from labour shortages. In addition to that, it will remove a significant disincentive to many older Australians who want to re-enter the workforce. That disincentive is that the Work Bonus scheme provides up to $300 a fortnight before older Australians are penalised for every extra dollar they earn. The amendment will lift that from $300 a fortnight to $600 a fortnight.

We are confident that that is an initiative, is an incentive, that many older Australians will find attractive. Many of them will be encouraged and will desire to re-enter the workforce, for a variety of reasons—and we can't underestimate how important work is to people's self-esteem.

This has been predicated on a very immediate and urgent problem for many older Australians and that is the escalating cost of living. It is hurting older Australians the hardest. We think this is the right time through which to embrace these initiatives, amend this bill and provide that immediate relief for older Australians, and, in doing so, provide small- to medium-size businesses in our country with greater labour options.

The Greens will be supporting the amendments that have been moved by the opposition because, as I foreshadowed in my speech in the second reading debate, we will be supporting any measures that will improve income support in our society. Obviously, these measures that Senator Smith has put forward again only address the issues being faced by older people—in this case, allowing people on the age pension to be able to earn more—but we think that's a good start. We think that should be supported. We need a more generous income support system in this country across the board. This is a good start.

Poverty is a political choice. We can choose to introduce measures here that will lift people out of poverty, and this is a good measure that will help lift people out of poverty. So we will be supporting this measure but, again, we call upon the opposition and we call upon the Labor Party to actually do much more. There are people across the board, whether they are young or old, whether they are working or not working, who are really, really struggling. They are doing it so tough. They are struggling to put food on the table. They are not able to afford rent and are then being made homeless. They cannot afford medicines. Australians across the board are struggling with all of these things. We will support this measure as one measure that will help some Australians. It's a start, but it's not enough.

I note that the amendment has only just been circulated.

It wasn't our fault.

Well, it's your amendment, Senator Ruston. Surely it was your fault—

You can ignore the interjections, Senator Farrell.

Thank you, Chair; that's very good advice. I should ignore most things the opposition says.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Farrell, come to the point.

Thank you for that reminder, Chair. The former government spent nine years doing nothing to boost workforce participation. It was the last Labor government that introduced the Work Bonus, in 2009. Only in the last month or so has the opposition taken steps to encourage pensioner workforce participation, through Senator Dean Smith's private senators' bill. However, Senator Smith's bill is just a doubling of the existing Work Bonus and doesn't provide pensioners with the flexibility that the government bill offers.

The government has announced that from 1 December 2022 until 30 June 2023, pensioners of the age pension age will benefit from a $4,000 increase in the maximum Work Bonus income bank balance, and that results in an increase from $7,800 to $11,800. This increase will be credited to eligible pensioners' income banks upfront so they will be able to earn an additional $4,000 from employment income this financial year without losing any of their pension. This provides an immediate benefit to any pensioner over age pension age who works, and will help address labour shortages.

I understand we have the opposition's amendments before us. From the government benches, I'm seeking to properly understand them. I know they've made a case for increasing the Work Bonus, but, as I understand it, the first $300 of fortnightly income is not assessed and is not counted under the pension income test, and that any unused part of the Work Bonus can be accrued up to a maximum of $7,800. Can you please explain this, Minister, as I'm keen to understand how the accrual works. I know that we're really keen, for example, to see people being able to make the most of seasonal work. We have the great privilege here in this place of being served by the amazing Comcar workforce. Many of those people are retirees and some of them pensioners. So, I'm interested to understand the time over which you can accrue that in terms of using it up. Clearly people want to save money. They don't just want to accrue a maximum of $7,800; they also want to be able to spend that money, or to save it—and they don't want to max out. So, I'm interested to know, in the context of this bill—and if we've got an understanding of what the opposition understands—the time period for that accrual.

Thank you, Senator. I take that as a great compliment—that, with all the resources available to the government, the government senator needs to ask the opposition about the detail of how the existing social security income support mechanism works in our country! That is the first point. The second point is that that question was two minutes and 20 seconds in length. In the parliament we call that filibustering; we don't call that a question. In my contribution earlier today I said that the government was lukewarm, half-hearted, about wanting to improve the circumstances facing older Australians and was lukewarm, half-hearted, in wanting to correct labour shortage issues in our country. You saw it for yourself. You're witnessing it for yourself. We can deal with this very quickly.

The government can add it to its bill. And, by the time we leave this parliament tonight, older Australians will be given a clear way of combating escalating cost-of-living increases. In addition to that, many small businesses across our country will have an immediate answer to some of the most pressing economic needs that they are facing. Instead, the government and its senators want to delay the vote that would put this into the law now. Senator Pratt, well-supported by advisers from the government, knows the answers to the questions she's asking me. I encourage her and I encourage Senator Farrell and Senator Polley—and I thank Senator Rice for her contribution—the time is now to make life easier for older Australians and small businesses.

I have a question for Senator Smith.

Opposition senators interjecting—

The only thing embarrassing, Senator Ruston, is the circumstances in which you left the Australian economy when you were kicked out of government some months—

Senator Farrell, resume your seat. Firstly, please make your remarks through the chair. Secondly, Senator Ruston is not over that side of the chamber. But please continue.

With respect, Senator Ruston was making a comment, and I was simply responding to her comment. She's now left the chamber, but at the point I made my comment—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You know that it is not practice to refer to senators leaving the chamber, because they may be leaving the chamber for a variety of reasons. But you have the call.

Well, I was simply responding to your query about why I was referring to Senator Ruston, and the reason I was referring to Senator Ruston is simply that she made a comment and I was responding to that comment. I will repeat my comment that the reason we have such difficulty with the issue of labour shortages is the circumstances in which the former government left the Australian economy.

I have some questions regarding just how there is going to be an interaction between the amendments that the opposition is putting forward today and the proposed amendments and bill that the government is putting forward. The first observation I would make is that the government amendment changes the commencement date for the legislation to enact the government's election commitments to increase the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors card holders to $90,000 for singles and $144,000 for couples combined. Due to the suspension of parliament following the untimely death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the bill to implement this commitment could not be passed in time for the increase to be implemented on 20 September 2022 and that was obviously the intention of the government. To minimise the delays, this amendment will allow an increase in the income limits to take effect seven days following royal assent of the bill. This is the minimum time required by Services Australia to finalise the required systems and business processes once a final date is known.

The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card income limits are indexed each year on 20 September according to movements based on the consumer price index, and the existing bill would have replaced the indexation on 20 September 2022 with a very significant one-off increase. As the bill did not pass, the indexation of the limits proceeded on 20 September as required by the existing law. My question to Senator Smith this: How does your amendment work with the government's legislation and proposed amendments?

I thank the senator for his question. I can have great confidence that, with the excellent and professional support of the Senate Procedure Office, the amendments have been drafted to make sure that they sit seamlessly with this particular bill and with the broader social security income management system or income support system.

I have a further question. By way of prefacing that question, our amendment, the one that we are proposing today which has not yet been presented to the Senate for voting on, removes material that would have prevented that annual indexation for 2022. Following indexation on 20 September 2022, the income limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card are currently $61,284 for singles and $98,054 for couples combined. The bill, as amended, will still raise the income limits only to the intended levels of $90,000 for singles and $144,000 for couples combined. The bill includes amendments to both the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlements Act to ensure the same income limits apply for Commonwealth Seniors Health Card holders as provided under each act. Like other Australians, many self-funded retirees are facing increased cost-of-living pressures in the current economic environment. This bill helps to ease those pressures by allowing more self-funded retirees to access Australian government health concessions, including concessions on co-payments for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines, the concessional thresholds for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net and extended Medicare Safety Nets, and bulk-billed visits to general practitioners. My question to Senator Smith in this context is: is it proposed under your amendment that it only last for 12 months?

I repeat what I have said, and it's worth reminding people that might be in the chamber or observing on the television that at 11.15 the Senate must move to another term of business: every minute that the government spends asking questions that it knows the answer to, because sitting next to the government are government advisers, delays a vote being put on the opposition's amendments which would allow relief for older Australians today and would allow answers to labour shortage issues for small businesses today. The government is seeking to frustrate and to delay the opportunity for this Senate chamber to vote on amendments that would make life easier for older Australians and for businesses across our country.

We've just had a jobs and skills summit, at the beginning of September. It is now a month later and we still do not see in this Senate chamber any remedy from the government for how to deal with skyrocketing—that is not my word but the Treasurer's word—cost-of-living pressures for older Australians. We still see no remedy from the government that is about the relief that it will offer small and medium-sized businesses across Australia that are suffering severely—not my word but the Treasury's word, which they shared with senators at a committee inquiry last week.

The government is seeking to frustrate what is a very, very reasonable request that the opposition is making on behalf of many older Australians, on behalf of many businesses and on behalf of organisations like the National Farmers Federation, Grain Producers Australia, chambers of commerce and industry in my home state of Western Australia and chambers of commerce and industry in Victoria. The list of organisations in our country that want an answer now about how to better incentivise older Australians to come back into the workforce is endless, and before your very eyes this morning the government is seeking to frustrate. These propositions that are in the form of this amendment have actually been canvassed very, very broadly in the public arena at a Senate committee inquiry and in contributions in this Senate already, and the government is seeking to frustrate this. This is a very, very reasonable—

Senator Smith, resume your seat. Senator Pratt, you're being disorderly. Standing order 197 says that senators shall be heard in silence. I ask you to show respect to your fellow senators.

That was a very pious response from Senator Smith, in terms of the allegation that the government are the ones frustrating the process here. The government have put this bill forward. This bill is here to amend the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors health card. The bill that amendments the income limits and threshold for pensioner earnings is currently still in the other place, and we're not supposed to actually debate these kinds of issues concurrently. What we have here is a legitimate need for the government to go: 'Right. We've suddenly been lumped with these amendments, and we're canvassing to see what level of support they will get so that we can work out what is going to happen in this place.' We're not here to frustrate the Senate. We're here to be a good government.

The simple fact of the matter is that Senator Smith's amendments belong to the other bill. They don't belong to this bill, which is about lifting the income limit for the Commonwealth seniors health card. It has nothing to do with the income thresholds that affect how much your pension might be discounted depending on how much you work. They're entirely separate questions, which this government—our government, the Labor Party—has rightly chosen to pursue in two different pieces of legislation.

Senator Smith has sought to be the one frustrating this process by moving these amendments to an entirely different bill and landing them on us in this point in time. Given the fact that Senator Smith did in fact have a private member's bill on these very questions, I fully expected him to be diligent in pursuing them. But it's not being diligent in this bill, because it's not relevant to this legislation.

The legislation that it should have been pursuing in terms of proper process is still to come to this place. What happens, for example, if the other place makes amendments on the same legislation that affect the income limits and earning capacity of pensioners? They are still playing with that bill in the other place. They're still debating it and looking at it. It is entirely inappropriate for this Senate now to be at cross-purposes in terms of what the legislative outcome might be. It is simply not sensible to proceed in this way today.

If there is any reason that I had to stand up 10 minutes ago, while we were trying to work out what the opposition's intentions were, and filibuster for a few moments, it might simply have been a legitimate purpose to work out: What is the opposition playing at here? What is the right process for us to go through here? What is the purpose? The simple fact is that the other place is dealing with that legislation. I know it's due to come before them. Is it actually before them?

No.

Yes, it is. Yes, it has been introduced.

In the last how many minutes?

It's been introduced in the other place. That was the plan, for it to be introduced in that place, and I know that because we dealt with the issue in the Labor Party caucus meeting recently. It was the due and proper process. You're going completely at cross-purposes by seeking to move amendments to a different bill that really should be dealt with in the bill that has just come to the other place.

I call on the Greens and I call on those opposite: let's deal with these issues sensibly. Please deal with them sensibly. We cannot and we should not second-guess what is going on in the other place. It is entirely inappropriate that we do that. We have careful protocols in this place to ensure that we wait for a message to go from one place to the other so that when a question is determined it reflects the will and the endorsement of both houses. I'm really not sure what the state of confusion would be if you had an amended, or not amended, bill coming up this way at the same time that this chamber was making a change to an entirely different piece of legislation that intersected with the other bill.

Let's be clear. We're talking about the bill to change the income threshold for pensioner healthcare cards. That is the legislation that is before us today. It is keenly awaited by retirees, who face cost of living pressures because they cannot access the cheaper medicines, for example, that pensioners and other concession cardholders can access. It fits in very nicely, frankly, with this government's decision to lower the price of medicine for all Australians. We are going from $40 a script, where a script is above that amount, down to $30. This is a very good step forward, but for retirees, who are under real income pressure, we are very pleased to be prioritising in this legislation today the needs of retirees and their ability to access more-affordable health care and more-affordable medicine. Instead, we have from the opposition, including Senator Dean Smith, an attempt to subvert the outcome of a bill that is still before the other place and that is still to come to us.

We can't predict whether the other place might make amendments that usurp the amendments that have been moved by Senator Dean Smith on the amount a pensioner can earn before their pension is affected and starts to reduce based on the fact that they have earned $7,800 within 12 months. That is in the legislation before the other place and is due to be lifted to $11,800. What Senator Dean Smith is trying to do is change the income limit here and now in a completely unrelated bill while the House of Representatives is still dealing with that question. It is patently ridiculous for that to be the case. These are separate pieces of legislation, and these amendments should not be moved here and now. That, in and of itself, provides good reason for the Labor Party not to support the amendments, quite apart from the policy questions and our policy position and policy debate on that legislation, which is proceeding with the minister introducing that legislation in the place. That legislation is to be announced and proceeded with in the other place. (Time expired)

Senator Pratt's contribution was worth listening to. Senator Pratt has exposed the government for its lukeheartedness—

Lukewarm.

Lukewarm, thank you, Senator Ruston—Its lukewarm interest in this issue—

And half-hearted.

and its half-hearted interest in this issue. Why is that? Because if Senator Pratt's contribution is correct then the government has, in the last few moments—in the last few minutes—introduced a bill that is similar to, but not the same as, these amendments. It's similar but different; same-same but different. Why are they different? Because the bill that the government might have just introduced in the House of Representatives comes, remind yourself, a month after it announced the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. The important distinction is this: the government's bill is temporary; these amendments are permanent; and the government's initiative is half as generous. So if you were looking for any evidence of the government's half-heartedness and lukewarm interest in fixing cost-of-living issues for older Australians and meeting the challenges of labour shortages in our country, you have it for yourself. There might just be a bill in the House of Representatives introduced in the last few minutes which shows and demonstrates half-heartedness and a lack of interest.

Senator Pratt says that this is not the right place to put these age-pension income support initiatives. Well, if it can't go in a social security bill, where should it go? It can't go in a defence bill, it can't go in a veterans bill, and it can't go in an ASIC bill or an APRA bill. The bill we are debating—the bill that the government has brought to the Senate—is called the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022. This is exactly the place to put a social services initiative. It's exactly the place. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the bill that the government has introduced in the last few minutes in the House of Representatives is called the 'Social Services (Worker Incentive) Bill'. How ludicrous! We have seen it. In the last 45 minutes, the government has decided to delay, to put on the back burner, an initiative that this Senate could have endorsed and would have started to make life easier for older Australians and small to medium-sized businesses.

I acknowledge and thank Senator Rice on behalf of the Australian Greens for supporting this. Two parties support doing more to help older Australians and small businesses: the coalition and the Greens. One party, just recently elected to government, is saying that this is not the time. It is saying this is not the bill—

Just wait a couple of days, will you!

Really? How remarkable. This is the last sitting day until 25 October. Wow. So that place isn't even going to be able to talk about these initiatives until 25 October. This place isn't going to be able to consider these amendments until 25 October. The Labor Party thinks it can play with the livelihoods of older Australians and play with the livelihoods of small to medium-sized businesses across our country. It's remarkable. This is an important and critical issue. Agriculture producers across our country, small businesses, the chambers of commerce, National Seniors Australia, Council on the Ageing and the Antipoverty Centre are all saying that something more must be done for people. This is a modest initiative, but the government is putting maximum effort into delay and frustration.

On 7 September, during question time, Senator Farrell, as the Minister representing the Minister For Social Services, was asked to explain: why is it that the government's initiative is temporary when the coalition's initiative is permanent?

What did he say?

He couldn't explain it, Senator Cash. He couldn't explain it. If I were being given the opportunity to ask Senator Farrell questions this morning, I would be asking him: Where is the government's legislation? Why isn't it in the Senate? Why are older Australians waiting? I would be asking Senator Farrell: why is the Labor government's initiative temporary, when the coalition's initiative is permanent? And I'd be asking Senator Farrell: why is it less generous? These are the questions that I would be asking Senator Farrell.

Progress reported.

Twenty-five years ago, when the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was introduced into the Northern Territory parliament, I wanted the Northern Territory parliamentarians to vote against it. Based on cultural and personal grounds, I certainly did not support it. Twenty-five years later, I still do not support voluntary assisted dying. But I do support the Northern Territory parliament having the right to debate what is an absolutely critical issue on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory—an issue that has been debated across Australia in every state parliament since the Northern Territory introduced it and then had it removed. The Euthanasia Laws Act was passed by the Commonwealth parliament in 1997. All of the states have passed laws allowing for voluntary assisted dying in Australia.

Of course, as we all know, it was the Northern Territory where we saw not only Australia's first legislation on euthanasia but the first in the world. The NT parliament passed these laws on behalf of their constituents who voted for them to represent them. It was a democratic decision. The sky didn't fall apart, but the Howard government saw fit to stomp over the democratic rights of Territorians, throw out their fair decision and gag them for half a century—and still to this day. A lot of Territorians were very upset as they saw the Andrews bill developed, debated and, eventually, turned into law.

I looked through some of the speeches from the Territory. I knew then of those politicians who were there. There was a speech introduced by the then Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, a most passionate advocate. And there were speeches by the late Maurice Rioli and Mr Wes Lanhupuy, two First Nations people in the parliament at the time—two people with very different views on to how to approach this most sensitive issue. That's what democracy is about, that's what the Westminster system brought to this country: an opportunity for parliaments to be able to debate—to agree, to disagree—and to be heard with respect.

I would like to share with the Senate the story of Bob Dent, one of those Territorians who paid very close attention to the Andrews bill. He did this in his final days. Mr Dent became the first person in the world to die using a voluntary euthanasia law, and he was one of only four to access the NTs Rights of the Terminally Ill Act before it was overturned by the federal government. Mr Dent, a former pilot and carpenter from Darwin, had prostate cancer, which infiltrated his bone marrow, deteriorating his body. Before Mr Dent passed away, he sent a letter to all federal politicians, to make it clear how he felt about the Andrews bill. Part of his letter read:

I read with increasing horror newspaper stories of Kevin Andrews' attempt to overturn the most compassionate piece of legislation in the world. (Actually, my wife has to read the newspaper stories to me as I can no longer focus my eyes.)

If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but don't deny me the right to use it if and when I want to.

Of course, it's difficult to imagine how he might have felt knowing a democratic decision that affected his life so deeply and so personally could be stomped over and dumped at the whim of the parliament we're all standing in today.

I acknowledge the advocacy and hard work of Luke Gosling MP and Alicia Payne MP in bringing this bill to the parliament to finally right a wrong that was made here in this same parliament 25 years ago.

This bill has been a long time coming. In 2022 Territorians and Canberrans still have fewer democratic rights than their fellow Australians in the states and hopefully this bill is going to change that. For 25 years the ACT and the Northern Territory have been banned from legislating, let alone debating, the issue of voluntary euthanasia. It is something that all other states can do and now have done.

This bill before the Senate does not in any way legislate voluntary assisted dying. I need to make that very, very clear. It simply proposes to give the territories equal democratic rights to debate and legislate this issue within their own parliaments. It's not something that should be deliberately conflated and confused for political advantage. This is ultimately an issue of territory rights, of Australians living in the territories having the same rights as fellow Australians in the states.

The bill proposes to remove archaic restrictions preventing the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory from passing any legislation which would allow for voluntary assisted dying. These restrictions, as I said, were introduced in 1997 through the passage of a private member's bill introduced by Mr Kevin Andrews MP.

This attempt here today is, of course, not the first in this parliament to remove Kevin Andrews' restrictions and restore territory rights, but I certainly hope that it is the last and that this one will be successful. Since the passing of Andrews' legislation there appears to have been around nine bills subsequently introduced into parliament with the intention of granting one or more of the territories the ability to pass their own laws relating to voluntary assisted dying, and all of these have been private members' bills.

I acknowledge the work and good intentions of all those who have attempted to restore territory rights, albeit unsuccessfully. It is fortunate that we do have a government here today that has given us a chance to finally, in my view, and hopefully, correct this wrong and make a change.

Before the election the Albanese government committed, as a priority, to facilitate the introduction of this bill to restore the rights of the territories. This is, fortunately, a piece of legislation that can bring a lot of us together. We saw the territory rights bill pass the lower House with an overwhelming majority. It had the support of members of the Greens, the coalition, Labor and the Independents.

I would like to touch on a few issues that have been raised here so far. I also want to give my own view, as I did at the outset, that as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman I am deeply aware of the cultural concerns in terms of assisted dying. I also know that in our way people do want to go back on country when they feel that they know their time is near. I have a very personal view about this issue. Should this bill pass and get to the Northern Territory parliament to debate it I will probably be one of the first people to urge the politicians there to vote against it, but they still have the right to debate it. The Australian parliament should not be taking away the rights of our fellow Australians in the Northern Territory and the ACT.

I do call on senators to see the importance of the territories and their respective parliaments, that they be enabled to have the debate that every state parliament has now had. Senators, if you are unsure, I urge those of you who are still wondering what to do to: please support this bill. Please do not make these Australians in the ACT and in the Northern Territory feel any less worthy than the Australians you represent in your respective states.

I rise this morning to voice my opposition to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill. While this bill is couched in terms of the restoration of rights to the territories, what it really is, in truth, is a new voluntary assisted dying bill. This debate is one that is, of course, emotionally charged. For those who oppose this concept of voluntary assisted dying, for those who wish to see this in the light that it really should be and for those that are concerned about the suffering of those who are in terminal pain, I hear all of those arguments. You don't have to necessarily be a religious person to oppose euthanasia. You just need to understand the facts. I think it is helpful to understand where this leads.

Far from being indifferent to the suffering of others, opponents of euthanasia oppose it for a variety of ethical reasons as well as because of the deteriorative impact of euthanasia on our society. Despite the mangling of words that we see, it has to be looked upon as a form of suicide. Whenever we're discussing whether euthanasia should be legal, we're discussing whether suicide—or, more specifically, a medical professional assisting someone with that suicide—should be legal. One of the fundamental tenets of any society is that we respect human life. And this can't be the answer to suffering, whether it be mental, physical or both. That's why the federal governments of both colours and persuasions have spent $11 billion on funding mental health services over the years.

To support this on the one hand and advocate for suicide prevention on the other seems entirely hypocritical to me. Surely in either case it's a terrible outcome for individuals and for society, particularly when we want to prevent this in either occasion to the best we can, because we want to affirm life whatever the circumstances are. But the underlying ethos has to be remembered, and that is that some lives just aren't any longer worth living. If we in this place send that message, then ultimately it devalues the lives of citizens rather than cultivating a sense of meaning and morality.

Practically speaking, the message that this is a way out leads to an increase in the demand. That's just a fact. To quote a recent peer-reviewed study conducted by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford, England:

Introducing EAS—

That is, euthanasia—

is followed by considerable increases in suicide (inclusive of assisted suicide) … There is no reduction in non-assisted suicide relative to the most similar non-EAS neighbour—

where euthanasia isn't practised—

and, in some cases, there is a relative and/or an absolute increase in non-assisted suicide.

Another peer-reviewed study for the Southern Medical Journal by the same author focused specifically on the United States. It concluded:

Legalizing PAS—

That is, euthanasia—

has been associated with an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in nonassisted suicides.

This at least needs to give us cause to pause before going down a road that will certainly legalise the so-called right to die.

Proponents will often mock those who are opponents for making this slippery slope argument, even though the slippery slope quickly becomes evident each single time, as it has in international jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal and, closer to home, in Victoria, where it's only been legal since 2019. Sadly 175 people were euthanised in Victoria by the end of 2021, which was an enormous increase from the 49 deaths the previous year. The data supports the conclusion that euthanasia is related to an increase in these suicides, in general, whether they're assisted or not. So I ask the question: is this what the public really wants? With laws that have an instructive effect on the morality of society—where that is part of their purpose, to uphold and enforce morality—it makes sense that those rates would increase when any government or any legislative body signals that this is the way to proceed.

The Commonwealth power that was used to ban euthanasia in the territories was, in my view, a good and just use of a Commonwealth authority as it protected vulnerable Australians—the sick, the elderly, the mentally ill—by preventing the territories from legalising voluntary assisted suicide. This restriction should, in my view, remain in place. If we do in fact care about reducing the number of suicides in Australia, the demonstrable proof is there. As I said, the slippery-slope effect is very, very real. We've seen this in the Netherlands, where children as young as 12 now can access these services. More and more Dutch citizens are opting for euthanasia due to psychological disorders such as depression. These are just facts. Again, is this something the people of the territories really want, that the people of Australia really want? Is that a picture of a flourishing society or is it indicative of one that is going down the wrong path?

Part of the problem is that euthanasia legislation is predicated on the concept of suffering, which we all understand and we all sympathise with, and that's difficult to define. So, being open to its being interpreted liberally by others is always a problem in these legislative dilemmas. To quote an associate professor on the board of Palliative Care Australia:

I am concerned we are too caught up with our "right" to die, while not investing in the system that helps us live as well as possible before we die.

And more Australians die in pain because of the lack of access to palliative care, not because of palliative care. Good-quality palliative care obviously can't work for everyone—I accept that—just as heart surgery can't work for 100 per cent of people. But, for the majority, palliative care is an experience that is essential in those terrible circumstances—and we've all been through those, I would say.

Having the option of voluntary assisted suicide means that people who would not otherwise consider it feel the pressure to do so, fearing that they'd be a burden on their loved ones, rather than simply expecting that they would be cared for, as is their right. There are terrible and very real stories of elderly people being neglected by family members so that they will choose suicide sooner. The Left of politics may dismiss these stories, but they do happen, and they are terribly tragic, as many of these stories are.

I want to conclude my remarks about this bill by saying, finally, that one can't address the topic without noting the way in which euthanasia fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship. The Ancient Greek Hippocratic oath, still a document—until recently—fundamental to the importance of Western practice of medicine, reads:

I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.

And:

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.

We would like to think that as a society we are more enlightened than the Ancient Greeks regarding medical ethics. The dignity of the sick and the suffering and our obligation to help and comfort them has to be a paramount concern that cannot be forgotten. I think the answer to the question is clear, and it's for these reasons that I oppose the bill.

I rise to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. The bill that is before us today is fundamentally about equality. It is about restoring the rights of the territory legislators so that they are equal to those of the state parliaments. By doing this, we restore the rights of electors in the ACT and the Northern Territory. For too long, people of the ACT and the NT have elected representatives in their territory parliaments who have fewer rights than those in state parliaments. Their parliaments have been specifically prevented from considering one particular issue. This prohibition makes our democracy unequal.

For 25 years our parliament has persisted in discriminating against certain citizens solely on the basis of where they live. What this bill is not about is voluntary assisted dying. The bill will not legalise voluntary assisted dying in either the ACT or the NT. Instead, it will finally allow the duly elected members of the ACT and Northern Territory assemblies to debate and consider the issue if that is what their parliaments wish to do.

We all know that any discussion of voluntary assisted dying arouses strong emotions and deeply held views. The debates that I have been involved in and have listened to in the past have usually been passionate and mostly very respectful. But as I said, this bill is not about voluntary assisted dying; it is about restoring the rights of the two parliaments that have been prevented from considering voluntary assisted dying to actually debate the issue, if that is the parliament's wish.

When the ACT and Northern Territory self-government acts were passed by the federal parliament in 1988 and 1978 respectively, both jurisdictions were granted general legislative powers. Both were specifically granted the power to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of their territory. These legislated rights were left unchallenged and unhindered until the Northern Territory assembly passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995. The passage of the NT bill was one of the first of its kind in the world, so I understand why some in the community and this parliament were concerned about the consequences.

As many colleagues may recall, the controversy surrounding the passage of that bill through the NT assembly ultimately led to the former member for Menzies, Mr Kevin Andrews, introducing his private member's bill with the aim of overriding the legislation passed by the Northern Territory's legislative assembly. The passage of Mr Andrews' private member's bill also specifically removed the right of the ACT parliament to pass legislation that allowed for voluntary assisted dying. One of arguments used at the time in favour of the Andrews bill was that the territories should not be allowed to move before any of the state legislators. In other words, the territories weren't allowed to lead but they may—may—be allowed to follow; except, thanks to the Andrews bill, the territories aren't even allowed to follow.

Between the time of the passage of the Andrews bill in 1997 and the introduction of the legislation we are considering today, every state part parliament has passed legislation relating to voluntary assisted dying. The Victorian parliament passed legislation in 2017 followed by Western Australian parliament in 2019 then Queensland, South Australia and Tasmanian parliaments in 2021, and the New South Wales parliament earlier this year. All of these sovereign state parliaments have passed legislation that will allow their citizens to access voluntary assisted dying in strictly controlled circumstances, yet the citizens of the ACT and NT are prevented from debating these issues, let alone passing similar legislation, by an act of the federal parliament.

The passage of these various pieces of legislation stands in stark contrast to the specific prohibition of the ACT and NT parliament's ability to follow suit. So it is time for our parliament to restore the equality among the state and territory parliaments. To persist with the situation where state parliaments have more rates than territory parliaments is unjust and unfair. If the current situation is to persist, it will mean that citizens who live a short drive from this building, over the border in New South Wales, will continue to have more rights than those who live in the ACT. To continue to hold back the two territory parliaments is to hold back two jurisdictions from debating the very same laws that have been passed in every other state.

It is time for our parliament to restore the full rights of the NT and ACT parliaments to legislate for the peace, order and good governance of their territories in all respect. Not to do so is to say that the representatives and electors in the states should continue to have more rights than those in the territories. To continue to prevent two representative and duly elected bodies from discussing an issue that their respective communities want debated and addressed is fundamentally undemocratic.

The passage of the bill before us today would see the Northern Territory and the ACT fully reinstated as equal partners in our Commonwealth. Fundamentally, the Andrews bill, I believe, was wrong in 1997, and for it to stay in place in 2022 would send a clear message to the people of the ACT and the NT that this parliament does not see them as equals.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I will take this opportunity to place on the record my respect for and thanks to my colleagues from the two territories for their pursuit of equality for their parliaments and citizens. In particular, I'd like to congratulate Alicia Payne MP and Luke Gosling MP, both in the other place, for advocating so powerfully for the restoration of territory rights and for bringing forward this legislation. To my Senate colleague Malarndirri McCarthy I say: your advocacy for the rights of Northern Territorians is legendary, and I am pleased to be here today to support you in that quest. And, of course, I congratulate Senator Katy Gallagher for her outstanding work and advocacy on behalf of Canberrans.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of previous members and senators who have attempted to resolve this issue. I hope that this bill will succeed where others have not. I commend the bill to the Senate.

This is not the first time that we've traversed this issue in this place. In fact, back in 2018 a similar bill was defeated by only two votes, and I was one of them. In this very chamber I stood right over there on the other side and I spoke of section 122 of the Constitution and the inarguable position that the territories do not, as do the states, govern by way of constitutional right, and I remain a fervent believer in the importance of section 122. In this I have not changed my position.

Back then I also spoke about the danger of unicameral parliaments legislating for such consequential issues without the scrutiny of an upper house. And on this issue I am not quite so impassioned, because in 2018 only one state, Victoria, had passed legislation to allow for voluntary assisted dying, although it was yet to be enacted at that time. I know, through conversations with friends in the Victorian parliament, of the extraordinary rigour and scrutiny around that legislation, and now we have all states, including those with a unicameral parliament, adopting their own forms of voluntary assisted dying laws. The scrutiny has already been done: it has been done by other jurisdictions. The argument of unicameral weakness on this issue is, today, far less compelling.

But it was the issue of safeguards that caused me the most hesitation back then—the theory that someone vulnerable may be 'guilted' into deciding to end their life. 'No legislation can legislate against guilt,' I said back then. Well, two years later, in March 2020, I was to learn that, in practice, voluntary assisted dying legislation in my home state of Victoria had so many safeguards in place that it was almost insurmountable to navigate, and that was even for its most qualified and most determined participant: my father, Steve.

My dad was one of the statistics that was mentioned by Senator Antic—this is going to be difficult. Despite their Catholic upbringing and very conservative disposition, my parents had always been committed to exiting on their own terms. That was the phrase that they used. As lifelong Liberals, they felt that this was the ultimate expression of the individual. In the early 2000s they went to a forum by Philip Nitschke, who is the fervently pro assisted-dying physician and activist who was, in fact, the first doctor in the world to administer a legal lethal voluntary injection, under that short-lived Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995. Dad said to me, after he went to that forum, that it was just so heartbreaking to see the desperation in the eyes of so many people there—people in pain; people who loved and looked after people in pain. And he and mum—fit, happy, healthy—never wanted that desperation for themselves.

The first time I realised dad was sick was in this building. When I was elected in 2016 I arranged for him and mum and my three kids to come to Canberra to see my maiden speech. I organised flights and taxis and a private tour of Parliament House and dinners and activities—all while I was wrapped up in that first week, that bewildering week, of being a new senator in this place. But dad wasn't himself. He was breathless; he was frustrated; he couldn't even make it around the building.

I looked recently at the video of my maiden speech. The camera panned onto him. He was sitting right up there. It panned onto him and mum. They're proud, certainly—you can see that—but you can see that dad is in pain and that mum, who had some health and mobility issues of her own, is confused and frightened by their combined helplessness. Over the next three years, dad went from doctor to doctor and to test after test and was diagnosed with absolutely everything from pneumonia to fibromyalgia to gout. He became increasingly unwell, uncomfortable and bad tempered, and each week was defined less by who or what my parents would be seeing, in friends or who St Kilda was playing that weekend, than by which doctor he would be visiting. When finally, in 2019, a random scan showed a shadow on his lung they operated and removed a cancer the size of a cantaloupe. By December he was readmitted to hospital because the cancer had returned, this time to his spine, and he had six months at best.

Exhausted by treatments, by endless trips to hospitals, on Christmas Eve 2019 I sat with him in his hospital room while he explained to his doctor that he no longer wanted to be treated and instead wanted to arrange to receive voluntary assisted dying. That was the beginning of a harrowing three months. His doctor tried to talk him out of it, insisting that palliative care was a better option. But when dad insisted, his doctor simply stopped responding to his requests. It was Christmas, and his medical team all went away on holidays. I don't deny them that; that's fair enough. But dad went downhill rapidly, not just physically but mentally, too.

The voluntary assisted dying safeguards mean that no family member can help organise, request or even discuss voluntary assisted dying. It must be the patient themselves. This is a good safeguard in theory but a very frustrating one when you are the daughter of a stridently adamant, single-minded but increasingly incapable father demanding your help and an overtired, emotional and physically weak mother and have an absent or potentially conscientious-objector team based in a Catholic hospital.

Finally, I called a colleague in the Victorian state parliament and asked them for advice as to how I could help dad navigate this system. She put me onto someone on the advisory panel who pointed me in the right direction—a hotline with no contact details and no voice message, just a simple and unidentifiable 'hello' at the other end. Once we moved past the not unexpected suspicion of a daughter calling on behalf of her father, the ball was put in motion. It took another six weeks of phone calls, demonstrations of competence, demonstrations of independence of mind, interrogation of me, interrogation of my sister and interrogation of my mother to ensure that we weren't applying inappropriate pressure on dad. We also had to go to increasing numbers of appointments—specialists' appointments, doctors' appointments—all of which were becoming increasingly difficult to get to, and show reams of medical certificates and emails to prove that dad's diagnosis was terminal. Everything seemed to rely on somebody else's willingness, somebody else's timetable—not dad's. So the safeguards that I questioned back then were not only there; they were almost insurmountable.

Now, by this stage, my once strong and very bombastic father had lost around 50 kilos. He wasn't eating. He wasn't sleeping. When he did sleep, he had the most terrifying nightmares that he would get up and fall over in the middle of the night. He couldn't shower by himself. He needed 24-hour supervision by a family member because, when he would fall over, mum was too weak to pick him up. He was becoming increasingly difficult to understand; his painkillers were so strong. He muddled his words, and he was genuinely worried that when the doctors would speak to him, they would think he had dementia and that would disqualify him from receiving voluntary assisted dying.

Then COVID hit. Doctors were diverted, restrictions were put in place, and although he had done absolutely everything that was needed, we were told it would still be another three weeks at least before the two voluntary assisted dying doctors could come to his home and show him what to do. When dad heard he had to live for another three weeks, he cried. Now, we were lucky with one thing. Knowing that dad had only three weeks to live and that the COVID restrictions were about to bite, we invited all of his friends over for a party and we drank his good champagne and his best wine from his cellar. It was essentially, whilst nobody said it out loud, a living wake. It was a really special day.

Then day zero finally came. Two men came to the house around 10 am. They were terribly kind, and they were terribly patient. They filled out the paperwork, they got dad's signature, they interviewed us all one last time. They showed dad what to do, they ensured he was competent to do it himself. There were more safeguards right up to the very end. When they left, it was all we could do to stop dad mixing up the mixture straight away, the moment the doors closed behind them. Instead, my kids came over to their grandparents' house. We had a cup of tea, we had some sandwiches, we told a few funny family stories of favourite holidays, happier times.

Then dad went to lie down, and when he was settled my kids went in to say their goodbyes. They left and took themselves back to my house, and then it was our turn. Mum went to speak to dad alone for a while, and then my sister and I joined them. We sat on the bed, and he told us how much he loved us, how proud he was of us. He made us promise to look after mum, and then he mixed up his medicine that he had been shown how to do and he drank it. We held his hand, we told him how much we loved him, and about three minutes later he very calmly and very peacefully and very quietly died.

Now, more than two years on, it's not a small thing to talk about this. Indeed, we will have family and friends who, because of their faith, will be very disappointed to have it confirmed that this was the pathway that my father chose, although I think they might have suspected as much, even if it wasn't spoken of at the time. Dad died on the very day the Prime Minister announced there was only a 10-person restriction on funerals, so we never had that cathartic family congregation with friends and family that would have allowed us to talk about his life or his death. He really loved that, because he never wanted a funeral anyway. He was almost as strident about that as he was about his right to die.

I read through some of the speeches on this issue from my colleagues in here and my colleagues in the other place, and particularly from those who will vote differently from me. They have used the arguments that I once used—all reasonable arguments: section 122, unicameral parliaments and safeguards. However, the most common refrain in any of those speeches is far less clinical, far less intellectual, but no less compelling: 'I know in my heart that this is wrong.' I respect this opinion because I once felt in my heart that it was wrong, too. I once voted against this legislation, but I will be voting in favour of it today.

We say in this place that when we make a decision, we will walk a mile in another man's shoes. Well, I have certainly done that. Having experienced it, having lived it, having held the hand of a person that I deeply loved as he died peacefully, as he died painlessly, as he died willingly and in the manner in which he wanted, the manner in which he had always wanted, and at the time of his choosing, I now feel very, very differently. It was truly a beautiful death.

To those Australians who live in the territories, rather than in any other part of the country that's represented in this chamber, I say to you: who am I to deny you the choice to leave this Earth in the same beautiful way as did my father, Steve. I commend this bill to the Senate.

First of all, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I would like to convey my appreciation to Senator Hume for demonstrating her courage, for sharing her grief and her loss, and for being so open with her feelings and what moved her. I also want to commend Senator Alex Antic for his statements a few speakers ago. I will be following in his footsteps.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the name of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 is deceptive and misleading. In reality it's a backdoor attempt to introduce legalised euthanasia into territory law. This is what occurred with the ill fated Rights of The Terminally Ill Act 1995 that the Northern Territory parliament passed. Two years later, in 1997, Kevin Andrews sponsored Commonwealth legislation, the Euthanasia Laws Act, which reversed the Territory's act. The Northern Territory's act was responsible for the killing of four people. Several others, who had not even satisfied the criteria of the act, were still approved for death using lethal injection.

The Constitution intended that territories do not have the same legislative power of a state, and that remains the case. The Commonwealth parliament may pass legislation on a territory issue, including invalidating a territory law. This is constitutionally correct and it is exactly what happened previously. If the territories wish to exercise the same powers as a state, then the territories need to go through the process of becoming a state. This requires a referendum of territory voters. The last time such a referendum was held, Northern Territory voters rejected the move. They rejected statehood and all the responsibilities that come with it. I am in favour of states' rights, and I've spoken very much about that in this chamber. I'm in favour of states' rights and minimal central or federal government. I will not, though, use that deceptively to get around the fundamental primacy of human life.

I reject this bill before the Senate today because it devalues the lives of those whose needs are not being met, through the failure of government to put in place appropriate palliative care resources. Such resources are conspicuously absent in the Northern Territory now and were absent during the 1995-96 period. That is inhuman. That is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Labor and Liberal-National governments all too often contravene our precious federal Constitution, the governing document of our land, the highest law. I oppose violating the intent of our Constitution yet again. We need to always uphold our Constitution.

After listening to Senator Alex Antic, I commend him and endorse his comments. I agree with Senator Antic that this bill's message is simply that some lives are not worth living. This draws a terrible line that can be shifted in the future. Gradualism is a recognised tactic of those who push antihuman and transhuman policies, such as the senior levels of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, which are openly pushing such transhuman, inhuman and antihuman policies. It's widely used, gradualism. Government has three roles: protect life, protect property and protect freedom. The first is to protect life. I support the primacy of human life and I oppose this bill.

After listening to Senator Hume's speech today I think there's very little more one should really feel they need to say in this debate. But I do want to put my own remarks on the record, in particular because Western Australia has now had the benefit of voluntary assisted dying laws for some time. It's true to say that the uptake has been somewhat larger than initially expected. I put that down to the number of families and people who are in exactly the kinds of shoes of Senator Hume and her father. There have been, as I understand it, some 170 deaths using Western Australia's voluntary assisted dying laws.

I have always been pro-voluntary assisted dying. I haven't had the need for it for people close to me in my own family. However, I have spoken to a great many citizens in my own home state of Western Australia who saw the need for it in the context of their own lives and family experiences. Indeed, my own mother lobbied me. She is 83 and very healthy. She wants the confidence that, should it come to it, should she be in the kind of circumstances that Senator Hume outlined for her father, she would like to be able to access voluntary assisted dying in Western Australia, which brings me to this point. In the case of the ACT you could not have a more pro-voluntary assisted dying jurisdiction in the country. You could not have a more pro jurisdiction in the whole of the nation. Yet, they are the last—along with the Northern Territory—to be able to discuss these issues, debate them and implement them on their own terms. It is patently ridiculous that this is the case.

I say to senators here who oppose this legislation: either we can give the right back to the territories to decide these issues for themselves or this place has an obligation to implement voluntary assisted dying for the ACT. There's no reason that the rights of individuals should be so far behind that of other jurisdictions who have access to voluntary assisted dying already.

The jurisdiction of the ACT could not have, frankly, a more demanding demographic asking for the protection of these laws should they ever need them here in the ACT. We have a jurisdiction that has some of the most progressive and open laws around the possession of marijuana, for example. We haven't taken away the ACT's rights on those questions.

If this place can't allow itself to give the right back to the ACT to pass its own laws, well, what then? Are we simply going to sit here forever, because of the moral conscience of those who are deeply opposed to euthanasia in this place, and, therefore, that conscience leads them to decide that they're going to vote against giving that right to the ACT and the Northern Territory? That could be the outcome, but I hope the numbers are better than that.

It is patently ridiculous that, should we fail, it would be an inevitable consequence that this place would have to think about the citizens it governs because it has not let the ACT and the Northern Territory govern on these questions for themselves. We are simply debating the issue of giving them the right to govern for themselves on these questions. Should we deprive them of that right? It does not take the substantive issue away. As a federal parliament that has the power to intervene in these matters and take that right away, it should frankly mean we would have to debate the introduction and application of laws in the territories to implement voluntary assisted dying.

But who is better to debate those laws? As Senator McCarthy so eloquently outlined, she wants her Territory to have that right back for itself. She would perhaps advocate against the eventual passing of such laws in the Territory. But, again, we need the parliament to be close to the people on these questions. The Northern Territory has diverse First Nations communities to work with, just as my own home state of Western Australia does.

In the case of the ACT, you could not have a more pro-euthanasia, pro-voluntary-assisted-dying jurisdiction. It would be the most pro jurisdiction in the country, just as it was the most pro-marriage-equality jurisdiction in the country. I very much hope that this legislation passes and that the ACT government is already thinking about what these laws would look like with the right protections but, I would hope, not-too-onerous protections. There is very much a balance to get right here, as Senator Hume's very moving speech outlined.

I know these are deeply personal issues. If you are anti-voluntary assisted dying, that is a matter for you and the people you influence in your family. But there is a dire need to support families who are grappling with these issues. Locally in Western Australia there is a very active service doing a great job navigating the voluntary assisted dying laws—not only use of those laws but also strong palliative care support, because many people will pass before they need the use of such legislation.

I thank the Senate for its indulgence in hearing my remarks on this question today. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I rise to make some remarks on this important bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I note there was a prior version of this bill flagged for pretty limited discussion, I must say, in the last parliament by former Senator McMahon. I am very pleased that arrangements have been made to allow senators to make some statements on these matters. I have listened carefully to the various contributions that have been made, and my own view is that it is very hard to separate the issue that has been the driver of this 25-year-old bill from the issue of territory rights. I talk, of course, of voluntary assisted dying.

My general philosophy for political contribution has been one of 'live and let live', which, I think, is an important cornerstone of Australian liberalism and is a philosophy which is shared by other members and senators in this place in various forms. That is the key principle that drives me here in making comments about the issue of voluntary assisted dying.

In relation to the issue of self-government, I think that we are clearly half-pregnant on this issue here in this federal parliament. Either we have decided to grant self-government to the territories—the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory—or we have not. The last time I looked, we had decided to do that, and therefore, if we have decided to grant self-government, then we ought to allow those assemblies to get on with the job of making the laws for their citizens. We have this dreadful situation where my constituents, who live in southern New South Wales, can access voluntary assisted dying, but of course the people of the Capital Territory cannot access the same services should they wish. And there's no way they can get those services, because the jurisdiction in which they live has been granted self-government but the federal parliament has taken away that assembly's right to make laws in some areas, which makes it patently unfair. It's very unfair. So I think it is an issue of democratic civil rights being at stake here, and I am hopeful that this parliament will now overturn what has been a very unjust law which has denied basic access to civil rights in relation to voluntary assisted dying.

For disclosure purposes, I will say that I have spent parts of my life in Canberra, in the Capital Territory, and I don't regard the people who live here as being second-class citizens in Australia. I think that every Australian deserves to have access to the same rights and opportunities. Certainly this law—the 'Andrews bill' when it was enacted—has denied access to equal rights. I do note that it was enacted at a time when the Northern Territory had decided to go it alone and to put in place the first voluntary assisted dying laws in the Commonwealth. But, in 2022—I don't seek to repeat all the arguments that have been made here, but I think it is important for the record to note—we now stand here with the position that the only jurisdictions on the mainland that cannot get access to these services are the territories, because of a 25-year-old law. So, as I say, I think that we should get on, and I hope that we can have a vote on this sooner rather than later. But it is impossible to separate the issue of territory rights from this substantive matter which led to the Andrews bill being enacted wrongly by this parliament.

I note that, of course, there was a stronger case for the Andrews bill perhaps 25 years ago than there is today, where I see no case at all for the Andrews bill. But we are after all a secular nation, and in general terms I think that the 'live and let live' credo is one that can apply across the board. If this bill is successful, it is now up to the legislatures of the territories to enact their own laws, make their own judgements and be accountable to their own citizens. I imagine that, in doing so, they will seek to enact protections so that voluntary assisted dying remains just that—voluntary assisted dying. It is a judgement for individuals to make in accordance with medical professionals and certainly not a right that the federal parliament should try and steal from the territories.

So at the end of the day, there are strong parallels to recent discussions this parliament has had about expanding civil rights like marriage equality. We should always seek to progress the ability of all citizens to access the same rights and services in our country. None of this of course is compulsory. If you don't want to use these services you don't have too, so I entirely reject the argument that enacting or removing the Andrews bill will open the floodgates. Certainly, the protections that have been put in place in the states have shown that the protections can and do work. I thank very much the Senate today for facilitating this debate. I hope it is not too long until we can go to a vote on this important matter.

Debate interrupted.

It being 12:15, we shall now proceed to statements by senators.

Nineteen years old: that is the age of the latest victim killed on our roads, right here in Canberra—a life lost too soon, a young life which has now joined more than 1,170 people killed on our roads in the past 12 months. Road safety is an issue for everyone, a shared responsibility between government, communities and individuals—each and every one of us. It is an issue which will continue to be addressed through the National Road Safety Strategy and the commitment to reduce road fatalities by 50 per cent by 2030, just a mere seven years away.

The National Road Safety Strategy, announced in 2021, is a continuation of the strategy launched in 2011. In the decade since 2011, the strategy has supported a national effort of advancing road safety. The previous strategy saw various achievements from state and territory governments under the Commonwealth's leadership by improving road infrastructure, improving the enforcement of speed limits, as well as vehicle safety enhancements and stronger graduating licensing schemes for new drivers. Against population growth under the last strategy, annual deaths on our roads dropped 22.5 per cent over the decade. However, the number of people hospitalised after an incident on our roads increased.

The strategy works because it brings together people and enables collaboration. As the assistant minister responsible for the National Road Safety Strategy, it is my commitment to continue to grow on the learnings of the last decade. The current strategy focuses on three main themes: safe roads, safe vehicles, safe road use. Embedded throughout the strategy is the understanding that speed management is key to advancing road safety. The principles of the National Road Safety Strategy are the guiding forces behind the delivery of the strategy and the Road Safety Action Plan. The principles include long-term goals of achieving Vision Zero by 2050, transparency and clear governance arrangements to ensure that there is a clear understanding of who is responsible for actions and more. Within the National Road Safety Strategy, it is the Road Safety Action Plan which is revised every five years.

Currently, we are undertaking consultation for the new Road Safety Action Plan. The action plan will strongly contribute to reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads. This action plan will go one step further by setting in place comprehensive performance indicators that will show the extent of transformation of the road transport system during the action plan. In consultation phase, the phase we are currently in, states and territories have been engaged to paint a picture of what road safety programs, initiatives and infrastructure have been rolled out across the country. In doing so, we are ensuring that the new action plan that will move us forward is fit for purpose and best practice.

We already know that states and territories across the country are making headways through innovation and by targeting their road safety spending. To highlight just a couple: in Victoria, young drivers have been encouraged to trade in their older vehicles are newer safer one, with the Victorian government providing a $5,000 subsidy. In Queensland, the StreetSmarts campaign is educating young and old about road safety. Further, the Queensland government yesterday announced a program to support 160 hours of supervised training for aspiring heavy-vehicle drivers.

It is time for our national action plan to incorporate the great work state and territory governments are already doing. In the new action plan, the work of states and territories will inform the measurable outcomes right from the get-go. Unlike previous action plans, this one will be aligned to the National Road Safety Strategy to ensure states and territories and the Commonwealth are working together towards the themes of the strategy. The action plan will be built on our collective strengths in order to address the gaps in road safety understanding, spending and innovation. Next week, I will be hosting a road safety roundtable in Melbourne with peak industries and stakeholders to explore the themes which have emerged from recent consultations on the new Road Safety Action Plan.

We have heard three main themes arising from our consultations: data and research; prioritising investment; and vulnerable road users. Prioritising investment considers the ability of governments to invest in projects which will have tangible impacts on the safety of certain roads. Many of the programs that fall under the national partnership agreement have funding considerations which seek to invest in infrastructure that will have the most impact on the safety of the transport corridor.

Through consultations and meetings with stakeholders, it is clear that data and research has been a common issue. The Office of Road Safety collects and collates road safety data from across the country for BITRE. However, there is a need to understand what road safety data experts consider the most meaningful data to be, and how we can use that data to tell a story about where we've come from, where we are right now and where we hope to be.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to make our roads, drivers and vehicles as safe as possible. But I am confident that, with the passion and dedication of advocates and experts, we will get there. Our task, I know, is supported by all of us—every one of us here. In generations past, we've had clear cultural understandings about what road safety is, how it impacts each and every road user and how, as road users, we share the responsibility of safe road use. Measures which once were considered extreme, like helmets and seat belts, are now employed without a second thought. Mainstream attitudes towards drinking and driving have also dramatically shifted over time, with changes in how we educate new drivers through enforcement campaigns.

These cultural changes have been led by national leadership and collaboration at all levels of our community, from this place right down through to family dinner tables across the country. But cultural change must be retained and reinforced over time. We must ensure that the understanding of what road safety means and what it looks like in practice is passed down to the younger generations. My message is clear, and it could not be clearer: wear a seat belt; don't mix drinking and driving; stop and rest if tired; importantly, slow down on rural and regional roads; don't speed; drive to the conditions; and drive so others survive.

Today I stand up for the people of Ipswich in relation to the New Chum landfill site, which has been an environmental disaster for the people of Ipswich. I stand up for the people of Collingwood Park, Bundamba, Ebbw Vale, Dinmore, Riverview and Booval, and for everyone else in Ipswich who has been impacted by the New Chum landfill facility operated by Cleanaway, an ASX listed public company.

Cleanaway operates the New Chum landfill site at Ipswich, and it has been the subject of ongoing community concern, local protests and media attention. The Queensland government is currently conducting an investigation into Cleanaway's operation to determine if there has been any unlawful activity by Cleanaway. Ipswich City Council has previously called upon the Queensland department of health to conduct an inquiry in relation to the noxious odours coming from the New Chum site. Perhaps as way of introduction, no-one could put it better than the outstanding previous local member for the seat of Bundamba, Jo-Ann Miller, who served as the local state member between the years 2000 and 2020. This is what she said:

This is about the health of tens of thousands of Ipswich people. I live in Collingwood Park. I have suffered from sinus, asthma and headaches. The stench has also caused vomiting and nausea in many people. Families are captive in their houses, with windows and doors shut, can't have a barbecue because of the stink, and are continuously sick. It is a health crisis. It's an environmental crisis.

Can you imagine such a thing?

So I was absolutely gobsmacked to read Cleanaway's recent annual report, released earlier this month, and read some of the details with respect to the remuneration of the senior executives. The fact of the matter is that the senior executives of Cleanaway who have caused this awful environmental impact on the local residents of Ipswich have received 100 per cent of their bonuses linked to environmental performance. They received 100 per cent of their bonuses linked to environmental performance. This is clearly set out in the remuneration report in the annual report, which I have read—all 140 pages—cover to cover. Let me give you some quotes. From page 50:

Group Environment Incident metric has a target level performance and outcome only, which is that there are no significant or major rated environmental incidents.

That essentially means you get the environmental component of the bonus if there are no significant or major rated environmental incidents. That's what the annual report's remuneration report says.

Then we read on page 51 that the senior executives got 100 per cent of their remuneration in relation to environmental performance. In fact the CEO, Mr Schubert, received a total short-term incentive for the year ended 30 June 2022—the financial year in which the people of Ipswich went through misery as a result of this landfill site—of $970,902. That's in addition to his base remuneration and his long-term incentive. I was absolutely gobsmacked.

No environmentally significant act? How's this for significant? The Queensland Department of Environment and Science has a dedicated webpage to the New Chum landfill odour issue. It's got its own webpage. How significant is that? Not significant?

On 14 April 2022, A Current Affair interviewed local residents. I just want to quote from one of them. Tracey Butler and her husband, Gary, live 11 kilometres away from the site. Tracey said:

We get woken up (in the) early hours of the morning and we actually feel like vomiting, and it is that bad, it comes through vents in our bathrooms, through our ceilings.

Not environmentally significant? A Current Affair? April? How about this article in The Courier Mail on 19 April 2022:

Since 2011 locals have struggled with the strong odour coming from the New Chum landfill site.

And I want to quote from Jim Dodrill, a local activist, in relation to this matter:

There's an acidic nature to the air, it's eye-watering. There's that chemical stench component to it, like burnt, soiled disposable nappies.

Not environmentally significant? They got 100 per cent of their bonus related to environmental performance and that's what the local residents are saying. An article from ABC News on 21 May 2022 said the Ipswich City Council actually wanted Queensland Health to set up an inquiry in relation to the health impact on local residents. Not environmentally significant?

How about the environmental protection order issued on 21 June 2022 by the Queensland government? Not environmentally significant? This protection order actually says in paragraph 7:

Since 8 March 2022 to date, the department has received over 3,000 reports about nuisance odour from Collingwood Park, Bundamba, Ebbw Vale, Dinmore, Riverview and Booval areas of Ipswich.

Is that not environmentally significant? They got 100 per cent of their bonus related to environmental performance.

I will quote from Cleanaway's ASX media release on 22 June 2022:

In FY22, $30-40 million of costs are expected to be incurred relating to rectification and remediation at New Chum.

That is $30 million to $40 million! Is that not environmentally significant? Their independent auditor's report from their own annual report has a section that deals with significant matters that occurred during the year, and that actually refers to the New Chum issue. Is that not environmentally significant? Are they deserving of 100 per cent of their STI and bonus, notwithstanding the misery that they have put the people of Ipswich through?

I also raise the matter of Cleanaway's continued pursuit of an appeal against the Ipswich city council's refusal of their development application to expand their operations at New Chum. With this performance, they have the gall to actually want to expand their operations at New Chum. Given what has happened at the New Chum landfill site, it astounds me that Cleanaway thinks it should continue with its appeal. Whatever the court decides with respect to the planning law, let me say this in this place: Cleanaway has no social licence to expand its operation at New Chum. It has absolutely no social licence; that social licence has been forfeited. Their focus should be on remediation and rectification of the site, causing the minimal impact to residents.

I used to be the company secretary of an ASX-listed public company; I know where to look, and I did look. Astoundingly, in the accounts in their financial report, in note 2 on page 86—it's so small I've had to take my glasses off; hang on, I've got to close one eye to read it—they've actually made an assumption that their appeal against Ipswich city council's decision to knock back their development application is going to be successful, and that's how they've prepared their accounts. Well, let me tell you that I've looked at the decision that Ipswich city council made, and there are pages and pages and pages of reasons why they knocked back the application. But they've prepared their accounts on the basis that their appeal is going to be successful. I'd call that very courageous. It's very courageous.

Lastly, they've been issued with a notice of proposed amendment by the department of environment in response to the generation and release of odours from the site. They had until 6 September to make a submission to the department about the proposed amendments to its EA. And do you want to know what Cleanaway says in relation to this? I went to their community website. This is what they say:

This proposal is subject to a statutory process and we will continue to work with the Department of Environment and Science on the best outcomes for all stakeholders.

The stakeholders know what they want: fix it; remediate it; rectify it. The people of Ipswich have lived through this misery long enough.

The annual general meeting of Cleanaway is going to occur in October. I call upon all institutional shareholders to look at Cleanaway's performance in the lead-up to that AGM and hold this company to account for the misery which it has caused the people of Ipswich.

Today I rise to speak about the urgent need to tackle the student debt crisis. Each year we send thousands of students out into the world with a burden of increasingly large, crushing debts that hold them back. The Greens are the party of public education and we have a clear and steadfast position on this: student debt should not exist; university fees should not exist; student poverty should not exist; education should be free, fully funded and properly resourced for everyone at every age, from early childhood through to university and TAFE.

We took to the recent election a radical plan for higher education. We were the first and the only party to commit to abolishing all outstanding student debt, and this includes forgiving outstanding debts from the grossly unjust Student Financial Supplement Scheme. The scheme was a rort that targeted low-income and disadvantaged students from the start. For the government to continue to collect debts on SFSS 15 years on from its abolition is simply unconscionable.

We outlined our position to make TAFE and university free and to guarantee a liveable income for students. Our plan to wipe every last cent of student debt costs less than one-third of the cost of the stage 3 tax cuts. Unlike those tax cuts, which put money back into the pockets of the wealthiest and the billionaires, our plan primarily benefits people on low and middle incomes, young people and women.

Cancelling student debt would be a powerful way to narrow the inequality gap. Abolishing all student debt would have an enormous positive impact on the daily lives of millions of people, especially young people, who would be able to afford to live a better life. When I announced the Greens plan to abolish student debt, people shared with me what this would mean for them. I'll share a few of those comments today.

It will mean I can get on with working and building a life without worrying about debt.

It means I can save up to enter the property market earlier.

Not only will it provide immediate mental relief, but would enable me to be able to pursue meaningful personal goals as well as approach each day more positively. Education is an asset to society, it should not be commodified for profit.

Those are only some of the comments I received.

It's no wonder that our policies are resonating so well with younger voters, who understand that the major parties have abandoned them and that the Greens is the party that cares for them. Unfortunately, we know this government did not take to the election a vision to make the big sweeping changes needed to transform and drastically improve education in this country, just as they did not take to the election a plan to fix the housing crisis or the climate crisis. But they must be pushed to do more and do more quickly, and that's what the Greens are here to do. Immediate steps can be taken to provide cost-of-living relief to students and anyone with a study loan as we work towards the abolition of all student debt and a future where TAFE and university are free for all.

More than three million people in Australia owe a total of around $70 billion in outstanding student debt. More than 1.3 million of those people have debts greater than $20,000. Significantly more women have study debts than men. It's no small problem, and it's not one we can afford to ignore any longer as fees hiked up by the Morrison government's terrible Job-Ready Graduates Package will drive up debt even higher, and it will take longer for students to pay it off.

Young people are already bearing the brunt of the cost-of-living crisis, just as they bore the economic brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic due to rising rents, insecure work and stagnant wages. Add to that ballooning student debts that can take decades to pay off and government inaction and this can't be seen as anything other than punching students and graduates while they're already down.

The hip-pocket harm of having exorbitant student debt repayments withheld from pay cheques isn't the only harm we're seeing done by this. Only last week we saw renewed testimony from people with study debts and lenders that outstanding HELP debts are preventing people from getting finance for a house or are severely limiting the amount that they are able to borrow. It's tough enough to find secure housing as it is. Allowing the problem of student debt to go unaddressed will only make it worse in the months and years to come for so many people.

As reported in the Guardian Australia, for a Brisbane woman called Tracy her debt proved an obstacle last year when she tried to get a $20,000 loan to replace her 27-year-old car. She said, 'I had a lot of trouble with my borrowing capacity because of my HECS debt.' Even if there were no cost-of-living crisis, we have to be clear on the principle that underscores all our efforts for free public education and an end to student debt. High-quality education is a basic right that should be universal and free, not a privilege reserved for those who can afford to pay for it. Yet for those studying in higher education this debt keeps going up and up.

The abolition of student debt is really not a new idea, nor should it be a controversial one. If Joe Biden 's mostly boring, mostly centrist government can wipe student debt of more Americans than Australia has HELP debtors, then we certainly can do the same. The cancellation of those debts is a credit to the work of activists and students in the US, whose work has brought us to this.

The last decade has been a particularly tortured time for students and graduates in this country, with surveys in this period showing that two-thirds of university students live below the poverty line and at least 15 per cent of domestic full-time students go without food or necessities because they just cannot afford them. They are in this state largely due to almost a decade of disgraceful attacks on higher education by the Liberal coalition government. In 2016, and again in 2018, fresh from a few failed attempts to jack up uni fees, the Liberals introduced legislation which significantly lowered the minimum repayment income for student loans to hike the rate and pace of repayments. Without the Liberals' changes, the minimum repayment income today would be more than $63,000, significantly higher than the $48,000 it is today. These cuts to the minimum repayment income were incredibly cruel. No-one with a study debt should repay a cent of that debt until they are earning above the average wage and are genuinely in a position to do so without suffering financial hardship. The changes resulted in thousands upon thousands of graduates being forced to start repaying student loans before they could find their feet and long before they were making an average wage and could afford to make those repayments.

When 2020 rolled around, the Liberals came back for another go at university fees and funding with the disastrous Job-ready Graduates Package, which hiked fees, cut funding and massively shifted the cost of delivering a university education away from the government and onto students. The fee changes were no small tweaks either. They more than doubled the fees for degrees like arts and commerce to more than $14,000 a year. On average, the package drove up fees for women by 10 per cent, compared to six per cent for men.

With the fee hikes came the enormous cuts to teaching and learning funding, which have since forced universities to teach more students with less money across the board. The funding cuts and fee hikes must be undone and reversed urgently. This June, with inflation skyrocketing, 3.9 per cent indexation was applied to all student debt, adding more than $900 to the average student debt. For many students, that figure was much higher. That 3.9 per cent was the highest indexation rate in a decade. But with inflation not yet at its forecast peak it's on track to get even worse in 2023.

These events are fuelling the explosion in student debt, which is hurting students today and urgently needs to be addressed. While average house mortgages doubled in the 15 years to 2021, average student loans almost tripled. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of debts worth over $10,000 has also increased dramatically, from 47.5 per cent in 2005 to more than 72 per cent today. ABS data also show that in 2021 more than 27,000 people had loans in excess of $100,000. For the benefit of millions of people in the country, instead of giving tax breaks to the wealthy, let's abolish all student debt.

I'm going to quote words today from a very good friend of mine, Mike Williams. Mike Williams is a long-distance truck driver, very well-known in the trucking industry, and is also a co-host of the On The Road podcast. These are all his words, but I must say, out of respect, I've changed a couple of them because Mike does talk like a truckie, and there's nothing wrong with that:

I was driving down the Hume highway the other day and much to my surprise I looked over to the left and I saw a dirty great big billboard. It was put there by a G1 GDS from Mildura and they're looking for drivers and subcontractors and things like that and I'm thinking dear oh dear idea that's not what you would normally see it's certainly a little more permanent than an ad page in Big Rigs Magazine and it's a little bit more serious than a short spot advertising on a radio station or something like that.

So I was wondering what's going on. That is a big investment. Are drivers that hard to come by and I really think that they are. McCabes transport at Unanderra now are offering a $5000 sign on bonus. Now that's not unheard of; it's been happening in the West for a while, stay for six months and you'll get 10 grand in some of those businesses in the west but it's a common thing in the States to be offered sign on bonuses and there are also strings attached and I'm sure there are with McCabe's deal as well but we're at the point now where driver recruitment is becoming a real issue. People don't want to go out and drive trucks anymore. They don't wanna do long-distance work, they don't want to get out there and do it and we have to ask ourselves why that's the case.

Now I think I know the answer to that, I think the answer comes down to pay and conditions. If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times the kilometre rate in my opinion is simply wage theft. I don't care how you spin it, if you're not being paid for the work that you do then somehow or another someone's making a profit out of it, it's not you, it's not fair, it's not right. All the work that we do is measured in hours in our logbook. We all know that to be true. How the hell can anyone get away with paying you from GPO to GPO when you might be running from Eastern Creek to Dandenong.

It's not right and it's not fair. How then can they expect you to load and unload, wash your truck, fuel your truck and do all these things that are around your truck, sit for hours on end waiting around distribution centres because it suits whatever big box carter that you need to sit there and even more to the point now guys are going to sit in warehouses with fridge trailers running, with diesel being burnt at the price of diesel at the moment. How can anybody justify that, how can anybody think that it is even more remotely fair, remotely sensible, it's not, in no world is it sensible and the only people that are making any money out of this are the fuel companies, the mechanics.

You would like to think the bosses are making some money out of it but the drivers, the guys that are on the front end, that are actually doing the work, we are getting 5/8s of absolutely bugger all of a share of what's going on, we need to be paid by the hour with penalty rates, with overtime rates, with RDO's, with overtime paid for Saturday and Sunday and public holidays. Now some of us enjoy those things and I am one of them, I admit it but it's not that common, there are a lot of guys out there that are running on the Km rate.

And then of course if we look at the situation where we get guys who are getting into these bigger combinations now and they are paid cents on the dollar to drive a much bigger truck with more freight going into depots, they are expected, some of them to help out, they're expected to help unload and reload these things and they're not getting that much more money for it and they are suffering the added penalty of having to drive these things slower, a lot of them are speed limited to doing 90 on the East Coast, you can't do more than 90 in some of these PBS vehicles.

These pocket road trains they call 'A' doubles that we run over here on the East Coast now 90 km an hour, I mean put a 53 foot trailer on and you're only doing 90 km an hour. It's just not right, not fair. It's the drivers that are actually doing the work that are out there away from home, their families are sacrificing, we're the ones getting the log book fines, we're the ones getting the stupid clerical error fines, we're the ones actually out here at the coalface doing the job and the people that make the stuff happen. they jump into their car, go home and they've got toilets and all that.

Look at the crap we have had to put up with at Gatton, a place that really should have toilets and shower and all that of thing and they don't even bother to put them there. $18 Million they spent on that facility and what have we got there now a couple of plastic porta loos. It's a big step forward to nothing but it is no way good enough. Look at the rest areas that we've got, there are some really really good ones out there and some of us enjoy them and use them but the vast majority of places where you stop in this Country, no toilets.

There might be a rubbish bin, there might be a cement table with a half baked awning over the top of it. You've got blokes driving small cab over prime movers with no room, you can't put anything in them. No-one seems to get a custom interior in this country, I don't understand why not? It doesn't make any sense to me and we wonder why we can't recruit drivers, well we're not paying them enough, that's the first thing.

The conditions are terrible, people say to me "well don't be a truck driver then, we're not holding a gun to your head", well you know you're not. I personally love what I do, I drive, I get out there, I have a concert in my cab, I enjoy myself, I do my job, I'm lucky I've got a great job, work for a great company, and everything for me is quite happy.

But there are some guys out there that don't enjoy what I enjoy and my goal in life has always been to in some way or another make other guys lives more comfortable and I wanna point out that while you get people like G1 that are putting billboards on the side of the road, I honestly think if you look at the social media every man and his dog is after drivers.

Now I'm wondering if they have factored in the cost of all this recruiting in their turnover. Why are they having drivers walk away, drivers walk away from management, they don't walk away from truck driving. They give up their job because something is happening in that job that they can't live with and for some reason they can't talk about it.

Now that's on management in my opinion. If your drivers can't come to you and have a chat about what's going on their job, it's probably because you haven't told them that they can come to managers, that's on you!

Drivers leave managers, they don't leave trucking. What they do is take their very transportable skills, their very portable skills and give them to someone else. Whether it's for more money, better trucks, better conditions, a better lifestyle, more home time, whatever it is, businesses need to learn that the asset that they have, which is most important to them, is the good drivers they have.

I'm sure there are some companies who would say you know I don't care if Billy leaves, he's a pain in the butt, he's been a pain in the butt the whole time he's been here, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out Billy.

I'm sure there are a few of those around and if that's your choice and if you want Billy to go, by all means let him go but I'm also sure there are drivers out there working for companies who the bosses would be heartbroken if they left and they're out there and they do do it, they do leave and they do go somewhere else. They don't quit trucking, they don't go and start playing marbles or professional golf or working in the shop, they genuinely take their portable skills and go somewhere else.

It's about time people need to realize and understand, the management need to understand that you're much better off to maybe spend a few more dollars on some trucks with better facilities in them or make sure that you're getting your drivers home on the weekend or doing whatever it is that you need to keep those good workers working for you, not taking their skills and not going somewhere else. This is stuff we need to talk about.

We really do need to get a handle on this. Driver recruitment, driver retention and driver training for me are the three biggest issues in transport right now, right up there with rates. If you're not getting paid the right rates, then you can't do any of the other three things.

That's the end of the quote from Mike. Mike and I stand shoulder to shoulder, hip to hip on this. And I will say something about where maybe I differentiate a little bit here. There are some very, very good employers who do pay a kilometre rate, and I will name Linfox—and I'll wait for the haters to start coming. In my home state of Western Australia—my son actually worked for Linfox at some stage—they pay a kilometre rate. They pay a very, very healthy kilometre rate. But they also make sure that their drivers do not load and unload. If for some reason they have to, they kick straight onto an hourly rate, which is way above the crappy award. And I will say this, too: some of the top drivers at Linfox turn over $180,000-plus. So, not all are bad, but the majority of those paying kilometre rates in our industry—it is criminal; it needs to be stopped.

And I'm going to say this very proudly here now. Now we've got Minister Tony Burke, who knows that this is a problem. Senator Sheldon and I have been banging on about this for the last 30 years. We're going to put a stop to this. If you're a good employer, you pay your people properly, and I know the good employers are on my side and agreeing with everything that I say and that Mike says as well.

Today over 4.3 million Australians live with a disability. Since its implementation in 2013, the NDIS has grown to transform the lives of over 540,000 Australians with significant and permanent disability. But the NDIS was never designed or intended to be the sole provider of disability support in Australia. Today there is genuine and justified longstanding concern across our nation about the absence of insurance coverage for people who are victims of a catastrophic incident but are not eligible for the NDIS—that is, they are over 65 years of age. Last week we heard about the class action prepared by Mitry Lawyers regarding the exclusion of over-65s from the NDIS.

This is not a new issue. In 2011 the Productivity Commission recommended the establishment of two separate but complementary insurance schemes: the NDIS, which we know was implemented, and the NIIS, the National Injury Insurance Scheme. The NDIS, as we all know, was implemented but only parts of the NIIS have been implemented so far by the state states and territories.

At that time, it was proposed that the NIIS would cover four categories of catastrophic injuries: workplace accidents; motor vehicle accidents; medical injury accidents; and general accidents, including sporting injuries, falls and the like. To date, all states and territories have implemented the workplace and motor vehicle streams. In 2017 COAG made the decision not to proceed with the medical injury stream. Sadly, the general accident stream, while COAG agreed it should proceed, has not been progressed further by any state or territory. So now if a person is aged over 65 and is met with a catastrophic injury they have to seek support through the aged-care and the health sectors. As we've heard very publicly, this is particularly difficult for Australians who do not have the financial means to support themselves. This general accident stream was designed to be a scheme for somebody over 65 who has had a fall off their roof or a sporting injury.

This week, I wrote to the Treasurer raising my concerns about this issue. I reiterated the need for another scheme that works alongside the NDIS to provide disability support for those who suffer so-called general catastrophic accidents. In my letter to the Treasurer I did note three options that I saw for the Commonwealth to consider how to move forward on this matter. While the Commonwealth does not have an ability to force the states and territories to do this, I do see three options for the Commonwealth to consider.

The first option is for the Commonwealth to work together with states and territories to establish the catastrophic accident scheme as a standalone scheme, as per the original Productivity Commission's recommendations.

The second option is to agree with states and territories on what constitutes a catastrophic accident and get them to reimburse the NDIS costs of those particular participants, in line with the motor vehicle and workplace accident streams which are already in operation. This would effectively create the NIIS within the NDIA, but again take funding pressure off the scheme.

The third option that I see is to renegotiate the intergovernmental agreements themselves with states and territories to increase contributions to the NDIS, given their failure to establish that scheme.

I remain deeply concerned that after 10 years of deliberation and inaction, we do not yet have this category of general accident, no-fault support for Australians over 65. It is time for our nation to address this gap and implement the general accidents stream, particularly for the over 65s.

Acting Deputy President, as you well know, it is a great privilege to be a senator for the great state of Western Australia. The most wonderful part of that job is getting out and about to meet, listen, learn and gain a greater understanding of the issues right across our wonderful state.

After two years of COVID restrictions it was important for me to return to Exmouth and the amazing North West Cape region to see the community's progress on a range of issues that I had been on working with them. A key theme that emerged from the many meetings and one-on-ones with community groups was an issue of balance—balance between the environmental requirements of this most beautiful and very special part of the world and the requirements of defence facilities across the North West Cape. And the issue of balance between the growing needs of local residents, particularly with the state government considerations of infrastructure and services, and the increasing boon in tourism right across the cape. It is now an issue of how to deal with and balance that. My thanks to the Shire of Exmouth CEO, Ben Lewis, who updated me on the very wide range of local infrastructure requirements and development plans they have underway. We canvassed a range of problems and barriers, but, pleasingly, we identified a range of solutions we can work on together.

I also had the pleasure of returning to RAAF Base Learmonth, this time on behalf of the Parliament of Australia's public works committee. I thank Defence and the committee for facilitating this very helpful and instructive visit.

I would also like to pass on my thanks to the Exmouth Chamber of Commerce for holding a round table for me with a wide range of local businesses. We discussed issues currently facing the community, including things like the rising cost of insurance, the lack of GPs on the Cape, the lack of aged-care facilities, working visa restrictions for a much-needed workforce and the chronic lack of housing in the area.

I also returned to see the progress of the Minderoo Foundation's Exmouth research lab. What they are now doing is nothing short of extraordinary. They're delivering world-leading marine research through the Flourishing Oceans initiative. It is something all Australians should be very proud of.

What is not yet clear is how all levels of government, including Defence, will now come together to find that balance between all those competing interests, with the history of Exmouth and the Cape, so that the amazing marine parks we have can meet the needs of the local communities and the tourists. There are ways forward but we have to now, as an urgent priority, work together to make that happen.

As you know, Acting Deputy President Dean Smith, Exmouth has an extraordinary history. Exmouth itself was constructed in the late 1960s to support the joint Australia-US Harold E. Holt naval communications base, to house the US Navy personnel and also their families. They truly did create a little America in Exmouth. The town was filled with all aspects of American life, which was very unique in Australia. Many of the men and women who moved there when it was nothing more than sand dunes to build Exmouth are still there today.

When the management operation of the site was handed over to private contractors, the facility remained. When I visited these and other defence facilities on the site I was somewhat stunned and surprised, as was the US ambassador at the time, to find out the land had never been handed back from the US government to the Australian government, which accounted for why these wonderfully historic buildings were decaying in front of our eyes. I was pleased at the time to initiate the handback. I am told the negotiations are progressing well but are not yet concluded.

One final mystery remains—I will be very happy for anybody to shed light on this. I noticed a photo of Harold E. Holt receiving a plaque with a single peppercorn on it from the US government representative, symbolic of payment for the lease of the land at Exmouth. I have been trying very hard to relocate that plaque because I think it would be very fitting for Exmouth to have that returned to it when the lease is formally handed over so that we can symbolically give it back to the United States and then house it permanently in Exmouth. If anybody can shed light on where that plaque may now be, please let me know. It would be a wonderful piece of history to retain.

[inaudible] tiring work in hot, often dangerous conditions and too often dealing with difficult and impatient customers. In recognition of that fact, fast-food workers are entitled to a paid 10-minute break in a four-hour shift—unless, it seems, you work for the tax-dodging wage thieves at McDonald's. McDonald's has been taken to court by the SDA for cheating 250,000 workers out of their paid breaks and, in the process, stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from its workers. The SDA has evidence of McDonald's rolling this rort out across the country. There's Thomas, who was told by his manager that because he is allowed to have water whenever he likes he's not entitled to a paid break. Really? McDonald's is paying its workers in water? And there's Victoria, who was told by her Macca's manager: 'They are technically a thing, but we don't do them in this store because we are too busy.' That's what the manager had to say.

When you steal someone's rest break, it isn't just theft, it's a safety issue. Sam, a Macca's worker from southern Sydney, has told me about how he and his colleagues never received their 10-minute breaks. He saw exhausted co-workers slice their hands and suffer severe burns as a result of fatigue. It just so happens that McDonald's is the largest employer of young people in Australia. It's a major multinational taking advantage of young Australians and vulnerable workers. This is happening in McDonald's stores across Australia. It isn't an accident or the case of a few bad franchisees. In fact, much of this wage theft allegedly occurred at stores run directly by McDonald's.

And what's the best defence that McDonald's highly paid lawyers could come up with? McDonald's defence is that their staff aren't entitled to their 10-minute break because they're taking microbreaks of a few seconds each whenever they go to the toilet or have a drink. McDonald's are saying every time you have a sip of water or go to the bathroom that's your break. If McDonald's argument is accepted, then every shift worker in Australia can say goodbye to their breaks as well.

Some SDA members were told by Maccas that if they wanted to get more shifts they needed to quit the SDA. In some stores, managers put photos of union members up on the wall to single them out and intimidate them. Again, we're talking about workers who are mostly 16 and 17 years old—in their first job—being bullied by McDonald's to quit their union.

And what does Maccas do with all the money it steals from Australian workers? It sends it all overseas, to avoid tax. In 2020, it paid a service fee of $558.5 million to an offshore McDonald's entity. That's right, a fee for nothing. But it allowed McDonald's to reduce the amount of tax it paid in Australia that year by $120.4 million. You can add that to the $250 million in alleged wage theft and $600 million in potential penalties. McDonald's has been ripping Australia off for too long, and, McDonald's, I'm putting you on notice: this has got to stop here.

And here's my message to anyone working at Macca's who has had their paid breaks stolen. Back when I worked as a bar attendant and a cleaner, smoko was sacred. If you aren't getting a paid break, Macca's are stealing from you. So join your union, the SDA; stand up together against the crooks stealing your wages, and tell Macca's, to quote shed rock legends The Chats, 'I'm on smoko, so leave me alone.'

I would like to speak about the vaccine rollout, and, in particular, the number of COVID cases we've had in the last nine months. Effectively, Australia opened up from its lockdowns in December last year. At that time we had a couple of hundred thousand cases. We're currently running at about 10.2 million cases in nine months. So my question to the head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt, is: how can he uphold the claim that the vaccines are 92 per cent effective in stopping transmission and infection? It's about time we had some honesty from the TGA and ATAGI about the effectiveness of the vaccine because mandates are still in place and people are still carrying injuries.

We are currently up to 136,000 reported injuries from the vaccine. Over 50 per cent of them come from the state health departments. These claims should not be dismissed out of hand, as they are by the TGA. It is incredibly reckless and impertinent for the TGA to claim of the 900 reported deaths that only 1,400 were from the vaccine and the other 900 people who have lodged these vaccine claims, of which 50 per cent are from state health departments and another 20 per cent are from doctors, that they, the TGA, would know more about the circumstances of the particular victim than the medical professionals who actually diagnosed the victims themselves. That is incredibly arrogant, in my view.

The last thing I want to talk about in terms of numbers and data is the actual number of deaths that occurred in Australia last year. This year we've seen a rise in deaths from last year of around 8,500 people. About 50 per cent of that is related to COVID deaths and about 50 per cent is non-COVID. The non-COVID deaths are running at an increase of about 1,000 a month. Last year, before the COVID outbreak really took off in the community, we had an increase in deaths from the year before. The number of deaths jumped from 14,000 in May 2020 to 15,000 in May 2021. In June, they jumped from 13,267 in 2020 to 14,844 in 2021. That's a jump of 1,600 people, almost 10 per cent. COVID wasn't in the community last May, June and July. There was an outbreak in New South Wales and Victoria at that time, and the lockdowns then proceeded.

Long story short: we end up with about 8,700 extra deaths last year. That all happened in the last eight months of the year, and it started to occur in the month after the vaccine rollout. Of that increase, only 400 are attributable to the increase in COVID deaths. There were 1,300 COVID deaths last year, an increase of 400 from 2021. The question is what caused the other thousand deaths a month after the vaccine rollout occurred. I'm not saying it was because of the vaccine rollout; it could have been a delayed reaction from the lockdowns the year before. We know that in 2020 we had 162½ thousand deaths and in 2019 we had 164½ thousand deaths. There was a drop of about 2,000 that could have occurred because of the lockdowns. Even so, that would still mean there was an increase of around 6,000 people that hasn't been accounted for. Given that the vaccine is still under provisional approval—and because it's provisionally approved—the black-triangle scheme applies. That means that any injury or anything that occurs in a short period after somebody gets a vaccine should always be assumed to be the vaccine until proven otherwise.

I am calling on the TGA to take these figures, whether it be the increase in actual deaths, the massive rate of reported injuries—yes, I know 23 million people got vaccinated, but the injury rate is 50 times higher than the normal rate of injuries from a vaccine. In 2019 about 13 million people got the flu vaccine, of whom only about 140 reported injuries. Of the 20 million people who got the COVID vaccine, we've now got 135,000 injuries. That's an increase of almost a thousand despite that fact that only 50 per cent extra people got vaccinated. They're very serious figures that should be looked at.

I also want to jump onto the actual biochemistry, which I didn't finish off last time. I refer to the paragraph on top of page 8 of the TGA's nonclinical report that can be found in their freedom of information log 2389-6 from 15 July 2021:

The expressed—

spike—

protein co-localised with an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) marker, suggesting the S protein is synthesised and processed within the ER for surface expression or secretion.

For those of you who don't know, you have a cell and a number of organelles in your cell. You have the ribosomes, which produce proteins, and a nucleus, which is where your genetic code is stored. You also have mitochondria, which help create oxygen in the cell, and then you have this thing called the endoplasmic reticulum. That surrounds the nucleus, and it's known as the warehouse, storage and transport part of the cell. That's where you package up proteins created by the ribosomes for export from the cell. Ribosomes can be linked to the endoplasmic reticulum. Any protein that is created by a ribosome bound to the endoplasmic reticulum is basically ready for export, unlike a free ribosome. Any protein created from a free ribosome within the cytoplasm of the cell actually stays within the cell.

What I want to know is: why have the TGA let this go through if the vaccine is creating a spike protein that can be secreted from the cell? The name of the game with a vaccine is to destroy the pathogen; it is not to create a pathogen that is being exported from the cell. I'm extremely concerned by this because there have been reports of clots and clotting as a result of the vaccine. We need to know whether or not that is because the cell is secreting a spike protein and then that spike protein isn't being broken down and it's congealing into a longer amyloid clot. They're questions that concern me a great deal.

I want to touch on a couple of questions I had from the TGA that they did finally answer after about eight months. I put some of these questions to them about eight months ago, and they took a very long time to answer. I asked whether or not the PCR test could distinguish between an active and an inactive virus. They came back to me and they said that the PCR test cannot differentiate between a live and a dead virus. To think that we've gone ahead and locked down an entire country, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, using a test that couldn't distinguish between a live and active virus and a dead virus is quite breathtaking, to say the least.

Yet again, it's indicative of how we don't apply quality assurance in this country. I was asked very early on by pathologists why we weren't doing proper blood testing. The traditional way to work out what's wrong with you is to get your bloods—everyone's familiar with that expression—yet somehow we managed to get away with using a test that was actually unreliable. Further questions need to be put to the TGA, and this needs to go further. Going forward, we cannot rely on tests that don't distinguish between a live and an inactive virus.

The last thing I'd like to touch on today is the reply that I got from the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health and Aged Care when I asked about the indemnity scheme and the number of people who had been paid out on that scheme. They said that the vaccine is very important, and they referred to the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages and how we no longer live with the bubonic plague. They said that this virus is like the bubonic plague. That's actually not true. That's actually very misleading.

The bubonic plague was a bacteria spread by fleas that bit you and infected your blood. The virus is a single-stranded RNA. A bacteria is a living organism—you're taught that in junior secondary school—whereas a virus is not considered a live organism at all. Bacteria don't mutate. DNA viruses don't mutate, because they're double stranded and they're hooked together, but RNA viruses do.

It's extremely misleading of the department of health to be comparing this pandemic with the pandemic that occurred in the Middle Ages, and many other pandemics, because it is a different type of pathogen. It concerns me that the department of health doesn't understand its pathogens. This is biology 101. Bacteria is different to double-stranded DNA. It's different to RNA. A number of bacterial viruses that we get vaccinated for are whooping cough, bubonic plague, tetanus, meningitis, tuberculosis, cholera, typhoid and diphtheria. The DNA viruses are smallpox and chickenpox. Measles, mumps and rubella are single-stranded RNA. (Time expired)

Although I was born in India near the Pakistani border, and spent my formative years there, as a senator I am a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. I normally finish my speeches with a reminder to the Senate that we have one flag; we are one community; we are one nation. Today it's necessary to put that reminder up front.

Everything we are as a nation has come from working together. Australia itself resulted from the people of each state agreeing to put aside their differences and become one nation. Success in defending Australia during World War I and World War II resulted from unity: unity of purpose and unity of action. In fact, Australia's immigration slogan at the time was, 'One people, one destiny.' Amen to that.

Our first major test as a nation, Gallipoli, saw 34 brave Aboriginals serving. Twelve lost their lives, part of 8,141 Australian fatalities. Gallipoli cost the lives of 1,359 Indian and Pakistani soldiers fighting alongside Australians. Those casualties were recorded together, as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not formed until 1947. Our beautiful country was forged through the sacrifice of all who live here, including First Australians and including Pakistanis.

Perhaps this fact is lost on those who seek to inflame hatred and division for political advantage, seeking to concoct victims and in the process disempower those same people. Those coming to this country from Pakistan cannot have forgotten the two million people who were killed, many in the most horrific of circumstances, on all sides, in the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. That slaughter should stand as a warning against dividing our community on the basis of race, religion or genetics, and then setting one against another. We can prevent such horror in Australia. It's as simple as wholeheartedly accepting anyone to our country who accepts Australia wholeheartedly and, in the obverse, showing the door to those who would tear us down.

One does not come to Australia and bring the battles of one's homeland with them. We are seeing that right now in the UK, with running battles between Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus on the streets of Leicester. This happens as a result of new arrivals unable to let go of historical battles and of the anger and hatred those still elicit. We are one community because we must be one community. History repeatedly shows nothing else works.

Today 7.7 million Australians were born overseas. I was most honoured recently to attend a citizenship ceremony with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane at City Hall, welcoming new Australians. These were people who love our country, who want to join in with our community and who want to share the gifts Australia has provided for millennia. One Nation embraces people coming to our country to start over, to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour and, through that, lift up all of those already here.

In One Nation's world, religion and skin colour do not matter. Decency matters, honesty matters, integrity matters. Lining one's pockets while whinging about the country that provided the whinger with great wealth is hypocritical and just plain nasty. A favourite quote of mine has its origins in the Talmud, the Jewish holy book: 'We do not see the world as it is; we see the world as we are.' It should be no surprise those who harbour racism and hatred in their hearts would perceive those things in others and construct it in others.

Abuse of our constitutional head of state is abuse of our culture. It's abuse of Australia. In the debate around the republic or colonial history from a bygone era, one will reap what one sows. Department respect begets disrespect; respect begets respect. Those who seek to divide are really seeking to destroy and to then rebuild Australia in their own image, a horrible image full of and indeed bulging with incessant negativity and intolerance, a world of sanctimony, hypocrisy and hate, designed to scare and intimidate voters into supporting policies that on any measure are unsupportable. One Nation will not be dragged down into a vile cesspit given too much oxygen in this place.

The 103,000 Australians who have given their lives for this country would never have imagined their sacrifice against an enemy abroad could now be undermined through the actions of an enemy within. One Nation has always stood against those who would tear down our beautiful country, and we will continue to so stand. Let me say again: we have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation. We are proudly one nation.

There is certainly only one Senator Malcolm Roberts!

So far this season in Queensland, we've seen 12 federally protected humpback whales entangled in shark nets. Twelve federally protected whales were tangled in shark nets in Queensland. It's not just whales. These shark nets, run by the New South Wales government and the Queensland government, are indiscriminate killers and weapons of mass destruction for protected and endangered marine life. It's estimated that, in the New South Wales so-called shark protection program, up to 20,000 marine animals have been killed—hundreds every year: whales, dolphins, turtles, stingrays, protected sharks—and in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park alone, where recently a court case forced the Queensland government to take out shark nets and lethal drum-lines, it was estimated that over 80,000 marine animals, many of them federally protected species, have been killed in these shark nets. This is a federal issue for which we have federal responsibility. So why are we shirking responsibility on this issue to protect our marine life?

Five years ago this chamber, this Senate, delivered the world's first parliamentary inquiry into getting the balance right between protecting human life and protecting marine life. The environment and communications committee went right around this country; it took hundreds of submissions and evidence from many submitters, and delivered a comprehensive report. This Senate delivered a comprehensive report to reform the shark control programs around this country—all based on evidence, all based on science.

And yet, five years later, we still haven't had a response to that Senate inquiry's report. The previous government refused to come into this chamber, into the Australian Senate, and release their response to that inquiry. Even though we asked the department at Senate estimates if they'd prepared a response for the minister—they confirmed they had; it was sitting on the minister's desk—the government deliberately chose not to respond to that Senate report and recommendations—which, may I say, had tripartisan support across the political spectrum to phase-out lethal shark nets in New South Wales and Queensland. The report asked the federal government to step up and show leadership on this issue.

Now, I'm a surfer and I'm also a senator. I have deeply lived and experienced this issue. I, as chair of that committee, totally understand that the issue around shark control, shark mitigation, is a deeply emotional issue, and one of the key emotions it elicits is fear. That's why it was really important that the Senate looked at the policy and looked at the evidence. And I can tell you, Senators, there was no evidence that these shark nets reduce populations of sharks. These are fisheries controlled devices; they are devices designed to kill marine life. That's it, that's 100 per cent their policy purpose. They're not nets or barriers to stop sharks, or dangerous sharks, from entering beaches, they are simply designed to reduce populations of sharks. These nets do not work to make our beaches safe. By any reasonable measure they have failed as a policy prescription in Australia.

We have seen multiple bites by sharks inside shark nets or beaches that are netted. Unfortunately, we've seen sad fatalities, including only last year, up in Queensland, when a surfer was bitten inside a shark net. These shark nets do not work to protect humans, but we know they work very well killing marine life and endangering whales and so much of the marine life that Australians love.

It's long overdue for the federal government to step in and take responsibility on this issue and protects species which, under federal law. are designed to be protected. There is no reason for the New South Wales government or the Queensland government to continue these lethal shark control programs that don't make our beaches safe, but do endanger and kill protected marine life.

The only reason these shark control programs have not been removed is because politicians in New South Wales and Queensland simply won't look at the evidence and they have no courage. They are not brave enough to remove these shark nets. It's that simple. I am very proud that this Senate delivered such a comprehensive report, the world's first into this issue, and I call on the new Labor government to not do what the Liberal government did, but to respond to the Senate report. Let's hear what you've got to say about the role the federal government has to play in finding a better balance between keeping ocean goers safe and protecting our precious marine life.

It being 1.30, we shall proceed to two-minute statements.

Composer Irving Berlin wrote 'My heart beats so that I can hardly speak' in the song 'Cheek to Cheek' for the musical Top Hat. While this No. 1 song depicts love, there are other reasons for a fast heartbeat and these reasons are not always as much fun as falling in love. Around half a million Australians live with atrial fibrillation, a type of arrhythmia where your heart beats irregularly and fast. Atrial fibrillation reduces your heart's ability to pump blood properly, which can in some cases lead to blood clots forming and even stroke. Up to 30 per cent of people with atrial fibrillation don't know they have an underlying heart condition, putting them at increased risk of stroke or heart failure.

Atrial Fibrillation Awareness Week was held last week. Given my own family has been touched by atrial fibrillation and I am co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Heart Health group, I thought it timely to highlight this important week and build awareness of this condition. Charitable organisation Hearts 4 Heart was formed in 2011 to provide support, education and advocacy on heart disease for the millions of Australians living with heart disease. This year was the ninth annual Atrial Fibrillation Awareness Week they have organised.

Atrial fibrillation affects men and women of any age. However, your risk of having the condition increases with age, particularly for those aged over 65 years. Other risk factors include: physical inactivity; being overweight or obese; disrupted sleep; having diabetes; being a smoker; high cholesterol; and high blood pressure. You can find out more about atrial fibrillation at hearts4heart.org.au. If you think you might be at risk, please consider speaking with your GP and getting your heart checked. Senators can also attend our annual Heart Health Day in Parliament House on Wednesday 23 November this year.

This week we have seen the last resident of the infamous asbestos-riddled WA town of Wittenoom move out. This closes the door on what has been a very dark chapter of Western Australian history, affecting the local native title holder First Nations communities profoundly with the disease it has brought, along with thousands of workers who worked there over the time of the company—some 7,000 workers—and some 12,000 people that lived there.

But it's not the end of the issue of asbestos disease. Every day more and more Australian families are affected by asbestosis, silicosis and mesothelioma. It still riddles many buildings around Australia and we need to work harder than ever to prevent exposure and raise awareness not just here but also overseas. I want to pay tribute to and celebrate the work of APHEDA—Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad—who are working with communities and unions to address this issue in Indonesia. In Indonesia they still import asbestos and are still building buildings with it.

We need to continue to raise awareness of this issue and ensure strong accountabilities here in Australia but also support our neighbouring nation of Indonesia to get rid of this scourge. In Indonesia the health toll from the scourge of asbestos is significantly growing—a massive disease burden now on their nation. It was National Mesothelioma Awareness Day on 26 September, and I pay tribute to the Asbestos Diseases Society— (Time expired)

I rise, as I have many times before, to speak about the plight of higher education workers—specifically, in this case, the staff at Southern Cross University. Following reports about unmanageable workloads and bullying, the National Tertiary Education Union sent a survey to all Southern Cross University staff. Shockingly, management tried to block access to the survey online, which shows how much they care about hearing from their staff on welfare issues. Despite this, hundreds of staff completed the survey.

The results were pretty shocking and revealed an extremely unsafe workplace where staff are worked to the bone: 82 per cent of staff reported regularly experiencing psychosocial hazards, 44 per cent of staff reported they were likely to seek medical advice for work related stress, 63 per cent of stop rated workplace culture as negative or extremely negative and 36 per cent of staff said they are likely or very likely to resign from the university. These dreadful conditions are sadly becoming too common amongst universities today. As vice-chancellors earn more and more and as students are funnelled through like cash cows, staff deal with rampant casualisation, job insecurity, unmanageable workloads and wage theft.

A better university, one that is built on the principles of equity and democracy, is possible. We need an overhaul of university governance to shift the balance of power away from the managerial class back to staff and students. We need to reimagine universities as places of public good, where staff are respected and have secure jobs and the best pay and working conditions, where students flourish and where profits, cost cutting and the bottom line plays no role. My solidarity is with the staff and NTEU members at Southern Cross Uni and universities across the country who are fighting for their rights and for the rights of public education. (Time expired)

It's my great pleasure to rise and pay tribute to an extraordinary footy club, the mighty Geelong Cats. I was so proud to be there on the weekend, watching a magnificent club underpinned by incredible values take home another premiership. Very sadly, I wasn't at the parade through our city streets, but I was there in spirit. I have loved the Cats for as long as I can remember. When I used to play netball at the Kardinia Park courts, I would then head over in the standing room and watch my beloved Cats play.

This comes at a time when its mighty captain, Joel Selwood, has today announced his retirement from the game after a record-breaking career. I want to pay tribute to Joel, an amazing captain, someone with incredible values of leadership and community contribution, who has been extraordinary. I am referring to the Geelong Cats statement, which says:

Since being drafted to Geelong in 2006, arguably no other person has had the impact that Joel has had within the AFL both on and off the field.

He is a magnificent captain surrounded by a magnificent playing group. From CEO Steve Hocking down, it is a wonderful club. We are very proud to have the Geelong Cats in our city. I want to wish Joel all the very best. Here's hoping and wishing that there will be a back-to-back premiership next year. Go the mighty Cats! I love you with all of my heart and I am so proud of your achievements.

I was pleased to be able to visit leaders in Galiwin'ku in far north-east Arnhem Land earlier this year with Senator Jenny McAllister and Marion Scrymgour MP to listen to the community about the important work being done to keep women and children safe. Ten years in the making, the Galiwin'ku Women's Space finally opened their family, domestic and sexual violence crisis accommodation earlier this month. This started with grassroots conversations by Yolngu women about the need to have a safe house for women and children on the island community. It is a huge achievement by and for the amazing community, and it's well worth celebrating.

I would like to congratulate all those people and groups involved in making this happen—in particular, Bettina Danganbarr. Before the women's space opened, Bettina used to open her home as a shelter for women and children who had nowhere to go. It's beautiful to see that her efforts have led to pretty important achievements for the whole community. I would like to give a shout-out to the women involved at the Galiwin'ku Women's Space: Marilyn Djolu, Djanumbi Marika, Djandi Ganambarr, Joan Malku, Yenhu Gurruwiwi, Suzanne Hume, Joy Mundhu, Tasma Yunipiyu, Margaret Gudurrkuwuy, Tanya Lakawuy and many, many others. To all of you over there on the island, thank you for the work that you're doing with all of the families—not only in Galiwinku but also in the surrounding communities. They are much interlinked with the Yolngu clans. We have Ramingining and Milingimbi, and of course Gapuwiyak and the nearby town of Nhulunbuy, where there are incredibly strong link for the Yolngu families and the clan groups. Well done, ladies.

As we return home to our families this weekend, I am reminded of the reason many came to this chamber in the first place. We are here for our families, our children. With my first grandchild on the way, my role as a senator takes on new meaning, refreshed and clear. I stand in this place to build a future that will allow my grandchild to become all that she or he can be, irrespective of gender, sexuality, religion or skin colour. Australians should not be born into a world that is divided on the very things that have made Australia such a beautiful tapestry of humanity. I will not bow to those who are using skin colour to divide us.

I will not allow an ideology advanced in this chamber that every new Australian, including my grandchild, must have less so that the ruling elites can have more. I will not allow my grandchild to be born into an Australia where greed and evil subvert freedom. I will defend my unborn grandchild's right to life, and I will defend every Australian from the evil notion that, having ceased to be healthy, taking one's own life, which God gave us, is somehow noble.

To do anything else would be a betrayal of the oath of office that I took here with my hand on the Bible. In the last parliament, I was disappointed, deeply disappointed, when a group of leading senators, most of whom who took the oath of the Bible, voted against my motion against gendered language. Instead, these senators chose to defend an agenda that's meekly described as woke, but accurately described as neo-paganism. It is not inclusive to exclude the fundamental tenets of a civilized Christian society: mothers, fathers and family. I will not be told I have lost any battle I came here to rectify, for surely this means the next generation have lost before they are even born—if they are born. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation under God.

Today I would like to take the opportunity to mark the life and mourn the passing of Angus Macneil, and celebrate his life. Angus was a stalwart of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, coming from the small town of Rand, near the New South Wales-Victoria border.

He contributed significantly to the Liberal Party and also to the broader community. He led a life of tremendous service. He was a very good friend of Bill Heffernan. He was a tremendous supporter of Sussan Ley. He was a very well-advised confidant to me and an advisor to me both before I entered this place and since coming to this place.

Like Bill, I think he is someone who would be best referred to as a 'busted arse farmer', because he was a sheep farmer following in his father's footsteps on his 2,600 hectare farm with merino sheep, goats and a variety of crops. So our conversations consisted mostly of what was happening in the markets and the weather.

He also served for over 25 years on his local council and also worked and served on a number of other advisory boards, industry boards and sectors, as well as working with the Liberal Party for well in excess of the 20 years I was involved. In 2019, was awarded the honour of becoming a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to primary industries. Anyone who knew Angus would just adore Angus. He was a great character, and a great person to have as part of your team.

Angus, thank you for your contribution to our party, to our community and to the country, and sincerest condolences to Gail and your daughters Georgie and Kate.

Just when you think Qantas can't sink any lower, it outdoes itself again. It is not enough that Qantas has illegally sacked 2000 ground staff, dangerously understaffed its engineering workforce, threatened its pilots with outsourcing, threatened its international current crew with termination, 'Joyced' thousands of bags, cancelled hundreds of flights and left thousands of passengers stranded around the world, all while taking billions in public welfare and using that money to pay bonuses and buybacks. On top of all this, Qantas is back in the Fair Work Commission today because it is now threating threatening its domestic flight in attendance.

Qantas is threatening its domestic cabin crew with outsourcing unless they sign an agreement that is worse than their old agreement that expired three years ago, an agreement that will require Qantas flight attendants to work longer shifts with shorter rest breaks while making a massive real-wage cut. This is happening right now as I speak.

Teri O'Toole from the FAAA has told me flight attendants are sick of these bullying tactics—and why wouldn't they be? This is the Alan Joyce playbook: essential aviation workers are first forced to push themselves beyond their physical and mental limits for less and less money, losing $37,000 to $50,000 over the next three years. If they don't accept it, Qantas threatens to tear up their agreements and outsource their work to labour hire casuals.

We as a parliament need to tell Qantas that this behaviour is beyond the pale. We need to tell Qantas to stop marketing itself an Australian symbol, because Qantas under Alan Joyce sure as hell does not represent Australia anymore.

Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, we know that millions of Australians are just scraping by on meagre income support payments that are well below the poverty line. How can we call Australia one of the wealthiest countries in the world when one in six children are living in poverty? All children and young people have a universal right to safety, privacy, education, housing, social support, mental and physical health care, regardless of their circumstances.

Make no mistake, poverty is a political choice, and the Labor government is choosing to give $244 billion in the stage 3 tax cuts to the very wealthy, to the billionaires, instead of responding to the cost-of-living crisis for people on starvation wages, on income support, and these choices are failing our children. No child should be forced to go to school hungry. No child should be watching their family make the difficult decision between basic necessities and school supplies. That is why the Greens are fighting for a guaranteed liveable income that would raise all income support payments to at least $88 a day, above the poverty line. This shouldn't be a radical ask; it should be the bare minimum. The government exists to serve the people. It is clear our social safety net is broken, so I urge the government to immediately address this issue and raise the rate of all income support payments above the poverty line. The Greens will continue this fight until this government makes the right choice to make sure that no child is left behind.

A couple of weeks ago I spoke in the chamber about the Tasmanian bid for the 19th standalone team in the AFL and questioned the demand from the AFL for a new stadium as a part of that bid. My questions with respect to the requirement for the stadium by the AFL remain, because, as I said in my previous presentation, other new teams didn't have that requirement.

Regardless of my doubts, it is clear that the Tasmanian government and the AFL have continued to press on with the bid process. It is clear that Tasmania and its bid have met all of the hurdles, all of the requirements for an AFL team as part of the bid process and as part of the work plan that was set out through the agreement between Tasmania and the AFL. The presidents of the AFL clubs are now in a position to grant Tasmania that 19th standalone AFL team for Tasmania.

There is only one thing that remains between Tasmania now and the AFL team. The Tasmanian government has indicated its support for a new statement stadium. The AFL has indicated its support for a new stadium. The Tasmanian government has put $375 million on the table and indicated the site for the new stadium.

Only one thing remains now between Tasmania and an AFL team. The Tasmanian government has indicated its support for a new stadium. The AFL has indicated its support for a new stadium. The Tasmanian government has put $375 million on the table for the stadium and indicated the site for the new stadium. The only thing that remains for the AFL presidents to be able to say, 'Yes, Tasmania can have that 19th team,' is funding from the Albanese government. So the decision as to whether Tasmania actually gets a 19th team—its deserved team, as a state in the AFL competition—depends on a decision by the Albanese government to support the construction of that stadium. Tasmania's on board; the AFL is on board. Does Anthony Albanese want Tasmania to have an AFL team?

There's a group of people in Tasmania who I really admire: grandparents raising grandchildren. These grandparents have stepped up to raise their grandchildren in really tough circumstances. They're known as kinship carers or primary carers. Let's call it for what it is: these people are parents. They take on the role of everything these kids need them to be. As a result, they miss out on the experience of being Nan and Pop. My heart breaks for them, and, having met them, I know they're some of the most caring people you'll ever meet.

But these grandparents are slipping through the cracks. There are issues with them being recognised as the parents of these kids, which leads us to all sorts of financial and legal problems. One major issue I've heard is from grandparents with several children in their care. Some of their kids are recognised by Centrelink and others are not. All the kids have the same biological parents. It just doesn't seem to make sense. It's not just financial problems. Another grandparent told me he couldn't give permission for his 16-year-old granddaughter to get her drivers licence because he wasn't recognised as the primary parent.

Financial, medical, educational, legal—the issue of recognising kinship care spans across institutions and across governments. It's a complex issue that's going to take a long time to get right. A lot of these things are up to the state governments, but I know there are things we can do at a federal level to make things easier for them as well. It's important we do. I've seen the love and care in these grandparents' eyes. Despite their battle scars and the cost to themselves, they will do anything and everything to look after these children. It's time we looked after them.

Emmanuel Christian Community School in Girrawheen, close to my electorate office in Perth's northern suburbs, celebrated its 40th anniversary on 14 August this year. Past and current students, families and staff attended a church service and a lunch to celebrate four remarkable decades of achievement. The school is part of the ministry of the Girrawheen Baptist Church and is led by its vision to change lives through Christ-centred education. From Easter and ANZAC Day services with the school's excellent cadets to addressing classes of politics students to the opening of new facilities, its strong values are evident whenever I visit the campus and meet those learning and working there.

The school has grown from just 22 students in two classes in 1982 to more than 700 students today, including 256 secondary students, having become a kindergarten-to-year-12 school in 2012. Emmanuel Christian Community School aims to provide an education that stresses cooperation rather than competition. The impressive growth of the school over time is a testament to its supportive, tight-knit and very multicultural community. I greatly value my strong association and connection with the school.

I'm also proud to have been able to officiate at a number of important events which announced and supported coalition government investments in the school. Last year I opened the new west wing, a project made possible by a $1½ million grant from the Capital Grants Program. The redevelopment included the construction of a double storage facility with 11 learning areas for secondary students. The project has given and will continue to give students at the school the best possible chance of success.

I visited the school at the beginning of 2022 to present a bright new Australian flag. I thank all of the students, many of whom have come from multicultural families across Perth's northern suburbs, many of them recent arrivals in our country. I thank them very much. (Time expired)

Forty per cent of Australians have used cannabis. But it's not the wealthy, the privileged or politicians who go to prison for smoking a joint. Do you know why? Because the war on drugs isn't about helping people; it's a war on class and race. It's students, people with disabilities, First Nations people, people from South-West Sydney and people from regional Australia whose lives are threatened by the policing of a victimless crime. This government is hooked on dragging our most vulnerable through the criminal justice system for using the same substance that over 10 million people across this country have already used. When it comes to cannabis, it's policing and the war on drugs that are destroying lives, not the plant.

It doesn't have to be that way. We can legalise cannabis at a federal level. When we announced that policy earlier this week, we saw a whirlwind of support. That support came not only from drug experts and academics but from the wider Australian community, who want to see change—people who know that, if the law makes almost half of us criminals, something is deeply wrong; people who've been waiting decades for the criminal justice system to stop ruining lives over smoking a joint; people who question why a drug that is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco is the one with jail time attached.

The Attorney-General has so far refused to propose legislation to legalise cannabis and has refused to support it but hasn't given a reason. That's because there aren't any good ones. This has been done around the world, and doing the same here would improve millions of lives. It's time. Let's legalise it.

Over 250,000 current and former employees of McDonald's right across this country may be eligible for compensation as part of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association's latest legal action against McDonald's. The SDA have been raising members' issues and concerns since 2017. Quite simply, McDonald's has not been providing young people with their 10-minute break. Can you believe this? What they're saying is that, because these young people who work for McDonald's may go to the bathroom and they get a free soft drink on their shifts, that equates to their paid 10-minute break. We know that over 10,000 current and former McDonald's workers have been directly assisting the SDA in this investigation and are willing to provide evidence to the Federal Court.

We all know that McDonald's would have to be one of the most recognised companies around the world. This, again, is not just about ripping off young people; this is about committing a criminal act. They are exploiting young Australians. When young people go and work at McDonald's, what they should be experiencing is good work relations. They should know that they're not going to be exploited. You should not be putting profit before people. Quite frankly, that's what McDonald's have been doing. The SDA have been fighting on behalf of these young people right across this country. Sooner or later, governments need to ensure that these corporations and businesses are not exploiting their workers. At the end of the day, what we want to see is young people having a good experience. Every employee around this country deserves to be respected and to be given opportunities, and they should be paid accordingly. (Time expired)

Today I acknowledge 40 years of remarkable work from a small and highly effective agency in my portfolio. The Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research was established by parliament in June 1982 to commission and fund research to find solutions to the agricultural problems of developing countries. Since then, ACIAR has returned total benefits worth at least $64 billion in economic, environmental and social impacts, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of around 43 to one—not to mention the social and environmental benefits like women's empowerment, nutritional improvements and wildlife habitat protection.

It was Sir John Crawford, long-serving secretary of the department of agriculture and later Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor of the ANU, who in the 1970s—like now, a time of global food insecurity—promoted the idea that Australian agricultural, fisheries and forestry science has much to offer the world==and we do. Today, ACIAR oversees about 200 projects a year in 35 countries across the Indo-Pacific region to achieve more productive and sustainable agrifood systems. Its work is emblematic of the government 's approach to building a more stable and prosperous region, partnering directly with our neighbours to deliver real solutions to improve crop yields and livestock health; to manage fisheries and forests; to mitigate climate change; to inform and protect against biosecurity threats; and to empower communities, boost livelihoods, reduce poverty and build resilience. So today in the Senate I congratulate ACIAR on its 40-year history of achievement—achievement for communities around the world and for our country. I offer the government's thanks on behalf of the parliament and the people of Australia to all who have contributed to ACIAR's work. They do remarkable work, and we thank them for it.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday in question time, in a question from Senator Pocock regarding people like his constituents Sam and Leilani, who were in the gallery, having to choose between housing or heating because of the extreme cost-of-living pressures that they and millions of Australians are now facing, Minister Farrell was asked, what does he say to them? Minister Farrell responded: 'Well, I say to them: welcome to the Senate. If they'd like to identify themselves, I will give them a little wave.' Is 'a little wave' all the Labor Albanese government has to offer two Australians who are struggling with the cost of living?

I thank the Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for the question. The Albanese government—and Senator Farrell reflected this in his remarks yesterday—place cost of living and easing the cost-of-living pressures on Australians as a top priority, and everything we have done since being elected has met that challenge. I also note that my colleague whom I am privileged enough to share the bench with here on the government side is the most courteous and decent person in this Senate, and his remarks reflect that part of his character.

On the cost-of-living question, again: the raw and blatant audacity of the people who were in power prior to 21 May, when the Australian people elected us, to come in here, after creating some of those cost-of-living pressures through your own policy inaction and your division and the lack of focus that you had on the Australian people, and start pointing the finger at us, when we have been elected to deal with the cost-of-living crisis that you lot created. Everything we have done on every day we have turned up to work since that election has been to deal with this most serious challenge. We understand that cost-of-living pressures are hitting Australian people hard; we understand that, which is why it is so important to implement our policies—more important than ever.

We understand that people who are on payments are doing it hard. They will receive, in the budget, the biggest indexation we have seen in recent times. We have already committed that we will assess, when the budget provides, as we deal with the— (Time expired)

Senator Cash, a first supplementary question?

Yesterday in question time the minister refused to rule out imposing higher taxes on Australians in the budget. I ask you again: will you rule out tax increases on Australians in the budget?

What I will rule out—because I was asked to rule out; we're playing the 'rule out, rule in' game—is taking a lecture from those opposite about tax and spend and fiscal management. They like to present themselves as fiscal conservatives. But we know—because we've got the budget now, and we've got the briefings—that as you got more out of control as a government, as the former Prime Minister took on more and more of your portfolios and made all the decisions, you ripped up and broke the budget. That's what happened.

Now, what I can rule out is accepting any lectures and what I will say is: we will be implementing the policies we took to the election and we will be dealing with the waste, the rorts, the mismanagement and the failed priorities of your term of government. You'll see that in the budget.

Senator Cash, a second supplementary?

Will the minister rule out changes to taxes on superannuation in the budget?

I've answered this question.

No, you haven't.

I have. I've told you what we'll be doing in the budget, and you'll have to wait and see. You will have to wait and see when we release the budget, but I have told you that this will be a bread-and-butter budget where we implement our policies.

We have made it clear that when we implement our policies on tax our focus will be on multinational tax reform. You've got a pretty high chance of seeing that in the budget. You'll see the policies we took to the election and you'll see the results of the forensic assessment that we are doing line by line of the budget to make sure that every single dollar that we spend is going where it needs to go and where it will provide a return to the Australian people. That's what you will see in the budget.

President, on a point of order: I think the question was one sentence and referred to superannuation and the budget. I don't think the minister has said anything about superannuation and the budget.

The minister was also asked to rule out taxes on super.

Which she has not done though.

I believe she is being relevant. She has heard your objection and, if she needs to give further details, I'm sure that, in the eight seconds remaining, she will. But she has finished.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. How is the government delivering on its pledge to return accountability, transparency and integrity to government?

Honourable senators interjecting—

I have called the minister. We're waiting for silence so that she can begin her answer.

I thank Senator O'Neill for her question and for her interest in these matters, which are important to the nation and important to the government. They are important to the parliament. Today is an important day because we introduced into the House the first government bill to establish the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It is a bill which delivers on a key election commitment first made prior to the 2019 election to establish a powerful and independent anticorruption body at the federal level. It is a watchdog with teeth, and this is a commitment that we have consistently advocated for and today are delivering.

The former government, having made their own pledge to introduce a federal anticorruption body in December 2018, never even got to the stage of introducing a bill. The federal government is the last jurisdiction in this country not to have an anticorruption commission, and we all know it is past time for that to be fixed. Those of us on this side of the chamber are proud that the Albanese Labor government is doing just that.

Today's bill is a product of an extraordinary amount of work and it is being shaped by constructive consultation with experts and with members of the House and Senate. It aims to learn the lessons from existing anticorruption commissions across the nation, balancing the need for transparency with the need to prevent undue damage to reputation. The ultimate aim of this body, once established, is both to prevent and to expose corruption at the federal level. The Australian people sent a clear message at the last election that this is what they want. It is now incumbent upon this parliament to deliver.

Shortly after introducing the bill this morning, the Attorney-General moved to establish a select committee of both houses to scrutinise the bill. We welcome that scrutiny and the dialogue which will flow from it, reflecting the government's genuine desire for this bill to have support across the parliament. There is no more important task for those of us elected to this place than maintaining the trust placed in us by the Australian people, and today's bill is an important part of that task.

Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary?

I'm delighted to ask these questions on this very historic day when Labor is delivering on a very significant commitment. How will the National Anti-Corruption Commission prevent and expose corruption at the federal level?

I thank Senator O'Neill for her supplementary question. The National Anti-Corruption Commission established by the bill will be strong and it will be independent. It will have broad jurisdiction to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector. It will have the power to investigate ministers, parliamentarians and their staff, statutory officeholders, employees of all government entities and contractors. It will have discretion to commence inquiries on its own initiative or in response to referrals from anyone, including members of the public and whistleblowers. Referrals will be able to be anonymous. It will be able to investigate both criminal and noncriminal corrupt conduct, and conduct occurring before or after its establishment. And it will have the discretion to hold public hearings. It will also have a mandate to prevent corruption and to educate Australians about corruption. This will be a significant reform for the nation, and it is a necessary part of rebuilding Australian people's trust in institutions, including in this parliament.

Senator O'Neill, a second supplementary.

How does the government's approach to establishing the National Anti-Corruption Commission contrast with previous approaches?

Thank you to the senator for her question. We all know that is a somewhat sorry tale in terms of the past.

An opposition senator interjecting—

And, yes, it may be that Senator Cash might like to add to my remarks. We do recall that those opposite announced a national integrity body in December 2018, but they never delivered. They never delivered. In fact, one of the more interesting things to watch during the election campaign was Mr Morrison trying to blame everybody else—that's a change!—for his failure to introduce his own bill.

Those opposite didn't even get to the stage of introducing the bill because they were apparently too scared the parliament wouldn't support it. It was everybody else's fault again. It really does show how little they were prepared to work to demonstrate integrity. It shows how little they cared about integrity in government.

Well, we will deliver on this promise and we will keep faith with the Australian people, who told all of us very clearly at the last election that this was what they wanted. Today we have delivered on our pledge for a strong and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. I invite those opposite to prove themselves. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Is the minister aware of any authorised deposit-taking institutions—that is, banks—in Australia that have account portability which allow people to change banking institutions and retain the same account and account number?

Thank you. I think this question relates to the debate we had last night in relation to the cashless credit card—am I correct?

An honourable senator: Yes.

I'll have to come back on the detail because it doesn't fall within my portfolio. I am representing the Minister for Financial Services. So I would be able to answer you—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan?

My question is about the finance portfolio. It's about a bank. I haven't asked about anything about the cashless debit card.

Senator O'Sullivan, that isn't a point of order. Minister?

If I can just explain: the ministry for finance does not have responsibility for financial services, including ADIs and other financial institutions. They fall under the Treasury portfolio, and we have a specific minister for it—the Minister for Financial Services.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Now, I'm coming in here—and, Senator O'Sullivan, I am very happy to answer your question. I don't have the detail with me. I think it relates to last night's debate, which I was in and out of, around the cashless debit card. If I can get an answer for you—

An opposition senator interjecting—

Well, yes—I'm sorry, but when you're repping about 14 portfolios, you do rely on a bit of paper.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister, please resume your seat.

I do!

Opposition senators interjecting—

I'm not going to pretend that I'm coming in here—

Minister—

A government senator: James, you wouldn't understand!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator McGrath! Order! Senator Henderson! Order!

Senator Watt! I just called the chamber to order. I don't need you to add to it.

Senator McGrath! Order! Seriously! The minister is answering the question. I could barely—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Just because you don't like what the answer is it does not give you licence to be so disorderly that I have to say order about seven times before I can get the attention of the chamber. Minister, please continue.

As I said, I do come into question time with the desire to answer the questions that are asked of me, which is why I'm taking it on notice. I treat this chamber with respect, and I don't want to give an answer that is not correct and mislead the senate. I do take this responsibility seriously. I will come back with an answer based on the advice of the relevant minister, who I am repping in this instance.

Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?

Last night Minister Farrell told the Senate that neither the account nor the card number will change when cashless debit card participants are moved from the CDC to the government's new enhanced income management technology. From a financial institution perspective, does the minister concede that, if someone is retaining the same bank account and account number as their old card, they cannot possibly be moving to a different institution or onto a different account?

I was fortunate enough to be in the chamber last evening for this debate. We abolished the cashless debit card program, which was a key election commitment of this government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Yes, we did. What I remember from the debate is that you guys fought to the last breath to keep it in place, despite what communities have been asking for.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator O'Sullivan, I am well aware that you are seeking to move a point of order. When the chamber is quiet I will come to you.

Senator Ruston, you've got one of your own senators on his feet.

On relevance: my question asked for a financial institution perspective. The minister is going to the broader issue of the cashless debit card.

The minister has 31 seconds remaining—

With the implementation of the abolition of the cashless debit card, and support for those people who would be on it and moving to other arrangements, we are looking for the smoothest opportunity for them to ensure that the transition is appropriate and that they are supported through it.

We have delivered on our commitment to abolish the cashless debit card, and last night I watched division after division with you lot trying to keep it in place. That's what happened last night, and that's what history will show. We will work with communities to make sure they are supported and treated with respect. (Time expired)

Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary?

Will the minister now admit that the government has no intention of abolishing the cashless debit card and has done nothing more than simply change its name?

Last night everyone in this place saw what happened. We abolished the cashless debit card program—a program that you introduced, that your own assessments showed was inconclusive—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! You've asked the question. The minister has the right to be heard in silence.

It was a failed program. The Coalition did not put a cent in the budget past 30 June for support for it.

We, on this side, will work with communities to make sure they have the choice and that those communities receive the funding that is required to keep going a range of important social and community supports, which were set to be cut by you lot—yet another one of these terminating measures where there was nothing in the budget to deal with these substantial support programs. We are fixing all of that and delivering on our election commitment to abolish the cashless debit card.

You were on the wrong side of history last night.

I ask this question to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Today I ask these questions on behalf of the over 500,000 NDIS participants and their families across the country. Firstly, is it the minister's view that the NDIS is costing too much?

We are making appropriate investments into the NDIS. We see it as critical. As the architects of the NDIS; the party that actually drove the establishment of the NDIS, that designed the NDIS; that reached agreement with all the states and territories at the time—apart from WA if I remember correctly, because I was the first minister of the ACT to implement a national scheme to ensure the people who have a disability and their carers are given the support that's required to live a dignified and full life. As someone who had worked in the disability sector before coming into politics it was something I felt very proud, as a first minister of the ACT, to be a part of. It was something that I worked collegiately with the former Labor government on to put in place.

I see the NDIS as an investment in people and an investment in the community. I've already heard stories from people who have received support or resources through the NDIS and I have no doubt about the difference it has made in their lives.

As the Minister for Finance I also have a responsibility to make sure that the budget is on a sustainable footing. There are five programs that are presenting long-term, structural challenges to the budget: health, aged care, defence, servicing the cost of $1 trillion of Liberal debt and the NDIS. From the finance side of things, I have to look at how we can sustainably fund programs. As a person who has been part of working in the disability sector, I see the investments in the NDIS as an investment in people. I'm very proud of the reform that the former Gillard government introduced.

Senator Steele-John, a first supplementary?

Can you confirm, Minister, that there will be no reduction in the allocated funds to the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the October budget?

This is Minister Shorten's area. In the work that I am doing in forensically looking at all of the costs through the budget, I know he is applying himself to make sure that every dollar spent in the NDIS is going where it needs to go. He has been leading that work. I know that you will have been following that, Senator Steele-John. In terms of additional investments, or what flows through in the budget, you will have to wait and see. But I can assure you it hasn't been the focus of my attention in terms of looking at areas where we can make sensible savings in the October budget. I would also point out that the way that it is written into the budget, or factored into the budget, where there are ups and downs it's through parameter variations and that's informed by an actuarial assessment.

Senator Steele-John, a second supplementary?

In relation to funds currently allocated to the NDIS that are not spent in this financial year, can you confirm whether these funds will be retained within the scheme or will they be removed from the scheme?

We will be releasing the budget on budget day. But the way that the NDIS is funded is through parameter variations. Sometimes that goes up and down depending on usage within the scheme. I can assure you it is not the focus of any of the work that I am doing in terms of looking for additional savings. I know that Minister Shorten is also going through and looking at how current funding is applied to make sure that it's actually going to where it needs to be and that we are not wasting money in litigation and those other types of areas, which I know you have also been vocal on. The government remains committed to fully funding the NDIS.

My question as to the Minister for Finance and the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the Senate on the 2021-22 final budget outcome tabled earlier today?

Thank you for the question. The final budget outcome shows that we have booked a substantial but temporary lift in revenues, mainly due to much higher than expected commodity prices.

No, it's not misleading the Senate.

Order! Interjections across the chamber are disorderly.

President, I've been accused of misleading the Senate. I can assure you I am not misleading the Senate. If I could project my voice over those shouting at me I could go through and explain. We have booked in revenues—I'm not talking about payments—related to higher than expected commodity prices. However, many of the factors driving that improved end result will not be replicated over the medium term. You don't have to dig too deep into the data to get a good sense of the complex and confronting set of challenges we face in the nearer term. We know that the budget is facing sustained pressure into the future, with those opposite leaving Australia with a budget in structural deficit. Despite what they might say, an improved deficit alone is not proof of a strong and thriving economy or budget. We have a budget weighed down by a mountain of debt that's becoming more expensive to service. In this financial year, $17.9 billion was spent servicing a trillion dollars of Liberal debt. That's more expensive than the PBS. It's more expensive than child care. More than we spend on a range of government programs is just going into servicing the debt, and that was as of March. That was before the interest rates increased, which, of course, will add a significant cost to the budget. That is what we are dealing with— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Before I call Senator White, I am once again going to call the chamber to order. Interjections are disorderly. Interjections across the chamber while the minister is on her feet or while a senator is asking a question are absolutely disorderly, and I would ask you not to do that. Senator White, a first supplementary question?

Can the minister provide more detail on the debt inherited from the previous government and its impact for future budgets?

Yes, I can. The government inherited a budget heaving with a trillion dollars of debt and with ongoing budget deficits stretching beyond a decade. As much as those opposite would like to rewrite history on debt and make it all about the pandemic, it had been doubled before the pandemic hit. It had been doubled after making commitments about lowering debt. They doubled it; that went on before the pandemic. The facts are very clear on that. We know that the increase in interest rates could add more than $16 billion in costs across the forward estimates and over $120 billion over the coming decade, just because of the increasing interest rate impact on debt. At the moment, servicing the debt burden that was forecast in the March budget is costing more than the PBS, more than child care, more than higher education and more than government schools. That's what's going on. (Time expired)

Senator White, a second supplementary question?

Can the minister provide more detail on the delayed spending from 2021 and its impacts on future budget capacity?

I have heard those opposite talking about this $50 billion windfall that's hit the budget. I would say that is looking backwards as well, as the final budget outcome does. About $20 billion of the improvement to the budget bottom line was through lower payments or underspends. These were moneys that the previous government had committed to getting out the door in the last financial year, which they didn't get out the door.

You're so selective, Katy!

I'm talking about a proportion of it, Senator Hume, if you listen to me. A significant proportion of the lower payments is programs that are not going out the door. They will move into this financial year and the financial years beyond. That spending will hit the future budget deficits that we're having to manage against a backdrop of increasing pressure in those five programs that I spoke about to Senator Steele-John. The budget is in structural deficit, and we are working hard to repair it.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Cyber Security, Minister Watt. The Optus data breach has resulted in the personal details of millions of Australians being exposed and some of that data being made available online. The Privacy Act 1988 requires Optus to lodge a notifiable data breach report with the Office of the Information Commissioner. Minister, please advise if Optus has met this legal requirement and provided the appropriate documentation to the Office of the Information Commissioner and, from that, please advise the Senate how many Australians had their private data breached? I understand it is almost 10 million people.

Thank you, Senator Roberts, for a really important question about something that has concerned all Australians. I will have to come back to you on notice with the answers to your specific questions. You have sought some particular figures there that I don't have ready to hand; although I, like you, have certainly heard the reports of the number of Australians being affected to be in the vicinity of nine or 10 million but I want to make sure I give you accurate formation about that.

But I think what we can all agree on is that Optus's handling of this matter has been very unsatisfactory, from the issues around its initial disclosure of this data breach to, frankly, it's communication with the Australian public and the government about this issue and what it's doing to fix it. So your initial question about whether it complied with one of its obligations, again, I will need to come back to you on notice and I will do that as quickly as I can. But if its track record over the last few days is any indication then I do have concerns about Optus's compliance with its obligations under the law. Again, I am happy to come back to you with specific answers.

Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Unconfirmed reports indicate that it was not sophisticated hackers who hacked this data; rather, the Optus data sharing application programming interface, API, was used to obtain the huge amounts of data using an exploit that has been in place for five years. Minister, is an investigation underway to enforce the provisions of section 13G of the Privacy Act, including penalties? And is the maximum penalty of $660,000 enough for a disgusting example of corporate malfeasance?

Thank you, Senator Roberts. Again, what I can tell you is the matter is being investigated through a variety of channels. There are issues to do with potential privacy legislation breaches. You probably saw that the FBI is now involved in investigating this matter in addition to a range of Australian authorities. I will come back to you with a specific answer on the particular type of investigation you are asking about.

On the matter of penalties, not only are members of the government on the record saying penalties are insufficient but even members of the former government were on the record. The very ministers who had responsibility for cybersecurity in the former government were on the record saying penalties were too low and, despite being in government, they did nothing to fix this problem. Former Attorney-General Christian Porter back in 2019 admitted penalties were too low, three more years went by, nothing happened and here we are.

Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

The previous government circulated legislation for a trusted digital identity bill that watered down privacy provisions and these are now clearly not sufficient to protect Australians. Is the government going to introduce a digital identity bill and, if so, please explain the logic of putting all the data known about every Australian, including web surfing and social media posts, purchase history, financial history, health data, travel and associations with others, in one datafile and to make that available to companies like Optus?

I rise on a point of order. I understand Senator Watt will seek to respond to you, Senator Roberts, but I would indicate that I don't think that's a supplementary question. I think you have also switched portfolios because, in relation to government digital identification, it would be Senator Gallagher, but we will seek to assist as much as we are able.

T (—) (): Thanks again, Senator Roberts. Senator Gallagher, as Senator Wong has indicated, is the responsible minister here. Senator Gallagher has informed me that this is a priority issue being considered by state, territory and Commonwealth ministers responsible for data management within government and it is intended that they will discuss this matter at a forthcoming meeting of the ministerial council.

More broadly, not only is our government investigating these matters very seriously but we have already commenced a range of reviews around the Privacy Act, cybersecurity. Those reviews commenced before this latest incident, and, frankly, the fact this incident has occurred indicates that our laws do need a massive overhaul and were left neglected by the former government. We take these issues very seriously. We are not going to dither, like the former government did and we're not going to leave Australians exposed in the way that the former government did.

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The Australian government's ongoing, fully budgeted, $10 million per annum Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program provides a rebate of up to $100,000 for eligible Australian wine or cider producers to invest in their businesses to attract visitors to wine regions, helping grow Australian tourism businesses and local tourism jobs. Will the Albanese Labor government commit to providing the budgeted $10 million for the 2022 round of the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant program?

Again, I understand, and I'll stand to be corrected—

Is that a point of order?

It's a point of order about the portfolio. I think the question should probably have been addressed to Minister Watt in terms of where the program lies. I'll see if Senator Farrell can assist in any way.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong, as the leader, has advised the chamber that the ministry is incorrect, but she has invited Senator Farrell to offer an answer to your questions if he can.

On what basis have you just jumped up, Senator McGrath? Resume your seat. You either call a point of order or ask a question. I'm going to Senator Farrell now.

Thank you, Senator McGrath, for your question. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated, this is an area of Senator Watt's direct portfolio responsibility. But, knowing something about the wine industry, as I do—

Honourable senators interjecting—

I might also say that I mentioned last night the importance of civility in this place. If all these people choose to turn up and exercise their democratic right—I'd like to be civil to the people on the other side but I'd also like to be civil for them. We recognise the importance of the grape and wine sector to the economic prosperity of regional Australia. I can say from experience that Australian wine is the best in the world.

A point of order: if the minister is unable to answer the question, I would suggest that he takes it on notice. The question is actually in relation to a grant program for cellar door tourism, and he has not had any—

Honourable senators interjecting—

We offered for Senator Watt to take the question. He could address the question.

Senator McGrath has asked a question. The leader of the government has indicated to the chamber that it was not to the correct minister. I'll invite Senator Farrell to continue to answer the question. It was directed to Senator Farrell. He has willingly stood up to answer the question. Senator Farrell, please continue.

I'm surprised that Senator Ruston, being a South Australian, wants to interfere with my answering of this question, because there's probably no state that's got a greater interest in the wine industry than the state of South Australia. These are issues that are under consideration in the course of the budget. As you'd expect, all of these things are under consideration over the course of the budget. We'll be reporting back— (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, your first supplementary?

Fulsome as always! The Cellar Door Grants program normally opens to applications on 1 July and closes on 30 September each year. Given industry has already waited three months for the grant round to open, and the usual closing date is just two days away, when will the Albanese Labor government give small Australian wine businesses certainty about the future of this program?

Thank you, Senator McGrath, for that supplementary question. I think the finance minister indicated there are a whole range of areas where, in the lead-up to the budget, there are issues under consideration. Coming from South Australia, I understand just how important the wine industry is to this country. We've seen the neglect of our trading relationship under the former government, in respect of China—the way in which you sat on your hands while we lost all that trade! You're suddenly interested in helping the wine industry in this country? What about the last two years when you sat on your hands? You had a chance to repair the damage to China, and you did nothing! (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, second supplementary?

nator McGRATH () (): The Australian wine industry is facing numerous global challenges. These challenges are being compounded by the governance delays and uncertainty about the future of this program. Why has the government created this funding uncertainty for Australian wine tourism businesses who have invested in their businesses and the Australian economy last year based on the availability of the rebate?

I thank Senator McGrath for his question. He obviously didn't listen to my last answer. Had he done so, he would have understood that the problems of the wine industry, the problems that you're talking about that face the wine industry right at this very moment, are directly related to the neglect and the failure of the former government—

Resume your seat, Minister. Senator McGrath, when you stand, wait for the call. Do not just announce a point of order.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator McGrath stood up and said 'point of order' before he was called. Senator McGrath?

Point of order: the question was quite specific. It related to domestic wine tourism in relation to a grants program. The minister is nowhere near within order. He has wandered off into the sunset talking about other things.

Thank you, Senator McGrath, we don't need the commentary. I invite the minister to either answer the question directly or take it on notice, and I ask everyone in the chamber to be quiet so we can hear the answer.

Thank you.

Have you forgotten what you were saying?

No, I haven't forgotten; I know exactly what I'm going to say. Coming from Queensland, I appreciate you don't know as much about the wine industry as—

Senator McGrath! You just got to your feet before you were called and called out 'point of order'. You stand, you wait for the call and then you indicate it's a point of order, not as you are rising to your feet.

I apologise for misusing points of order. I have a point of order.

Yes, Senator McGrath?

The minister has unfairly impugned my reputation by saying I know nothing about the great wine industry of—

Senator McGrath, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. Minister, you've got 22 seconds.

Thank you for that point of order. I'm not in any way impugning the Queensland wine industry; I'm impugning Senator McGrath! I find it difficult—

Senator Farrell, please withdraw that comment.

I will of course withdraw that.

Thank you. You have six seconds left.

I'm not sure how it is possible—

Senator Ruston and Senator Wong.

to— (Time expired)

My question is to Minister Wong. A recent report by Oxfam and ActionAid shows that Australia is funding just one-tenth of its fair share of global climate action. For one of the world's largest fossil fuel exporters and a wealthy colonial country which has contributed significantly to global climate change, this is pretty pathetic. Pacific Island people are on the front lines of the climate crisis despite contributing negligible amounts to global emissions. Recently Pacific elders visited parliament and once again called for Australia to do more and to take the lead on climate change. Minister, will the government commit to finally paying our fair share of climate finance, which has been assessed at $4 billion a year?

I thank Senator Faruqi for the question, and I would make the point that I think there are a number of aspects to her question. First I'll go to the assistance that the government does provide, and I would make the point that over the period that those opposite were in government they cut nearly $12 billion from development assistance. And I regret deeply that the bipartisanship that was offered by us in opposition for continuing the maintenance, the growth and the development in the Official Development Assistance program was never taken up by either Minister Bishop or Minister Payne. I regret that, because I think it would have been much better for the country and also for the people of our region if that bipartisanship had been maintained and there had been less of a chase for some of the right-wing populists who opposed development assistance. I think there is a strong national security case for development assistance, there is a strong peace dividend from it and there is a strong ethical imperative for it as well, given that we know we can avert the loss of lives and we can improve education and health outcomes for people who need that so much in the region.

In relation to climate, this government has come to office with a much more ambitious commitment on climate change. This will see Australia's emissions reduced by 43 per cent. This will see the vast majority of Australia's energy, notwithstanding that we are an emissions-intensive economy, being renewable energy—in excess of 80 per cent—this decade. I appreciate that the Greens do not have the same view about the need to transition. We recognise the need to transition and deliver in the real world. When it comes to development, we have come to office with additional assistance to be provided to the Pacific, which was an election commitment, and I thank my colleagues for that. We made clear to Pacific family members the importance of— (Time expired)

Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary question?

Minister, Australia is currently contributing only around 0.22 per cent of its gross national income towards international aid—and I take your point that the Liberal-National government reduced that to a pittance—and this is extremely low: well under one-third of what is recommended by the OECD and almost the lowest it's ever been, and it's totally inadequate to meet our obligations. So, Minister, what is your government going to do? And my question is, will the government increase its overall aid commitments in the upcoming budget, and by how much? And I would actually appreciate an answer to this question. (Time expired)

In relation to budget questions, there's been a lot of 'rule in, rule out'—which is a usual political process in the lead-up to the budget, and I can remember both Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham standing here and saying, 'Well, these decisions will be made, and they will be made in the budget, and the budget will be handed down on'—whatever day it was at that time. So, I'm not going to do the 'rule in, rule out' thing. But what I would say to the senator is that we made a very clear and costed election commitment to additional funding for ODA, which was announced in the election campaign. We did that—in excess of a billion dollars over four years. That included additional ODA to the Pacific, additional ODA to South-East Asia and an additional $32 million to the Australian NGO Cooperation Program, known as ANCP. We did that because it was the right thing to do for Australia. Our security lies in our region, and we have a national interest in doing what we can to make the region more stable and secure. We will deliver that commitment.

Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary question.

Will be government commit to ending new coal and gas and establishing a transition authority to support coal and gas communities through a transition to renewable energy?

I'm not sure it is a supplementary question, but I'm happy to take it. I've responded on this front before. I know this is the political point that the Greens wish to make, and they know that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change look to the emissions generated in one's own country, and Australia will be reducing those. In relation to projects, for whatever resource, they will go through the appropriate environmental processes. And we will work with Pacific islander family members. As members of the Pacific family, we will work with the Pacific Islands Forum members, because, unlike those opposite—

Senator Faruqi?

Thank you, President. I have a point of order on relevance. My question was very specific. It had no lead-in—nothing. I am asking about new coal and gas and if the government will commit to a transition authority?

I believe the minister is being relevant.

I thought I specifically answered that, Senator Faruqi. I know you may not like the answer. I made the point that those projects would be assessed in accordance with Australia's stringent environmental standards. I made the point that the UN Convention on climate change does not call upon Australia to do what you are asking. Let's be clear: you are out of step with where the international community is on this issue.

My question as to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. Can the minister please give an update to the Senate on the progress of the Exotic Animal Disease Preparedness Taskforce, which was announced last month?

Thank you, Senator Polly. I know you have a long history as a supporter of the agriculture industry in Tasmania. It's important to remember that Australia does remain free of foot and mouth disease and lumpy skin disease. While that remains the case, we must remain vigilant to biosecurity threats at our borders. Our three pronged approach of helping Indonesia deal with their outbreak, strengthening our borders and improving preparedness is vital to ensure we continue to remain free of these potentially devastating diseases.

Last month I created the Exotic Animal Disease Preparedness Taskforce to ensure that Australia is fully prepared should an outbreak occur. That is because good governments plan for the best and prepare for the worst. The task force was co-chaired by senior experts in the department of agriculture and what was then Emergency Management Australia, bringing together the experts in biosecurity and animal health within our government, along with experts in disaster management.

I can confirm the task force has now completed its assessment of Australia's preparedness if an exotic animal disease were to reach Australia. The task force conducted four weeks of rigorous testing of national biosecurity and emergency management plans. They undertook specific scenario exercises to test arrangements already in place to respond to incursions of foot and mouth disease and lumpy disease, including for multiple outbreaks across multiple jurisdictions.

The task force worked closely with state and territory governments, industry and Indigenous communities to ensure a national coordinated view was captured. The task force liaised with our Indonesian counterparts on how they have managed their outbreak, as well as looking at the UK's FMD outbreak in 2001, as well COVID outbreaks and recent natural disasters in Australia to see what lessons could be learned from those events.

The exercises conducted by the task force also stress-tested how Australia's biosecurity plans interact with national emergency management. This way, we know we can organise a rapid response across Commonwealth, state, territory and industry partners. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, your first supplementary question.

Thank you for that leadership. Can you outline any findings that have been made by the task force, and whether any of the recommendations—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Polley, have you finished your question?

I haven't finished my question. Would you like me to start it again?

Senator Polley, please continue your question from where you stopped.

The leadership demonstrated by the minister has been outstanding. Can you tell us whether or not any of the recommendations from that report will be accepted by the government?

Senator Polley, I would love nothing more. I apologise for being so eager to talk about the work of this task force.

Overall, I am pleased to advise that this review has found that our biosecurity system is strong and sound, particularly in prevention and mitigation. There is good reason to expect that Australia will remain free of these diseases well into the future, although, as I have put on the record before, the risk is certainly there. The review also found that some of our biosecurity responses do need to be updated to be current with the times and with the technology we now have. For example, the review suggested that a COAG instrument that hadn't been looked at since 2002 should be updated to better fit our modern times. The review also made suggestions around better crisis-communications capacity, regularly updated national plans, improved data collection and improved collaboration with states and territories. These suggestions are now being implemented. This is why the work of the task force was so important, so that in the unlikely event of an incursion we are well prepared to limit the spread and impact of these foreign diseases. (Time expired)

Senator Polley, a second supplementary question?

Can the minister outline what the next steps are to ensuring Australia is well prepared to respond to any potential major biosecurity outbreak?

As part of Australia's strongest response to a biosecurity threat, our three-pronged approach will continue to serve us well as we fight to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of our country, but we must remain vigilant to this threat and continue to improve our responses going forward. This work will now lead into and inform Exercise Paratus, a live boots-on-the-ground foot-and-mouth disease based scenario to be undertaken with states and territories next year.

We are also continuing our support for Indonesia to assist them to control their outbreak. As of last week, I'm pleased to report, 250,000 doses of lumpy skin disease vaccine supplied by Australia had been administered to Indonesian livestock, while Australia's supply of one million foot-and-mouth disease vaccines have been distributed, with 600,000 having been delivered to the island of Bali alone. A further three million vaccines will arrive in the coming weeks, and we've also trained more than 300 local officials with specific focus on technical aspects of vaccine delivery, biosecurity management and record-keeping.

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. On Tuesday 13 September, at the Regional Australia Institute national summit, minister Catherine King said:

… this Government has committed to delivering $1.5 billion to construct common user marine infrastructure at the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct near Darwin.

Is your government still committed to the Middle Arm project in the Northern Territory?

I think Senator McDonald would know that we agreed to that as part of our election campaign, and the comments of Minister King that she referred to reflect that. There is a range of other spending around that program. I think in the budget it was funded as part of a broader package with other elements in it, and we are currently working through all the details around that. We want to make sure that there are appropriate business cases and due diligence and that the spending is the right amount of spending that should be allocated to that. That is the work that I've been reflecting on for the last question times here, about doing an assessment essentially that every dollar that was committed in the previous government's last budget is actually quality spending going where it's needed. That's the work we are doing.

Senator McDonald, a first supplementary?

A week later, on Tuesday 20 September, at a press conference with the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher said in reference to the Middle Arm project: 'We are looking at them all, all of those commitments, line by line.' Seven days earlier Minister King had committed outright to the project. Minister, who is telling the truth: you or the infrastructure minister?

It's a shame you can't rewrite your supplementary questions in light of the answer I just gave. In that press conference we were asked about a range of programs, and we are reviewing all of them. We are reviewing every single measure in the budget, but there are a range of measures that we matched. The work we are doing is to make sure that the money that was allocated is the right amount of money to go to that program because, forgive us over here, some of your budgeting was pretty dodgy, to be honest.

We are a grown-up government where ministers do their jobs. We don't have a Prime Minister taking responsibility for every portfolio and making decisions based on apparently nothing. We want the evidence and we want the assessment. The ERC, as a collective, will make decisions based on that.

Senator McDonald, a second supplementary?

So, still no clarity on the commitment or not commitment. On 11 September, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, a spokesperson for the infrastructure minister, Catherine King, signalled further cuts to the Regional Accelerator Program and the Energy Security and Regional Development Plan were likely:. There are a few elements of both the Regional Accelerator Fund and the Energy Security and Regional Development Plan that were matched during the election, or in a subsequent decision will be funded in some form:

There are a few elements of both the regional accelerator fund and the energy security and regional development fund that were matched during the election or, in a subsequent decision, will be funded in some form.

Can Minister Gallagher confirm what the 'few elements' are?

I don't think I could have been clearer about the original question, because I did answer that straight up. In terms of the other outcomes of the decisions that we have been taking through the budget process, you will see those reflected in the budget process. As you did in your budget, we are going through them line by line.

We have to make some savings, we have to reprioritise, we have to make sure that the precious dollar that's going out the door is actually going where it's needed. In some cases grants under your government went where proponents didn't even know they had applied for it.

A point of order on relevance. It was a specific question: can Minister Gallagher confirm what the few elements are?

The minister is being relevant to your question.

I've answered the question.

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

In question time on Monday I took questions asked of me by Senator Shoebridge on notice, in my capacity as the Minister representing the Attorney-General, relating to freedom of information. I've written to Senator Shoebridge to provide additional information and I table my letter to him for the information of all senators.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers by ministers to questions from members of the opposition.

On the issue of the cost of living, it's amazing that, as opposed to giving some direct answers about what the government will do to help Australians who are struggling with the cost of living, they launched straight into some revision of history, which you'd have to describe almost as delusional. I'll cover some of those points before highlighting some of the differences between decisions that they are making now they're in government and those which we made when we were in government not that long ago, as well as some elements of design around critical elements of our economy that go directly to the cost of living.

On the delusion side, we heard a lot of comments today about debt that was inherited by this government. They made the case, somewhat delusionally, that this debt was irresponsible and a product of poor government. They seem to have forgotten that at the time, when the Morrison government was seeking to withdraw, for example, support to people through the JobKeeper program, it was members on that side who were saying the government should extend that program. At a time when we were successfully getting vaccination rates up throughout the nation—in fact, leading, toward the end, vaccination rates for second and third doses—it was that side who were suggesting we should pay people to have vaccinations. So the whole delusion around debt ignores the fact that decisions that were made led to good outcomes. So the $50 billion that was talked about as coming unexpectedly into the budget is in part because of decisions that were made to keep people in work. When people are in work, people are not drawing on welfare, and people are paying taxes, which means that government expenditure is down, and incomes are up. It's a matter of record—it's a matter of fact—that, over the term of the Morrison government, 1.9 million jobs were created and unemployment went down to 3.9 per cent, which is the lowest in decades.

Simultaneously with that, one of the ways that the government made decisions to actually reduce cost-of-living pressures was to give tax relief. In the measures that were brought in in various budgets, the Morrison government brought in $40 billion of tax relief, benefiting around 11 million Australians, which meant that the program we put in place would see 95 per cent of Australian taxpayers on marginal rates of 30 per cent or less. That is the way that you actually help people into work—you help people to keep more of what they earn so that they have the funds they need to care for their families, to pay mortgages and to pay their power bills.

We also sought to make sure that, from an engineering perspective, the things that actually enable our power system—for example, adequate supplies of gas needed for peaking power, to keep prices down—were available. So the other side made the promise some 96 times during the election campaign that they would reduce power prices by $275. Instead, there's a headline in the media of my home city, Adelaide, saying:

SA power bills to rise in cost-of-living blow

Tens of thousands of South Australian households are set to be hit with increased electricity bills after the energy industry watchdog made the "difficult decision" to increase benchmark prices by hundreds of dollars a year.

So, when we look at cost of living, it's important to understand that the decisions that are made actually impact on the government's ability to support families and on people's abilities to get jobs and keep more of the money they have made so that they can pay the bills.

What sorts of decisions do we see from those who are now on the government benches? If you look at the Australian Financial Review just this week, the headline there is, 'Labor "at it again" in surprise move on dividends'. So they are planning to bring in retrospective measures around imputation credits that will actually give surprise tax bills to people and increase the cost of living at a time when they're promising to reduce cost-of-living pressures.

We constantly come in here and hear this question put by the opposition on the cost of living. Yet here are the same people who wouldn't support a $1 increase for the lowest paid people in this country. Here are the same people who opposed childcare support for 1.26 million people. Here are the same people who didn't support and didn't act on gender pay inequity. And these are all things that we're doing—we're turning around and taking actions that have a real effect on cost of living for our community.

Let's look at the jobs and skills in this community. Let's talk about the hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs that were lost under this opposition when they were in government. Over nine years, jobs were lost. Of course, when a consensus is being built in this country, they don't want to turn up. The Leader of the Opposition refused to turn up to the Jobs and Skills Summit. That's the reality. That's what they think. They just don't have a policy or an answer.

But, then again, I should actually withdraw that comment, because they did have a policy; they had a clear policy to drive wages down in this country! This is a design feature of that government. When they were in government, they said it was a design feature. Of course, the consequence of that was having to see, for the first time in the history of this country, the middle class shrink under your watch—not with a solution, not with an answer, not with a plan to turn it around and make sure that working people and small businesses, and businesses generally, can compete in the markets that you've managed to do so much damage to. They went with trend; they had waste and rorts—

I rise on a point of order. The senator has twice referred to 'you' in his contribution. I would ask that he direct his comments through the chair, please.

Senator Sheldon, you heard the point of order. I give you the call.

Thank you, Deputy President. 'You' is them, the opposition and the previous government, who turned around and quite clearly destroyed the middle class and were undermining it through their entire term. It was part of their design feature to make sure working people in this country had less in their pockets. And guess what? You have succeeded. You did deliver on your policy and we are all paying. When you—the opposition—were in government, you delivered on that policy. That's exactly what you did.

When those opposite were in government they turned around very clearly. When they were in government, this opposition turned around and said it was too hard to regulate the gig economy, where the average pay is $6.67 an hour.

That is right, Senator Ciccone. They said there was nothing they could do to give those people minimum payments in this country. That is what was said when they were in government. Since we got into government, we have said quite clearly we have to make a number of serious changes to what's happened under their watch. As those opposite drove down the middle class and put more pressure on pensioners, we have come up with solutions about pensioners, making sure we have work bonuses so pensioners can get out there and do more hours. We have built a consensus on jobs and skills across this economy. We have said we will make sure the middle class in this country grows. We watched quite clearly the previous government allow companies like McDonald's to steal from the youngest people in our country. We saw companies like Qantas steal hundreds of millions of dollars to pay their shareholders, while, as a government, those opposite gave them $2 billion—good suggestion. Did they have any strings attached, like not misuse the money? No, they didn't. There were waste and rorts, and the consequence was that hardworking Australians have been paying the price.

The previous government did not support a wage increase for aged-care workers. The opposition, when they were in government, would not support feminised industries getting wage increases. They would not fund the wage increases of the Fair Work Commission rulings. That's what those opposite did when they were in government. If their plan was for cost of living; they succeeded—wages down, middle class collapsing, feminised industries without wage increases, our lowest-paid not receiving wage improvements.

I also rise to take note of the cost-of-living question. People visiting in their school holidays today have heard why it is called 'question time' and not 'answer time'. In the words of Patches O'Houlihan from Dodgeball, we have had dodgers, ducks and dips dives on questions today. Yesterday, Senator Pocock warmly welcomed Sam and Leone to this place, highlighting their struggles with the cost of living. Their answer from the government was to give them a wave.

It was a Liberal-National government who took decisive action to reduce the cost of fuel. It was a Liberal-Nationals government's pragmatic approach to reduce the excise by 25c a litre, putting money back into the pockets of mums and dads. Tonight that cost will be added to every single litre of fuel for every motorist across Australia. Andy Lane of Aberdeen wrote to me this week after fuel at his local service station rose from $1.40 to $1.91. From tonight, that will go to $2 16 a litre.

Since elected, this government have failed to recommit to their $275 cut to energy bills despite repeating this commitment during the election 97 times. Ninety-seven times we heard they would commit to a $275 reduction in energy prices, and what do we hear now? Silence. That is why June Rose Richardson from Taree contacted my office after receiving her last energy bill of $461.28. That is an increase of 30 per cent from six months ago even though Ms Richardson has reduced to energy usage by 20 per cent on last year. Prices just keep going up. The cost of living just keeps going up. Like Senator Pocock I ask the question: what do you say to Ms Richardson when those on limited incomes have to choose between heating and housing? Does she deserve a wave as well?

Today Senator Dean Smith moved an amendment to give seniors like June Rose, who receives an age pension, the ability to earn additional income to help with the rising cost of living they are experiencing under Labor. Because if this government won't to help them, we will help them help themselves.

I would like to thank the Greens for their support on this measure. Again, where was Labor again on this? They were silent. The lowest earners, the hardest workers, are suffering disproportionately under those opposite. What we are seeing is not just a two-speed economy under Labor, but a two-class economy—those who can see the city from their front doors and those who can't. The class warfare that defined Bill Shorten's leadership is now rearing its ugly head under Anthony Albanese, the man who said, 'I like fighting Tories. That's what I do.' If you live in the CBD, welcome to Albo's gold class, but for those of us in the regions—the doers, the makers, the growers, the producers of our wealth—we are relegated to cattle class. The bread and butter budget that Treasurer Jim Chalmers has promised is all regional communities across the country can expect from Labor—to eat bread and butter, because they'll afford to eat no more.

We have already heard first-hand how Catherine King has been cancelling vital funding for projects across regional Australia that were funded whilst we were in government. She is becoming the David Copperfield of regional infrastructure, making projects disappear with the flash of a wand. Some of these projects are even in Labor seats, but they are regional and so they don't count anymore under this government that counts the cities, not the regions.

Marion on the North Coast has told me that on 1 July her doctor stopped bulk-billing. She, like many in the Forster Tuncurry area and across country communities, must now pay $70 on concession to see the doctor, with only $39 returned by Medicare. Not only do we have to choose between heating or homes, we now have to choose about health as well. What are we going to tell the people about that? How will you address these cost-of-living issues faced by Andy, June Rose and Marion? We heard today—in the words of Patches O'Houlihan—you will dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge anything to help them out.

Before I give Senator Payman the call, Senator Cadell, in the future can you refer to the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister or by his seat and not 'Albo'.

N () (): It's interesting to hear the audacity the other side has to attack us when we've hit the ground running. We're 120 days in and we've delivered more for the nation than those opposite could even dream of. Senator Cadell, it is very interesting to hear two new senators discuss cost-of-living pressures when my fellow WA senators here would also know that Western Australians made a massive decision in the election and that was to elect a government that actually cares; that's passionate about ensuring that everyone has a fair go; that's passionate about ensuring that there's integrity, transparency and action on things that are impacting our lives; that's passionate about ensuring that the pressures on families are reduced. The fuel excise was introduced on 30 March. Isn't that a surprise! Just two months before the election. Was that a vote winner? I'm not sure. I'll leave that.

In saying that, people understand the pressures on the budget and why we can't continue and extend the fuel excise. With a trillion dollars in debt, Australians know that we cannot fix the problems overnight. This government has been doing a lot in terms of the skills crisis we're facing. Young people in Western Australia have been coming up to me and talking about the pressures on the housing market, not just not being able to afford rent but also the fact that young people slipped through the cracks under the previous government. We have not been considered at the decision-making tables.

It is atrocious to sit in this place and to hear those opposite having a go at us when we've achieved so much in the last 120 days.

What have you achieved?

If you were listening, you would have heard Senator Sheldon literally list so many things we've achieved. As a fellow WA senator, you would definitely know that we needed a change in government because there was way too much inaction, division and lack of focus by the previous government. Australians were sick of it. They were just tired. They needed a sense of hope, and that's what the current Albanese Labor government is going to be delivering.

We will go into October and come out with a budget that will benefit everyone. That is something that's dear to my heart. I've seen how my sister, who is a Master of Pharmacy student and also has an 18-month-old baby, is struggling to make ends meet. She's struggling to pay her mortgage with her husband. She's struggling to pay for child care. This has all happened. We've seen the impacts on real people, and it is time to get the ball rolling.

The Albanese Labor government is going to ease those pressures, not only the housing and climate change crises that young people are facing but also the education crisis. When it comes to accessibility to TAFEs, apprenticeships and traineeships, the Labor government will ensure that everyone has access to the education we deserve, and also employment opportunities. It is tough putting food on the table. It is tough paying bills. It is tough making ends meet. These are based on the mismanagement of the previous government. All the rorts and all the poor decision-making policies have landed us in a very difficult place. Australians know that it's not something we can change overnight, but they have faith in the Albanese Labor government to fix the issues and the mess. They trust us based on the leadership and transparency that we have indicated and that we have been delivering, including the abolishment of the cashless debit card last night.

I do note that the government is really struggling to defend their position on this. As we saw during question time, and as we continue to see during the motions to take note, what the government continue to do is to try and deflect the question, blame somebody else for the problem, so that they don't have to actually answer the question. That's one of the really disappointing things. I think Senator Cadell's comment was on point. It's called question time because it's about the questions; it's not about the government providing answers. They continue to deflect the question, to blame somebody else—it's not their problem—and then not answer the question. Why don't they answer the question? It is because, despite going to the previous election saying hundreds of times that they had a plan, they actually don't have a plan. They did make some promises, particularly in relation to the cost of living. They said that Australians would continue to receive pay rises ahead of the CPI. Well, how's that promise going? That promise has disappeared. We know that, with the CPI rising the way that it is, it's not sustainable and it's only going to continue to feed into the inflationary cycle. So, Labor's promise from before the election will actually hurt Australians, so they know that they can't keep that promise and they've walked away from that.

They promised Australians a $275-a-year reduction in their energy bills. That lasted a matter of only a few weeks. They've walked away from that. They told Australians that Labor would be with Australians all the way. That's what they told them before the election when they were seeking their vote to get elected. What is patently clear is that Australians are on their own under this Labor government.

When it came to providing support for cost of living through the reduction in fuel tax, we provided that, at the peak of the price of fuel. It was Labor's decision as to whether they continued that, as it would been ours had we won the election; we didn't. But it would have been a decision that we had to make. It is now a decision for the Labor Party. So, trying to deflect, trying to blame somebody else is, quite frankly, cowardly; it's weak; it's gutless. And Labor need to be prepared to take responsibility for it.

We know the history of Labor's management of the finances. We saw what happened when they were in government last time, and we still remember what happened when they were in government the time before. It took the coalition six years to get Labor's mess under control after we last came to government, in 2013. Once we'd done that, after six years, we had the budget back in balance. And then the pandemic started. But we remember that when we put JobKeeper in place we saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, kept hundreds of thousands of workers connected to their businesses and kept the economy strong during the pandemic, Yet the Labor Party were barracking and calling for us to spend more money. They wanted us to spend $300 per Australian—$6 billion—to encourage people to get vaccinated, when they were already rolling up in their droves to do that.

So, how much worse would Australia's financial position be if we had listened to the Labor Party and the things that they were calling us to do when we were in government and which we resisted? We responsibly wound back the income support that kept the economy going, that Australians supported during COVID. We have one of the most successful vaccination rates of any country in the world. And we came out of COVID with a strong economy. The government is now benefiting from the strength of the economy in the budget numbers. It's interesting, though, that the independent Parliamentary Budget Office confirmed that Labor's policies would result in higher debt and deficits than the plan put forward by the coalition at the last election. So, they can't come in here and try to deflect—not answer the question and blame somebody else. They are responsible for their financial position and they should have the courage to stand up and take that responsibility.

I put the question in relation to the motion moved by Senator Fawcett.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Steele-John today relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Disabled people—NDIS participants—have for 10 years feared the federal budget, because every year we have known, with the Liberals in charge, that there was a government at the helm that never really believed in the NDIS and that had been working to kick us off the NDIS, to cut our plans, to deny us the support we need. This fear is very legitimate. In 2019 we woke up on budget day to find out that the former government had reallocated $4 billion from our NDIS back to the general revenue pool in order to deliver their 'back in black' moment. Remember those teacups the former Treasurer was so proud of? What did that mean?

Coffee mugs!

'Coffee mugs,' Senator Scarr interjects. I'm sorry; they were coffee mugs. Very funny.

The reality of those cuts was the beginning of a fear campaign run by the former government with a very clear message: disabled people are too much of a burden financially for the federal government to bear, and so we must make cuts and so we must change policies with the aim of kicking them off. That was the message of the former government. That was the fear under which we lived as disabled people. Let me remind the Senate that when an NDIS plan is cut, that means that a disabled person isn't able to have a shower every day, isn't able to get food every day, isn't able to get out in the community to make friends and have work. It means that we are subjected to violence, abuse and neglect. That is the reality of a plan cut. That is the reality of an underfunded NDIS.

The disability community looked to the election result with the hope that the fear campaign would end, that, finally, disabled people and NDIS participants in Australia would be able to have confidence that their NDIS would not be plundered, that their plans would not be cut, that they could be safe in the knowledge that they would be able to get the support that they need.

Today, in the Senate and in the House, I and my colleague the Greens member for Ryan gave the finance minister in the NDIS minister the opportunity to end the fear campaign, to put their money where their mouths so often are, to rebuild that trust and to provide certainty. We asked them a very simple question: will you guarantee that this budget will deliver not one cut to the NDIS? Will you guarantee that the funds, if they are unspent in the scheme for this year, will be retained for participants? Well, all the minister in the House could guarantee was that the NDIS under Labor would be a positive experience. All the finance minister, who actually holds the purse strings in this conversation, could say was that they were concerned to ensure that the budget was placed on a sustainable footing and that the NDIS wasn't a focus for that work. I can tell you what: for disabled people who have been denied access to funds, services and supports because the NDIS must be sustained and sustainable, whether you are going to make cuts in this budget, whether you are going to retain funds in this scheme is our primary focus, because this is our life.

The government had the opportunity today to end the fear, to provide the certainty, to ensure that the over 500,000 NDIS participants and their families could finally, after 10 years, breathe out in the knowledge that they would not have to worry about cuts to the NDIS in the upcoming budget, that they would no longer be used as the can kicked around the floor, as the money bag smashed when the government wants to get some money back, maybe to pass out to their fossil fuel mates or to their friends in the gas industry, for instance. The government failed to do that, and so it will now be the work of the Greens and the disability community between now and budget day to ensure that all pressure is applied and to ensure that the government does not cut our NDIS.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Birmingham, move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges:

(i) 12 October 2022 marks 20 years since that terrible night in Kuta, Bali, when 202 innocent lives, including 88 Australians, were lost in the Bali Bombings, and

(ii) this date will be a difficult day for many Australians and Indonesians, as well as people around the world, whose lives were changed forever that night, and who continue to feel the impact of this senseless act;

(b) recognises:

(i) the brave efforts of first responders, whose instinct to run towards danger saved the lives of many, and

(ii) the professionalism of the Australian police, defence, diplomatic and medical staff who responded, alongside their Indonesian counterparts, with extraordinary courage and compassion in the aftermath of the attacks;

(c) notes the strength of our friendship with Indonesia, and the work we continue to do together, including to counter terrorism and violent extremism; and

(d) calls on all Australians to keep those whose lives were lost in our thoughts today, and over the coming weeks, as this sad anniversary is observed.

Can I start by also welcoming His Excellency Dr Siswo Pramono. You are very welcome in this chamber with your colleagues, Excellency, and we are very honoured to have you here today.

On 12 October 2002 terrorists attacked Paddy's Pub and the Sari Club in Kuta, Bali. They killed 202 innocent people, among them 88 Australians, 38 Indonesians and citizens of 20 other countries. Another 209 people were injured, many of them seriously, suffering severe burns and shrapnel injuries. Most of the victims who died were under 40, and nearly half were under 30. They were people of diverse faiths, ethnicities and nationalities from different walks of life: tourists and holidaymakers; teammates from rugby league, AFL and other sporting clubs celebrating or commiserating the season past; groups of friends and colleagues; young couples; and families on an evening out.

The attack was shocking not just because of who it targeted but because of where it happened. It happened on what the former governor of Bali, Made Mangku Pastika, called a small yet peaceful island. Bali has been treasured by generations of Australians. It has been a place that welcomed us, a place of culture and natural beauty, a place to rest and restore, a place of social ritual, memory and meaning. That night, it became a site of pain and of tragedy.

Twenty years on, the pain of that night is still with us and still with so many. We remember the victims: mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters and friends cruelly taken from us by an act of cowardice. We know that the survivors, the first responders and their families continue to live with the physical and mental scars. We continue to mourn the loss of the many victims and remember the heroes who risked themselves for others. As the then Governor Pastika said 10 years ago, 'That night we saw that there are angels living around us.' Survivors of the blast helped each other to safety in the face of extreme danger, extending caring compassion to perfect strangers. First responders—among them police, medical staff, embassy and consular officials and brave volunteers—ran towards the blast sites. Many worked throughout the night searching for survivors and administering critical care. Doctors and nurses at hospitals in Bali, Darwin and Perth treated the injured and comforted them through their pain. They showed the best of us. Australians and Indonesians working together.

We know the terrorists sought to divide our two countries and our peoples, to drive a stake into our multifaith and multicultural democracies, and we know they failed. Instead, our two peoples are united. We are bound together in a shared purpose. The spirit of friendship between our people and the cooperation between our two countries has been strengthened. Out of that loss and tragedy came strength and courage, a defiance in the face of terror: a refusal to be intimidated by those who seek to inflict harm on us, and a resolve that we would work together and face future challenges side-by-side.

That sense of cooperation continues to this day across the full breadth of our relationship. Australia and Indonesia are connected in almost every sphere of life: culture, education, trade, commerce and cooperation on many global challenges, including climate change. Together we built the Jakarta Center for Law Enforcement Cooperation, which has trained tens of thousands of police officers and strengthened our ties in so many areas. Its motto, 'Learning and understanding through shared experience', epitomises the approach we take together as partners.

Even when terror struck again, on 1 October 2005, killing 15 Indonesians and four Australians, we didn't lose hope. We redoubled our efforts. We looked for new ways to cooperate and solve our shared challenges. Programs like the Australia-Indonesia Muslim Exchange Program help us learn and understand each other through shared experience; and like the Australia-Indonesia Youth Exchange Program before it, which this year celebrates 40 years. These cultural exchanges showcase the things that make us each unique. Communities in Australia and Indonesia responded to the attacks not by withdrawing in fear or by being divided but by coming together in the pursuit of peace, forging a special connection that extends beyond governments and beyond politics.

Twenty years on, Australians continue to visit Bali, and the Balinese people welcome us again with generosity and with warmth. Before the pandemic, around a million Australians each year visited the beaches of Kuta or Seminyak, relaxed among the hills of Ubud or enjoyed a moment of quiet reflection at Pura Lempuyang. Many of those who were there 20 years ago continue to visit, and some continue to live in Bali.

On 12 October this year we will mark the 20th anniversary of the national memorial service in the Great Hall here in Parliament House and at a service being held at the Australian Consulate-General in Bali. These commemorations will offer an opportunity for all those affected to come together to remember, to honour, to pay tribute and to remember the lives of those lost that night; to stand with the survivors, their relatives and their families and support them at this time; to acknowledge the bravery and selflessness of those who assisted in the response; and to mark the ongoing spirit of friendship and cooperation between the Australian and Indonesian people.

I commend the motion to the Senate.

ASH (—) (): I too rise to speak in support of the motion noting the 20th anniversary of the Bali bombings. I thank the government for the opportunity to co-sponsor this motion. I too, on behalf of the coalition, acknowledge the presence in the chamber today of His Excellency the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia. Thank you so much for honouring us with your presence.

It was one of those moments in history when Australians remember exactly where they were the moment reports came home of the Bali bombings. At 11.05 pm on 12 October 2002, a suicide bomber detonated at Paddy's Pub in Kuta, Bali, sending the injured and survivors out onto the street. Minutes later, another bomb detonated across the street, at the Sari Club. The attacks brought immeasurable emotions of anger and grief. Two hundred and two people, from more than 20 countries, died. Over 100 people suffered irreparable injury from the blasts and fire that followed. Australia suffered the greatest toll, with 88 Australians losing their lives.

This year we mark 20 years since that night occurred. We remember those lost, and we offer our deepest sympathies to the victims' families, those who still carry the scars. We also acknowledge the selflessness of the first responders in the wake of the devastation. Today, here, in this place, and on 12 October we will remember those 88 Australians.

The horror of that night is also a reminder of our resolute pledge against terrorism. Two days after the bombings, the then Prime Minister John Howard said this:

In many respects the word 'terrorism' is too antiseptic an expression to describe what happened. It is too technical and too formal. What happened was barbaric, brutal mass murder without justification. It is seen as that by the people of Australia and it is seen as that by the people of the world. It is a terrible reminder that terrorism can strike anyone anywhere at any time.

Coming only a little more than 12 months after 11 September, it is a sentiment that continues to serve as a reminder of events that changed the course of history. Sadly, the threat of terrorism persists. Australia has always been resolute in keeping Australians safe from terrorism. Successive governments have continued to work with international partners to prevent the devastation of terrorism and the ideologies that fuel it, and we recommit our bipartisan support to continue the fight against terrorism in all of its forms.

In the years following the Bali bombings, former prime minister Howard reflected, and he said this:

Those who were responsible for this terrible deed may have hoped a number of things; they may have hoped that they would have driven Indonesia and Australia further apart.

Instead of that, they brought Indonesia and Australia closer together.

Our two countries were thrust together beyond the shared connection of being Pacific neighbours, forging a united determination to eradicate the threat of violent extremism in the region and globally.

In the aftermath of the bombings, Australia responded without hesitation. Within 62 hours of the blasts, 61 injured victims were transferred to the Royal Darwin Hospital and to burns units across the country, with military and civilian flights aiding in the evacuation. Our Australian Defence Force launched Operation Bali Assist, evacuating Australians and foreign nationals, and providing medical assistance. The Australian Federal Police deployed a response team and assisted the Indonesian National Police with the immediate response and the investigation that followed. This cooperation meant that some of those responsible for the horrific attacks would be prosecuted for their crimes. Fourteen Australian Commonwealth agencies, as well as state and territory agencies, came together to help respond to the crisis. Non-government agencies, including St John, the Australian Red Cross and Qantas, also provided their support.

In 2003, the Australian government honoured 199 individuals for their selfless acts of bravery and dedicated service in the wake of the bombings. Two Australians were awarded the Cross of Valour, our highest civilian honour. Senior Constable Timothy Britten and Mr Richard Joyes, upon hearing the bomb explosions, both made their way to the Sari Club and, whilst unknown to each other at that time, together repeatedly went back into the club, risking their lives to rescue the injured. In the continuing grief that we hold, it is these examples that etch into history the strong and resilient Australian spirit.

This anniversary will be difficult for many. Ceremonies will be held here in our nation's capital and across our great country. Many Australians, including the families of victims, survivors and first responders, have made the pilgrimage back to Bali each year for the anniversary, and each year they are welcomed by Indonesia, as they will be this year. An emblem adorning these services each year are the arrangements of wattle and frangipani flowers—a symbolic tribute uniting two countries.

Australia and Indonesia would be again bound together, unfortunately by grief, following the second Bali bombings not three years later in 2005. Of the 20 casualties, four Australians lost their lives. The Bali Memorial Package, established in 2003 and concluding in 2008, honoured those Australians who died. During its effective phase, the package strengthened health services in Bali, including provisions for Bali's main teaching hospital, the creation of the Australian Bali Memorial Eye Centre, and multiple medical scholarship packages here in Australia.

As our relationship has continued to deepen with Indonesia so has our cooperation since 2002, with a range of strategic, security, defence and economic partnerships, and, most recently, in 2021, the renewal of our Australia-Indonesia Memorandum of Understanding on Counter Terrorism. Our relationship with Indonesia is one of great importance—it defies those who sought to cause long-lasting chaos on that day—and our ties remain strong.

As a consequence of these attacks and others, which we see all too often around the world, we do live in a very different world today. We acknowledge and we give thanks to our police, our security agencies and our defence forces. They work every single day to keep Australians safe.

Today in the Senate, in recognition of the 20th anniversary, let us remember the 202 souls, including the 88 Australians, who lost their lives in the Bali bombings on 12 October 2002, and those who still bear the scars of that night. Let our thoughts be with them and their families, for they will never forget and neither should we.

I firstly acknowledge the Indonesian ambassador and his counterparts and welcome them to the chamber with our heartfelt condolences. I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to support this motion, which commemorates and remembers the 202 victims, including 88 Australians, of the bombings of Paddy's Bar and the Sari Club in Bali, and of course the at least 200 others who were also injured by the blast and the fires that followed.

Parents farewelled their children at the airport, waving them off for their first solo holiday in Bali, and never saw them again. Partners, parents, siblings, friends and teammates were lost. The tragedy involved victims from more than 20 countries and many Balinese locals. We extend our heartfelt condolences to the families of those who were lost and to those who survived. We extend our thanks to those who assisted in the immediate aftermath and those who are still supporting those affected.

The immediate response in the hours and days after the bombing were a reminder of how we can come together. Doctors and nurses holidaying in Bali rushed to help victims, along with local firefighters and first responders. People opened up their homes and took the injured to find help. The tragedy of the Bali bombings was a reminder of how small and connected our world can be, of the overwhelming humanity and community that binds us together and of the importance of global efforts to broker peace. Let us never forget this as we fight for a safer and better world for everyone.

On behalf of the Nationals I join with my parliamentary colleagues in placing on the record our heartfelt condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of the victims on the 20th anniversary of the Bali bombings. I also welcome His Excellency to the chamber and share our heartfelt condolences, which I'm sure he will reiterate back to Indonesia and the Balinese community more broadly on our behalf.

Bali is indeed a beautiful island paradise that has for decades offered a spiritual retreat and escape, especially for Australians. Many Australians take their first overseas holiday to Bali, and it is a mecca for families, surfers, and is accessible to so many across Australia.

It's Saturday night, 12 October, a warm 24 degrees, and the city centre is bustling. Some are heading home after dinner and others are heading out to start their night partying. Then at 11.05 pm a suicide bomber detonated inside Paddy's pub, in Kuta. Minutes later, another bomb detonated across the street at the Sari Club. Those explosions that night killed 202 people from 20 countries. Australia suffered the largest loss, with 88 fatalities and hundreds more left wounded. We can only imagine the utter distress of losing a loved one under such horrific circumstances, and we can only imagine the ongoing distress experienced by those injured and those who witnessed the carnage and human suffering. This cowardly and despicable bombing has tragically affected families not only in Australia but also in Bali. This was an attack on both Australians and Balinese, an attack on the Australian way of life and the Balinese way of life.

In the wake of the attacks the Australian Defence Force immediately mobilised, launching Operation Bali Assist just 17 hours after the blast. The first RAAF plane arrived to evacuate injured Australians in the largest aeromedical evacuation since the Vietnam War. At least 66 badly injured people were flown to Darwin for treatment. The military then assisted in secondary transfers of people from Darwin to medical centres around the country. Hours after the attacks the Australian Federal Police organised a team to go to Bali. It included disaster victim identification staff, forensic investigators, intelligence officers, administrators, security staff, and IT and comms staff to assist the Indonesian National Police investigation. Over 10 days, AFP members interviewed 7,000 Australians about their experiences as they returned to Australia after the attack. The AFP was instrumental in identifying and returning victims to their families, and provided extensive investigative support that led to the capture of the perpetrators.

Out of the destruction of the bombings came many stories of ordinary people making extraordinary efforts to help those affected. People who were injured in the blasts stayed to assist others, and locals and foreigners went to the site to help. Tourists with medical skills worked with overwhelmed Indonesian medical staff at the bomb sites and local hospitals. Nearly 200 Australians received formal recognition for their bravery and for the assistance they provided both immediately and in following months.

On the 10th anniversary of the attacks, the then Labor minister and leader of the government in this place at the time, Senator Chris Evans, echoed the sentiment of many:

They took many lives but they failed in their mission. October 12 2002 was also a day of great heroism. Of selfless acts of courage. Of remarkable emergency response. What was a terrible day of shared grief for Indonesia and Australia became a day of great shared resolve.

Joe Frost spoke at Newcastle Sacred Heart Cathedral in a special service to acknowledge the victims of the Bali bombings, and encapsulated what many Australians were feeling:

That bomb hit us that night and it has hit all of our community.

Those words ring true because, irrespective of where we live in Australia, whether we visit Bali, whether we know anybody directly associated with the bombings—victims or relatives—we can empathise with the ongoing hardship and distress they still experience.

In these continuing uncertain times we must be vigilant in being even more aware of our surroundings and ensure we take every necessary measure to fight against such acts of terrorism that aim to bring down our very way of life. It is regrettable, yet a reality, that we are in the midst of a war that has no boundaries, whose victims are random and the perpetrators of which are devoid of the basic decency found in most human beings.

Sadly, the word 'Bali' became synonymous with this bloodshed. This tiny idyllic paradise was drawn into the maelstrom of intolerance, ignorance and hate. The irony is Bali is a beautiful place that, sadly, was associated with this terror. I recall watching television footage of people at the airport. One man interviewed said: 'Of course I'm going to Bali. If I don't go they will have won.' This is what we must all do, and we have done. Our love for the Balinese people, the country's landscape, the surf and the bintang has not waned, and Bali today is one of our favoured holiday destinations. It is also a strong partnership between the federal government of Australia and the Indonesian government of strategic, economic and people-to-people relationships being so important.

I reiterate our condolences to the victims, their families and those who still live with what they experienced on that fateful October night. Our thoughts and prayers in the National Party are with them during these most difficult times, and we support the motion.

I will ask that the motion be agreed to as moved by Senator Wong. I thank His Excellency the ambassador for coming to share with us today. We will stand for a moment's silence.

Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.

On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4, for 10 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Home Affairs Measures No. 4) Regulations 2021, and business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 and 3, for 13 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Prime Minister and Cabinet's Portfolio Measures No. 2) Regulations 2022 and the Telecommunications (Fibre-Ready Facilities in Real Estate Development Projects and Other Matters) Instrument 2022.

I present the fifth report of 2022 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 5 OF 2022

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 27 September 2022 at 7.50 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by

3 November 2022 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(b) the provisions of the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 November 2022 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(c) the provisions of the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022, the Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022 and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 October 2022 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(d) the National Energy Transition Authority Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 March 2023;

(e) the Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 November 2022 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);

(f) the provisions of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Incentivising Pensioners to Downsize) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by

20 October 2022;

(g) the provisions of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentive) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 November 2022 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

(h) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2022 and the Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by

17 November 2022 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

• Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022

• High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

• Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022.

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

• Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

• Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Biosecurity) Bill 2022

• Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019

• Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering Voting Age and Increasing Voter Participation) Bill 2018

• Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021

• Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020

• Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020

• Federal Environment Watchdog Bill 2021

• Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

• National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022

National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022

• Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

• Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

• Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment (No New Fossil Fuels) Bill 2021 [No. 2]

• Treasury Laws Amendment (Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2022

• Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Bill 2022

• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022.

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

28 September 2022

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Anti-discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill implements recommendations of the respect at work report, which the Government has committed to implementing in full and which is of great interest to a wide range of stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Unions, business, legal experts, women's organisations, and other civil society organisations.

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

October

Possible reporting date:

3 November 2022

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

The Bill introduces measures which will benefit a significant number of Australian families who access early childhood and education services and which account for a significant Government investment in this sector.

The Bill's key measures include:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Members of the Early Childhood and Education Reference Group, for example Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, Early Childhood Australia, Goodstart Early Learning, Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, Australian Childcare Alliance

United Workers Union

Other peak bodies in the sector

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment

Possible hearing date(s):

October—November 2022

Possible reporting date:

16 November 2022

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education and employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

October—November

Possible reporting date:

16 November 2022

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2022

Financial Sector Reform Bill 2022 Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy Bill 2022

Financial Services Compensation Scheme of Last Resort Levy (Collection) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September—October

Possible reporting date:

20 October 2022

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Parliamentary Privileges Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Legal and constitutional affairs committee

Possible hearing date(s):

17th to 21st October

Possible reporting date:

17th November

(signed)

Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Appendix 5

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Workforce Incentives) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Temporarily Increasing the Work Bonus income bank

Making it easier for pensioners who work to resume Age Pension

Possible submissions or evidence from:

National Seniors—support

Council of the Ageing (COTA)

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs

Possible hearing date(s):

TBA

Possible reporting date:

10 November 2022

(signed)

Senator Anne Urquhart

Appendix 6

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 3) Bill 2022 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees

Imposition Amendment Bill 2022

Income Tax Amendment (Labour Mobility Program) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated issue

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Sector, Groups Individuals that are affected

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

September—October

Possible reporting date:

20 October

(signed)

Senator Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Birmingham for 28 September 2022, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following legislative instruments, made under the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed:

(a) the Social Security (Qualification for Crisis Payment—National Health Emergency) Amendment Determination 2022 [F2022L00889]; and

(b) the Social Security (Qualification for Crisis Payment—National Health Emergency) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2022 [F2022L00993].

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No 1, standing in the name of Senator Rice, be agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2023:

Barriers to achieving priorities under the National Women's Health Strategy for 'universal access to sexual and reproductive health information, treatment and services that offer options to women to empower choice and control in decision-making about their bodies', with particular reference to:

(a) cost and accessibility of contraceptives, including:

(i) PBS coverage and TGA approval processes for contraceptives,

(ii) awareness and availability of long-acting reversible contraceptive and male contraceptive options, and

(iii) options to improve access to contraceptives, including over the counter access, longer prescriptions, and pharmacist interventions;

(b) cost and accessibility of reproductive healthcare, including pregnancy care and termination services across Australia, particularly in regional and remote areas;

(c) workforce development options for increasing access to reproductive healthcare services, including GP training, credentialing and models of care led by nurses and allied health professionals;

(d) best practice approaches to sexual and reproductive healthcare, including trauma-informed and culturally appropriate service delivery;

(e) sexual and reproductive health literacy;

(f) experiences of people with a disability accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare;

(g) experiences of transgender people, non-binary people, and people with variations of sex characteristics accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare;

(h) availability of reproductive health leave for employees; and

(i) any other related matter.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That standing order 50 be amended, with effect from the first sitting day in October 2022, to read as follows—

50 Acknowledgement of country and prayer

The President, on taking the chair each day, shall make an acknowledgement of country in the following terms:

I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area and pay respect to the elders, past and present, of all Australia's Indigenous peoples.

The President shall then read the following prayer:

Senators, I invite you, as I read the prayer, to pray or reflect in your own way on your responsibilities to the people of Australia and to future generations.

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy special blessing upon this Parliament, and that Thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper the work of Thy servants to the advancement of Thy glory, and to the true welfare of the people of Australia.

Our Father, which art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I want to take this opportunity to consider the priorities of this government. At a time when Australians across the country are dealing with the significant pressures of the cost-of-living crisis currently gripping Australia, as fuel prices are going up by over 20c a litre, and as people are suffering from price hikes at the supermarket, in their power bills and in their mortgage payments, what are the priorities of this government? They are certainly not responding to these pressures, having not announced a single measure of immediate cost-of-living relief. Nor are they practising what they preach with regard to changes to the standing orders, flagged by the Jenkins review, to have a more family-friendly workplace—just last night the Senate was forced to sit till nearly midnight. Instead they come in here today with this motion as their priority, tinkering around the edges for the first two minutes of the Senate instead of taking real action to address cost-of-living pressures impacting Australian families.

The question is that government business No. 1 be agreed to.

I advise that Senator Nampijinpa Price will co-sponsor government business notice of motion No. 2, proposing a reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. At the request of Senator McCarthy and Senator Nampijinpa Price, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs for inquiry and report by 1 December 2022:

Community safety, support services and job opportunities in the Northern Territory, with particular reference to:

(a) the preparation for the sun-setting of the Stronger Futures legislation;

(b) community safety and alcohol management;

(c) job opportunities and Community Development Program reform;

(d) justice reinvestment community services; and

(e) any related matters.

At the request of Senator Thorpe, I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I move to amend the motion:

After paragraph (d), insert:

(da) holistic community-controlled health services and related health programs;

(db) the provision of humane and appropriate housing; and Question—

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Watt, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Biosecurity Act 2015, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Australia's biosecurity system is facing unprecedented and ever-increasing threats.

We know all too well the threats of Foot and Mouth Disease and Lumpy Skin Disease in Indonesia, Varroa Mite to our honey industry in New South Wales, Xylella to our plant industry and the ongoing impact of COVID-19.

In response to these threats the Albanese Government has implemented the strongest ever response to a biosecurity threat in our nation's history and released Australia's first ever National Biosecurity Strategy.

While the system has performed well to date, we cannot afford to be complacent.

These biosecurity threats are increasing due to a rise in the volume and complexity of trade, the effects of climate change and the ever-increasing worldwide spread of pests and disease.

Australia's biosecurity system must be able to adapt and respond to these evolving risks.

It must be fit to meet the challenges of the next decade and beyond, and this Bill is the next step in making that happen.

The measures in this Bill will help strengthen Australia's biosecurity system, helping to protect our $70.3 billion agricultural export industries, protect 1.6 million jobs across the agriculture supply chain, and protect our way of life.

Biosecurity risks can present in many ways at our ports, mail centres, airports and northern coastline.

In the case of Foot and Mouth Disease, risks can even include the clothing and footwear of travellers.

Early identification and assessment of such risks remains fundamental to a responsive and effective biosecurity system.

The Bill will provide a mechanism for determining requirements to inform interventions for travellers entering Australia.

This may include requirements for people to provide information about whether they have been in a high biosecurity risk location.

This would allow for triaging and informed decisions about targeted assessment or the treatment of goods to manage and contain any potential risk.

It will also provide a mechanism for implementing certain preventative biosecurity measures where we assess diseases or pests pose an unacceptable risk.

This Bill contains several amendments responding to the 2021 report of the Inspector-General of Biosecurity after the Ruby Princess debacle.

Not only did the former government preside over that debacle, they failed to pass these amendments prior to the May 2022 election.

In contrast to the former government, the Albanese Government is serious about biosecurity and this bill if further proof of that.

One of the key measures contained in this bill is an increase to penalties.

People who jeopardise Australia's biosecurity system by failing to comply with these new requirements will face civil penalties of up to 120 penalty units, or $26,640.

And in a new measure, those who deliberately conceal risk goods, for example those who sew goods into the lining of their suitcase, will face stiffer penalties of upto $5000.

These measures will provide a vital tool in managing the current risk posed by outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease in our neighbouring regions.

These tools will be able to be adapted to target and respond to future threats which could potentially include lumpy skin disease, African swine fever or Xylella.

The Bill will implement important lessons we have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

It will expand pre-arrival reporting requirements, to ensure our biosecurity officers have accurate and up-to-date information available to assess the biosecurity risk associated with the arrival of vessels and aircraft.

Operators and persons in charge of these aircraft and vessels who do not comply with these requirements will be subject to tougher sanctions.

Biosecurity is everybody's responsibility, and everybody needs to do the right thing. If they don't the Australian public rightfully would expect that the punishment would fit the crime.

This Bill will step up a range of civil and criminal penalties under the Biosecurity Act.

These penalties must remain an effective deterrent against non-compliance and enable a proportionate response to contraventions.

These stronger penalties, in some cases up to $222,000 for an individual or $1.1 million for corporate bodies, better reflect the seriousness of any contraventions.

And compared with the current penalty regime, they better reflect the consequences that non-compliance may have on Australia's biosecurity status, market access and economy. If we wish to continue to keep Australia free of pests and diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease, the Biosecurity Act must remain fit-for-purpose and future proofed.

This Bill will help achieve this by improving the operation of the information sharing and confidentiality provisions.

It will also provide specific authorisations for the use and disclosure of relevant information, while ensuring that sensitive information is afforded appropriate protection.

This Bill will increase the transparency and effectiveness of administrative processes in the Biosecurity Act such as those involved in conducting a risk assessment for the purposes of making certain determinations or granting an import permit.

It will also introduce a framework under the Biosecurity Act to provide legislative authority to the Agriculture and Health Ministers, enabling the ability to make, vary and administer arrangements or grants for expenditure relating to biosecurity-related programs—which are key in facilitating a strong biosecurity system.

Another important aspect of the biosecurity framework involves the work of biosecurity industry participants, who are authorised to carry out certain biosecurity activities under approved arrangements to manage biosecurity risks associated with specified goods, premises or other things.

This Bill would streamline and improve the operation of a number of provisions relating to approved arrangements and compensation under the Biosecurity Act, reducing administrative costs while strengthening audit powers.

Our work in strengthening Australia's biosecurity system does not end with this Bill.

This is the first stage of amendments the government will make to ensure our regulatory framework remains fit-for-purpose and ready to take on future biosecurity challenges.

Having a strong and efficient biosecurity system is more important than ever as we respond to Foot and Mouth Disease and other emerging diseases on our doorstep.

The Albanese Government will not rest while these biosecurity threats are on our doorstep.

We owe it to our farmers.

We owe it to those who work in the food supply chain.

And we owe it to all Australians to protect our food security.

Debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Watt, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the protection of the sea, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Shipping services are vitally important to Australia and the wellbeing of our economy.

Australia is the fifth largest user of shipping services in the world. Ten per cent of the world's sea trade passes through Australian ports, with international shipping carrying over 99 per cent of Australia's imports and exports by volume. A critical component of Australia's domestic freight task, around 15 per cent, is also carried by coastal shipping.

The environmentally safe use of the seas, including in Australian waters by that large shipping task, is equally important to Australians. We take our responsibilities for safety and environment protection in maritime very seriously.

Over time, the global shipping standards-setting body, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), has progressively improved marine environment pollution standards for ships through the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships,amongst others.

As a signatory to both these conventions, Australia has an obligation to bring our domestic maritime environment protection legislation up-to-date with globally-agreed amendments.

Our domestic implementation of international marine environment protection regulations demonstrates our longstanding commitment to the protection of the marine environment and our active participation in the IMO as the means to achieve that protection.

As an IMO Council member, Australia plays a leadership role in supporting environmentally-sound regulations that minimise the associated burden on industry.

This Bill will implement 3 main amendments to the international maritime conventions.

Firstly, it will introduce controls for ship discharges that are known as 'persistent floaters'—substances that can form surface slicks on water such as some grades of vegetable oil or paraffin-like substances.

These controls, which include cargo tank cleaning, prewash and discharge procedures, apply in certain environmentally sensitive areas in Europe, specifically the North West European Waters, Baltic Sea, Western European Waters and Norwegian Sea.

Secondly, the Bill will ban the use, and carriage for use, of heavy fuel oil by ships in Arctic waters from 1 July 2024. This mirrors the ban already in place on the use of heavy fuel oil by ships in the Antarctic.

Thirdly, from 1 January 2023, the Bill will ban ships from applying anti-fouling systems that contain the chemical biocide, cybutryne, which is highly toxic to marine organisms.

The Bill will implement these marine environment protection measures by amending:

The Bill also includes minor editorial changes to replace 'orders' with 'Marine Orders' in both acts to be consistent with the Navigation Act 2012.

It is important to understand that an Australian-flagged ship is an Australian workplace and, therefore, subject to Australian legislation where ever it is in the world.

These amendments are not expected to have any significant impacts on the Australian maritime industry. Currently Australian-flagged ships that undertake international voyages are unlikely to operate in North European and Arctic waters. However, should they do so, they will be treated the same as any other vessel operating in those areas of the world.

The inclusion of cybutryne as a harmful antifouling substance has a transition period consistent with a ship's normal dry-docking cycle for inspections and cleaning. Hence, owners will not incur additional costs from having to take their ships out of service sooner than usual.

Furthermore, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority has never registered cybutryne or approved its use as an anti-fouling agent for ships in Australia, so relevant Australian industries will not lose business.

The Australian Government is committed to protecting our maritime environment from ship pollution.

By strengthening provisions to reduce pollution from ships and protect the marine environment, we will all benefit from a cleaner ocean, particularly those communities that rely on a healthy ocean for their livelihood and wellbeing.

Debate adjourned.

by leave—I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Cost of Living, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the cost of living pressures facing Australians;

(b) the Government's fiscal policy response to the cost of living;

(c) ways to ease cost of living pressures through the tax and transfer system;

(d) measures to ease the cost of living through the provision of Government services; and

(e) any other related matter.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 30 November 2023.

(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:

(a) 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(b) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(c) 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and

(d) 1 member from Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the Jacqui Lambie Network, the United Australia Party, or Senator David Pocock.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

(10) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

Question agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Antic, Cadell, Colbeck, Fawcett, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Rennick and Van, move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

First, I would like to acknowledge former Senator for South Australia, Cory Bernardi, for his work in this area.

We are the only developed country, only G20 country in the world that actually bans nuclear energy.

This ban was introduced via a Greens amendment in the Senate on 10 December 1999. There was less than 10 minutes of debate on the matter. The Howard Government at the time was seeking legislative support to build a new nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights. With no immediate prospect of a nuclear power station being built, the Government accepted the amendment so it could proceed with the new research reactor at Lucas Heights.

Of the 20 richest nations in the world only three do not have nuclear power: Australia, Saudi Arabia and Italy. Saudi Arabia is building a nuclear power station and Italy gets much of its imported electricity from France, where three quarters of the electricity is produced by nuclear.

Our status as a nuclear outcast is more remarkable given that Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world.

Nuclear energy delivers electricity by harnessing the heat produced in the fission, or splitting, of radioactive isotopes of uranium or plutonium in a reactor. Nuclear energy is also widely used in submarines for power and propulsion, but also other shipping, including aircraft carriers and icebreakers.

Nuclear plants are generally characterised by large capacity and output, high capital cost, and long construction times, but relatively low operating costs and almost zero emissions to air from their operation.

Nuclear energy is used to produce electricity in 31 countries from some 450 nuclear reactors, providing around 10 per cent of global electricity. Many nations are building new nuclear power plants because they provide reliable, emission free power.

There are 54 nuclear power stations under construction. Over the next 30 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that global nuclear power capacity could increase by 80 per cent, and possibly triple in the Asia-Pacific region.

Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear energy has resulted in far fewer deaths than that from dam failures, oil rig explosions and even, on some measures, the number of people that fall when installing solar panels.

Nuclear does less damage to the natural environment than other energy options. Wind energy takes up 250 times more land than nuclear power and solar takes up 150 times more land.

Because of these facts, the critics of nuclear power now tend to focus on the high cost of building nuclear power stations in western countries.

Nuclear power stations used to be constructed in around 5 years. In western countries, time frames for construction have blown out to 17 years.

In the west, it now takes longer to build a nuclear power station from off-the-shelf technologies than it did to invent, design and build the first nuclear power station in the 1950s.

The potential for high costs is not a reason to ban anyone building a power station, however.

Our environmental laws should focus on protecting Australia's natural environment. Decisions about the relative profitability of different investments should be left to the businesses making those decisions.

The relative costs of nuclear compare well to renewable energy. Between 1965 and 2018 the world spent $2 trillion on nuclear compared to $2.3 trillion for solar and wind, yet nuclear today produces around double the electricity than that of solar and wind.

There is also the potential for costs to reduce soon.

Multiple companies in the US, the UK, Canada and China are at various stages of installing and trialling Small Modular Reactors.

While Small Modular Reactors are still in a development phase, they remain high cost. Yet if they become a commercial prospect, their modular nature may deliver substantial cost savings through mass production.

Support for nuclear power is growing. A Lowy Institute poll earlier this year found a majority would support removing the ban on nuclear power with a continuing decline over the last year of the number of people who opposed the removal of the existing ban. This compares with only 35% in 2011 being in favour of nuclear power.

Nuclear power production is currently not permitted under two main pieces of Commonwealth legislation—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (the ARPANS Act), and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). These Acts expressly prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility. There is also a range of other legislation, including state and territory legislation, which regulates nuclear and radiation-related activities.

The Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2022 seeks to remove all of the prohibitions in Commonwealth laws—that is for the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.

The ARPANS Act regulates activities undertaken by Commonwealth entities affecting radiation, to ensure that the health and safety of people, and the environment, are protected from the harmful effects of radiation.

This Bill does not affect the ability of the Minister and/or the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency to ensure those protections remain in place.

And any proposal to build a nuclear power station would still require both a licence under the ARPANS Act and a permit under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. Any plant would also need to comply with other state, territory and federal laws.

The EPBC Act provides for the protection of the environment, ecologically sustainable development, biodiversity conservation and heritage protection by giving the Commonwealth a role in regulating matters of national environmental significance.

This bill does not affect the ability of the Minister and/or the Department to ensure those protections remain in place and that the other objects of the Act are respected.

We should support removing the bans on nuclear power because that would be the best way to take advantage of future technological developments that could see nuclear energy as the most competitive carbon free option to produce electricity.

We should be looking at this, and the first thing we should do is remove the prohibition, so at least nuclear options can be discussed and considered.

Finally, I want to thank my colleagues Senators Antic, Cadell, Colbeck, Fawcett, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Rennick and Van who are also sponsoring this Bill.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate requires the Economics Legislation Committee to invite the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Dr Phillip Lowe, to attend the committee's 2022-23 Budget estimates hearings on Wednesday, 9 November 2022 at 9 am to give two hours of evidence.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will support this motion but notes that the Senate Economics Committee has already provided an invitation for Governor Lowe to attend Senate estimates. It would have been more desirable to allow the committee to go through the usual process for inviting witnesses to appear before it, but we will work constructively with other senators on this committee and, of course, with the RBA governor to arrive at the appropriate arrangements ahead of the hearing. While we are willing to work constructively with senators on this occasion, I would like to place on the record that the government does not support a new precedent where the Senate as a whole negotiates witness lists for respective committee hearings, as we believe that should remain a role for individual committees to establish.

Question agreed to.

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 29 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Hughes:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The failure of the Albanese Labor Government to guarantee maintaining the Australia Government's critical and job creating infrastructure investment to secure the future prosperity and sustainability for regional and rural Australia.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Mr Acting Deputy President, $21 billion in federal budget funding was dedicated for regional Australia, and it is now under serious threat from Labor's budget cuts. Prior to the election, the Nationals secured this $21 billion in new funding for community facilities, health care, water infrastructure, roads and highways, and education and training, securing tens of thousands of regional jobs. But now, when Labor needs to pay for its excessive promises, the first place they look is to the regions to rip money out under the guise of saying it is wasteful spending. The regions are not wasteful.

We have seen this playbook before, with Prime Minister Albanese having already developed a proven formula for cutting funding from regional Australia. The first thing they do is claim the coalition is rorting projects to favour regional communities. Well, regional funding should go to regional communities. Then they introduce Labor's own program to pay for their pre-election pork-barrelling of key marginal Labor seats while claiming new rules will be introduced. And then, when they have been in government for a year or two, they ignore the rules altogether.

In fact, when he was infrastructure minister in the Rudd government, Mr Albanese cut funding to vital projects in communities in coalition held seats, claiming the funding was nothing but pork-barrelling. He then replaced the program with a Labor program called the Better Regions program, which saw 90 per cent of its regional funding spent on Labor seats. Fast forward to 2010 and a damning ANAO report found that then infrastructure minister Albanese had failed his own guidelines in dishing out $550 million via the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. As was reported at the time, the ANAO found that projects in coalition held seats were twice as likely to miss out on funding. Only 18 per cent of applications for funding in coalition held seats were approved, compared to 42 per cent of applications for funding in ALP held electorates. In safe coalition seats, that rate was just over 10 per cent.

At the time, Tom Dusevic, the national chief reporter for The Australian, wrote:

Anthony Albanese has the gap-toothed charm of a shire president, a hands-on approach and a God-given talent for reading an electoral map.

The Auditor-General's report on the $550 million strategic projects part of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, released yesterday, provides overwhelming proof that Labor has lost its virginity, and so has "Albo", in the time-honoured art of pork-barrelling.

But when the coalition made sure regional funding goes to regional areas, we were accused of pork-barrelling—but we say it's delivering.

By 2012 the Auditor-General was reporting details of over 33 cases over a two-year period in which Labor ministers, including the now Prime Minister, violated their own anti-pork-barrelling rules. Mr Albanese, when he was transport minister, approved three Roads to Recovery grants in his own inner-city electorate of Grayndler without notifying the finance minister as was required. The then environment minister, Tony Burke, failed to report an almost $500,000 Landcare grant in his inner-Sydney electorate of Watson. We've heard from those opposite time and time again that they are pure. Yet, as the Financial Review reported earlier this year, Labor was facing accusations of hypocrisy after making an estimated $750 million in grant promises to their marginal seats, despite years of attacking the coalition for doing so. I call on this government to ensure that the $21 billion in regional funding goes to the regions.

It is such a pleasure to be standing here today talking about the failure of the Albanese Labor government to guarantee maintaining the government's critical job-creating infrastructure investment to secure the future prosperity and sustainability of regional and rural Australia. For me, coming from the beautiful state of Tasmania, this is a cause that is very close to my heart. Over the last decade or so we have seen great improvements in the outcomes for Tasmanians due to the strong work of the previous federal coalition government and the state Tasmanian Liberal government.

We know that over the last few months, during the election campaign, the Albanese Labor government made many promises to Tasmanians as to what would be delivered, and I am certainly looking forward to seeing whether or not those commitments are maintained, because we know that many election commitments are currently under review. The government has made quite a big deal of, on one hand, spending the months in the lead-up to the election talking to local stakeholders, making commitments about projects that would be funded, and then as soon as the election was won and done for them, saying, 'Well, all of our commitments are under review; all of our commitments will be reconsidered as part of the budget process.' I think it is only fair that many Tasmanians and many Australians are asking the very genuine question of whether or not the Albanese Labor government is going to maintain those commitments to regional and rural Tasmania and regional and rural Australia into the future.

I thank Senator Chandler for her contribution to this MPI debate, because it enables me to follow on and remind Senator Chandler and the chamber of exactly what the environment was that we entered into during the election campaign. We had a government led by Mr Morrison which was riven with waste, rorts and lost opportunities. This was the environment that led to the election campaign. On 21 March people responded by electing an Albanese Labor government and rejecting the rorts of the Liberal-National coalition. That's exactly what happened. It really is galling that you come in here with an MPI without any attempt to acknowledge what was actually happening in the region. In July—

Senator McKenzie, who's normally very polite, abides by the standing orders and sits politely, is really fired up now. She doesn't like to be reminded of how they shafted rural and regional Australia. That's exactly—

You can argue all you like, but I want to go back—not too far back, because this is a new government. This new government is in the lead-up to the very first Albanese Labor budget in October. I'm immensely looking forward to it delivering on our election commitment.

Senator McKenzie and other senators in this chamber would probably know that 28 July of this year was the day the Australian National Audit Office issued a scathing report into the coalition's management of the $1.15 billion Building Better Regions Fund. It was a scathing report. I want to take this opportunity because obviously, on the presentation of this MPI, the coalition have either forgotten their period in government or are trying to whitewash history. But it's not going to wash out in the community—not out in the regions; not out in rural Australia—because they remember the rorts, the waste and the lost opportunity. There was no strategy for these regions, just pork-barrelling, and that is not delivering—

I cannot believe Senator McKenzie believes that throwing in a bit of pork every three years makes up for not having an actual strategy for regional and rural Australia. This is what they're putting forward now. Seriously! They might not want to be reminded, but these are the actual facts. I know facts are not something that rate highly on the other side, but I'm going to remind people of a media release that the now Minister Catherine King put out when the ANAO report was released on 28 July 2022 about the Building Better Regions Fund.

I'm going to have to take back my remarks about Senator McKenzie normally being well-behaved, because she has proven me wrong. It's a terrible day.

This is what I want to remind the coalition, the chamber and, of course, those who are listening in to this debate: over five rounds of the program, 65 per cent of the infrastructure grants went to projects that were not assessed as having the most merit—65 per cent! Former coalition ministers made decisions on the basis of 'choose your own adventure' criteria that weren't fully explained to those applying for grants. They did not keep proper records of decisions. It's unheard of—seriously! The Audit Office also found that seats held by the Nationals benefited most from the decisions to ignore the merit list, which I find highly interesting, given, of course—

So how did regional Tasmania get anything?

Well, you had a Nationals senator that loaded up his pork and went roaming around. That's what happened. We are talking about grants without merits—those that they ordered. Not me. This is not—

O pposition senators interjecting—

Order! Excuse me, please, Senator Brown. I'm getting sick of saying this. I am very lenient, but, when there are three of you who don't actually whisper, it starts becoming annoying. I ask that Senator Brown be heard in silence.

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was going to remind the senators here and listening to the debate: it's not what I'm saying. That's not what the Labor Party is saying. The Audit Office found that seats held by the Nationals benefited most from the decision to ignore the merit list. It's the Audit Office that's saying this. It's not me. It's not the Labor Party. It's not the government. I'm here reminding you of this as you attempt this whitewash of an MPI that you're putting up here today.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and assure the Senate that this government is committed to developing Australia's regions. Unlike those opposite, the government is also committed to transparency and integrity when it comes to spending public funds. As I've already indicated, you don't have to go any further than the Auditor-General's report from 28 July of this year on the Building Better Regions Fund. My concern—particularly as the National Party talk about being those representing the bush—has always been that all they do is bring out the pork once every three years, and there's no real strategy or vision at all for the regions or the bush. No matter how often they try to rewrite history, it's not going to wash in this chamber because everyone knows exactly what was happening. Everyone knows.

On 21 May this year, people had had enough of it. What we do know and what we've seen is that decisions were ignored. We had the famous ministerial panel that made the final funding decisions, which obviously relied solely on those mysterious 'other factors' when making decisions. It was a disgrace. It is a disgrace. Shoddy processes like this can only mislead our regional communities and the hardworking volunteers who apply for funding.

That is why this government has been, and will be, reviewing all programs and commitments made by the previous government. We've said that before, and that is what we will be doing. All of our regional communities deserve better when it comes to infrastructure, but that infrastructure must meet local community needs and be delivered in a sustainable way. That is why all funding decisions made by this government will be transparent and will take into consideration the needs of regional communities.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to Senator Hughes's matter of public importance on the need for infrastructure in rural and regional Australia. I welcome this discussion and agree that rural infrastructure is a pressing need. So I ask: what the hell did Senator Hughes's party do about infrastructure over the last 10 years? I'll save the public looking it up—nothing. In fact, the last 10 years have been counterproductive. Inland Rail has been so poorly handled that only a few kilometres of track have been built. The Liberals and Nationals insisted on bringing Inland Rail into the city of Brisbane instead of the regional centre of the Port of Gladstone—a much more logical destination. In the process, Inland Rail will traverse the Condamine floodplain. In the recent rains, Millmerran would have been flooded as a result of the Inland Rail embankment, damming the floodplain. Recent rains have issued their warning, and the Albanese government must change the route of Inland Rail, sending it north to Gladstone. How many major dams did the Morrison government build? None. The NBN rollout was a disaster and many locations across rural Australia have an internet connection that can only be described as a joke.

So I agree: now is the time to get going on infrastructure. Growing our economy and putting the excess liquidity introduced during reckless COVID mismanagement to good use in building productive infrastructure is a solution to inflation. Productive capacity will restore our economy to an even keel and guarantee our economic and national security moving forward. It will increase our country's productive capacity.

One Nation are committed to rebuilding this country, literally. I have already succeeded in bringing Project Iron Boomerang before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for a significant inquiry. Project Iron Boomerang is an exciting and visionary project that consists of a 3,300-kilometre railway and multipurpose easement across the Top End. The route does not pass through any national parks and can be privately funded, such is the interest overseas and in Australia in the project. The name comes from how the railway will be used—bringing Western Australian iron ore across to Queensland's coal, where steel parks will turn those into quality Australian steel for domestic and export markets. Trains will then return, carrying Queensland coal to steel parks in Western Australia, producing more steel for export—boomerang!

The rail line will open up rare earth deposits that are currently stranded assets without the power to mine and the transport to bring to market. Rare earths are key ingredients in wind turbines, battery storage and most modern electronics, including phones and computers. Australia must take its place in producing these minerals using well-paid workers, not the child and slave labour currently featuring strongly in world supply chains. World steel demand is expected to increase at two to three per cent growth over the next 30 years as the emerging economies of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh replace falling demand from the USA and Europe.

Project Iron Boomerang will reduce long supply chains on iron ore and coal exports with much shorter supply chains. Iron Boomerang will use electric gas-powered locomotives. Large ore-carrying ships burn 10,000 litres of oil per hour. For those pushing 2050 net zero economic insanity, the reduction in taking ships off the water will be significant in cutting carbon dioxide from human activity.

Every tonne of steel made in Australia will take the world closer to the UN's unfounded 2050 net zero target that Labor, the Greens and the Liberals and Nationals slavishly adopt. And there will be a lot of high-quality steel. East West Line Parks have received formal expressions of interest from some of the world's largest steel manufacturers to locate steel mills in the vicinity of Murrumba, in Queensland, and the Pilbara of Western Australia. Ten steel mills are anticipated, producing 88,000 tons of high-quality steel and creating 40,000 breadwinner jobs for Australians. If that sounds optimistic, understand the world steel market is currently worth US$1.3 trillion. Australia has just six per cent of that. Iron Boomerang will make Australian steel cheaper than that of market leader China, and higher quality.

The attraction to Labor should be clear. A huge increase in Australian steel production will save the jobs of union coalminers that the Albanese government threatens in Labor's sellout to green ideology. The multipurpose corridor I mentioned earlier will carry water from Lake Argyle and Hells Gate through the corridor, along with internet and power cables. This will allow for the provision of water, power and internet to hundreds of remote communities across the Top End, lifting up the lives of those mostly Aboriginal communities in a way that 100 years of shallow, patronising federal government policy never has. That's the power of infrastructure. I thank Senator Hughes for her excellent motion.

McKENZIE (—) (): As the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development and the leader of the National Party in this chamber, it gives me great pleasure to stand and contribute to this debate today. The only place that the newly elected Labor government is looking for budget savings, the only areas in the budget that they have flagged themselves—whether it was the finance minister in this chamber, the Treasurer in the other chamber or the minister who is tasked with the responsibility to develop regional Australia—are all, every program and every project, having the red line run over them.

I'm very proud to have been part of a government that backed the ambition of regional Australia, that backed our industry, that didn't think that for the nine million of us who don't live in capital cities you don't get to go to a great school or that you don't get access to quality health care. That is actually the reality out in the regions, and that's why for the Labor Party—and Senator Brown was starting on the rhetoric there today—the programs are wasteful; spending money in the regions is wasteful; spending money in the regions is politically motivated, for the National Party. Well, come out to Dubbo, come out to Orbost, come out to Mildura, come out to Whyalla, come out to Geraldton, come out to Cloncurry—

thank you, Senator McDonald—and have a conversation with these communities, who, as citizens who work hard and pay their taxes, ask why they can't get a doctor, why their kids shouldn't have access to high-quality education, why their roads are crumbling and why their economies aren't diversifying. That is what these programs and projects have been focused on for over 10 years. We are very, very proud to have been able to secure, in the March budget, an additional $21 billion of new money for rural and regional Australia, because, as our nation embarks on a trajectory to net zero by 2050, guess what? It's not going to be a win for all. Some communities are going to be more significantly impacted than others. The Labor Party signed us up to a more ambitious target. You won the election; tickety-boo. Where is the commensurate commitment to fund rural and regional communities' ability to seize the opportunities that you tell us are coming and also to overcome the challenges that are coming their way?

I completely reject any notion that funding a cancer centre in Dubbo is a waste. That's what you're telling us. I completely reject the notion that funding La Trobe University's joint venture with Goulburn Valley Health in my own home state, in Shepparton, is a waste. The only way you're going to get doctors out into country towns and regional centres is by actually training country kids in country communities, because do you know what? They want to practise in the country. We know it works, because that's what the research over a long period of time has told us. So, instead of trying to force people who don't want to be in the country out, we have focused on building facilities and partnering with local healthcare providers to train people locally. The very programs that the Labor Party wants to slash, the very projects that Jim Chalmers right now is running his red pen through, are the very projects that will underpin not just the economic future of rural and regional Australia but also our social infrastructure—the things that should be about equity in a country as rich as Australia.

In a country as wealthy as ours, where you live should not make a difference to your educational attainment, your health outcomes or your median income level. But the sad fact is that these things do matter. The real reason the Labor Party is framing this budget up on the notion that investing in rural and regional Australia means waste or that somehow it's politically motivated is so that they can, in the upcoming budget, slash funding to our hospitals, our schools and our sporting fields. The facilities that you all take for granted in your capital cities are facilities that we desperately need. The reason the National Party fights so hard within successful coalition governments is that it is about need. All of these programs that you want to cut, whether it's the Building Better Regions Fund, the Roads to Recovery Program or the Bridges Renewal Program, are so oversubscribed. It's not because rural and regional Australia thinks it deserves more than it's fair share but because there is such a need out there.

There is a reason why you didn't win the seat of Braddon, Senator Brown. It's because Braddon knows the best way for them to secure a better future for their families over coming decades is to vote for Gavin Pearce, the Liberal member for Braddon. No National Party there. The reason why people in Gippsland vote for Darren Chester, why people in Calare vote for Andrew Gee, why people in Gladstone vote for Col Boyce, why they vote for the Liberal Party in Western Australian seats, why they vote for Rowan Ramsey and Tony Pasin in regional South Australia, is that they know the first thing you do when you come to power is you look to cut funding to nearly nine million Australians because it's an easy hit and you will never lose a vote from it.

You come in here and you champion that you are the party for all Australians, that you are the party for working Australians. You are not. If you were, you would absolutely back not slashing one dollar from the regions; you'd back their ambition and plans to grow. Their children deserve a prosperous and sustainable future just as much as your kids do. So we will not stop being offended by your ambition to cut the programs and projects that we have fought so hard to have handed down in the budget.

I want to also address some of Senator Brown's contributions around the politicisation of funding to rural and regional Australia. When we look back on ANAO reports, there is one that stands out to me. It is one centred on the last time the Labor party was in government. There was a senior infrastructure minister called Anthony Albanese, and his junior minister for regional development was Minister Catherine King—there are some familiar names there. That was a scathing report. The figures Senator Brown quoted go nothing to what this team did. They redefined what a region was—it's not a country town of 20,000 people, it's not Wangaratta or Benalla or Cairns; it's Perth. Senator Ciccone, your party defines Perth as a regional centre, and therefore gives funding under regional development programs to Perth. But what I think was more scathing was that this minister ignored 80 per cent of the recommended projects from the department of infrastructure. So to be lectured on politicisation of funding by the Labor party, honestly, thank goodness—

I recall a more recent ANAO report.

All money expended on projects eligible for funding—absolutely every single one, not like Catherine King. I am happy to send you a copy of the report, Senator Chisholm. Thankfully we do have an ICAC now.

Senator McKenzie, I just remind you to make your remarks to the chair.

Thank you. It's great to see you, Chair. We are offended and dismayed by this government's decision to turn their backs on rural and regional Australia, the nine million of us who live outside of capital cities deserve your focus. We provide the ballast economically for this country. If you believe in equality of opportunity, then you have to believe that country kids deserve a quality education at a public school, and they deserve to be able to access health care just like everybody in the city. That means guaranteeing no cuts to rural and regional Australia in Jim Chalmers's budget.

Madam Acting Deputy President O'Neill, it's nice to see you in the chair. Let's put on the record the facts in relation to investment in regional Australia. After 10 very long years, Senator McKenzie—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—is coming into this chamber and rewriting history. They have denied the Australian community, particularly those living in regional Australia, opportunities because of the rorting that they did while they were in government, and then the former minister herself comes into this chamber to try and rewrite history.

What we have in the new Albanese Labor government is a Prime Minister who understands, along with every member of ours in the House of Representatives and in this chamber, the importance of regional Australia and what it means to the Australian economy. The Prime Minister, who has in the past been a brilliant infrastructure minister, knows the value of investing. But what we will always do is make sure that all funding is accountable and transparent and will be delivered to regional Australia and the communities that need it most. It will not be delivered for the target seats that those opposite were trying to save so they could stay in government. They do not respect the Australian taxpayer. When they were in government, for the last 10 years, all they ever did was ensure that they would hold their seats to keep themselves in their big white limousines. That's what they did. If there had been a real commitment from Senator McKenzie and others on that side, they would not have been rorting the system; they would not have been promising and making commitments to car parks and train stations where there were none; they wouldn't have spent in excess of $50 million that they didn't need to spend in acquiring land in New South Wales in relation to the airport there.

So there is going to be a stark difference in how we as a government under Anthony Albanese will handle and use taxpayers' money, because we don't consider it our money, unlike the Liberals and Nationals when they were in government. We will actually deliver—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Polley, sorry to interrupt you. Can you resume your seat for a moment? Thank you. I'm loath to interrupt the debate, but there is a constant calling out from the members of the opposition. It would be much more orderly and in accordance with the Senate standing orders for you to resist from calling out across the chamber. I ask you to give respect to your fellow senator as she makes her points in this robust democracy that we exist in. Senator Polley, you have the call.

Thank you very much. As I was saying, the Albanese Labor government will always ensure that there is integrity, transparency and accountability in all funding across this country. But, even more so, we will invest in regional Australia because we know how important it is. It isn't going to just pass by. Senators from that side come in and want to talk about health care or education for regional Australians when they did nothing but cut health care. We know how much they dislike Medicare. We know how critical our hospital infrastructure is to regional Australia. We also know, and I know, only too well that ambulances are ramping at every hospital around this country because of the lack of funding from the previous government.

But I just want to remind people, because this is really important. Coming from Tasmania, as a senator for Tasmania, I know that during the federal campaign we made commitments to invest in jobs in regional areas. So, in May, what we did was make a commitment to Northern Tasmania's Firmus Tas, a great new initiative; we invested $5 million in LINE Hydrogen for them to start their project off because we actually care about delivering better outcomes for Northern Tasmanians; and we made a commitment to Waverley Woollen Mills so we can start manufacturing. I'm sure my two fellow Tasmanian senators who belong to the Liberal Party would support our funding to all of those businesses in Tasmania.

Waverley Woollen Mills is a very old woollen mill that is now doing some amazing work and developing future projects for itself to ensure that it has a business model that is going to take it forward. They're getting into recycling and all sorts of wonderful things, creating real jobs in Northern Tasmania. We did that, and I'd be very surprised if those fundings aren't part of the budget that will be announced in October.

But there's a difference between coming into this place and defending your old policies—when you had policies, because you don't have policies now—and coming in here and trying to rewrite history. It's very different. (Time expired)

I am so glad to add my voice to this matter of importance. I'll add to the echo in the chamber of 'wow' which is coming from the opposite side based on what I've seen in my short time here.

What I saw at the last election was that the Australian public wanted to end the system that was enabling grant programs in this country to be co-opted by politicians for pork-barrelling. For many, many years it has been talked about right here in this chamber. Further, I think the Australian public got sick of a government that had a complete mishmash of policy objectives with no real outcomes. Fixing a pothole—

What? You don't want to fix potholes?

or a pipe line, upgrading a building that's no longer fit for purpose might be huge media moments to senators over there because they can cut a red ribbon and talk about investing—

Order! I would ask all senators in the chamber to show some respect, please. Senator, you have the call.

Thank you. Investing in public infrastructure is vital to Australians. These investments can have real and tangible impacts on the lives of Australians, but it's also important to note that the new projects are in fact a symptom of state capture. The approach of keeping their mates in business and lining their pockets, rather than maintaining and upgrading the current infrastructure, has left us in this current situation. This means our rural and regional areas are the most marginalised.

Yes, they are, and that's why they need support!

Hospitals and rural—

Sorry, Acting Deputy President.

Senators, over this week alone—

We're furiously agreeing. We're in furious agreement!

It doesn't mean you have to heckle, Bridget. Seriously!

Senator, would you mind resuming your seat? Thank you. Senators, I have asked, and I expect, that each senator is going to have the opportunity to make their contribution and be heard in silence. Thank you, Senator Cox.

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. We note that hospitals in rural and regional areas don't have enough money to repair and upgrade their facilities, there has been a constant backlog of highway repairs needed, and there has been little to no investment to upgrade our rail network, not to mention the infrastructure for the transition of electric vehicles. However, under the previous government, billions of dollars was invested into infrastructure projects related to fossil fuels. Over $1 billion was committed to the Beetaloo via both direct and indirect funding. The indirect investments included: $173.6 million for the NT gas industry road upgrade; $300 million for low-emission LNG, clean hydrogen production at Darwin, and carbon capture and storage infrastructure; and $1.5 billion for a new port infrastructure at the Middle Arm harbour, which we heard about today during question time. All of this investment happened while First Nations communities, in the Northern Territory in particular, have entire families living in one room. So rural and regional communities who need health and education facilities and roads are being taken for a ride.

Once again the major parties are propping up the fossil fuel industry in this place at the expense of everybody else. Once again the major parties are doing the dirty work of those fossil fuel companies so that they can keep raking in millions of dollars of donations. These companies don't need the money. They are making record-breaking profits and they are not paying any taxes on them. So, yes, I agree infrastructure is important and we need to invest in it. But we need investment into regional and rural Australia that is linked to and led by Australian communities, that includes an independent assessment of the applications with clear and transparent criteria in their decision-making processes.

Like previous governments, this government is continuing to support the fossil fuel industry that is destroying our planet and is funnelling public money through these infrastructure projects to pave the way for them to keep going and, worse still, to have those assets abandoned. We need to transition to renewable energy, and we need to do it now. The good news is that this is already starting to happen, and we are seeing the global pressure from our markets for fossil fuels to dry up.

So why does the government keep spending more money in building new infrastructure for these projects, especially when the science has told us that we can't open up any more new coal and gas mines or extend the life of the existing ones? This continued investment is propping up a dying industry which will only benefit the executives of these companies whilst throwing workers and communities under the bus. They will continue to extract dirty fossil fuels as long as they can, long after the supply chain is gone and no longer profitable.

My colleague Senator Penny Allman-Payne has a bill which will establish the National Energy Transition Authority to guide Australia's shift into an economy powered by reliable, secure and low-cost renewable energy. This can only be done by working with communities, workers, unions, industry and government at all levels to create jobs and to open up those new export markets. The climate crisis is here, and there is no doubt. But our infrastructure is no longer fit for purpose, and some of it was not fit for purpose to begin with. We need to make sure that we are making an investment in the right place. (Time expired)

I'd like to start with an apology to those opposite, because in my speech today I'll be mentioning places that they've never heard of. They are places where the coalition spent many millions of dollars to deliver life-changing projects that reflect the importance of those places away from the big football stadiums, Cross River Rail and eight-lane highways—places where $3 million can build a new grandstand at the local football club and transform the entire district for generations.

Without viable regional communities, Australia stops. Without consistent and significant funding of roads and community infrastructure, regional Australia does it a whole lot tougher. The coalition understands this. The National Party understands this. But those who really need to understand it, the Labor government, are happy for regional Australia to fend for itself. But, of course, they still want all the goodies the regions produce—all that tax and royalties from mining and all that healthy trade surplus and GDP boost from agriculture.

Currently, the resources sector as a whole supports over 1.1 million direct and indirect jobs within Australia, contributing over $32.6 billion in direct salaries in 2021. The government has even acknowledged that the resources sector is to thank for a $50 billion budget boost this year. The Australian oil and gas industry directly and indirectly supports over 80,000 jobs. It contributed over $5.35 billion in tax in 2019-20 and recorded a $15.9 billion surplus in the trade of oil and gas. Over the past decade, the oil and gas industry paid more than over $64.4 billion to the government, with contributions spanning decades, totalling $161 billion since the mid-1980s. That is a lot of roads, hospitals and schools that ordinary taxpayers didn't have to fund. Let's not forget that mine workers earn about twice the national average wage, and their taxes also flow into Canberra's coffers. Agriculture is worth $71 billion a year to the Australian economy, almost exclusively generated in the regions. Both of these industries support entire towns by providing employment.

When you look at these staggering figures, it's hard to believe any government would consider cutting the artery to the beating heart of its economy. But that's what Labor are proposing. They had an election promise to scrap the Community Development Grants Program, the scheme responsible for completing Charleston Dam near Forsayth in Far North Queensland, which I opened this year. This dam has opened up the area to tourism at unheard-of levels and provided water security for the agricultural district. I can point to Tully, also in Far North Queensland. Under the Community Development Grants Program, the town received $3 million for a new grandstand at the rugby league ground. This grandstand now allows Tully to host higher-standard league matches, as well as tossing the golden gumboot, and allows it to host large conferences and events. Let's also not forget the $1.5 million to dredge an important waterway at Cardwell in North Queensland. This is just a snapshot of my home region—not a National Party seat either, can I mention? Similar stories of relatively small funding making a massive difference can be found around the country. In comparison to the money generated in regional Australia, these are truly paltry amounts, yet they represent so much more than just numbers on a balance sheet.

Labor likes to describe this investment as pork-barrelling. Try explaining that to a country netball club that finally got a roof over its court or a town that can now boast that its roads are fully sealed. The Prime Minister said recently:

We will fund projects including in regional Australia that stack up, that represent good investment for taxpayers.

If you apply a return on investment standard for funding for regional areas, nothing will ever get approved under this government. A bureaucrat will say there's just not enough population to justify widening a road at Boulia, or a new town hall at Kununurra, which is exactly why the coalition viewed funding arrangements through a prism of community benefits.

It's not just the minor projects facing Labor's axe. We also read that the $5 billion Inland Rail extension to Gladstone is likely to be axed. What an appalling signal to send regional Queenslanders who committed the cardinal sin of not voting Labor at the last election. Labor's attitude to the regions threatened to widen the divide between city and country, between the haves and have-nots. If you live in the city, Labor will spend billions to make sure you can get to work five minutes earlier, but if you need a new hall for the CWA ladies in your small town, you'd better start selling raffle tickets. Some 8.8 million people live in regional Australia, and they're not asking for special treatment. They're simply asking for a level playing field.

Labor says funding for the regions is pork-barrelling and waste. We say it's delivering for the families, the men and the women and the Indigenous communities that deliver the food, the fibre and the mining that feeds, clothes and enriches all of Australia. So on behalf of the Boulias, the Tullys the Katherines, the Hughendens and the Kununurras, I'm asking Labor to view funding for regional Australia as among the most important duties they can undertake. We need to keep the regions attractive to young families by providing good Internet, safe roads, great health and aged care, and excellent schools. This will have the added effect of reducing urban congestion and easing pressure on city infrastructure. Spending money in regional Australia is not a cost—it's an investment. I would ask the government to remember this at budget time, because it is these towns and these people who without this appropriate infrastructure investment in social services, infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals and Internet connectivity will be forced to be FIFO workers, to live on the coast and fly out to these communities. We know what the result of that is. The result is divorce, broken families and poorer mental health.

In the regions you can have a great lifestyle. You can have a fantastic community. Families can go home and play sport. They can be involved with their children's lives. They can volunteer at the local race club. They can be an important part of the community where people know their names. Instead, if it were left up to these centralised governments, people would live more and more on the coast, going away from these great communities and leaving all of these important industries to be FIFO industries. That's not the Australian way to do it. We didn't grow up, we didn't raise our culture, and we don't look back on our history as being a whole country of people who just appear on Monday morning and fly out on Friday night. That doesn't build the pubs, the community halls, the dances, the races and the great jobs that you can have. There's more responsibility at a younger age and really rewarding, productive jobs. For Indigenous communities, particularly in the north of Australia but also right across, it's about investment in roads that are all-weather, meaning that they are not cut off for five months of the year, that they can access modern culture and that they can engage in genuine jobs. It means they're not all forced to be rangers. They can have other jobs. That's what we're denying people when we stop these investments in regional and rural Australia.

People call for funding into regional Australia. That funding is best understood by the men and women who represent those communities, who come from those places and, yes, darn it, make decisions. They tell their bureaucrats: 'Great. Here is a list of projects that you've approved as all being eligible, but we're going to pick this one, because we know they don't have the best grant writer in Australia. We know they don't have thousands of people to support these projects and sign petitions and glue themselves to the street.' What we have is local members who go into bat for the little towns and communities who do the jobs, who support these communities, who give young people great lifestyles and who give us the culture that we like to celebrate when we talk about being Australian.

So every time you hear Labor say 'pork-barrelling', in your head you can say, 'Cutting us off at the knees, turning us into a nation of FIFO workers with mental health problems, with divorce and without the great lifestyle that they are being denied in rural and regional Australia.'

Regional infrastructure is so important. It is the projects that go into small towns and regions that get jobs, get people moving in and start rebuilding economies after the move to the cities. I spoke in my maiden speech in this place about the fact that we are hampered in regions because the cost-benefit ratios measure economic benefit, not need. When they put thousands of people saving five minutes on the way to work in a city above dozens of people being able to drive safely down a road, it is wrong.

When we sit there and think of regional towns, the jobs they have lost over the cutbacks and the displacements over some time, it is investments like these that get people coming back. When they come back, the whole town grows. We have seen the money drain from the regions. We've seen deals done were suddenly farmers have to deal with Woolworths and Coles and they lose money from the farm, so they lay off a farmhand. Suddenly the farm isn't as expensive, so the bank closes. That takes a few tellers and a bank manager away, so the school is no longer viable and we lose the school.

Everything we can do to put money back into these regions multiplies and makes regions better. During COVID, we saw a migration of people from the cities to the regions. We saw them going to where they could have a life, going where their kids could have a future, going where they could have lifestyle. That is despite regions being down on the services normally offered in cities.

When those across the road say we are pork-barrelling and funding our seats, it's not new. It's not pork-barrelling. Sometimes you know things. Sometimes you know people, sometimes you know projects. Senator McDonald spoke previously about good grant writers. There is an industry in a grant writing where they get commissions on getting things through, even if the project is not up to standard in reality. They can make the good appear brilliant; they can make the bad appear good. They overrun true projects funded by true local champions that will make a difference in communities. Doing that—having members stand up and say, 'This is important to my people. This is important to my town'—is not new. I would like to quote from the ANAO report into the last Labor government:

In one instance, ministers—

In brackets, Albanese—

made an explicit decision to approve an application that was known to be otherwise ineligible under the guidelines…

I'll quote another:

In one instance, Ministers—

In brackets, Albanese—

explicitly decided to waive the project eligibility criteria for an application they wished to fund …

Senator, I remind you to use people's correct title from the other place.

In a quote? It was required for Albanese—sorry Madam Acting Deputy President. So, these things happen. It is not new. It is not us reinventing the wheel. It is what happens when people stand up and see projects. I'm not going to have a go at the now Prime Minister for this. Maybe he knew something that the grant writers didn't. Maybe he knew something. Cost benefit ratios don't know the project.

They talk about National Party seats. There was a program, a big program—not just little programs; they're big programs. If we're talking about transitioning and diversifying our economy in regions that are energy and carbon dependent, significant funds were set aside under the previous government to assist communities to do that.

I come from the Hunter Valley. I work at the world's largest coal port. There was an allocation of $250 million under a regional transitional program to assist the port to diversify. It is gone. The future of kids in the Hunter is gone. You are taking that opportunity away from them. You are taking a chance at a better life away from them. It's in a Labor seat. As long as Newcastle is there it will vote Labor. But what do we get? We get $500 million for a high-speed rail—what are we talking about?—study, not even a project, and I quote the Prime Minister, 'to allow people from the Hunter to get to Sydney'. The Hunter is not the servants' quarters of Sydney. We are not the workers' quarters of Sydney. We have a right to our own lives. We have a right to our own aspirations and that is being taken away.

On 20 April 2022 then Treasurer Josh Frydenberg handed down the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook that included a document of community projects. Every one of those projects was warranted and needed. They are across all seats. Members of parliament on both sides were approached, plans and costings were delivered, discussions were had with councils and communities, and the benefits would be delivered. But every one of those projects is being reviewed. Labor say they are reviewing those measures from PEFO. What will Treasurer Jim Chalmers, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and infrastructure minister Catherine King do to look after our communities if they take this away? The answer is: nothing.

On that list on their website there are projects from every state, every region, every party, and they all fall down. Here in Canberra: renovate and rebuild the AIS arena at $11.4 million. Is that to go? We're looking at Lindsay: Bennett Park upgrade at $0.59 million. Pick a seat. They're all here. In Brisbane—probably not the safest Liberal Party seat in the history of the world—the Brothers Rugby Club facilities upgrade is $2.5 million. (Time expired)

On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's annual report for 2021 and Human rights scrutiny report No. 4 of 2022.

I present two reports of the Standing Committee of the Scrutiny Delegated Legislation, as listed at item 18 of today's order of business, together with the ministerial correspondence received by the committee and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated Legislation Monitor 6 of 2022 and the committee's Annual Report2021.

The monitor report is on the committee's consideration of 138 legislative instruments registered on the Federal Register of Legislation between 27 July and 31 August 2022. This includes 120 disallowable legislative instruments and 18 instruments exempt from disallowance. It also details the committee's ongoing consideration of instruments registered in previous periods, and concludes its engagement with the relevant minister in relation to four instruments.

I would first like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's concluding comments on the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Amendment (Powering Australia) Regulations 2022. These regulations prescribe 'energy efficiency technologies' and 'electrification technologies' as functions of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

As I noted in my comments on Delegated Legislation Monitor 5, it was unclear to the committee whether these functions fell within the scope of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011, the ARENA Act, under which the instruments are made. The committee also sought advice about the extent of consultation undertaken in making the instrument.

Since the committee reported, the objects of the ARENA Act have been amended to expand its objects and include a note clarifying the types of functions that can be prescribed by regulation.

The minister's response to the committee outlined these amendments and provided additional, useful information about the degree of connection between the functions prescribed by the instrument and the scope of the ARENA Act. The minister also provided further information as to consultation undertaken in making the information.

On the basis of the minister's advice, and noting the recent amendments to the ARENA Act, the committee has resolved to conclude its examination of the instrument, bringing to an end a long history of this act and regulations.

The committee thanks the minister and department officers for their constructive engagement on this matter.

This monitor also contains the committee's requests for further information from the relevant minister in relation to three instruments:

The Health Measures No. 9 Regulations authorise spending on the development and maintenance of Australia's onshore capacity to manufacture mRNA products. The committee had sought the minister's advice as to why it was considered appropriate to address such significant matters in delegated legislation. The committee also asked whether the funding amount could be disclosed to promote appropriate parliamentary oversight of Commonwealth expenditure.

The Minister for Health and Ageing has since provided additional information about the need to use delegated legislation for this purpose and has also outlined some of the complexities relating to disclosing the funding amount. Despite these complexities, he advised his department is working with the funding recipient to provide the required transparency expected by parliament. The committee is therefore seeking an undertaking to update the explanatory statement to the instrument with further information about the relevant expenditure once this work is complete.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet Measures No. 11 Regulations amends the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Regulations to authorise spending on the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme. The committee had sought the minister's advice on several issues, including the need to use delegated legislation to address such significant matters and the availability of merits review. In the light of the minister's response, the committee has resolved to seek further advice about the availability of merits reviews for decisions made under the scheme.

Finally, I would like to speak to the tabling of the committee's annual report 2021. The report documents a significant year in the committee's history. In 2021, the committee examined 1,712 instruments, of which 420 raised scrutiny concerns. This was a significant increase from the 240 instruments raising concerns in 2020. In 2021, most concerns raised by the committee at the ministerial level related to the inclusion in delegated legislation matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment, and instruments modifying primary legislation. Chapter 2 of the report provides further detailed information about the committee's scrutiny work over the year.

The increase in the number of instruments raising scrutiny concerns is partly due to amendments to the committee's standing orders in mid-2021. Amongst other matters, these amendments empowered the committee to scrutinise instruments in relation to exemptions from disallowance and sunsetting. These amendments arose from the recommendations of the committee's inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. Chapter 1 of the annual report outlines this important inquiry.

Chapter 3 of the report contains case studies of some of the most significant scrutiny issues identified by the committee in 2021. These include the committee's extensive engagement with the Treasurer in relation to instruments made in the Treasury portfolio which modified or created exemptions to the operation of primary legislation. Following this engagement, the committee was pleased to note the more frequent inclusion of limitations on the duration of instruments modifying the operation of primary legislation. The committee thanks the former Treasurer and departmental officers for their constructive engagement with the committee on this matter.

Chapter 3 of the report also identifies ongoing scrutiny issues that the committee will continue to monitor, including the exemption of delegated legislation from disallowance in the absence of an adequate jurisdiction.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank previous committee members, the committee's legal adviser, Associate Professor Andrew Edgar, and the secretariat for their work in 2021 on these significant matters.

With these comments, I commend to the Senate the committee's Delegated legislation monitor No. 6 of 2022 and its annual report of 2021.

At the outset I should acknowledge that, in the previous parliament, I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation under you as chair, and that was an extremely positive experience from my perspective as a new senator. I learned a great deal on that committee. Thank you for that, if I can, with your indulgence, compliment you.

Thank you. Just keep it coming!

I'm running out. I miss you. I'm on the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee and your absence is notable. But I would like to talk about the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee and its most recent report. First I want to compliment Senator White in relation to her chairing of that committee. There were extremely big shoes to fill on that committee. From my experience, Senator Fierravanti-Wells as chair of that committee and Senator Kim Carr as the deputy chair of that committee did outstanding work during the last term of parliament, and I'm so pleased that Senator White, in her chairing of that committee, has continued the non-partisan nature with respect to the conduct of that committee's business.

I want to give one example in the most recent monitor to draw out the importance of the work of that committee, and that is in relation to the questions that have been raised in respect to electronic service of documents under the Bankruptcy Act. As someone who, in my previous life, worked for a period of time in the field of insolvency litigation, I understand the monumental importance with respect to bankruptcy proceedings on everyday Australians. It is so important that the service of bankruptcy notices, creditors petitions et cetera is done in a way which ensures that people aren't caught unawares by those sorts of proceedings. As an example of the great things that this committee does, the committee has drawn attention to the fact, in relation to the electronic service of documents, that it is so important to the rights of individual Australians that they be correctly served. Those sorts of documents can be profoundly life-changing, and it's absolutely crucial that those principles are adhered to.

I would like to say something in respect of the annual report for the 2021 year of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee. Some of the most important work that that committee has done is in respect of its inquiry during the course of last year's parliament in regard to the exemption from disallowance procedures of delegated legislation. I have spoken previously about delegated legislation in this place. As the committee has noted in the past, there are tidal waves of this sort of delegated legislation coming through. I think the ratio is about four to one in terms of delegated legislation compared to bills of parliament.

That delegated legislation can have a profound impact on Australians. We saw it during the recent pandemic, in relation to controls with respect to the ability of Australians to leave the country or come back to the country. Because of the impact that that delegated legislation has on the rights of everyday Australians, in my view it is absolutely crucial that in nearly every case—and the exemptions should be extremely narrow—that delegated legislation should be subject to disallowance procedures in this place. That's important for a number of reasons. The first is to make sure that the appropriate scrutiny is applied to the delegated legislation. And, as you know, Madam Acting Deputy President Polley, the way the scrutiny committees work is that typically dialogue is entered into between the committee and the relevant minister. So, invariably, in the vast majority of cases, through the toing and froing of that correspondence—which can take months in some cases—a good result is arrived at for the people of Australia. So, that process is extraordinarily important and leads to an improvement in terms of the laws and instruments that impact everyday Australians.

The second point I want to make is that if you exempt that delegated legislation from oversight by the Senate, oversight by the elected representatives, then who's responsible? Who's responsible for that delegated legislation? From my perspective, I've been elected on behalf of the people of Queensland to represent their interests in this place, and that means I have a responsibility to consider the laws that impact Queenslanders. If a piece of delegated legislation is not subject to a disallowance process, I'm deprived of the opportunity of considering the impact of that delegated legislation upon my constituents in Queensland, and that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable when it comes to legislative instruments, delegated legislation which can have incredible impacts on the lives of everyday Australians and, as we saw during the pandemic, can have an impact on whether or not they can leave the country or come back to the country. It doesn't get more fundamental than that. From my perspective, it is unacceptable that that should not be subject to a disallowance process in this parliament, so that every one of the 76 senators in this place has to discharge their obligation to soberly consider that delegated legislation and whether or not it's in the best interests of their constituents.

That's how this place is meant to work. Yet, over the years—and this isn't party political; this is about both parties of government—there's been a creep towards more and more delegated legislation not being subject to disallowance processes. I do not accept the argument that has previously been put that there are some things that are too important or too sensitive for this place to consider. The more sensitive it is, the greater the impact on people in Queensland and the more important it is that the people's elected representatives should consider the delegated legislation and the impact it's going to have on the lives of their citizens—the more important. I do not accept the notion that I've heard from a number of representatives in the executive of government—the Public Service—that this is something that really is so obvious it shouldn't be going to the Senate and we can't risk this becoming political. And I've heard that said—that we can't risk this becoming political. I'm sorry, but when I see that word, 'political', I interpret it as subject to the scrutiny of the representatives elected by the people. That's what politics is all about. Each and every one of us here in this place is representing the people who elected us. The more sensitive it is, the more appropriate it is that it should come before this Senate so that this Senate can consider whether or not we should apply the disallowance procedures that were available to us.

Lastly, in conclusion, I want to sincerely place on the record my personal thanks to former Senator Fierravanti-Wells and also Kim Carr. I think they gave all of us an outstanding example of the good that can be done when we reach across the chamber and work together in a nonpartisan fashion to improve the laws for the benefit of all Queenslanders. Their cooperation on and their leadership of that committee left a profound imprint upon me. In closing, I'd like to again congratulate Senator Wyatt, as the only continuing member of that committee from the last parliament to this parliament: from my perspective, you're continuing that tradition, and I congratulate you for it.

Question agreed to.

I present Scrutiny digest No. 5 of 2022 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 28 September 2022. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I will make some brief remarks. And can I extend my congratulations to you on the wonderful stewardship that you exercised when you were chair of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee.

Keep it going! I move an extension of time!

I think Senator Scarr might have overlooked the fact that I have actually inherited that role now that we are in opposition. But I know that Senator Scarr speaks generously of your stewardship, as he has done with Senator Liddle's, and I know Senator Scarr is a great enthusiast for the scrutiny role of the Senate.

As the chair of the Standing Committee of Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak on the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest No. 5 of 2022. The digest contains the committee's assessment of all bills recently introduced into the parliament. Each bill is assessed against the committee's technical scrutiny principles set out in standing order 24. These principles focus on the effect of proposed legislation on parliamentary scrutiny and individual rights, liberties and obligations. Importantly, the committee has a strong and longstanding commitment to nonpartisanship, and, accordingly, the digest does not consider the policy merits of various bills.

Scrutiny digest No. 5 of 2022 reports on the committee's consideration of 17 bills and three recent amendments which were introduced into the parliament during the previous sitting week. It also contains the committee's comments on a recent ministerial response in relation to one bill. The committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to 10 bills, including three private senators' bills and private members' bills. In particular, I wish to highlight the committee's comments in relation to one recently introduced bill and one amendment.

The first is the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (AFP Powers and Other Matters) Bill 2022. The bill seeks to extend the operation of several significant counterterrorism measures that are currently due to sunset in December this year. Each measure in the bill will be extended for 12 months. Scrutiny principle No. 1 requires the committee to report in respect of bills which may trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties. Under this principle, the committee will have scrutiny concerns in relation to any bill that introduces provisions which substantially depart from the traditional common-law approach to the criminal justice system. The traditional approach to restraining and detaining persons on the basis of a criminal conviction involves a number of well-established steps, including investigation, arrest, charge, remand in custody or bail, and then sentence on conviction. Several measures extended by the bill depart from this traditional approach and, as a result, may detrimentally impact on common-law rights or liberties. For example, the bill seeks to extend the operation of the control order regime, which allows the court to impose obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on a person without charge, for purposes related to preventing terrorist attacks.

The bill also seeks to extend the operation of the preventative detention order regime, which allows for a person to be taken into custody for up to 48 hours without charge, arrest or any intention on the part of the relevant law enforcement officer to charge the subject with a criminal offence.

Finally, the bill seeks to extend the operation of powers which allow police officers to stop, question and search persons without a warrant or to seize items from a person without a warrant. These latter powers are available to officers operating at a declared security zone, regardless of whether they are reasonable grounds to believe the relevant person may be involved in the commission or attempted commission of a terrorist act.

The extraordinary nature of these measures is recognised in the current legislation by the inclusion of a sunset period. Sunset clauses are important safeguards which facilitate regular parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of primary legislation. As sunsetting is one of the primary means by which the parliament exercises control over its legislative function, the committee considers that any modification of the sunsetting process should only occur in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the sunsetting date for each of the coercive measures in this bill has been extended on a number of occasions. The committee is therefore concerned that measures which were originally introduced as a temporary response to an emergency situation may become permanent by the continual renewal.

The explanatory memorandum to this bill does not appear to provide a justification for the extension of the sunsetting date for the measures in the bill. The committee has therefore requested the minister's advice, and this is a particularly important point, which demonstrates the comments that Senator Scarr just made. The committee has therefore requested the minister's advice as to the exceptional circumstances which might justify the extension and whether those exceptional circumstances are expected to continue into the future and what alternative scrutiny mechanisms are available to the parliament.

As you will appreciate, Acting Deputy President Polley, that writing to the minister seeking additional information or clarification is an important part of the iterative process of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I am always delighted to be able to report that often that exchange of views, that expression of concerns does actually lead to changes in the propositions that the governments of various persuasions bring back to parliament in the form of amendments or improved legislation.

To demonstrate that, let me make some comments about the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. Separate to these concerns, I am pleased to highlight the committee's comments on amendments to the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Bill 2022. The committee commented on this bill in scrutiny digest number 4 2022, expressing concerns about the broad discretionary power to determine via delegated legislation exemptions to statutory requirements relating to registered nurses and residential facilities, an issue that has been top of mind for many people in aged care, many families of residents in aged care and particularly those living across regional communities. The previous iteration of the bill did not set out any detailed criteria limiting this broad exemption power, nor did the face of the bill include any guidance as to how the powers should be exercised. I am pleased to note that recent amendments to the bill address these concerns by providing further limits and guidance on the exercise of this power. In particular, the amendments state that any exemption must not be granted for a period exceeding 12 months, providing significantly greater parliamentary scrutiny over exemption instruments.

The committee looks forward to continuing to engage constructively with ministers to resolve technical scrutiny concerns like this prior to the passage of the bill. I think that is a very important demonstration, again, of the comments Senator Scarr had made previously—that it is the exchange of views between this particular scrutiny committee and executive government and officials are support the government to have laws that are better defined that, in our case, better protect certain liberties for Australians. I'm pleased to note the continued work of this committee and again to note your stewardship in the previous parliament.

We have seen in the last couple of days some interesting comments about the Biosecurity Act 2015 and its appropriateness. I think that if we put our mind to the debate, or lack of debate, and the scrutiny—lack of scrutiny—around that particular bill, the bill which facilitated Australia's response to the pandemic and, for some Australians, allowed governments to exercise too much power. When we think about that bill, the lack of scrutiny, the lack of parliamentary debate and inquiry, then I think the work of this particular committee, the work of other scrutiny committees in the Senate become much more important and appreciated. So, with that, Madam Acting Deputy President Polley, I conclude my remarks.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance, I table the document Final budget outcome 2021-22.

I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning TikTok.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Cost of Living—Select Committee—

Appointed—

Senator Allman-Payne

Participating members: Senators Cox, Faruqi, Hanson-Young, McKim, Barbara Pocock, Rice, Shoebridge, Steele-John, Thorpe, Waters and Whish-Wilson

Economics Legislation Committee—

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Allman-Payne to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the National Energy Transition Authority Bill 2022

Participating member: Senator McKim

Economics References Committee—

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Shoebridge to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the influence of international digital platforms

Participating member: Senator McKim

Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator White

Appointed—

Senator Bilyk

Participating member: Senator White

National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation—Joint Select Committee—

Appointed [contingent on the appointment of the committee]—Senators Bilyk, Sterle and White

Question agreed to.

A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding a resolution agreed to by that House relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation.

The House of Representatives messages read as follows—

Proposed Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation, and transmitting for the concurrence of the Senate the following resolution:

That:

(1) a Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation be established to inquire into and report on the provisions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022 and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022;

(2) the committee consist of 12 members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority group or independent Member, three Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;

(2A) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Government Whip in the House of Representatives, the Opposition Whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent Senator or Member of the House of Representatives;

(2B) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee;

(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

(4) in the event that a House is not sitting and is not expected to meet for at least two weeks, the relevant whip in the House of Representatives, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, minority groups or independent Senators may nominate any appointment or discharge of a member of a committee in writing to the relevant Presiding Officer. The change in membership shall take effect from the time the Presiding Officer received the written nomination. At the next sitting, the Presiding Officer shall report the change to the relevant House and the House shall resolve membership of that committee;

(5) the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of Senators or Members referred to in this resolution;

(6) members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report;

(7) the committee elect a Government member as its chair;

(8) the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;

(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;

(10) four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;

(11) the committee have power to:

(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;

(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;

(c) sit in public or in private; and

(d) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;

(12) the committee report on or before 10 November 2022;

(13) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

I seek to have the message considered immediately.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate concurs with the resolutions of the House of Representatives proposing the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation.

I move:

At the end of motion, add "with the following amendment: Omit paragraph (2), substitute:

(2) the committee consist of 13 members, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by any minority group or independent member, three senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and one senator to be nominated by any other minority group or independent senator."

In recognition of the work the crossbench have done for over a decade, recognising Senator Waters in the Senate and the member for Indi, Helen Haines, and their contribution, I believe it is warranted to have an extra crossbencher on this joint select committee.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

I move the amendment to the motion that has been circulated in the chamber in my name:

That, at the end of the motion, add

'and, in relation to the senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent senator, the Senate requires that the senator to fill this position be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.'

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Terrorism remains a real and enduring challenge for Australia—for our social cohesion, and for the safety of individuals. We must protect Australia against immediate and developing threats and continue to build a more resilient and cohesive nation. To this end, this Bill provides for the continuation of key counter-terrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians: the emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act, the control order regime, and the preventative detention order regime. The powers are currently due to sunset on 7 December 2022.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security conducted a statutory review of these powers during the term of the last Parliament and presented its report in October 2021. The Committee unanimously supported the extension of the powers subject to certain amendments, including the introduction of additional safeguards.

Due to the complexity of a number of the Committee's proposed amendments, and the need to consult with states and territories in relation to any proposed amendments to Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, there is not enough time before the end of the year to:

This Bill would extend the relevant sunset dates by 12 months so that there is sufficient time to consult on, and then implement, the Government's response to the Committee's bipartisan recommendations over the coming months.

Such an approach strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring that agencies continue to have access to powers that are a critical part of Australia's existing counter-terrorism framework, on the one hand, and responding in a considered and appropriate fashion to unanimous and bipartisan recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for more robust safeguards, on the other.

The Government is committed to protecting the safety and security of all Australians by ensuring that law enforcement and security agencies have the powers they need to carry out their essential work. At the same time, the Government is also committed to ensuring that all coercive and intrusive powers are subject to appropriate safeguards and oversight—as befits a country committed to upholding and promoting the rule of law.

Stop, search and seizure powers

The emergency stop, search and seizure powers in the Crimes Act ensure that police are able to respond consistently and effectively to a terrorist incident or threat.

The powers allow police to request a person's name, address and other details; they allow police to conduct a search for a terrorism related item and to seize such an item; and they allow police to enter premises without a warrant to prevent a serious and imminent threat to a person's life, health or safety.

Control orders

Control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code allow federal courts to impose an order that places certain obligations, prohibitions and restrictions on an individual reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism activity. The conditions must be reasonably necessary and reasonably appropriate and adapted to protect the public from a terrorist act.

Preventative detention orders

Preventative detention orders under Division 105 of the Criminal Code allow a person to be detained without charge. These extraordinary powers can only be used where the AFP reasonably suspects an attack could occur within 14 days, or in the aftermath of a terrorist attack to preserve vital evidence.

Collectively, these AFP powers have been used sparingly since they were enacted. As at 25 August 2022, 23 control orders have been made since September 2014, when the national terrorism threat level was raised, including only one control order against a person under 18 years of age. No preventative detention orders have been made, and no incidents have required the use of the emergency stop, search and seizure powers. Although these powers have not been used to date, this demonstrates that the AFP have been appropriately judicious in exercising these exceptional powers.

Concluding remarks

I acknowledge and appreciate the PJCIS' ongoing and valuable role in reviewing intelligence and security powers. The Government looks forward to providing a comprehensive response to all 19 recommendations of the AFP Powers Review in due course.

I also value the continuing partnership with states and territories in our shared efforts to protect the Australian community. The amendments to Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code have been approved by a majority of states and territories, as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws.

This Bill provides for the continuation of important counter-terrorism powers that ensure the safety and security of all Australians.

They ensure that Australia's law enforcement agencies continue to be able to manage the evolving national security and threat environment, while protecting individual rights through strong and effective oversight and safeguards.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

The committee is considering the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2022 and amendments (3) and (8) on sheet 1643 moved by Senator Cash. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

So we are at the end of the day back where we were at the beginning of the day. The matter before us is the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Lifting the Income Limit for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill. At the outset, I think it's very important to restate the coalition's position, and that is that we support the substantive matter that is in this bill in large part—actually, in 100 per cent part—because it is the coalition's initiative carried over from the previous government and now adopted by this government. Congratulations to the new government for bringing forward what was a coalition initiative. Indeed, I think Senator Ruston, as the then social services minister, was responsible for that.

We would hope that the same level of spirit, the same level of foresightedness, shown by the government in regard to this matter will now be shown in regard to amendments that the coalition is bringing to this bill. These are amendments that don't subtract from the substance of this bill but will make the bill better and, more importantly, will deliver much-needed cost-of-living relief to age pensioners and, in doing so, will provide an immediate remedy to the many small and medium-sized business across our country, whether they are in capital cities or regional locations, that are suffering from labour shortage issues.

The amendments that the opposition has tabled and that we would like to see adopted today do three things. Schedule 1 of the amendments deals with the suspension of benefits and entitlements instead of cancellation. Let's call it a red-tape reduction initiative that many, many senior Australians will and have embraced. The second schedule extends the qualification for pensioner concession cards, an idea that older Australians enthusiastically embrace. Most importantly—and I suspect this is the reason that the government is wanting to delay a vote on this—it brings and puts into the law tonight the initiative that will increase the work bonus for pensioners, lifting it from $300 a fortnight to $600 a fortnight and, in doing so, removing the financial penalty that older Australians incur when they move beyond the current $300 a fortnight work bonus limit.

This is an initiative that many people across our country are calling for. They've called for it in Senate committees. They've called for it in dialogue with members of parliament across our country. In the last minutes of parliament today—remembering that the next parliamentary sitting day is actually the day of the budget, which is over a month away—Labor could send a very clear message tonight that it wants to provide older Australians with cost-of-living relief and that it has understood and will treat with urgency those very real labour-shortage issues that businesses are facing across our country.

I asked Senator Farrell this morning whether the government had yet brought forward legislation to give effect to its Jobs and Skills Summit initiative—a Jobs and Skills Summit that happened on 1 and 2 September. Today is 28 September—so, almost a month before the government could get its act together and introduce its own bill to provide relief to older Australians and to provide a remedy to those labour shortages across the country, but not the same bill, because Labor's bill is temporary. Labor thinks it only needs an answer that will last until 30 June next year. It says, by definition, that our labour-shortage issues will expire on 30 June next year. We know that's crazy. I'm sure Senator Lambie in Tasmania knows about real cost-of-living pressures on older Australians in Tasmania as well as very real, severe, acute labour shortages being felt across our country, probably more pronounced in Tasmania.

What I can't understand is that by Labor's own admission today in the House of Representatives it is saying that there is a problem with cost-of-living pressures. They're saying that there is a problem with labour shortages. But they're expecting our country, our parliament, to wait for another month, which makes it two months since the jobs summit, when tonight they could put in law a more generous and more permanent remedy. This is what Labor's social security minister said in the House of Representatives this morning: 'It's been widely reported across the country and understood by this government'—that is, the Labor government—'that businesses across Australia are experiencing skill and labour shortages. ' I don't disagree—tick, Ms Rishworth, the Minister for Social Services. She says that those labour shortages are constraining productivity and economic growth—tick; that's two out of two. We agree. Then she says, 'Implementing a range of policies designed to address labour market issues across the country is important.' We agree with that as well—three ticks. So why, Senator Farrell, will you not support these amendments, brought by the opposition, before you? Why will you not support them? Why are you saying to older Australians and small businesses, 'We want you to wait another month'? 'We've had a Jobs and Skills Summit, we've got a lot of positive media and now we want you to wait two extra months.'

On this matter, the coalition will happily sit down and have nothing more to say if Senator Farrell is about to get on his feet and say, 'You're right: older Australians deserve a remedy now; small businesses deserve a remedy now.' If that is the contribution Senator Farrell is about to make, this might end up being the most productive day this Senate chamber has seen for a very long time. The time is now, Senator Farrell. The time is now, Senator Pratt. This is the opportunity.

I hope that when Senator Farrell gets to his feet he will do three things. I hope he will explain why Labor's measure is temporary, explain why Labor's measure is less generous and say to the Senate: 'Yes, you're quite right. Let's do something now. Let's do something immediately. Let's make this a high-water mark of these last three sitting days.' I don't know if that is a challenge that Senator Farrell can live up to. I'm hoping it is.

In a contribution earlier today, the Australian Greens said that—I'm paraphrasing Senator Rice—this was an important first step. They did not say it was the only step. They said it was an important first step in bringing relief to older Australians to help deal with their cost-of-living pressures and also to address labour shortages. Remember this. This week, Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, said that cost-of-living pressures were skyrocketing. That's not my word. It's Jim Chalmers's word: skyrocketing.

Senator Farrell is going to filibuster so that those skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures for older Australians—he's saying that older Australians can wait another month. They've already waited one month, and he's now saying they can wait another month. I doubt that Labor will legislate their initiative in budget week, and they're going to stand in the way of this initiative. This is not new news. Anyone who has been paying attention to the debates around the cost of living and labour shortages knows that National Seniors Australia and others—grain producers, agricultural organisations and chambers of commerce and industry in Western Australia, Victoria, and, I suspect, Tasmania—have been saying that this is an urgent issue. Treasury themselves said last week that labour shortages were severe. The time to act is now.

The opposition wants to make an absolute dog's breakfast of the legislative process in this place. We got these amendments at exactly the same time as the bill on this topic, which those opposite knew was coming at exactly the same time. Just today, we have had the limits legislation on Commonwealth income referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee by the Selection of Bills Committee for report later on. That is the bill in which these amendments should be moved, not the bill before us. All you are doing this evening is standing in the way of retirees getting access to the Commonwealth seniors health card. That is what you are doing. You are trying to cross-fertilise things that don't belong together. So here we are—

Senator Pratt, take your seat, please. Senator Smith, I believe you might have a point of order.

To be very clear—and it was in my remarks, Senator Pratt—the coalition supports the substantive matter in this bill, and it has amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I don't know if that was a point of order.

That was indeed a filibuster. The legislation—

An opposition senator interjecting—

I am here to legislate!

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Pratt needs to be heard in silence.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Ruston, you're not helping things.

The Labor government wanted to finish this legislation this week so that Commonwealth seniors health cards could be extended to other retirees. Instead, you are proposing these amendments to a bill that is not the right bill to do it in.

We have a committee inquiry underway on changing the income limits for pensioners, because a referral has just been done by the Selection of Bills Committee to the legislation committee of this chamber. It makes a complete nonsense of legislative process for those opposite to be pursuing these amendments here in this bill. The bill before us is to lift the income threshold for seniors who need access to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, to deal with their very pressing cost-of-living issues, of which pharmaceutical medications are an absolute priority.

The government has its own clear plan to lift income limits for pensioners, which we have put forward in a bill that has been referred to a Senate committee. We have not inquired yet into lifting these income limits to the level that the opposition and the Greens are seeking to do. It is simply not feasible to expect this chamber to deal with this question at the eleventh hour, in an amendment that doesn't even belong in this bill.

Our workforce incentives bill will see an increase in the maximum work bonus income bank balance from $7,800 to $11,800. When you introduced these amendments at the eleventh hour, this morning, I hadn't even had time to look at what the income limits are, how they'll affect the pension outgoings relative to—

An opposition senator interjecting

Well, of course we do, but we still have to get our head around the answers to these questions as a government—for example, their impact on the budget et cetera. And yet you insist on this, when there is a perfect opportunity, with due process, to look at your amendments in the right and proper bill, which is coming before this place in a few weeks time.

I'm absolutely appalled at those opposite seeking to disrupt parliamentary process in this way—the absolute gall of moving an amendment in one bill, when the substantive issue is dealt with in a completely different piece of legislation that is also up for debate and is also before the parliament. It is not proper legislative process. It's not proper legislative process, for example, to have an issue being debated in one chamber while the same debate on the same question is going on in the other, when it is a substantive matter of legislation. We're supposed to have rules and principles around this. But instead you are seeking to absolutely bypass good parliamentary process.

This is not good policy development. It is also fiscally irresponsible. It's all very well for those over there to laugh and say, 'Well, you've got a department to go and look at that for you.' It certainly shows that you're in opposition now that you're prepared just to fling these amendments up without really looking at the consequences and working through the due process. Yes, we would like to ask the department. Yes, we would like to look at what the fiscal outcome is—which is not something that can be easily calculated within a day, with no notice. You simply brought these amendments in this morning and then expected the government to come to a voting position on them and be prepared to see the bill passed as amended. So instead, we are at this standstill tonight, where those opposite and the crossbench are getting in the way of making the entitlement available to retirees who would like access to a healthcare card to bring down the cost of their medicine.

I appreciate that the decisions in this place mean trade-offs in one way or another in terms of who gets something, But those opposite are leaving us in a position of nobody getting anything by the time the sitting day ends today, when we have, nevertheless, a perfect opportunity to progress their agenda in the right bill that is still to come before this place. Instead, yes indeed, I am standing here filibustering this legislation to stop those opposite from making an absolute mess of the legislative process. I am absolutely pleased to wear that on my sleeve because it is absolutely irresponsible for those opposite to have brought these amendments before this place at the 11th hour in the way that they have. You explain to older Australians that you are in the way of their healthcare card. We on this side are not standing in the way of amendments to the workforce bonus. We are here to progress government legislation on that topic, which this parliament has indeed referred to the Community Affairs Committee.

Reporting date of when?

It has been referred today.

How long do people need to wait?

We expect the legislation to progress in an orderly and prioritised manner so that we can deliver these outcomes to Australian pensioners and Australian retirees. When you decide to get involved with messy amendments then what happens is we end up leaving this place with no-one winning. There will be a time and a place to debate and consider your amendments but to have them lumped on the government at the 11th hour in the way you did today is completely unconscionable.

I just want to call out what is going on here. We have a bill to increase the ability of pensioners to access support, which we support, which Labor supports, which the opposition supports. We have amendments from the opposition, which, as I said in my second reading contribution, we as Greens feel are good amendments that basically allow pensioners to earn more, which are connected to this bill because they are improving the ability of pensioners to deal with the cost of living. We feel that those amendments are good amendments.

These amendments are similar to but different from measures that the government have moved. So basically, there is a fight going on between the government and the Liberal Party as to who gets the credit for these amendments that will allow pensioners to earn more. We feel that these are good amendments and we cannot vote against them. But clearly, the government do not want the Libs to get the credit for these amendments which would allow pensioners to earn more. So what is going on? The Labor party are filibustering. The Labor Party are trying to delay this bill being passed through the Senate so that it is not a Liberal amendments that are successful in giving pensioners the ability to earn more.

I want to put politics aside. We need to be getting measures through this parliament that will enable pensioners to deal with the cost of living and here is a way of doing it. The Greens want to support these amendments and we want to support them going through this parliament tonight. We do not want to continue on this ridiculous waste of time, just because the Labor Party are not happy with the Liberal Party getting the credit for something that we all agree on. It is just crazy.

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put.

The question now is that amendments (3) and (8) on sheet 1643 be agreed to.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (7) on sheet UD142 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 2), omit "The day this Act receives the Royal Assent", substitute "The seventh day after this Act receives the Royal Assent".

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 14 and 15), omit "2022 and 2023 (see subsections 1192(5BA) and (5BB))", substitute "2023 (see subsection 1192(5BB))".

(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit subsection 1192(5BA).

(4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (lines 10 and 11), omit "on 20 September 2023 and each later 20 September", substitute "annually on 20 September".

(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 13 to 16), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (line 20), omit "20 September 2022", substitute "the day this item commences".

(7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (lines 23 and 24), omit "20 September 2022", substitute "the day this item commences".

I refer to the amendments that the minister has proposed to the original legislation that stemmed from the delay to the original starting date as a result of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. This government amendment changes the commencement date for legislation to enact the government's election commitments to increase the income limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card to $90,000 for singles and $144,000 for couples, and that's a combined amount of money.

Due to the suspension of parliament following the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the bill to implement this commitment could not be passed in time for the increase to be implemented on 20 September 2022 as intended. To minimise any further delays, this amendment will allow the increase to the income limits to take effect seven days following royal assent to the bill. This is the minimum time required by Services Australia to finalise the required systems and business processes once the final date is known. The Commonwealth seniors card income limits are indexed each year on 20 September, according to movements in the consumer price index. The existing bill would have replaced indexation on 20 September 2022 with these significant one-off increases.

As the bill did not pass, indexation of the limits proceeded on 20 September, as required by existing law. This amendment, therefore, also removes material that would have prevented annual indexation for 2022. Following indexation on 20 September 2022, the income limits for the Commonwealth seniors card are currently $61,284 for singles and $98,054 for couples, and that's a combined amount. The bill, as amended, will still raise the income limits, only to the intended levels of $90,000 for singles and $144,000 combined for couples. The bill includes amendments to both the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to ensure the same income limits apply for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card under each act.

Like other Australians, many self-funded retirees are facing increased cost-of-living pressures in the current economic environment. This bill helps to ease those pressures by allowing more self-funded retirees to access Australian government health concessions, including concessional co-payments for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines, the concessional threshold for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme safety net and the extended Medicare safety net, and bulk-billed visits to a general practitioner at the doctor's discretion. The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card also provides access to other concessions that may be provided by state and territory governments and private organisations. This bill is expected to allow more than 50,000 self-funded retirees to become newly eligible for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. The Albanese government will continue to work tirelessly to support older Australians with cost-of-living pressures.

I move:

That the motion be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that amendments (1) to (4), (6) and (7) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that item 10 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (4) and (9) on sheet 1643 together:

(4) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(9) Page 4, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 2), add:

Schedule 3 — Extended qualification for pensioner concession cards

Part 1 — Former recipients of age pensions

Social Security Act 1991

1 After section 1061ZC

Insert:

1061ZCA Extended qualification rule: former recipie nt of age pension and partner

Qualification

(1) Subject to subsections (8) and (9), a person is qualified for a pensioner concession card for the period of 2 years starting on the day on which this section begins to apply to the person.

Former recipient of age pension with employment income

(2) Subject to subsection (6), this section applies to a person if:

(a) the person has been receiving an age pension; and

(b) age pension ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension is nil; and

(c) the rate of the person's pension is nil because of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances that results in the person's income reduced rate (see subsection (3)) being nil; and

(d) but for the person's income reduced rate being nil, the person would have continued to be qualified for a pensioner concession card because age pension would have continued to be payable to the person; and

(e) at the time of the cessation, the person's ordinary income (as used to work out the person's income reduced rate) includes income for remunerative work performed by the person in Australia as an employee in an employer/employee relationship.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person's income reduced rate is the rate worked out at step 8 of the method statement in point 1064-A1 in Module A of Pension Rate Calculator A.

Partner of former recipient of age pension with employment income

(4) Subject to subsection (6), this section applies to a person who is a member of a couple if:

(a) the person's partner is qualified for a pensioner concession card under this section because subsection (2) applies to the partner as a result of age pension ceasing to be payable to the partner; and

(b) immediately before the partner's cessation of payability, the person was receiving an age pension, disability support pension or carer payment; and

(c) the person's pension or payment ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or payment is nil; and

(d) the person's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the partner's cessation of payability; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the partner's cessation of payability.

(5) To avoid doubt, if the person ceases to be a member of the couple after the person's cessation of payability, the person's qualification for a pensioner concession card because of subsection (4) is not affected.

Residency requirement

(6) This section only applies to a person while the person is residing in Australia.

Note: If the person is temporarily absent from Australia, the person continues to be qualified for a pensioner concession card for a maximum period of up to 6 weeks (see Division 4).

(7) However, this section applies to a person in relation to a day if:

(a) the person is in Australia on that day but not residing in Australia; and

(b) the age pension, disability support pension or carer payment that the person had been receiving was received solely because of the operation of the scheduled international social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

No double qualification person receiving certain other social security payments

(8) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of a social security pension that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

(9) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of:

(a) a youth allowance while subsection 1061ZA(2A) applies to the person; or

(b) a jobseeker payment while subsection 1061ZA(2B) applies to the person; or

(c) a benefit PP (partnered) while subsection 1061ZA(2D) applies to the person;

that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

2 Subsection 1061ZEA(1)

Before "1061ZD", insert "1061ZCA,".

3 Subparagraph 1061ZUC(1)(a)(i)

After "1061ZC,", insert "1061ZCA,".

4 Application provision

Section 1061ZCA of the Social Security Act 1991, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension or payment first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

Part 2 — Former recipients of disability support pensions

Social Security Act 1991

5 Section 1061ZD (at the end of the heading)

Add "and partner".

6 Before subsection 1061ZD(1)

Insert:

Qualification

7 Subsection 1061ZD(1)

Omit "52 weeks", substitute "2 years".

8 Before section 1061ZD(2)

Insert:

Former recipient with 30 hours per week employment

9 Before subsection 1061ZD(3)

Insert:

Former recipient with increase in employment income

10 After subsection 1061ZD(3)

Insert:

Partner of former recipient with employment

(3A) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to a person who is a member of a couple if:

(a) the person's partner is qualified for a pensioner concession card under this section because:

(i) subsection (2) applies to the partner as a result of the partner ceasing to be qualified for disability support pension; or

(ii) subsection (3) applies to the partner as a result of disability support pension ceasing to be payable to the partner; and

(b) immediately before the partner's cessation of qualification or payability, the person was receiving an age pension, disability support pension or carer payment; and

(c) the person's pension or payment ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or payment is nil; and

(d) the person's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the partner's cessation of qualification or payability; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the partner's cessation of qualification or payability.

(3B) To avoid doubt, if the person ceases to be a member of the couple after the person's cessation of payability, the person's qualification for a pensioner concession card because of subsection (3A) is not affected.

11 Before subsection 1061ZD(4)

Insert:

Residency requirement

12 Before subsection 1061ZD(5)

Insert:

No double q ualification person receiving certain other social security payments

13 Subsections 1061ZD(5) and (5A)

Omit "52 weeks", substitute "2 years".

14 Before subsection 1061ZD(6)

Insert:

Residency requirement exception New Zealand agreement

15 Paragraph 1061ZD(6)(b)

Omit "disability support pension", substitute "age pension, disability support pension or carer payment".

16 Before subsection 1061ZD(7)

Insert:

No double qualification person with partial capacity to work

17 Application provisions

(1) The amendments of subsections 1061ZD(1), (5) and (5A) of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Part apply in relation to a person who receives a disability support pension on or after the commencement day (whether or not the person was receiving the pension before the commencement day).

(2) If:

(a) on a day during the period:

(i) starting on the day that is 52 weeks before the commencement day; and

(ii) ending on the day before the commencement day;

section 1061ZD of the Social Security Act 1991 (as in force on the relevant day during that period) begins to apply to a person; and

(b) on the day before the commencement day the person is qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD or subsection 1061ZA(1), (2A), (2B) or (2D) of the Social Security Act 1991;

the amendments to the period a person is qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD, as made by this Part, apply in relation to the person.

(3) Subsections 1061ZD(3A) and (3B) of the Social Security Act 1991, as inserted by this Part, and the amendment of paragraph 1061ZD(6)(b) of that Act made by this Part, apply in relation to:

(a) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement day (whether the pension or payment first became payable before, on or after the commencement day); and

(b) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement day.

(4) In this item:

commencement day means the day this Part commences.

Part 3 — Former recipients of veterans' entitlements and certain partners

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

18 Before subsection 53A(1)

Insert:

General rule

19 Before subsection 53A(1A)

Insert:

Certain persons eligible before 1 January 2017

20 Before subsection 53A(2)

Insert:

Certain recipients of invalidity service pension who cease to be permanently incapacitated for work

21 At the end of section 53A

Add:

Former recipients with employment incom e

(3) If:

(a) a person is receiving service pension or income support supplement; and

(b) the pension or supplement ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or supplement is nil; and

(c) the rate of the person's pension or supplement is nil because of the occurrence of an event or change of circumstances that results in the person's income reduced rate (see subsection (4)) being nil; and

(d) but for the person's income reduced rate being nil, the person would have continued to be eligible for fringe benefits because the person would have continued to receive the pension or supplement; and

(e) at the time of the cessation, the ordinary income of the person (as used to work out the person's income reduced rate) includes income for remunerative work performed by the person in Australia as an employee in an employer/employee relationship;

the person remains eligible for fringe benefits for the period of 2 years beginning on the day the pension or supplement ceased to be payable to the person.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person's income reduced rate, in relation to a service pension or income support supplement, is the rate worked out in relation to that pension or supplement at step 6 of method statement 1 or step 6 of method statement 5, as the case may be, in Module A of the Rate Calculator.

Partners of certain former recipients with employment

(5) If:

(a) a person is:

(i) eligible for fringe benefits under subsection (3) because the person's pension or supplement ceases to be payable to the person; or

(ii) qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZCA of the Social Security Act because subsection (2) of that section applies to the person as a result of age pension ceasing to be payable to the person; or

(iii) qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD of the Social Security Act because subsection (2) of that section applies to the person as a result of the person ceasing to be qualified for disability support pension; or

(iv) qualified for a pensioner concession card under section 1061ZD of the Social Security Act because subsection (3) of that section applies to the person as a result of disability support pension ceasing to be payable to the person; and

(b) immediately before the person's cessation of payability or qualification, the person's partner was receiving service pension or income support supplement; and

(c) the partner's pension or supplement ceases to be payable to the partner because the rate of the partner's pension or supplement is nil; and

(d) the partner's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the person's cessation of payability or qualification; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the person's cessation of payability or qualification;

the partner remains eligible for fringe benefits for the period of 2 years beginning on the day the pension or supplement ceased to be payable to the partner.

(6) To avoid doubt, subsection (5) applies to the partner even if the partner ceases to be a member of the couple after the day the pension or supplement ceased to be payable to the partner.

22 At the end of subsection 56(1)

Add:

Note: If a person ceases to receive a service pension or income support supplement, the person's eligibility for benefits under Division 12 will generally cease.

23 At the end of subsection 56A(1)

Add:

Note: If a person ceases to receive a service pension or income support supplement, the person's eligibility for benefits under Division 12 will generally cease.

24 Subsection 56E(1) (note 4)

Omit "also cancelled", substitute "generally cancelled too (but see also sections 56ED and 56EE)".

25 Subsection 56EA(2) (note 3)

Omit "also cancelled", substitute "generally cancelled too (but see also sections 56ED and 56EE)".

26 Application provision

Subsections 53A(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, as added by this Part, apply in relation to:

(a) service pension or income support supplement ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension or supplement first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) service pension or income support supplement ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

Part 4 — Certain partners of former recipients of veterans' entitlements

Social Security Act 1991

27 After section 1061ZDA

Insert:

1061ZDB Extended qualification rule: partner of former recipient of veterans' entitlement

Qualification

(1) Subject to subsections (6) and (7), a person is qualified for a pensioner concession card for the period of 2 years starting on the day on which this section begins to apply to the person.

Partner of f ormer recipient of veterans' entitlement with employment income

(2) Subject to subsection (4), this section applies to a person who is a member of a couple if:

(a) the person's partner is eligible for fringe benefits under subsection 53A(3) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act because the partner's service pension or income support supplement ceases to be payable to the partner; and

(b) immediately before the partner's cessation of payability, the person was receiving an age pension, disability support pension or carer payment; and

(c) the person's pension or payment ceases to be payable to the person because the rate of the person's pension or payment is nil; and

(d) the person's cessation of payability occurs:

(i) at the same time as the partner's cessation of payability; and

(ii) because of the occurrence of the same event or change of circumstances that resulted in the partner's cessation of payability.

(3) To avoid doubt, if the person ceases to be a member of the couple after the person's cessation of payability, the person's qualification for a pensioner concession card because of subsection (2) is not affected.

Residency requirement

(4) This section only applies to a person while the person is residing in Australia.

Note: If the person is temporarily absent from Australia, the person continues to be qualified for a pensioner concession card for a maximum period of up to 6 weeks (see Division 4).

(5) However, this section applies to a person in relation to a day if:

(a) the person is in Australia on that day but not residing in Australia; and

(b) the pension or payment that the person had been receiving was received solely because of the operation of the scheduled international social security agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

No double qualificat ion person receiving certain other social security payments

(6) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of a social security pension that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

(7) If, during the period of 2 years referred to in subsection (1), a person receives an instalment of:

(a) a youth allowance while subsection 1061ZA(2A) applies to the person; or

(b) a jobseeker payment while subsection 1061ZA(2B) applies to the person; or

(c) a benefit PP (partnered) while subsection 1061ZA(2D) applies to the person;

that relates to one or more days within that period, the person is not qualified under this section for a pensioner concession card on the day or days in relation to which the person receives the instalment.

28 Subsection 1061ZEA(1)

After "1061ZDA", insert ", 1061ZDB".

29 Subparagrap h 1061ZUC(1)(a)(i)

After "1061ZDA,", insert "1061ZDB,".

30 Application

Section 1061ZDB of the Social Security Act 1991, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to:

(a) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable on or after the commencement of this Part (whether the pension or payment first became payable before, on or after that commencement); and

(b) age pension, disability support pension or carer payment ceasing to be payable during the period of 12 weeks ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.

The CHAIR: The question before the chair is that amendments (4) and (9) on sheet 1643 be agreed to:

by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (5), (6), (7) and (10) on sheet 1643 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after proposed table item 1), insert:

(5) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(6) Page 2 (after line 14), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review and expiration of Schedule 4

Review

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act.

(2) The persons who undertake the review must:

(a) without limiting subsection (1), consider as part of the review, the merits of continuing the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act taking into account:

(i) changes in overseas net migration levels; and

(ii) the unemployment rate; and

(iii) the workforce participation rate; and

(iv) utilisation of the work bonus; and

(b) give the Minister a written report of the review no later than 30 days before the sunset day mentioned in subsection (4).

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

Sunsetting of amendments

(4) The amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act cease to be in force at the start of the day (the sunset day) after the end of the period of:

(a) 12 months beginning on the day Schedule 4 commenced; or

(b) each successive 12-month period after the day referred to in paragraph (a);

unless subsection (5) applies.

(5) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, determine that the amendments made by Schedule 4 to this Act do not cease to be in force for a period of 12 months if the Minister is satisfied, after considering the report mentioned in subsection (2), that the amendments should remain in operation.

Definition of Minister

(6) For the purposes of this section, Ministermeans the Minister administering the Social Security Act 1991.

(7) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Commonwealth Seniors Health Card income test limits".

(10) Page 4, at the end of the Bill (after proposed Schedule 3), add:

Schedule 4 — Inc reasing the work bonus for pensioners and veterans

Social Security Act 1991

1 Subsection 1073AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)

Repeal the examples, substitute:

Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. David's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Amy's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.

2 Subsection 1073AA(4) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in an instalment period of 14 days. Bill's rate of social security pension for that period is greater than nil.

Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.

Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.

Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.

3 Subsection 1073AA(4A) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

4 Paragraphs 1073AA(4C)(a) and (b)

Omit "$300", substitute "$600".

5 Subsection 1073AB(2) (example)

Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

6 Subsection 46AA(2) (examples 1 and 2)

Repeal the examples, substitute:

Example 1: David has $2,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. David's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

David's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving David $2,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Example 2: Amy has $1,300 of work bonus income in a pension period. Amy's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

Amy's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Amy $700 of work bonus income for that period.

7 Subsection 46AA(4) (example)

Repeal the example, substitute:

Example: Bill has $1,600 of work bonus income in a pension period. Bill's rate of service pension or income support supplement for that period is greater than nil.

Under subsection (2), Bill's work bonus income for that period is reduced by $600, leaving Bill $1,000 of work bonus income for that period.

Assume Bill's unused concession balance is $800.

Under subsection (4), Bill's work bonus income for that period is further reduced by $800 leaving Bill $200 of work bonus income for that period.

Bill's unused concession balance is now nil.

8 Subs ection 46AA(4A) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

9 Subsection 46AA(4C)

Omit "$300", substitute "$600".

10 Subsection 46AC(2) (example)

Omit "$7,900", substitute "$8,200".

11 Subsection 46AD(3) (example)

Omit "$200", substitute "$500".

12 Applicati on provision

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to an instalment period that starts on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a pension period that starts on or after the commencement of this item.

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that opposition amendments (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (10) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Point of order: I'm not quite sure how to ask this, but the community affairs committee has been referred a bill on the same act that this bill has amended. It has been referred to us by the Selection of Bills Committee, so I am seeking some advice about the status of that referral. I guess that advice can come back to the committee and chamber at some other time, but I'm keen to know what the business before the committee is. Thank you.

Senator Pratt, I understand, conferring with the table staff, that it's not something on which I can advise from the chair. It's recommended that you approach the Clerk directly.

I seek leave to move a motion to appoint members to committees.

Leave not granted.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2022. The bill provides an entitlement to 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave in a 12-month period for full-time, part-time and casual employees. The bill builds on measures put in place by the former coalition government following the independent Fair Work Commission's 2018 decision to grant five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave to employees covered by a modern award. The Fair Work Commission made its decision after carefully considering extensive evidence and submissions from unions, employers and other interested parties.

The Fair Work Commission's proposal, at the time, meant that the approximately two million Australians on awards would have been eligible to receive five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave. This earlier decision would have created complexity for Australian businesses, particularly small and medium businesses that have collective or individual agreements as well as award-reliant employees. This complexity would have seen workers who were on an award entitled to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave while a worker in the same organisation who was on a collective agreement—

The debate is interrupted. Senator Cash, you will be in continuance.

I rise to declare that I stand with the people of Ukraine in their fight for sovereignty and in their defence of democracy and the international rule of law. I speak to continue to draw attention to the plight of the people of Ukraine, who are right now suffering the impact of one of the most consequential and horrifying events of this century: none other than Vladimir Putin's unprovoked, unjustified and illegal invasion of Ukraine.

On 23 February this year, an entire nation of 44 million people were living lives not so very different from yours and mine. They were in a free country with a democratically elected government in place, and they were getting on with their lives—with all its joys and all its sorrows. They were uploading TikTok dance videos, planning weddings and holidays, meeting friends; they were living life as we do. But that all changed overnight when the dictator next door, who believes in concocted and convoluted historical revisionism that denies Ukrainian culture, Ukrainian language and Ukrainian history, invaded. He invaded a sovereign nation.

The falsehoods that underpinned that claim for a right to invade Ukraine continue to spread in Russia as part of a number of highly dangerous modern misinformation warfare techniques that are running in Russia and anywhere else where Russia can ensure they can get a hold. Information warfare is a reality, and it's really important that in institutions such as our parliament and parliaments around the world we make sure that we get correct information on the record.

I want to acknowledge the tremendous suffering of the Ukrainian people since 24 February and indicate how significantly their lives have changed. They've borne the brunt of a vicious military manoeuvre that has destroyed homes, destroyed families and changed Ukraine forever. They've been the subject of countless war crimes, displacements and unimaginable disruptions, and of the endless tragedy of lost loved ones, loved ones injured and loved ones who have been killed by that invading Russian force—to the number of almost 10,000 citizens of Ukraine.

Now, much can be said about the incredible leadership of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has led his people with a steel will and a humanity that scarcely anyone would have believed was possible before this tragic war began. But the violation of international law and human rights has to be acknowledged. It must be condemned, and it must be punished by the global community.

I've been horrified by reports of mass war crimes committed by the Russian occupiers that have now been confirmed by the UN investigators. The Russian force's crimes include bombings of civilian areas, numerous executions, torture and horrific sexual violence. In towns like Bucha, Hostomel and Borodyanka, UN teams have discovered mass graves with large numbers of Ukrainians who had been executed and tortured by Russian forces. There is nothing that justifies this war, and nothing can justify this abominable conduct. Those responsible must be held to account and prosecuted.

But, in the meantime, I want to report to the Senate that, in my conversations with civic leaders in Ukraine and with their representatives during a recent trip that I had to Washington to attend the IPAC meetings, I heard directly from Ukrainians of their desperate need. Australians have never ever let me down, and I'm so proud to be an Australian; when we know there's a need, we respond. Well, the need is in Ukraine right now. Ordinary Australian citizens just like us have told me that there is a shortage of medical supplies, not only for the people who are fighting at the front but for civilians because, let's face it, they are being attacked in their homes. Australians have risen to the challenge before. I want to put it to this parliament we should be looking at the way in which parliaments and the body politic of Australia, ordinary Australian citizens, can help those other citizens who have had their rights violated, their country invaded by Russia. They need our help and they need it now. They need medical supplies. They also need significant educational supplies. I will have more to say on that but I encourage all senators here to support me in this call on action for the people of Ukraine.

I rise to pay tribute this evening to Mahsa Amini and to recognise the incredible bravery of the women of Iran, who are right now fighting back against decades of oppression against them because of their sex. Mahsa was just 22 years old when she died earlier this month following a violent arrest by Iran's so-called morality police. Her crime: not covering her hair in the way that the men who rule Iran demand that all women must. For this, she lost her life. The violence perpetrated against Mahsa by the Iranian regime had one purpose: to intimidate Iranian women into compliance; to show them that, should they fail to dress as they are told, they can be arrested, beaten and even killed. But Iranian women are refusing to be intimidated. In spite of the danger they face, they have shown enormous courage by protesting Mahsa's death. They have taken off the hijab that symbolises their oppression and burned it in the streets. They have taken to social media and cut off their hair to show the world that they won't be intimidated. The Iranian regime has responded as authoritarian dictatorships invariably respond. Dozens of Iranians, including many more women, have been killed while participating in protests. The government has shut down social media and internet access in an attempt to hide its oppression of its citizens from the world.

Surely, the very least the international community can do in support of the women of Iran is refuse to legitimise Iran's barbaric treatment of women. So why then does Iran remain a member of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women? How is it possible that the international community allows such status to a regime that denies women the right to show their hair and face in public?

How galling it was to see the President of Iran addressing the United Nations General Assembly last week while his citizens died on the streets because they dared to protest the killing of a 22-year-old woman. Leaders from every nation, including our own, spent last week at the UN in New York. Many speeches were made, many photos were taken yet still Iran remains a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, providing cover and a veil of legitimacy for its oppression of women and girls. What have governments done to correct this abhorrent situation? What has our own government done? For as long as Iran remains on the UN Commission on the Status of Women, that commission can have no credibility.

It is no wonder people have so little time for the machinations and posturing of the United Nations. Human rights abusers sit on the Human Rights Council. Countries where women have no rights lecture us about the status of our women. Russia sits on the Security Council while it causes the biggest threat to global security we have seen in decades. Of course Australia should work with like-minded international partners in the interest of peace, security and human rights, but we should not stand by and allow charades like Iran sitting on the UN Commission on the Status of Women without kicking up a fuss. Australia should take a lead role in working with other nations towards Iran's removal from the commission. It is inconceivable that we could stay quiet and share membership of this commission with Iran while Iranian women are not only risking their lives but losing their lives to stand up to their oppressor.

Last Friday was Dogs in Politics Day, and although I have been talking about animal rights for many years, this one is a hard speech to make. My beloved companion dog, Cosmo, passed away suddenly earlier this year, on the same day that my colleagues entrusted me to become Deputy Leader of the Greens—talk about bittersweet moments. I can never truly explain what Cosmo meant to me. He was my and my husband's lifeline during COVID, when we were locked away from my son and my daughter. He gave us so much more than can be put into words. He was my baby boy, and the hole in my heart that he has left will not be filled.

Cosmo was a rescue greyhound. As a breed, they are the most abused dogs in Australia. I adopted him soon after the gambling industry was successful in overturning the New South Wales greyhound racing ban with their allies in the Labor, Liberal and National parties. He struggled terribly with pain and arthritis. He had little patches of hair missing from one of his hind legs. His vet told us it was probably where a trainer had used pin firing as a home remedy, which is a soldering-iron-like device intended to cause tissue scarring to save having to pay for a vet. This is just one small example of the cruelty that these beautiful greyhounds are subjected to.

I will continue to grieve, but there is one thing I must do to honour Cosmo's legacy, and that is to highlight the gross hypocrisy of the greyhound racing industry and their advocates in the Labor, Liberal and National parties. On Dogs in Politics Day, our socials are flooded with photos of politicians smiling with their dogs, making out that they are friends to animals. But what they won't tell you about is their continued support of an industry that breeds, kills, injures, drugs and maims dogs—all aided and abetted by taxpayer funds. Time and again players in the industry are exposed. Time and again we are told it is another rotten apple, an isolated case.

You might ask how this cruel industry continues to attract millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars, to profit off problem gamblers while racing greyhounds get injured and die. It's a grotesque but effective business model. Big gambling companies like Tabcorp and Crown Resorts dumped $2.7 million into politicians' pockets in the decade to 2020; $1.3 million went to the Liberals, $1.1 million to Labor and the remaining $300,000 to the Nationals. That's right: the gambling companies pay the political parties to prop up racing that drives their gambling profits.

The cycle of legalised corruption repeats infinitely as more and more animals are injured and die. Anyone who has had a rescue greyhound knows the scars left by racing. Any rescuer can tell you the condition the dogs come in—poor teeth, poor skin, untreated injuries, thousands and thousands of dollars in vet bills spent by volunteer rescuers and individuals to clean up the mess of this brutal industry.

I have often wrestled with the issue of greyhound adoption. Every dog adopted is another dog the gambling industry can breed and adds to the problem of excess dogs to be rehomed. But we know there is no alternative. What has to happen is that breeding caps have to be put on. It is unconscionable that the greyhound racing industry, Australia's biggest puppy farm, continues to incentivise the breeding of dogs. The result is more and more dogs being dumped on volunteer rescuers, who are being pushed to breaking point. The Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds digs up the information that the greyhound racing and gambling industry tries to hide. They've recorded the 120 needless track deaths and 7,152 injuries that have already happened this year. It is estimated that the national rate of greyhound breeding in 2020-21 was about six times the racing industry's capacity to rehome them via its official adoption programs.

So today I am calling for a moratorium on the breeding of greyhounds across Australia. If governments are not going to ban this vile industry just yet then they at least need to introduce breeding caps. Ultimately people in this country want to see an end to greyhound racing. This has to end.

Early childhood education plays a vital role in our society. I'm a firm believer, as are my Labor colleagues, in the importance it plays in children's development, for families, particularly mothers, to re-engage in the workforce, and for the economy as a whole. As an aunty to my gorgeous 20-month-old nephew Ibrahim, I understand the pressures that my sister and her husband go through as a young couple trying to make ends meet. They're both studying full time and working part time while having a mortgage to pay, endless bills that pile on and a baby whose cuteness unfortunately doesn't cover his expenses. To then consider having to pay for early learning causes quite the strain on their household budget. Like many young Australian mothers and fathers out there, my sister deserves to pursue her career while ensuring her child has access to a good educational start that is affordable and provided by educators who are passionate and recognised for their work.

In my previous role as an organiser at the United Workers Union, I heard from educators who didn't feel respected or valued despite the critical role they play. They were overworked with a low ratio of staff to children, feeling burnt out and neglected. This prevented educators from building effective and meaningful relationships with each child, impacting their ability to provide the individual attention which is crucial to developing the child's social and learning skills. COVID-19 definitely exacerbated the already existing issues in the early education sector. It is this workforce, primarily of women, that care for our children who can intervene to help in their early years so that disadvantage doesn't follow them. These educators can ensure that Australian children have the best start in life.

Unlike some of those on the other side, Labor values, recognises and will support a high-quality early education workforce. I am proud to be a small part of the change because, while I know every educator does what they do based on their passion for children and education, they deserve a government which understands and supports them as well. Already we have heard from the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Dr Anne Aly, that the work has begun, and I am confident that her commitment to the sector will mean great outcomes for children, families and educators.

Unfortunately, the costs of early learning have been growing, eating a hole in household budgets and contributing to the rising cost of living. When early learning is unaffordable for families, parents have no choice but to stay home instead of rejoining the workforce, and this burden often falls on mothers. In reforming early learning to make it more affordable and accessible, Labor will increase women's participation in the workforce. Labor will help the economy that is struggling with staff shortages and, most importantly, Labor will invest in our nation's future by ensuring that children get the best start in life.

Our reforms will be achieved through a review of the sector, through the Productivity Commission, with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent childcare subsidy for all families. The ACCC will design a price regulation mechanism. This plan will make child care cheaper for 96 per cent of families who have children in care. Importantly, this economic reform will have far-reaching social impacts and deliver a better future.

I rise to raise serious concerns about the Albanese government's commitment to regional communications. Labor, when it was in opposition, went to the election promising a $155 million cut to regional communications—$155 million less than the $1.3 billion committed by the coalition. Of course, that is on top of the massive expenditure by our government in regional communications to fix mobile black spots; to upgrade connectivity in rural, regional and remote communities; and to deliver better communications in peri-urban areas under the PUMP program. This is in stark contrast to Labor's failure to deliver one dollar when it was last in government for one mobile black spot. This is the most shameful record.

On 19 August I issued a statement asking whether Labor was planning more cruel cuts to regional communications. That's because we had not heard a word from Labor's communications minister, Michelle Rowland, about round 2 of the coalition's Regional Connectivity Program, under which we had announced $140 million for 93 projects—including $37 million for Western Australia, $8 million for Tasmania, $9 million for South Australia, $8 million for New South Wales, $43 million for Queensland, $15 million for the Northern Territory and Christmas Island and $14 million for Victoria. This is a very substantial investment in rural, regional and remote communities that deserve better communications. A number of days later the minister released a statement saying: 'The minister has previously confirmed an intention to honour grants awarded under the Regional Connectivity Program, including round 2. Formal announcements will be made in due course.' That was roughly 23 August. It's now nearly the end of September. Where are those projects? Where is that funding? Where is the confirmation that Minister Rowland will deliver, as she said she would do? She pointed the journalist to the Guardian and said, 'I made the Guardian aware of what I was going to do.' But in fact she didn't; she only referred to the Regional Connectivity Program, not to round 2.

Proudly, we have already delivered a whole range of other projects under round 1. Well before the election, as decisions of government we announced another 93 projects would be funded under round 2. It is extraordinary that we are still waiting. So I call on this minister—my concern is she is a soft target for Labor's razor gang. Labor's razor gang, in the lead-up to the budget, is looking to this program to make savage cuts, along with many other anticipated cuts to regional communities via regional programs we proudly delivered. Where is the minister's confirmation that these 93 projects will be funded and $140 million will be delivered under the Regional Connectivity Program? We've seen no action on the extension of the Peri-Urban Mobile Program to peri-urban areas in regional cities. We've seen a paltry commitment, frankly, to regional communications. This is an absolute disgrace. It would be an act of political bastardly if this program was cut.

The regions matter. Every community matters. This funding was going into communities which desperately needed upgrades to their connectivity, so those communities could work, so students living in those communities could study, so businesses could function. Shame on this government! Why would the Albanese government leave these communities still waiting for certainty after more than four months? It is absolutely appalling. I again call on the minister to confirm the $140 million for the Regional Connectivity Program immediately and to start to demonstrate that the regions across this country matter.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, my topic tonight is nuclear power. The war on the most cost-effective energy source, coal, means nuclear is the only way to overcome problems inherent in wind and solar—problems around reliability, capacity, cost and technical issues, inertia, frequency and instability. If we do not turn on to nuclear we will have blackouts and electricity price rises that will decimate industry and employment in this country.

In Europe the quiet nuclear revolution began after conflict with Russia exposed the solar and wind industry's terminal flaws. Despite half a trillion dollars being spent across Europe, it became obvious that wind turbines, solar panels and big batteries could not sustain Europe's need for power—ever. You cannot achieve the UN's insane net zero target without going nuclear. The European Union has voted to classify nuclear energy as an environmentally sustainable economic activity. In other words, nuclear is now green energy, while uranium—nuclear fuel—is not renewable. Neither are windmills, solar panels or dead batteries.

As a supposed problem, nuclear waste is exaggerated. Spent fuel is in part reused in specially designed power plants called breeder reactors. The small amount of remaining waste can be stored safely. Australia's ANSTO is a leader in nuclear technology with its Synroc project. For example, American data shows that if nuclear energy provided 100 per cent of their power, waste per person would amount to just 40 grams per year. Breeder reactors reduce this waste to a minuscule four grams per person per year. For people genuinely worried about the fiery apocalypse of climate variability, if your children are out gluing themselves to inanimate objects, nuclear is the virtuous climate salvation you've been looking for.

More importantly, the physical footprint of a nuclear plant is tiny compared to solar and wind's carpet bombing of our beautiful countryside. A 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility requires 2½ square kilometres—that's it. That's all. To equal the same output, a solar plant would need 75 times the land area, and wind turbines would need 360 times the land. This is important when considering how many of these damn things the Greens, teals and ALP want to build. You would need three million solar panels or 430 wind turbines operating at continuous capacity to replace one nuclear plant. On average solar and wind availability, that would be four times more, though: 12 million solar panels or 1,720 wind turbines. A single pellet of uranium roughly the size of your thumb produces the same amount of energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 120 gallons of oil or one tonne of coal, yet successive governments that claim to rank apocalyptic climate variability as their primary policy consideration ban it.

We talk about Australia as a leader in innovation, technical achievement and global solutions, yet we allow ourselves to fall behind in the nuclear power renaissance. Worldwide as of 2021 there are 55 nuclear reactors under construction, 90 on order or planned and 300 proposed to be added to the 440 existing reactors in operation. Work is being done to increase the life span of existing reactors from 40 to 60 years. Any nuclear reactor we build now will be saving Australia from blackouts 50 years after wind, solar and batteries built today will have died and been turned into toxic landfill.

Australia is the No. 1 global holder of uranium reserves, with between 28 and 30 per cent, or 1.7 million tonnes, of the world's known reserves. That's enough to last for generations. Also, there's no safer place in the world for nuclear than Australia. We are geologically stable, sitting in the middle of a tectonic plate. The issues with old plants in poorly chosen locations overseas do not relate to nuclear power plants like those we would build in Australia. The reality is that nuclear is one of the world's safest energy generators. As a bonus, it doesn't rely on child slave labour or a communist superpower dictatorship with a track record of chucking tantrums when its human rights record is questioned, nor does it promote the blue economy of destructive deep-sea mining for the raw materials needed to produce battery backup for wind and solar.

I understand why renewable barons and their pet politicians rally against nuclear. Nuclear completely invalidates the billionaire solar and wind parasites. It poses a catastrophic and fatal threat to crony capitalism and the billion-dollar energy portfolios that green politics enriches. One Nation stands for reliable, affordable, strategically safe and clean energy for the future that is based on science, not fairytales. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation. (Time expired)

In the lead-up to the Jobs and Skills Summit that was held here in Canberra, throughout that summit and in the preceding days, the overwhelming feedback that we received as a government, from workers and employers alike, was about the complexity and impracticality of our current bargaining system. It's a system that hasn't delivered real wage increases for workers for almost a decade. We know that under the Liberal-National government the system had become so complex that regulation or legislation dangled the carrot of supposedly fair bargaining but never delivered for workers. In fact, it was never intended to under the previous government, who were so cosy with the idea of reducing workers' wages that they joined a case in the High Court to try to overturn a ruling about same job, same pay. The LNP believe that giving workers the right to fairly bargain would somehow up-end business, but the truth is that low wages are hurting businesses and our economy.

As senators in this chamber may recall, since I was elected, I've raised on multiple occasions the plight of workers in Central Queensland who have been subject to BHP's so-called in-house labour hire provider called Operation Services. This is an absolute example of where people are working the same job but not getting paid the same wages. It has not happened overnight; this has been going on for years.

In 2018, BHP set up two $1 shelf companies registered as OS MCAP Pty Ltd and OS ACPM Pty Ltd—they were really trying to show their cards there by using those letters. These companies are the employing entities of Operation Services workers.

These companies submitted two proposed enterprise agreements to the Fair Work Commission—the Operation Services maintenance agreement and the Operation Services production agreement 2018—and both agreements were voted on by a small number of workers in the iron ore industry in WA. In fact, the group was so small, there were about nine people altogether voting on these agreements.

That seems to really indicate to me that something wrong was going on here. It is dodgy. But what is even dodgier is this: since these agreements were made, the full bench of the Fair Work Commission thought that they were dodgy, upheld an appeal by the CFMMEU and the AMWU to have the unfair enterprise agreements thrown out, yet BHP still maintains that Operation Services is improving job security. But we know that that simply isn't true.

In 2020, I raised the case of workers at one of the mines near Moranbah who were told that they would have to choose to work on Christmas Day and that workers in Operation Services would be paid a different wage. It is clear to anyone who looks at these agreements that they have been written up and intended to circumvent enterprise agreements that have been fairly bargained.

Since that time, BHP have now been required to form a new agreement with Operation Services workers. They have been told to go back to the drawing board. It would be helpful if I could come to the Senate and say that, after all these years and after all this time, BHP have decided that they would finally like to do the right thing by their workers. But I can tell you that almost two years later—they started bargaining for these new agreements in December 2020—they have still refused to put a good-faith agreement forward for workers. For BMA, the other agreement that is being negotiated, they have been bargaining for 15 months.

My message to BHP tonight is to bargain fairly with your workers. My message to those organisers, those delegates and those workers in Central Queensland is to stay strong and to stay united. For a change in this place, you have a government that is on your side and you have a government that knows that if— (Time expired)

From the perspective of an individual seeking redemption, it is by its very nature a deep longing for one's life to be made good through being engaged in a pursuit that is greater than oneself. In essence, it is seeking to renew oneself by a noble action in order to seek forgiveness from those you have wronged.

I have followed with interest the public commentary regarding James Hird's journey seeking redemption by putting himself forward to be the coach of the Essendon Football Club. I wish him well on this journey. He is very qualified for the role. Under his leadership, though not under his specific direction, 34 young men were administered with an experimental drug that had not been approved for human use anywhere in the world.

It now appears that the club is willing to consider his return to a leadership role, and the AFL has not thought to intervene. Presumably, the argument underpinning the view that he can return to coaching is that he has served out the penalty that was imposed upon him. I accept that this argument has some currency. What has been less discussed, from a current and past players' perspective, is whether he should be chosen to be the coach. I believe their voices must be heard.

Further, the community's perspective on whether he should be appointed must also be taken into account. Sporting clubs operate in modern Australia only with the benefit of social licence. The AFL is assisted by federal government monies, so I feel that, even from my eyrie in the Senate chamber, I can enter this debate. For an entity to retain its social licence, it must operate with legitimacy, credibility and trust. I note that, if Hird had demonstrated such leadership failings as a member of the ADF, he would've been discharged with no right of return. Such are the standards of behaviour our community expects from military leaders.

Forgiveness is achieved when an individual assumes responsibility for their wrongdoing. In other words, it occurs when it is acknowledged that a wrong was committed and that it caused harm, with the wrongdoer admitting that they were culpable. If Hird is to be seriously considered for a coaching role, he must make it very clear that he seeks forgiveness for a very great wrong. His public comments as reported to date do not make this clear. I hope that this is because of poor reporting of his position.

Further, Hird must commit himself to leading the club in a completely different manner to that of the past. The club must make it clear that, if it has not done so already, it will put in place mechanisms that will ensure that its players are properly protected. More importantly, it must make it clear to all that Essendon's past and present players have forgiven Hird. Importantly, current players must be able to leave the club without penalty should they not wish to serve under his leadership. To hold players to their contracts will, in my opinion, be oppressive and capricious.

Only then can Hird's appointment be entertained while allowing the AFL and the Essendon Football Club to retain their social licence to operate. To take any other course would be to devalue and degrade the players, as well as undermine Hird's ability to succeed in the role. I wish James Hird well on his journey and every success.

Senate adjourned at 19:57