COMMITTEES Meeting

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

 BILLS Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022; Second Reading Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022

BROCKMAN () (): I rise today to make a short contribution on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. Matters of conscience are always those in this chamber where we do hear very heartfelt contributions. Certainly, as I have considered whether or not to speak on this bill, I have read the contributions from colleagues right around the chambers. There is obviously a depth of feeling about this issue that reveals why it is a matter of conscience, and I think it's important that we do put our positions on the record in matters of conscience.

To me, this very much comes down to a question of the structure of our Constitution, the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government and the way in which this parliament should deal with such matters, particularly in relation to the territories. It is important when considering matters—particularly matters of life and death—that we do consider the structure of the Constitution and the responsibilities that that gives to states on the one hand and territories on another.

Territories do fall into a different category in our constitutional arrangements. That is for a very particular reason, and it is something that we in this place cannot, and should not, ignore. When we are considering legislation that involves life or death, states obviously have the capacity to make those decisions under our Constitution, and no-one in this place has tried to alter the arrangements, say, in my home state of Western Australia or in other states around Australia, on issues such as euthanasia. However, with the territories, we are in a different category. Territories are smaller jurisdictions; they send a different number of members to this place, for example. The arrangements are different and are reflected differently.

The Northern Territory considered the matter of statehood at a point in the past and rejected it. There may come a point in the future when statehood is desired by either the Northern Territory or perhaps even the Australian Capital Territory, in which case the pathway would be open to a different set of powers and responsibilities. But in that case—and with all due respect to my friends in Queensland—if statehood were embraced, we would want to see a much more robust, democratic framework. I personally am a believer in two houses of parliament: a lower house and an upper house, like the Senate or the upper houses in most of the other states, which provide the checks and balances. In territory jurisdictions, we do not see the same level of democracy operating.

This is not to take anything away from the self-governing rights of the Northern Territory or the ACT. However, what we have here is a piece of legislation already on the books at Commonwealth level. The history of the bill has been addressed a number of times, and I'm not going to traverse that area again, but we now, in all good conscience, have to make a decision on whether we will change those current arrangements that are in place. In all conscience, and looking at the situation around the world and in Australia where these laws—whether you want to call them euthanasia laws or voluntary assisted dying laws—have been put in place, we cannot guarantee that mistakes are not made. As a parliament and as a chamber, we have to consider that fact in moving to change the current arrangements. That is why I will not be supporting this bill.

The Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 presents a difficult and a complex mix of issues, principles and considerations. I've weighed and deeply considered these issues and the competing principles and concerns over the last few months. I do have sympathy for the argument that the citizens of our territories should have the same rights as the citizens of our states in regard to their parliaments being able to make laws in relation to the same issues that state parliaments are able to. I do have sympathy with that. However, there is no escaping the fact that, under our Constitution, the territories are not, in fact, directly equivalent to the states. Self-government is granted to the territories by acts of the federal parliament. That being the case, we in this parliament bear a level of responsibility for the governance of those territories. This is a responsibility that, for the vast majority of matters, we effectively delegate to the elected parliaments of the territories, but it is our responsibility nonetheless.

The responsibility we are asked to discharge in our consideration of this bill—the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022—is a heavy one. The inevitable impact of this bill before us, should it pass the parliament, is that another parliament will enact laws authorising the practice of euthanasia. I recognise that there are many divergent views on the practice of euthanasia and many legitimate concerns regarding its practice. One of those concerns, which is always at the forefront of my mind in the consideration of this issue, is the possibility of the misuse of such a scheme, whether it be by negligence, incompetence, ignorance or, even worse, deliberate ill intent. We here in this place are in a unique and invidious position. We are being asked to pass a law when we know that the effect will be the ending of human lives. Yet, unlike representatives of state parliaments when making the same decision, we here have no ability whatsoever to put in place, or have any oversight of, safeguards to protect citizens from the potential misuse of those laws. We would be, in effect, making a decision that will result in the ending of human lives but washing our hands of any responsibility for the consequences, and I do not find myself able to support any such action in good conscience.

This is, without a doubt, one of the more complex and troubling decisions that I have had to make in my time in the Senate to date, and I do not take it lightly. I've considered the principles behind this bill and weighed the consequences closely. After having done so, I'm not able to vote in the affirmative, so I will be voting against this bill.

I rise to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill. Like Senator Chandler and Senator Brockman, I respect and appreciate the heavy burden that is on each of us in making this decision of conscience. This bill does present complex issues because, in being asked to support this bill, we are being asked to differentiate between the way that the states and the territories—the Northern Territory and the ACT—are constituted. This, for me, is a bill that I cannot support. I cannot support this bill because it's deeply offensive to me that one of the principal objectives of this bill is to give the territories the right to pass laws which would end human life. I understand and appreciate that everyone has very deeply felt convictions in relation to this issue.

For me, this is very personal. I lost my mum and my dad, both of whom spent a considerable period of time in palliative care at a young age. I have seen firsthand what families go through as they deal with loved ones reaching their end of life. For me, this bill, because of its inevitable consequence. is a statement that we in Australia are prepared to kill our most vulnerable, sometimes under circumstances when it becomes too difficult or perhaps too expensive or too inconvenient to allow them to live.

I think Senator Chandler has made a very sound point in this debate. We are being asked to pass a law—to change the current arrangements—to, essentially, give the territories the right to pass euthanasia laws, under circumstances where all of us in this place can't even be certain as to the safeguards that would be put in place if such laws were passed. I have consistently argued against euthanasia. For me, this is just inherently wrong. It represents state sanctioned killing, and it is a very poor reflection on a society which cannot look after their most vulnerable, particularly those who have a terminal illness.

A number of years ago, I advocated very strongly for a change in the law which currently allows the vile, evil organisations like Exit International to send suicide kits through the mail. I find it abhorrent that Australia Post and other parcel delivery companies may be unwittingly facilitating the end of someone's life by reason of allowing these kits to be mailed throughout Australia and facilitating mail going in and out of this country. For me, I've been a consistent worrier against the notion that any state should permit the deliberate killing of a life.

There's been a particular concern raised about Indigenous Australians. There are deep concerns in Indigenous communities that should these laws be passed, particularly, of course, in the Northern Territory, that these laws would be used to facilitate the end of the lives of Indigenous Australians. I think this applies across the board to all vulnerable Australians, and, while there may be some who are adamant that they want to end their own life, I also believe that the prospects of misuse of any law, including the laws that have been passed by the states, remain high.

When Victoria passed its voluntary assisted dying laws I described that day as a very black day for Victoria. I hope that we are able to change the law in Victoria. I hope that we as a society are able to drive more investment in palliative care, to respect the dignity of life and to reflect on the fact that even the most vulnerable deserve the dignity of life until the very end of their life.

One of the reasons I fought so hard for Anam Cara hospice, which was proudly supported by our government to the tune of more than $7 million, is because I wanted to make sure that in the Geelong region there would be a place of dignity where people who had a terminal illness would get the greatest possible care in their darkest days.

I'm only going to make a few brief remarks on this bill. Again, I reiterate my deep understanding of the complexity of this bill. I respect the fact that there are many who believe that the Northern Territory and the ACT should have complete autonomy when it comes to passing their own laws. But, at the end of the day, the Commonwealth, by reason of our constitutional arrangements, bears a great deal of responsibility. For that reason, knowing that one of the principle objectives of this bill is to facilitate laws which would lead to voluntary assisted dying or euthanasia being permitted in both the ACT and the Northern Territory, I cannot in all good conscience, from the bottom of my heart, support this bill.

I oppose this bill because, as the previous speaker has just said, it's about euthanasia and not about states' rights. I oppose the concept of euthanasia because there's nothing more important than the sanctity of life.

I also want to thank my party leader, Pauline Hanson, because she's allowing a conscience vote, and that's the way we deal with things in One Nation. We embrace differences; we don't shut people down.

Senator Roberts, I understand from the table staff that you have already spoken on this bill.

Not that I recall, but I'll take their word for it.

It was on 28 September, I understand.

(Quorum formed)

Does any other honourable member wish to speak on the second reading? I intend to put the question.

The question before the chair is that the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 be read a second time.

 Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 Penny Allman-Payne Tim Ayres Catryna Bilyk Simon John Birmingham Andrew Bragg Carol Louise Brown Ross Cadell Richard Mansell Colbeck Dorinda Cox Perin Davey Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Nita Green Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Jane Hume Jacqui Lambie Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Fatima Payman Marise Ann Payne Barbara Pocock David Pocock Louise Pratt Linda Reynolds Janet Rice David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Tammy Tyrrell Anne Urquhart Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Linda White Penny Ying Yen Wong Alex Antic Wendy Askew Slade Brockman Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell David Julian Fawcett Sarah Henderson Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Helen Beatrice Polley Gerard Rennick Malcolm Roberts Paul Scarr Dean Smith Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022; In Committee Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022

I do want to make a contribution. This is a significant issue. I want to start by commending all senators for their conduct in this debate. It is so important to so many people on all sides of the debate. I have not witnessed anything that could be described as anything other than respectful.

I outlined my views on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 during the second reading debate. I want to also indicate that there were a couple of amendments to this bill in the process of being drafted which haven't been completed. If we proceed to conclude the debate on this bill today there will be no opportunity for those amendments to be considered, so I'm hopeful that we are able to—I'm not seeking to delay the completion of this bill beyond the end of this sitting period. I would like for the committee to be able to consider amendments, once their drafting is completed, as part of the debate on this bill.

That is the reason I've asked for this to come into committee. The amendments are not ready at this stage, but we won't have another opportunity to consider them. No-one here has yet been able to contemplate what they are. I don't have my head fully around the technical nature of a couple of the things that would be contemplated in these amendments. I'm not seeking to detain this. I'm not seeking to prevent this from progressing to its conclusion and enabling laws to be passed by this parliament. That is not my intention at all.

That is the reason I'm seeking a committee stage on this bill. I'd also like to seek an indication from the proponent of this bill on whether that would be acceptable—it being a government bill, or at least a bill moved by the Manager of Government Business—to supporters of the bill. Would we be able, at some point in this sitting fortnight, to contemplate those amendments when they are completed?

I think I missed the first bit of your question, but your question is whether you can continue the committee stage until the amendments are ready—is that right?

I'll clarify. I just outlined for the chamber that the reason I've called a committee is because there are amendments that have not yet been drafted. It would be great if we were able to contemplate those amendments in this sitting fortnight. If we complete debate today, at or before we finish private senators' time, then we won't be able to contemplate them. I'm seeking the guidance of the Chair—

It was listed for next week.

Originally it was listed for next week, and that was what we were working towards. I'm not seeking to derail this at all. In good faith, this is not an attack or anything or anyone. This is an important issue for many. I am seeking to give voice to some concerns that have been raised. I'm not seeking to do anything other than that. I hear many in this place talk about the importance of debate—

You should have done your homework.

I hear many in this place talk about the importance of debate, and I don't know why Senator Steele-John thinks this is funny. I'm being serious here and in good faith I'm making a request of the mover of the bill. Minister, I put it to you to see whether that is acceptable.

Can I say in response to what has just happened, this is a historic moment for the territories. This has been something that I've been fighting for for over a decade, including when I was Chief Minister of the ACT. The Senate has just expressed its will with a vote of 41 to 25 in favour of the territories having rights restored that were taken away from them in 1997. I want to mark this moment and I want to thank everybody for the way that we've conducted this but also for their support for the rights of the territories.

We are in the hands of the Senate. There is a committee process. We are in committee. I think it's the preference that we would be able to move through the committee stage quickly and resolve this matter today if that's able to be done. The Senate does move quickly at times, and we have to be nimble and ready for it. The preference would be to get it done, to get the final vote today. I think the second reading vote indicates the overwhelming support of the Senate to deal with this bill and to reach its conclusion after a long period of time. But the committee process is there for senators to utilise.

SCARR (—) (): I have some questions in relation to the compliance of Australia's obligations with the conventions dealing with the rights of people with disability. In the context of my second reading contribution to this debate I made reference to the fact that the special rapporteur with respect to the convention, the UN special rapporteur, has raised concern with respect to the Canadian legislation and, in particular, the fact that medically assisted dying can be used in situations in a Canadian context. I'll quote the provision so you will understand the concern I am raising. First, where a person has 'a grievous and irremediable medical condition,' and that is defined as including a person having a 'serious and incurable illness, disease or disability'. The concern which the United Nations special rapporteur has raised is that there are material concerns with respect to the Canadian regime actually complying with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I seek advice from the minister with respect to what steps the Australian government has in place to make sure that, when the territory does adopt legislation, Australia does comply with its treaty obligations with respect to the rights of people with disabilities.

I thank the senator for the question. It's a question not related to this bill. This bill is about restoring the rights of territories to be able to debate bills that will deal with the issues that you have raised as they have been dealt with by the states, who have passed legislation to this effect. But I think, in terms of questions about this bill, it's a straightforward repeal bill of the constraint that was placed on the territories that didn't allow them to debate or pass bills. In terms of the controls on the territories, their governments are democratically elected, and the people will judge the territories on how they manage laws, should they proceed with laws that this bill facilitates.

Minister, with respect I understand your political position and your legislative argument with respect to this legislation. The fact of the matter is there are those who have concerns with respect to the fact that this bill doesn't contain any safeguards whatsoever. It simply, as you put it, restores the rights of the territories to implement legislation. There are those of us who have a concern that that does represent a blank cheque, albeit it's got to go through the Northern Territory legislative process. Again, I seek your view with respect to: what processes does the government have in place generally with respect to ensuring that legislation in this space actually complies with Australia's obligations regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? I would expect that the government has some sort of mechanism in place in terms of ensuring that legislation, be it by states or territories, in fact complies with our international obligations and that is something which is fairly and squarely within the domain of this parliament under the foreign affairs power.

I would point out that the territory has quite clear human rights legislation in place. It was passed when I was a member of that parliament. As I said, that's not a matter related to this bill. The Commonwealth works with states and territories around a whole range of matters, but this bill is a simple repeal bill. Should the territory go down any path that they choose—and I imagine they will; they have foreshadowed they will—then that is a matter for the territory parliament and the people that elect them.

There was a request by Senator Duniam to have amendments put before the parliament. They're not drafted at the moment. One Nation has no objection to that whatsoever in light of this bill and the implications it's going to have on the Northern Territory and the people who, for the sheer fact they live in the Territory, don't have the same rights as people who live in the states. They are being dictated to by the federal government. I understand that. It's not their fault; they happen to live in a territory. It's the same for the ACT. I know that it was a conscience vote. I voted for the bill, and my colleague Senator Roberts voted against it. It is a personal decision we made after listening to constituents and people, not just in our own state but across the country, say how important this bill is.

We must, therefore, get it right. I know it was a resounding 41 to 25, but surely, on such an important matter, is it really going to put an impost on this parliament and the people here representing all Australians to make sure that we get it right? Is it really going to cause a lot of problems for this parliament to keep it open in committee so that we can see what the amendments are and then make a final decision on that, based on what we think is right? I agree. I have no problem with keeping it in committee. Let's see what amendments are drafted. Let's make sure we get it right on an important matter like this.

I want to put the position of the Australian Greens on the record. This is a crucial bill that has been 20-odd years in the making. We were very pleased to see the vote just now allowing territories to make decisions about their own issues. That is a crucial point of democracy.

But we're now in a highly unusual situation where we're in a committee stage with no amendment before the chair. It's not like we didn't know this bill was listed and it was coming on. We feel that it's highly procedurally unusual to now be asked for the stage to be talked out whilst amendments get drafted. If you're not well enough organised to deal with something that was scheduled on the program, I don't think you should really be getting any favours. We are ready to vote and pass this bill. It's been 20 years in the making. We will now sit down and not make further contributions, with the idea of getting it done.

I think as some colleagues have already indicated, originally, under the hours motion that was considered by the Senate, it was scheduled for completion next Friday, and that was the basis on which work was being undertaken. This is not in any way to detract from the result of the vote that just occurred. It was, as Senator Hanson said, a comprehensive decision made by this Senate on behalf of the communities that senators represent. I'm not seeking to take away from that. I voted one way and others voted another, and I respect that.

I am sorry, but please don't characterise this—I heard someone say the homework's not done. We're not seeking to just talk it out. The reality is I have just asked whether there was a willingness on the part of the proponent of the bill to allow us time to consider this. I know it's inconvenient and I'm sorry that I am now asking for that, but I have got to get this done on behalf of others that have sought this—volunteer and community groups that have reached out in relation to these issues—and I don't think that's an unreasonable thing. I want to make sure that the Leader of the Greens understood that this is not some exercise to detract from a decision that is going to be made by this parliament.

It's clear that the numbers mean that this will be legislated and that the territories' rights will be restored. I understand it's frustrating, but there are important considerations. I accept what Senator Gallagher has said; this bill is a straightforward repeal of legislation that's already in existence. But there are flow-on implications for that in relation to so many other areas. In her contribution she referenced the territory's own human rights protections, which I gather are enshrined in legislation. There will be other flow-on implications for those sorts of protections in the community in each of the territories once a repeal is made, so just having the capacity to consider amendments around that would, I think, be helpful.

I'm not seeking to frustrate debate; I'm not seeking to take up time to change people's minds. Minds have been made up, and it has been 20 years in the making. As Senator Waters said, these are important issues, and I just want to make sure that we do have the time to be able to get these amendments completed and put before the committee.

I too rise to raise a question in relation to providing this Senate with the opportunity to bring forward these amendments. We were all expecting this bill to come on for a vote next Friday. We all obviously scrambled, with very little notice, into the chamber this morning when this came on unexpectedly.

Like Senator Duniam, I absolutely respect the will of this Senate. I am not seeking to alter or amend or delay in any way what is the obvious will of the Senate, but I do pay particular tribute to Senator Hanson, who, whilst voting yes and supporting the repeal of the enacting legislation, recognises that there are proper and legitimate bases for bringing forward amendments. Just imagine what would transpire if this bill were passed today and sound and proper amendments that perhaps hadn't been properly considered were not brought before the chamber. I think that would be an absolute travesty. So, again, this is a really genuine plea to Senator Gallagher and to the government: there may well be things whereby all senators—or some senators—irrespective of how they vote today, might actually see some good cause to support or at least consider these amendments.

I know as well that the Senate Procedure Office is absolutely flat out at the moment. I sent something to the Senate Procedure Office yesterday. They are literally working around the clock. I think I received something back from the office last night. Also, to support the Senate Procedure Office, which is really under the pump, I think this would be the right thing to do; I think it would be the respectful thing to do. Assuming that the will of the Senate is to support this bill, which evidently is the case now—frankly, I don't see that changing—it would validate the decision of the Senate if all senators were to be given a proper opportunity to consider any amendments.

I don't mean to jump in in front of Senator Pocock—he'll make a contribution—but I'll just briefly respond to Senator Henderson and Senator Duniam. We are in the hands of the Senate. I can see what's going on here: you've got to get to 10 past 10. We are not in a position to stop the committee stage, nor would we try to stop the committee stage. I think what would be interesting, and perhaps the best use of the next 20 minutes—if this is going to kick over—is if the amendments that are being drafted were foreshadowed in regard to what they are. Perhaps someone could stand up and elaborate on what the amendments to this bill are, because it is a straightforward repeal bill, so I'm struggling to understand what amendments actually would relate to this bill. It's a yes or no: should the bill be repealed? It would be unusual, unless you were going to stray into trying to legislate some other kinds of protections or you were creating another bill, because this bill just gets rid of a bill; that's the point of it. I'm happy to hear what the amendments might be, but I also acknowledge and I would like to put on the record the fact that we have two ACT senators voting for the first time in favour of territory rights. I think that's a very significant moment for the territory, and I acknowledge the work and commitment of Senator Pocock in that regard.

I just want to put on the record—when you said, 'I can see what's going on here'—that I have had no discussion with any other colleague in this chamber. There's no strategy. There's nothing other than a genuine proposal to ask the question, with the greatest of sincerity. I don't have any amendments to bring forward but, if any senator has amendments to bring forward, then it's right and proper that they be considered. So I want to really strongly put on the record that there's nothing going on here. There's no plan. In fact, I will say that Senator Pocock and I had a discussion earlier on, and he asked me whether I was happy for the vote to occur today and I said yes—and Senator Pocock can vouch for me on that—but now that I know that there are senators in this place who want to bring forward amendments, in absolute sincerity, Senator Gallagher, I just want to put on the record that I think the right and proper thing to do is to allow those amendments to be brought forward.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Gallagher for her work on this for well over a decade now and for the leadership she has shown at the Assembly and in this place. I want to acknowledge and recognise the people who have been working on this for a very long time. I also want to thank the dozens and dozens of people and groups that I have met with on all sides of this debate. I acknowledge that this is something that is deeply personal to many. I fully respect the views of Senator Duniam and others when it comes to this bill, and I do not begrudge you voting the way you vote.

I would like to point out that we've known that this bill was coming for quite some time now, and I'm really concerned about process here. If, on other bills, we're able to enter Committee of the Whole and then have senators request that a vote be delayed while we draft amendments, I have concerns about that. As to what the amendments could be, as Senator Gallagher pointed out, this is the simplest of bills. This is about restoring territory rights. I would remind Senator Henderson that the people she represents have had the right in their state to debate and, ultimately, legislate on this.

I plead with the committee. People have been able to put their position on record. I understand that not everyone is comfortable with this, but this is about territory rights. This is about recognising that the territories are mature enough to debate and legislate on issues as sensitive as voluntary assisted dying. I urge the committee to deal with this matter. There's a huge amount of other legislation before us. This is incredibly important. but, in the scheme of things, it's quite a simple yes or no.

To give a bit of information about the proposed amendments that are in the process of being drafted, there are three that were requested. The first one relates to the scope of schemes enabling voluntary assisted dying in all states and territories—

It's not what the bill's about.

I take the interjection from Senator Green. I understand very clearly what Senator Gallagher has said: the bill is a straight-out repeal of existing legislation. But, as I said before—and I don't think it's an unreasonable point to make—there are consequences to any bill that is passed. This enables, as Senator Pocock has said, the territories to legislate in respect of this issue. Even though it's not the subject of the bill, it is the issue in contemplation in the territories. I'm not seeking to prevent that from becoming law, despite having voted a certain way based on the principles I outlined in my speech. But to Senator Green's interjection, yes, I know what the bill is about, but there are consequences to everything we pass. In this one the first amendment relates to the schemes in all states and territories as it would be post the passage of this legislation and the scope in particular of access to voluntary assisted dying to people under the age of 18, so there is an amendment proposed around what scope there would be for provision of VAD in all states and territories relating to VAD being administered to children.

There was also a proposed amendment relating to the TGA review of the medications utilised in the administration of VAD and the approval process and exemptions that are granted under the regulations that exist in relation to this particular medication. That is a relatively straightforward amendment.

There was also a third amendment relating to the imports of the medications that are utilised in the administration of VAD in all states and territories. So it's just in relation to what will inevitably be consequences to the passage of this legislation. It isn't about overturning the effect of the bill. It is in relation to the scope and some of the other technical issues that have been raised. These are issues that have been raised. It's not about trying to deviate from what has been or will be achieved by this parliament. I think, as I have just outlined to the committee, they're not spurious nothings; they are significant issues that I wanted to foreshadow now.

I think it was a very fair request by Senator Gallagher, who sought this extra information around what they might be, and I have put that on record. I hope that gives some clarity about what was being proposed. They're not extraneous. They're not unrelated. They do relate to the consequences of the legislation and how its passage might, in effect, be administered on the ground in all states and territories that will have the capacity to legislate on this issue into the future.

Thank you, Senator Duniam. As I said, I fully respect your position on this. Given how much time we have had, I move:

That the question be now put.

Question negatived.

Can I explain why we just voted no to that procedural vote? That is, under the rules in the Labor Party conscience votes cannot be guillotined or cut short. We allow everybody to have their say, and that is how the conscience vote system operates. It shouldn't be a reflection on my individual view that we should deal with this vote today, but it is representative of the rules in the collective decision-making that we have taken under our party processes.

Can I ask that the Australian Greens' position of supporting Senator Pocock's motion just then be on the record?

The TEMPORARY C HAIR: Indeed.

Just briefly and in response to some of Senator Pocock's remarks: obviously as a Territorian senator I can understand your very strong views on this issue. However, and I say this with all genuineness, I was fully expecting to speak on this bill next Thursday. I was fully expecting to speak on this bill. When I got up to speak on this bill this morning, I had no notes prepared. I had done very little thinking about it to be perfectly honest. I had thought about the general issue obviously, but in terms of this particular bill I was fully thinking that as the government put time aside in the program next Thursday—in fact, an open-ended debate next Thursday. It is important those listening to this debate understand this: that next Thursday is an open-ended sitting to deal with this bill. Clearly the government, in putting its program together, and all of those in the chamber were expecting this bill to be dealt with next Thursday and not this morning. The accusation has been made that people weren't adequately prepared, but the fact is that, up until last night, I was expecting this bill to be considered and debated—and any amendments to be proposed—next Thursday. I think that was the genuine case for many in this place.

I just want to express support for the sentiments made by Senator Gallagher in relation to the attempt to close debate. Whilst I too have been a very strong and public supporter of this bill and its predecessor bills for a long period of time, it is the convention in this place that we do enable time for these sensitive, conscience and free-vote matters to be fully debated. I understand fully the position expressed by Senator Gallagher, and it's one shared by the coalition parties. I hope to see the matter resolved as quickly as possible.

I do understand the sentiment of colleagues who have a different opinion and had been expecting the debate to occur next week. I hope and trust that we will see amendments prepared as quickly as possible. I want to make it very clear that it is the full expectation, and will have my full support, for this bill to be concluded in the sittings and there is no intent to see any dragging out of that. I think in good faith Senator Duniam has made clear that is not his intent either in terms of wanting to have these amendments dealt with.

I want to make that crystal-clear, in case it has been misunderstood. My intention is—however these are to be drafted—for the drafting process and these amendments to be completed and be back for dealing with as soon as possible and indeed for this bill to be dealt with in finality by this chamber as soon as possible as well next week. I don't seek to frustrate or delay this for any reason other than I want to give these a shot. I understand Senator Pocock's frustration with that in particular, but I had the good-faith belief that we would be dealing with this in an open-ended debate at the end of next week.

That being said, I've put all of that on record and outlined in brief the terms of the amendments I seek to have put before this committee. I think I have made the case that they are not extraneous or unrelated. They are very straightforward. I just want to express support for what has been said about getting this bill done and making sure that these issues are dealt with as well.

I just want to briefly acknowledge and appreciate Senator Gallagher's recent statement and not trying to guillotine the debate. It's a mark of respect, and I thank her for that.

I certainly do support what Senator Duniam is seeking to do, to allow some time for the procedure office to come back to us with the requested amendments so that we can properly consider them in a fulsome way. In Western Australia euthanasia laws were passed. The voluntary assisted dying laws went through the parliament. That parliament went through quite a marathon exercise to be able to get to the position that they did and pass the laws they have. I voted at the second reading against this, but one of the things that were put in place as a result of the debate in the consideration in detail of the legislation that went through in Western Australia were necessary protections to ensure that you don't have the very worst examples that we see around the world of where euthanasia is used in other jurisdictions around the world—for example, in I think the Netherlands they allow for people to have euthanasia for psychological conditions, not just physiological health issues I don't think anyone in Australia would be contemplating that, but we can't know. We're making a decision here about legislation with an outcome that we don't fully know what the make-up of it would be.

Because of the process that the Western Australian parliament went through, they very clearly laid out what the limitations of their bill would be and the protections that would be in place. Some of the amendments that Senator Duniam has foreshadowed would go some of the way—and I appreciate that this is just a repeal bill—towards ensuring that some protections could be in place to make sure that we can't find ourselves in a situation where we are going down the path of other jurisdictions. In fact, some jurisdictions around the world allow for children to engage with euthanasia. I don't think that's something that Australians want to see contemplated, but we can't know. We're the ones who will ultimately make the decision here about a law with an ultimate outcome that will be in the territories when we can't be sure what they will be legislating and what protections they will put in place. So some of the amendments that Senator Duniam was foreshadowing go towards ensuring that there are at least some protections. I certainly ask that the Senate allow time to consider those. I don't think it would take very long to go through those very simple proposals and maybe put in place some protections in this bill to ensure that we can't have those unintended consequences.

I'm a senator for the Northern Territory. It is very important to understand that we have the Northern Territory as well as the ACT. The Northern Territory is a very unique place in comparison to places like the ACT. While I can respect the way in which this parliament is likely to vote on this particular issue, there have been very little in the way of safeguards with regard to some of our most vulnerable members of this country who reside in the Northern Territory, where I'm from.

This is not just a matter of repealing a bill to allow for territories to make decisions. Being a representative of the Northern Territory, I also recognise some of the very dire decisions that the current Territory government have made with regard to the lives of some of the most vulnerable. I think my colleague the member for Lingiari, in the House of Representatives, has also expressed some of her deep concerns with regard to some of the decisions that the current Territory government have made.

In the Northern Territory, death is something that occurs on a regular basis. It's certainly featured heavily in my life, from when I was a child. So I see it as my responsibility as a senator for the Northern Territory to do everything that I can to save lives. I think it's very important not to disregard my colleagues' request in terms of taking into consideration these amendments going forward. It's not a flippant, last-minute decision to try to delay the decision on this particular bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. It is actually about considering what those safeguards might look like, particularly for vulnerable Australians, who are often unheard and often disregarded because they're often out of sight and out of mind, certainly for this place here in Canberra and for other parts of the nation.

We hear platitudes of acknowledgement and respect for vulnerable Aboriginal Australians all the time. We hear it constantly. But, having spent only a short time in these chambers, I feel we never really, deeply take consideration of those very vulnerable people in those communities. That is why I am here.

I hope you can understand this, Senator Pocock: our circumstances are very different from your territory to my territory. I hope that my colleagues in these chambers can understand what I am trying to convey, not just with this particular issue but with other issues that are going to have consequences for some of our most vulnerable people in this nation.

I cannot stop the outcome of the vote on this bill. What I can do is support this chamber considering the amendments that have been foreshadowed by my colleague in order that we might have some level of safeguard going forward. That's because I do recognise that, in the Northern Territory, we have a government that is not listening—that has allowed for the destruction of vulnerable people. I field calls every single day about alcohol-fuelled violence, because they respect the rights of drinkers and perpetrators who act out violently, as opposed to the rights of vulnerable victims in those communities, who are fleeing the communities—children are being taken out of school right now.

I do not trust that the current government can make the right decisions for some of our most vulnerable. We need to consider these amendments so that there might be some level of safeguard.

Progress reported.

 High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022; In Committee High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022 Alex Antic Wendy Askew Andrew Bragg Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Perin Davey Jonathon Duniam Sarah Henderson Jacqui Lambie Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Marise Ann Payne Gerard Rennick Linda Reynolds Malcolm Roberts Paul Scarr Dean Smith David Van Penny Allman-Payne Tim Ayres Catryna Bilyk Carol Louise Brown Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Mehreen Faruqi Nita Green Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Sue Lines Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Louise Pratt Janet Rice Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Anne Urquhart Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Linda White

I did ask the assistant minister this question last night in committee, and I'm still yet to receive a clear response. I hope officials who've been beavering away overnight will actually respond. For the $18 million in the budget that this authority will have a financial impact with, what projects have been cut to offset cost of the authority? I note $8 million of departmental funding. Can I have more detail about where in the department that's come from? That's quite a lot of money. For the $10 million out of the previous agency's funding, I would like to understand which area of the agency that came from. Was it project money, was it stationery or staples? Could the minister give me more clarity around the $18 million?

As I said yesterday, there has been no funding cut from projects, and I'll seek some advice around the other two. Again, no projects have been cut, and my understanding is that there is $10 million coming from the Faster Rail Agency that will be transferred into the High Speed Rail Authority, and the other $8 million is out of departmental funds. That is all the information I can give you.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

 High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022; Third Reading High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

 Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022; Second Reading Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

The coalition takes Australia's international obligations to protect the marine environment from pollution from ships very seriously. This bill aligns Australia's domestic legislation with its international obligations that will support effective and consistent global regulations to protect the marine environment regarding pollution from ships. The International Maritime Organization progressively improves marine environment pollution standards for ships, and this bill aligns Australia with recent changes to international regulations.

The bill aims to do three things. Firstly, this bill introduces controls for discharges of residues of noxious liquid substances, like certain grades of vegetable oil or paraffin-like substances that can form surface slicks. Ships will be required to meet new cargo tank cleaning, pre-wash and discharge procedures for persistent surface slicks. The new regulation applies to northern European waters and came into effect on 1 January 2021. Specifically, it applies to north-west European waters, the Baltic Sea, western European waters and the Norwegian Sea.

Secondly, this bill bans the use of heavy fuel oils by shipping in arctic waters from 1 July 2024. A similar ban is already in place in the Antarctic. The ban aims to reduce environmental impacts on sensitive arctic environments caused by higher emissions of harmful air pollutants from ships burning heavy fuel oil. The heavy fuel oil ban also reduces the risk of oil spills. We've seen the devastating impact on marine ecosystems of oil spills in recent decades.

Thirdly, from 1 January 2023 the bill extends controls on ships' harmful and antifouling systems to include the biocide chemical cybutryne. It's a long time since I've done year 11 chemistry, but to everyone watching upstairs—children—science! You'll be able to read speeches in the Senate appropriately too, one day! This chemical is chronically toxic for marine organisms. According to the APVMA, which is our own regulator of pesticides and chemicals, the use of cybutryne as an antifouling agent for ships in Australia has never been registered or approved for use in ships in Australia. To be clear, this toxic chemical is unable to be used within our jurisdiction in Australia. This is our federal government responding to an international regulatory change which takes effect in the Northern Hemisphere.

This bill brings Australian regulations into line with the international standards-setting body, the International Maritime Organization, which seeks to improve marine environment pollution standards via the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—a very sensible and clear name—and the 2001 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems in Ships. While Australian ships are subject to Australian legislation wherever they are in the world, this legislation is not expected to have any significant impacts on our Australian maritime industry. The Australian shipping industry has been consulted on the legislation and is supportive of the alignment with regulations of the international body.

Our own Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has also considered the amendments to MARPOL relating to the cargo residues and tank-washing of persistent floating products, the prohibition of the use and carriage of HFOs in arctic water, and the HAFS convention relating to the control of cybutryne. Our treaty committee supported the amendments and agreed that binding action could be taken. We in the opposition, as is the deputy chair of the treaties committee, are supportive of their advice to the Senate around this piece of legislation. The opposition will be supporting the government's bill.

Australia is a shipping nation. We are surrounded by water, but we own few ships. This doesn't take into account what we're doing locally in our shipping, but what happens up north in the arctic and the North Sea, around a lot of important things. Coming from the Hunter, previously being employed at the port, we know how much this is.

The port of Newcastle brings in $4,800 shipping movements a year. Any one of those can go wrong, as we saw in 2007 with the Pasha Bulker parked up on Nobbys Beach. And what we could get in Australia is the leftover ships. Where we're working with bulk, we get things from moving up north—where we have the Triple Es of Maersk, where we have the Triple Es of 24,000 container ships, where we have the big ships. Australia doesn't have the content for that. So what we are doing here, in working out stuff up north, will eventually filter through to Australia. That's why it's important.

There's talk of this government reinstating a strategic fleet in Australia. I think I was at the press conference where that was launched, in the port of Newcastle, in the lead-up to the last election. What does this do? It protects the environment in case of a shipping accident; it puts a shipping structure in place to make sure we're not using bad chemicals on the bottom of our ships and antifouling. Why is that important? I'll give you an example in our harbour.

The port of Newcastle has a mean depth of channel at 15.2 metres. That's big, indeed. But a ship at high tide, leaving that, will draw 15.1 metres. So we're talking massive ships, with a draw of 10 centimetres difference between the bottom of the ship and the bottom of the channel. If something were to scrape something that was there, we could grab that. We could put that in our channel. That could be bad. If we had another ship like the Pasha Bulker, we could see bunker oil that's probably the dirtiest, filthiest fuel oil around—I think still used by the Russian navy. Some say they tracked the Moskva by its exhaust plumes. These things will all be outlawed under this process.

The use of better systems to protect our mean environment, the use of better systems to protect our harbour environment up in the northern states, and us ratifying this treaty, is so important for biodiversity protection against what can come in on our ships. This is all below the waterline but what is above the waterline is just as important, and we are seeking it for all those treaties. We saw recently, also in the Hunter, varroa mite expected to come in on a ship of some kind. The euthanasing of many hives across the Hunter is still going on. They have most of the registered hives now. Anything we can do to clean up shipping, to protect our environment, to protect our animals, is a good thing.

This bill and everything going through doesn't apply to shipping in Australia, as it stands, but it will one day. That is why it is a good thing to support and why I am proud to be speaking in support of it. While we're talking about the environment and sea levels, workers shouldn't be subject to these chemicals and the antifouling that can cause such bad things. We've seen what happens with PFAS on Australian land and around the world. This is a slight derivation of those chemicals, and we shouldn't have people, down slushy holes, working on that.

This is a step in our international maritime obligations that will benefit Australia in the long term, if not now. It is something that will protect our environment. If we lose a bunker oil ship in the arctic, what that will do to that region is terrible. Bunker oil doesn't get cleaned. We've seen penguins and seabirds getting cleaned every day. It is the most horrible thing. I can't imagine an engine running on that stuff. So that is a very good thing to do.

As the shadow minister said, we'll be supporting the bill and I look forward to other regulations that support our maritime industry in this place.

I rise to make some remarks about this Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I don't profess to have the knowledge of Senator Cadell, who has spent a lot of time in the Hunter and Newcastle region, which is a great shipping part of New South Wales, but I certainly understand the importance of its commercial contribution to our state and the country.

One of our great attractions as a successful jurisdiction is that we are a country that maintains high standards. We are a serious country, when it comes to the rule of law, and we try to make our international obligations come to life through the enactment of domestic legislation and regulations. And, in relation to this particular measure, that is what it's doing. It's basically putting into domestic law some of the commitments our country has made through international fora.

Particularly in my home state of New South Wales, the shipping industry is a very significant employer, and so we do want to make sure that we are keeping pace with our international obligations across the board. Unless we do that, we are risking our capacity to attract foreign investment, in particular. I believe it is true in all the environmental matters of policy that moving as fast as we can is an important principle, because foreign investors will be looking for the cleanest and the greenest opportunities in which to invest. Whether that is in relation to our standards for domestic environmental purposes or whether that is the pace at which we enact various pieces of corporate law designed to give investors a complete picture of the environmental footprint, I think that is an important objective for this parliament.

In relation to the disclosure of emissions, scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, they are the subject of a significant consultation through international accounting bodies and the like. Obviously, I pay homage to members of my former profession, the accountants, who are some of the most exciting people that you'll ever have the opportunity to meet. They are working on these standards, and the standards should be taken very seriously by our policymakers, because I believe that the countries that move fastest on emissions disclosure are more likely to capture new investment as the global pool of capital looks for honesty in a particular company's emissions profile.

We shouldn't be doing these things in a reckless way, but we should be looking to do them at a pace which is ambitious. Regrettably, in the past we have not been an early mover on enacting our international environmental obligations. I accept that this is not directly relevant to this bill, but I think it is an important point of reference to make in relation to keeping pace with international obligations.

I look forward to seeing this bill being enacted. I believe that it will be supported by the opposition. We look forward to voting for the bill when we have the opportunity.

I would like to start by thanking all the senators for their contributions and their expression of support for this bill. The Australian government is committed to best practice maritime environmental protection, and the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 will bring Australia's maritime legislation in line with the latest globally agreed amendments to international maritime conventions that Australia is party to. The bill will further strengthen our marine environment protections by introducing provisions to control the discharge of noxious liquid substances, known as persistent floaters, in certain European waters that came into force on 1 January 2021. It will extend the current ban on the use of heavy fuel oil by ships in the Antarctic to encompass Arctic waters from 1 July 2024 and ban the use of ship antifouling systems containing the toxic chemical biocide cybutryne from 1 January 2023.

By legislating these environmental controls, Australia will uphold our longstanding international reputation for promoting safe and clean shipping operations, and we will be ensuring that international standards to reduce ship pollution and protect the marine environment are being implemented consistently across the globe. The Albanese government remains committed to ensuring Australia's maritime regulatory framework remains up to date and fit for purpose to support a healthy ocean, protect coastal communities and promote sustainable trade. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

 Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022; Third Reading Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

 Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022; Second Reading Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022

On behalf of the coalition, I am pleased to rise to state the coalition's position relating to the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022. I'm pleased to say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting this bill. The Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill amends the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Act 2016 to support the Commonwealth's effective recovery of the costs associated with regulating Australia's medical cannabis industry, including the costs of administration and monitoring and assessment of compliance, and to provide greater flexibility for regulations to prescribe the charges imposed on licence holders under the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967.

The Narcotics Drugs Act was amended in 2021 when the coalition was in government to simplify the medicinal cannabis licensing framework by implementing a single licence structure to replace the original three-licence structure that existed under the act. This bill revises the existing licence fees and charges to better align them with the new licence framework that was introduced.

An independent review of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 was commissioned by the coalition and undertaken by Professor John McMillan AO in the year 2019. It's known as the McMillan review. That review resulted in 26 recommendations to amend and improve the medicinal cannabis licensing and permits framework in Australia. The coalition in government agreed in principle to adopt all 26 recommendations of the McMillan review. This included recommendations to introduce a single licence model for medicinal cannabis regulation, replacing the previous three-licence model to simplify the related permits regime. Amendments under the coalition government to the narcotics drugs legislation regime commenced on 24 December, Christmas Eve, of the year 2021 to implement recommendations from the McMillan review.

As a result of the introduction of the simplified licence structure, changes to the fees and charges framework are now necessary to align it with this new structure. As I have already stated, the coalition supports this bill. These changes were flagged by the McMillan review, which stated that the simplified licence structure meant the scale of fees and charges would need to be tailored to the range of activities encompassed by a particular application and licence. The activities relating to the administration of medicinal cannabis regulatory schemes are funded through cost-recovery arrangements which are consistent with the Australian government's charging framework.

It is important to have a consistent policy when it comes to safeguards around medicines and the role of regulation. We do know that in the past there have been votes in this place where safeguards were proposed to be removed. They are worrying signs, and it is something we need to guard against. The PBS is vital to our country and deferrals of listings are something that we should seek to avoid. A healthy functioning economy paves the way, as we know, to list more medicines on the PBS.

We have already seen the ending of free rapid antigen tests for concession cardholders and the delayed backflip on the cutting of pandemic leave disaster payments. The impact of the removal of services, such as telehealth consultations, and issues relating to cost-of-living pressures are something that we need to be vigilant of. As the opposition, we'll remain vigilant on these issues and ensure that these services continue to be provided and made available for Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022 on behalf of the Greens, and I indicate from the outset that we don't oppose it. The bill makes relatively minor changes, largely creating a regulation-making power to allow for matters that will be the subject of multiple separate charges for licensing. The intent of the bill is to provide greater flexibility for licensing charges for medicinal cannabis, and, ultimately, the hope is to enable a simpler method for working out the amount of charges prescribed in the industry. This applies to medicinal cannabis and the licensing and permit schemes that exist under this narcotic drugs act.

We acknowledge the comprehensive evidence that medicinal cannabis can be absolutely life saving. In my state of New South Wales, I've spoken to family after family who have had their loved ones' lives turned around by the effect of medicinal cannabis. In some cases, they've broken down in tears and described to me how their child had been having convulsive seizures that no traditional medicine could treat, but then medicinal cannabis had actually ended those seizures and turned their child's life around. The hope and the extraordinary benefits that can be achieved in cases like that are genuinely inspiring.

When we reviewed this bill, we wanted to make sure that it did no harm to that industry and allowed for medicinal cannabis to continue to be available. We all know that the cost of medicinal cannabis in this country is far too high, and, in fact, in many cases, families that would benefit from prescription cannabis are actually accessing it from the nonlegal market because of the extremely high costs and frequent delay in paperwork associated with obtaining cannabis in the legal market. They're doing it because it's the only way they can afford the medicine to help their loved ones—their kids and their families. That should not be the case. We received a promise from the government that this change in the regulation-making power will not see any net increase in the licensing charges for medicinal cannabis. We will, of course, be keeping an eye on those changes to ensure that that doesn't happen.

Let's be clear: medicinal cannabis can have extraordinarily positive impacts. As we know, it's most commonly prescribed for pain and has an extraordinarily positive impact for many people who are consuming it. I have experience speaking with a number of people—some very close friends—who have had otherwise untreatable pain. That untreatable pain can happen through injury, or it can happen through illnesses such as cancer. They have told me that their only way of addressing that incredible and otherwise untreatable pain has been to access medicinal cannabis. It has provided essential relief at a time when all other medications have failed. We cannot make it harder to get medicinal cannabis.

One of the reasons why I'm aware of the excessive cost of medicinal cannabis is that it is repeatedly communicated to my office through the Sniff Off Facebook page that we run. Sniff Off's primary purpose is to identify where police searches are happening using drug dogs in our public streets—which, of course, is an affront to civil liberties. But it creates a community where people feel free to talk about the impacts of our failing war on drugs. One of the issues that's repeatedly raised is just the sheer, bloody cost of medicinal cannabis, which is making people go and obtain the same product from the black market. We have to make sure that these licensing arrangements don't make it even harder to get medicinal cannabis.

According to the Victorian government, the cost of getting access to medicinal cannabis in that state can vary between $50 to $1,000 per patient per week. That depends upon the nature of the condition being treated and the particular product required, as well as the dose. But it's hard to imagine how any ordinary family could afford $1,000 a week, or could afford even a couple of hundred dollars a week, or should be forced to pay anything like that for medication that can be essential to their wellbeing. It may be the only way of treating their pain, the only way of treating their kids' seizures. It's just plain wrong. The Greens are on record for saying that medicinal cannabis, for that reason, should be put onto the PBS. If a doctor prescribes it, if it can be life saving or if it's the only available treatment, of course it should be covered by the PBS. We shouldn't see families having to pay that kind of cost for access to medicinal cannabis. The cost of the medicinal cannabis comes on top of going to your local GP, sometimes repeatedly and often not bulk billed, to get the prescriptions for medicinal cannabis.

We do know that cannabis can provide extraordinary benefits. We also know that our current approach to cannabis—of making it an illegal drug—is creating all of these distortions in the market. The answer to those problems doesn't lie in this bill; the answer to those problems lies in actually legalising cannabis for recreational and medicinal purposes in this country. That's the answer. We need to do that sooner rather than later.

The good news is that this place will have a chance to vote on that next year, when we bring forward a proposal to finally legalise cannabis in this country. I do want to foreshadow that, on behalf of the Greens, we have circulated an amendment to the second reading which would add the following notation on behalf of the Senate:

(I) in 2020 the Community Affairs References Committee, as part of its inquiry into the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, concluded that 'the significant costs associated with accessing medicinal cannabis legally are causing a large number of Australians to purchase or grow illicit cannabis for self-medication', and

I pause to respect the work of that committee. That committee's work, after hearing the evidence, acknowledged and accepted the evidence that we hear repeatedly about the high costs of medicinal cannabis. The second reading amendment would also provide:

…   …   …

(ii) the committee recommended that the Government encourage a review of state and territory criminal legislation in relation to amnesties for the possession and/or cultivation of cannabis for genuine personal medicinal use; and

(b) calls on the Government to work with state and territory governments to develop a nationwide amnesty from criminal prosecution for people who have a legitimate medicinal cannabis prescription and are home growing cannabis for their personal use".

Therefore, I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(I) in 2020 the Community Affairs References Committee, as part of its inquiry into the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, concluded that 'the significant costs associated with accessing medicinal cannabis legally are causing a large number of Australians to purchase or grow illicit cannabis for self-medication', and

(ii) the committee recommended that the Government encourage a review of state and territory criminal legislation in relation to amnesties for the possession and/or cultivation of cannabis for genuine personal medicinal use; and

(b) calls on the Government to work with state and territory governments to develop a nationwide amnesty from criminal prosecution for people who have a legitimate medicinal cannabis prescription and are home growing cannabis for their personal use".

I commend that second reading amendment to the chamber.

Just to be clear, they don't take it as far as the Greens think we should go, which is to fully legalise cannabis. Let's have that debate next year, let's do it thoroughly and let's do it properly with all the evidence in front of us. But what these second reading amendments say is this: if you need to access medicinal cannabis for your health, and you've got a prescription for it, but you can't afford it and you're therefore forced to get cannabis on the black market, you should not face criminal prosecution for that. You should not face criminal prosecution for getting the drug your doctor says you need in the only way you can afford it. That's why we press those second reading amendments.

But I otherwise indicate that we're not opposing the bill, primarily for the reason that the government has given us that assurance that there will be no net increase. I'd like to hear that confirmed on the record by the government in their response—that there will be no net increase in those licensing fees for medicinal cannabis.

I rise to make some brief remarks about the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022. As a member of this chamber, I have not sought to engage too widely on these matters because I have largely seen them as matters that have been the preserve of the states. I note Senator Shoebridge has a proposal here which is based on advice from the Senate, and I look forward to engaging in that process next year. But it certainly has not been something that I have sought to focus on in the limited time I have had in the Senate.

What I would say is that I believe the intention of the former health minister, Greg Hunt, was to make it easier for people to get access to medicinal cannabis, to lower the regulatory burden and to reduce costs and complexity so that access is there for people. I note that these are sensitive issues, but I think there is a strong body of medical evidence that there are cases when the only relief available to people for extreme pain is going to be medicinal cannabis. I think we have a problem if people cannot get access to that particular drug when they need it.

The object of this bill is to build on the changes that were commissioned by the former coalition government to ensure that licence fees and charges are better aligned with the new licensing framework. We accepted all the recommendations of the McMillan review on these matters. This is another down payment on that front. The guiding principle here is that we want people to get access to medicinal cannabis. That is the key point. We don't want people to be pushed into the black market. We want people to be able to access it through an above-the-counter type of approach as much as possible. That will be the test for this bill. We will be supporting it and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. No doubt we will have further opportunities to debate these matters. I again note my understanding, which could be flawed—we do make mistakes from time to time—that most of these matters in relation to the regulation of these particular arrangements are largely the preserve of the states. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make some brief remarks this morning.

Firstly, I thank senators for their contribution to the debate on the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022. The bill amends the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Act to clarify that the narcotics drugs licence charges regulation may prescribe matters that will be the subject of multiple separate charges which may be incurred by a licence holder during a particular charging period and to enable a simpler method for working out the amount of charge prescribed. The amendments in the bill are intended to provide sufficient flexibility for the regulations to appropriately prescribe charges supporting the effective recovery of the costs associated with administering the Narcotic Drugs Act. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.

(Quorum formed)

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge to the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Changes) Amendment Bill 2022 be agreed to.

 Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022 Penny Allman-Payne Dorinda Cox Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Nick McKim Barbara Pocock David Pocock Janet Rice Malcolm Roberts David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Alex Antic Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Catryna Bilyk Carol Louise Brown Matthew Canavan Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Patrick Dodson Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Nita Green Karen Grogan Jacqui Lambie Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Fatima Payman Helen Beatrice Polley Louise Pratt Paul Scarr Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Tammy Tyrrell Anne Urquhart Jess Walsh Murray Watt Linda White

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that many Australians are unable to access medical cannabis owing to the bureaucratic framework in place, and the cost to patients; and

(b) calls on the Government:

(i) to make natural, whole plant, Australian medical cannabis available to any Australian with a medical need, by doctor's prescription, filled by a pharmacist on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and

(ii) to ensure that the decision to prescribe medical cannabis is a matter between only the doctor and the patient, which is subject to real time prescription monitoring in the same way as other controlled medicines".

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.

 Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022 Penny Allman-Payne Dorinda Cox Mehreen Faruqi Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Jacqui Lambie Nick McKim Barbara Pocock David Pocock Janet Rice Malcolm Roberts David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Alex Antic Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Catryna Bilyk Carol Louise Brown Matthew Canavan Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Patrick Dodson Jonathon Duniam Don Farrell Nita Green Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Fatima Payman Helen Beatrice Polley Louise Pratt Paul Scarr Tony Sheldon Dean Smith Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Anne Urquhart Jess Walsh Murray Watt Linda White Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022; Third Reading Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022

I thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate. I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

 NOTICES Withdrawal

Pursuant to notice given on 23 November 2022, on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for three sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2021 (No. 2), and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for six sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio Measures No. 1) Regulations 2022.

 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee; Report

I present the seventh 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. 7 OF 2022

24 November 2022

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Tammy Tyrrell

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 7 OF 2022

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 7.13 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 January 2023 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2022 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 January 2023 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023

National Anti-Corruption Commission (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:

(Anne Urquhart)

Chair

24 November 2022

Appendix 1

Name of Bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Complicated Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various Stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committees

Possible hearing date(s):

Dec—

Possible reporting date:

25.1.2023

(signed)

Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

Name of Bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Bill 2022

Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerati on:

Complicated Bill

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Various Stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committees

Possible hearing date(s):

Dec—

Possible reporting date:

25.1.2023

(signed)

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I would like to move the amendment that has been circulated in my name with regard to the Selection of Bills Committee report.

I believe Senator Gallagher has an amendment as well. I understand that both amendments deal with the same bill.

I have not seen the government's amendment.

It has been circulated. We'll make sure that you get a copy of that, Senator Hanson-Young.

I would like to speak to our amendment, which relates to the same bill as Senator Askew's amendment. Our amendment is that the bill not be referred to a committee. It differs from Senator Askew's in that she's referring it to a committee, with a report by 1 March. That's the difference between the amendments.

I'll indicate that, on that basis, the Greens will be supporting Senator Askew's amendment. We believe that this bill does require a short inquiry.

by leave—Could we move our amendment before Senator Askew moves hers? They are contradictory amendments. If ours is voted down, we will support hers, but, if she moves hers first, we'll oppose it and not be able to put ours.

I'm happy for yours to go first.

I thank the chamber for its indulgence. I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill not be referred to a committee".

Senator Hanson-Young, have you seen that amendment now?

Yes, and we won't be supporting it.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question is that the amendment circulated by Senator Askew be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2023".

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 BUSINESS Rearrangement

I move:

That—

(a) the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.15 pm today:

Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022

Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Radio) Bill 2022

Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia Funding Legislation Amendment Bill 2022

(b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and

(c) general business notice of motion no. 93 standing in the name of Senator Hanson relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES Reporting Date

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

 Public Works Joint Committee; Reference

by leave—I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Defence—Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield upgrade.

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Defence—Cocos (Keeling) Islands airfield upgrade.

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable:

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Australian High Commission project Abuja, Nigeria.

I table statements relating to the works.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

 BILLS Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022; First Reading Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, 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.

 Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022; Second Reading Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2022

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I welcome the opportunity to re-introduce this bill today, and continue our efforts to get big money out of politics. I acknowledge the important work done on this issue by former Senator Lee Rhiannon and Senator Richard Di Natale, academics and civil society organisations that has assisted in the development of this bill.

If passed, this bill would stop dirty industries with a track record of seeking to influence decision-makers through donations—the fossil fuel, banking, defence, pharmaceutical, liquor, tobacco and gambling industries—from making political donations. The bill would also limit the amount that can be donated by individuals and other entities to $3,000 per election term, minimising the opportunity for big money to buy outcomes.

There has never been a more important time for donation reform. Our democracy is in trouble. Public trust in parliament and politicians is at an all-time low, and the community feels less and less confident that their representatives represent them, rather than doing the bidding of their corporate donors.

And it's no wonder. Two hundred and thirty million dollars have flowed in corporate donations to the Labor, Liberal and National parties in the past decade from the big banks, from industries like mining, defence and big pharma, from property developers, and from alcohol, tobacco and gambling companies. These are just some of the industries that have paid the Liberal, National and Labor parties to put their private profits ahead of the needs of our community.

These industries are not donating millions of dollars because they believe in the institution of strong democracy. They are donating because it gets results.

The Greens have maintained the www.democracyforsale.org website for over a decade, tracking publicly disclosed political donations and putting a spotlight on influence-peddling. In 2018, the Senate Select Committee on the Political Influence of Donations laid out examples of the nexus between donations made by industry bodies and public policy outcomes or project approvals. The cosy relationships and the proximity of donations and policy outcomes that boost industry profits suggest undue influence. And the community continues to pay the price through climate inaction, propping up destructive gambling practices, and governments that refuse to make corporations pay their fair share of tax so that everyday people can get the education, health care, dental care, and income support that they need. Until we break the hold of dirty donations over the major parties, big corporations will keep winning, and the community loses out.

Recognising the corrosive influence that donations from the development sector had had on planning policy, infrastructure, and urban development, Queensland and New South Wales have both legislated to restrict political donations from property developers. The High Court has upheld these restrictions and this bill seeks to extend those to the federal arena. But it also recognises the influence of other key industries.

Since 2012, the fossil fuel and resources industries have donated over $9 million to both of the major parties. The Australia Institute estimates that in 2021-22 alone Australian governments handed out $11.6 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel giants in grants, loans, cheap fuel and accelerated depreciation that the rest of us don't get. That was $1.3 billion more than in the previous year, despite a COVID crisis that saw so many Australians struggling to make ends meet.

Rather than turn off the tap, in the most recent budget Labor gifted $1.9 billion of new money for gas in the Northern Territory on top of continuing the nearly $40 million in Morrison government fuel tax credits enjoyed by the industry.

It's a pretty good return on investment for fossil fuel donors, and a terrible deal for the rest of us.

Generous donations bought them a Liberal government completely paralysed by the words 'climate change' at a time when the Australian community faces a future of more extreme bushfires, crippling droughts and floods. Donations continue to cloud the judgment of the Albanese Labor government as new coal and gas projects keep getting approvals and public money.

The gas industry donates millions of dollars, so it was no great surprise when the former Prime Minister appointed his gas industry mates to the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission without even declaring their conflicts of interest. It was also no surprise that the Commission ultimately called for a "gas-led recovery" that directly benefits the gas industry, despite strong support for a renewables-led recovery from scientists, economists and policy analysts. Again, the community lost the opportunity for a sustainable recovery because governments are beholden to fossil fuel donors.

The cosy relationships and financial support have led to a situation where, despite overwhelming scientific and economic evidence that we will not reach even the weak 43 per cent emissions reduction targets unless we end our attachment to fossil fuels, the Albanese government refuses to rule out any of the 114 coal and gas projects currently under consideration. In fact, they continue to hand out public money to support destructive new projects in the Beetaloo Basin, Scarborough, and more.

We saw bullying tactics by the Minerals Council kill the Rudd government's mining super profits tax, and right now we're seeing the Minerals Councils use the same tactics against the Queensland Labor government's current plan to get resources companies to pay their fair share. These threats only work because the major parties rely on donations. The possibility generous donations will be withdrawn is the leverage the industry uses to keep governments in check.

The banking and financial sector is also a regular contributor and beneficiary. The sector has donated about $76 million since 2012 to both sides of politics, and that support secured them immunity for some time despite the evidence of customers being ripped off all over the country. Both of the major parties had to be dragged to the banking royal commission, something the Greens campaigned for since 2014, following scandal after scandal and public backlash over their inaction. How much faster would the commission have happened if the Liberal, National and Labor parties weren't on the payroll of the banks? And would we have seen stronger action in response to the scathing royal commission report?

The gambling industry is another significant donor to state and federal political parties, and their influence can be seen in the deeply entrenched support for poker machines throughout Australia, including exemptions for clubs from COVID restrictions even when so many other venues suffered.

Property developers also continue to throw their donations weight around while fighting against planning restrictions, tax reforms, and stronger environmental laws. In Queensland, a destructive proposal for a canal estate within the Ramsar-listed Toondah wetlands should never have gotten past the first hurdle. The department recommended that the project be rejected as "clearly unacceptable". Yet the property developer, Walker Corporation, was a generous political donor and the then minister allowed the deeply flawed proposal to proceed to assessment phase. He even explored the possibility of changing the Ramsar boundaries to accommodate the proposal. I live in hope that the new environment minister will finally reject this destructive proposal, but the local community should never have had to fight so hard for so long against a clearly unacceptable development.

These are only the donations that we know about, none of which have been illegal. It doesn't include money paid to attend business forums or cash for access meetings, it ignores exorbitant subscription or membership fees, and it doesn't include money funnelled through representative and fundraising bodies.

But regardless of the source or the amount, the obvious expectation from industry is that donations will return results. They're buying outcomes. This feeds the public perception that decisions in this place are made improperly, with self-interest and the interests of donors and mates consistently overriding the public interest.

In banning political donations from those industries that have a history of seeking to influence policy decisions, the bill implements a key recommendation of the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations. It makes it an offence for a prohibited donor to make a donation or solicit another person to make a donation on its behalf. It is also an offence to accept a donation from a prohibited donor.

Another committee recommendation that this bill seeks to implement is to limit other political donations to $3,000 in an election term. As the High Court recognised in McCloy v NSW, uncontrolled use of wealth to influence decision-making compromises equal participation in democracy. By aggregating and capping political donations made by any person or entity, the bill seeks to level the playing field and avoid those with more money gaining greater access to government.

The bill will limit donations made for political purposes but is not intended to limit donations made to third parties to support their non-campaign activities. The important work done by civil society organisations must be allowed to continue. We will continue to call for the introduction of electoral expenditure caps to balance the participation of civil society organisations in the political process.

The bill complements other reforms to strengthen the disclosure regime that the government has finally committed to acting on, including lowering the disclosure threshold and requiring real-time disclosure of donations so people aren't waiting 18 months to see who is buying whom. The Greens strongly support these measures but recognise that more transparency alone will not remove the corrupting influence of political donations.

The 2022 election results confirm that the Australian public want more transparent and representative government that acts in the public interest. This bill is an important first step towards getting big money out of politics and restoring public confidence in our democracy.

If we are committed to enhancing the democratic process, which surely is something that every parliament should regularly turn its mind to, this should be a priority. This bill does not stifle debate or prevent individuals from donating to support a political party. It bans donations from industries that have become associated with having a corrupting influence on how we work as decision makers and will return democracy to the community.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

 DOCUMENTS Infrastructure; Order for the Production of Documents

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for production of documents no. 69 (the order) agreed by the Senate on 27 October 2022, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table documents in relation to The Gabba Stadium project and impacts on East Brisbane State School, has not been complied with, and

(ii) the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in their response to the order, made a claim of public interest immunity on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, citing concerns that disclosure of the information would harm the Commonwealth's ongoing relationship with a state government on this and future infrastructure arrangements;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claim made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, noting that:

(i) when a claim of public interest immunity is made on the basis that it would damage relations between the Commonwealth and states, the agreement of the states to disclose the information should be sought and they should be invited to give reasons for any objection, and

(ii) no such agreement has been sought, nor has the Senate been advised of any objections from the Queensland Government, and

(iii) the public has a right to know the details of, and deliberations on, infrastructure projects such as the Gabba Stadium project and impacts on surrounding infrastructure; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to comply with the order by no later than midday on 29 November 2022.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I ask that the government's opposition to that motion be recorded.

 COMMITTEES Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media; Appointment

I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media, be established to inquire into and report on the risk posed to Australia's democracy by foreign interference through social media, with particular reference to:

(a) the use of social media for purposes that undermine Australia's democracy and values, including the spread of misinformation and disinformation;

(b) responses to mitigate the risk posed to Australia's democracy and values, including by the Australian Government and social media platforms;

(c) international policy responses to cyber-enabled foreign interference and misinformation;

(d) the extent of compliance with existing Australian laws and regulations; and

(e) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 1 August 2023.

(3) That the committee consist of five senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and

(c) one nominated by minor party and independent senators.

(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 minor party or independent senator;

(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 one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government 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 three 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 and any subcommittee have power to consider and use the evidence and records of the Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media appointed during the previous Parliament.

(12) 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.

(13) 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.

 DOCUMENTS Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022; Order for the Production of Documents

At the request of Senator Brockman, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 29 November 2022, the following documents in relation to the Regulation Impact Statement of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022, with particular reference to footnotes 65 and 70:

(a) all correspondence, file notes, emails, instant messages and briefings in relation to the original selection of reference websites (www.authentic.com and www.bark.com) and to the subsequent public correction to those footnotes by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations;

(b) all communication on the footnotes and subsequent retraction between the Minister and/or his office and the Department; and

(c) all communication on the footnotes and subsequent retraction between the Minister and his staff.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 95, standing in the name of Senator Brockman and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

 Alex Antic Wendy Askew Andrew Bragg Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Perin Davey Jonathon Duniam David Julian Fawcett Sarah Henderson Jane Hume Jacqui Lambie Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Marise Ann Payne Gerard Rennick Linda Reynolds Paul Scarr Dean Smith Tammy Tyrrell David Van Penny Allman-Payne Tim Ayres Catryna Bilyk Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Patrick Dodson Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Nita Green Sarah Hanson-Young Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Louise Pratt Janet Rice Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Glenn Sterle Lidia Thorpe Anne Urquhart Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Linda White BUSINESS Leave of Absence

by leave—I move:

That Senator Babet be granted leave of absence for the period 24 to 25 November, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022; Second Reading Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

I'll return to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. I have just a few more paragraphs of my contribution to add in conclusion.

In government, the coalition's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy was part of our plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The coalition provided a detailed strategy for a technology led approach to reduce transport emissions based on the principles of partnering with the private sector to support uptake and to stimulate co-investment in future fuels; focusing on reducing barriers to the rollout of future fuel technologies, not taxes; and expanding consumer choice by enabling informed choices and by minimising the costs of integration into the grid. And, again, in government, the coalition committed $2.1 billion to help increase the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicle technologies.

With increasing pressure on inflation, ensuring there's a demonstratable benefit to government expenditure is even more important now than it was before. But this is not what this bill does. As the coalition senators pointed out in the Senate Economics Committee report, most Australians will be unable to benefit from this tax policy change, which is extremely narrow in its application. It will mean that people working in small businesses are less likely to access the proposed tax policy change due to the lower level of use of salary packaging in small and medium businesses. For these reasons, the opposition will not support the government's bill.

My second reading amendment, which has already been circulated in my name, outlines the points that I have made today and also in my previous contribution. I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) with this policy the Government has failed to:

(A) establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy,

(B) ensure the expenditure is temporary, proportionate, and linked to tangible productivity gains,

(C) quantify any benefit of the policy to electric vehicle uptake, to emissions reduction, or the budget bottom line,

(D) tangibly address the biggest constraint on electric vehicle uptake, which is supply and infrastructure, and

(E) consult with business and civil society on policy design,

(ii) the legislation does not address the core supply issues of electric vehicles, and will not substantially close the consequent cost gap between electric vehicles and non-electric vehicles,

(iii) the Coalition supports increased uptake of low and zero emissions vehicles and the Coalition government's focus was on enabling consumer choice when it comes to new vehicle and fuel technologies, and

(iv) the Coalition is focused on partnering with industry to support the uptake of new vehicle technologies and creating the necessary enabling environment to support uptake, which includes helping to support the infrastructure roll-out and ensuring that the electricity grid is ready; and

(b) calls on the Government to invest the substantial medium-term cost of the measure in supporting practical electric vehicle infrastructure and cost of living relief for hard working Australians".

I'm very pleased to rise today to speak about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. Electric vehicles are an absolutely critical part of decarbonising our economy and our society, and in moving Australia to 100 per cent renewable energy and zero-carbon future. That's what we need to do as urgently as possible, because we are in a climate crisis. We know we're in a climate crisis: we have the floods around us at the moment and we had the Black Summer fires three years ago. Around the world, two-thirds of Pakistan is underwater. This is an emergency. We've just had the State of the climate 2022 report released this week, and it showed what is in front of us unless we tackle our carbon pollution urgently. Australia is in the box seat to be able to do that. We have the technology, the resources and the renewable energy resources; we can shift our energy needs to 100 per cent renewables as quickly as possible—probably more quickly than any other country in the world. And yet we have been such laggards over the last eight years.

We now have a new government that is taking some small steps forward. The Greens know that we need to go much faster and much further in tackling the climate crisis than this government is, but we will support every small step forward along the way. That's what this bill is: it's one of those small steps forward. Electric vehicles are an incredibly important part of decarbonising our transport system. We're really pleased to say that we have pushed the government further and faster on electric vehicles in our negotiations on this bill.

One in every five tonnes of our carbon pollution in Australia comes from transport—20 per cent. We need to get out of dirty, polluting, fossil fuel vehicles and into 100 per cent renewable vehicles as quickly as possible. We also need, of course, to invest in public transport. Most of the trams and trains around the country already run on electricity, at least within suburban areas. If they're being fuelled by renewable energy then we have a zero-carbon public transport system. We also need to be investing in walking and cycling, which are a critical part of our transport mix.

In fact, if you look at what our vision for transport is, the rule of thumb I like to use is about a one-third, one-third, one-third mix of our transport. So you continue to have one-third of private vehicle use to account for all of those trips where you really do need that private vehicle to get you from A to B. If all of those private vehicle trips and road trips—and freight trips as well—are fuelled by renewable energy, then you have zero carbon in that part of the sector.

Then you have about one-third on public transport, whether that's within cities or connecting people between cities, like we were talking about yesterday with high speed rail. Then about one-third of those trips should be walking and cycling, which are the ultimate zero carbon trips, where you just get out there. For cycling, it could be on bikes that are human powered, which I am a great advocate of, commuter cycling, to get around everywhere, or on electric bikes, which mean that the benefits of cycling are available to a wider range of people for a greater number and length of trips. That one-third, one-third, one-third mix means we can focus on rapidly shifting away from dirty polluting vehicles to clean electric vehicles.

This bill will take some small steps. It will be tackling the fact that, at the moment, if you're a fleet owner, it is very expensive to be converting your fleet to electric vehicles. This will make it easier and give tax discounts, to make it more affordable for fleets to be electric vehicles. We are really pleased in what we have been able to do with this bill, in negotiations with the government, of saying that we want to be shifting those fleets to electric vehicles. Originally, this bill included plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which are fake electric vehicles, because we know those plug-in hybrids aren't electric vehicles. They are not renewable. About half of the use of those plug-in hybrid vehicles is still running on dirty fossil fuels.

What we have negotiated with the government—and there will be an amendment that both the Greens and Senator David Pocock have put forward, in our negotiations with the government—is that those plug-in hybrids will be phased out. There will be a sunset clause so that they will only be included under these tax discounts for three years. We think that's a reasonable compromise, because we know there are a shortage of electric vehicles in this country at the moment. We've been such laggards that the electric vehicle manufacturers haven't wanted to bring their electric vehicles to Australia. So because there's an issue of increasing the availability of electric vehicles, we'll allow plug-in hybrids for the next three years, but phase them out.

Within the next three years there should be no need for anybody to have plug-in hybrids and people should be encouraged, supported, if they're needing to buy a vehicle for it to be an electric vehicle. We know that countries in Europe have phase-out dates of 2030, for all new cars to be electric vehicles. So phasing out subsidies and support for plug-in hybrids in three years time is a pretty reasonable and modest thing to do.

The other key thing that we have negotiated with the government, with this bill, is a commitment that all of the Commonwealth fleet procurement will be 100 per cent electric, which is amazing and pretty significant. If you have fleet requirements where currently there isn't the recharging infrastructure available, there will be exceptional circumstances, where those vehicles, within the Commonwealth fleet, could be plug-in hybrids. But the default is that Commonwealth procurement and the Commonwealth fleet will become electric as quickly as possible.

Not only is that good for Commonwealth vehicles but it means we can shift all of those kilometres to 100 per cent renewable as soon as those electric vehicles are in the fleet. It also means that, because they will be in the fleet, there will be a greater availability of second-hand electric vehicles in the market, which is important. We know that, as cars move out of fleets, they've still got a lot of life left in them and it's more affordable for people to purchase a second-hand vehicle, so this is going to be a really critical difference in making electric vehicles more affordable for everybody across the country. That'll be the case when you've got a good stream of second-hand electric vehicles, rather than the case at the moment when most of the second-hand electric vehicles that people are purchasing are being imported. Having that steady stream of electric vehicles from the Commonwealth fleet is going to be incredibly significant.

Of course, the other thing about excluding the plug-in hybrids from the Commonwealth fleet is that that will save the Commonwealth a lot of money because continuing to subsidise the use of plug-in hybrids means that you are continuing to subsidise having to fuel them with petrol and diesel. It's going to save the Department of Finance a lot of money—in fact, the estimate is that the amendments that are to be moved by me and Senator Pocock will save the government up to $935 million over a decade. That's almost a billion dollars compared with what the government first proposed. That means we won't be permanently baking in yet another fossil fuel subsidy on top of the fossil fuel subsidies that are continuing—$40 million and counting on the pile of handouts to the coal, gas and oil sectors.

When it comes to those subsidies, in talking about transport, moving on the diesel fuel rebate would be such an easy thing to do. At the moment we are subsidising the use of diesel fuel, which is just crazy. At the same time as we're saying we need to do something about the climate crisis, we are still giving massive handouts to subsidise the use of polluting diesel fuel. Imagine if, instead of spending almost a billion dollars on subsidising diesel fuel, we had more incentives to encourage the heavy-vehicle freight industry to shift their fleet to 100 per cent renewable vehicles, to electric and hydrogen vehicles. We have plenty of heavy movers, trucks and trains that are currently running on diesel in Australia. but there are plenty of examples elsewhere in the world and, in fact, beginning in Australia where we see electric heavy movers and hydrogen run trains, so it is possible. It just needs the political will and the incentives.

Rather than incentivising the pollution, incentivising the things that are absolutely turbocharging the climate crisis, we should be incentivising the solutions and supporting the rapid transition to 100 per cent clean energy. You might want to spend some of the $935 million on charging infrastructure in the regions, for example, so that it is really easy for people to charge their electric vehicles no matter where they are. We know that, with charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, it's going to be straightforward, it's going to be viable, it's going to be economic for the private sector to put charging infrastructure in the cities. But out there in the regions there will need to be more government support for charging infrastructure. There is a need for more investment in charging infrastructure, particularly government investment in charging infrastructure, in the regions.

As I said at the start of my contribution, this is a small step forward that the Greens are happy to support. But it's not a revolutionary one. It's an improvement on the status quo, and it's going to benefit, in addition to Commonwealth and government fleets, a very narrow class of employees by creating incentives for companies to buy electric vehicles. Through our negotiations, it creates those incentives for the Commonwealth fleet too. These measures will increase the supply of affordable second-hand EVs in the market. But for your average person who hasn't got a vehicle through their employer, is not doing salary sacrifice—they work for a small business or there is no connection between who they work for and the vehicle they drive—we need a whole range of other things to make electric vehicles more affordable.

The big piece of the puzzle, which is yet to come and we urge the government to take urgent action on, is implementing vehicle emissions standards so that we, frankly, are not able to sell polluting vehicles in this country. Those vehicles are going to continue to fuel the climate crisis, and we need to have vehicle emissions standards and CO2 standards—and we need to ramp them up over time—so that within a pretty short space of time all vehicles have to be 100 per cent nonpolluting, zero carbon. This is what urgently needs to happen, and actually introducing those vehicle emissions standards is critical and urgent. It's a policy that the Greens have been championing over the years, and we are going to continue to bring it into the parliament. That is what is going to drive the supply of electric vehicles here in Australia, and without it we know that manufacturers are sending their electric vehicles off elsewhere because they're not seeing anything to support the rapid uptake of electric vehicles here. It's a difficult market, so, in a time of constrained supply, they just say, 'No, we'll send them off elsewhere,' where they know the market is stronger.

So we've got a message to the government: we will support this bill, but we want to see a really thorough electric vehicle strategy that takes the serious action that's needed; that doesn't include fake electric vehicles, the plug-in hybrids, as part of it; and that really takes seriously the role of transport and transforming our transport and vehicle fleet to 100 per cent clean energy. That's what's needed. That's what the Greens are going to continue to push for. We know that's where we need to head as quickly as possible to tackle the role that our transport system is playing in the climate crisis and the role that it can play in effectively tackling the climate crisis.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. Does anyone remember, during the 2019 election, federal Labor's attempt to end the weekend? Well, they've only been in office for a little while and here they are at it. I'm going to explain to you why, because no-one so far has given any explanation as to how we're going to solve this issue.

Western Australia is known for its wonderful outdoor lifestyle. Whether it's during school holidays or over the long weekend, many Western Australians, including myself, hitch up a caravan or a camper trailer and head out to the great outdoors. There's no better way to see and experience Western Australia than on a road trip with a caravan in tow, whether that be into the state's beautiful south-west or up the coast to somewhere like Exmouth, both trips that I've undertaken in the last year or so.

Earlier this year, the RAC published an article entitled 'Can an electric car tow a caravan or boat?' Naturally, I took an interest in this. Could this article point to the future of family weekend travel? The article outlined the virtues and merits of electric vehicles and the advantages and disadvantages of towing with an EV. However, two lines stood out to me, and they go to the core of the discussion that we're having here today. One quote from the article said:

In principle, an EV is well suited to towing, albeit with limitations.

And it says of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles:

… they may be better suited to occasional towing rather than long distance adventures.

It is one thing for inner city members in this place to preach that everyone should be driving EVs. That makes a lot of sense if all you're doing is taking a short drive, if you're driving a passenger vehicle to somewhere like Byron Bay for the long weekend to visit the beach house. If that's all the driving you do, then, yes, it would seem as if everyone else should be doing that too. But it disregards the everyday practicalities of working families whose only annual luxury might be lugging a camper trailer up the highway for a couple of days away.

An EV might be capable of towing a boat to the Cockburn boat ramp 15 kilometres away, but what about towing that boat from Perth down to Busselton, more than 200 kilometres away? EV technology—more specifically, the capacity of EV batteries and the speed of charging—is simply impractical for anything other than city driving. It's another example of ideology blinding peoples' sensibility and reason.

There was much publicity in California around its ban on the sale of petrol vehicles by the year 2035. Its own clean vehicle incentive program offers rebates as much as US$7,000 towards the cost of zero-emission vehicles, although cars costing more than US$45,000 do not qualify. Ironically, a mere week after the announcement, the California Independent System Operator put out a statewide alert to conserve energy, including a request to avoid charging electric vehicles in order to prevent strain on the state's power grid.

Here, in Australia, we have a government wanting to put more stress on an energy grid which is not currently equipped to deal with it. I can only imagine the surge in energy consumption if every Australian were forced to drive an EV and they arrived home between 5 and 6 pm and all plugged in at the same time, at a time of day when solar power generation is waning—which, incidentally, is why the government needs to be careful when considering subsidies and incentives for home charging.

The average consumer does not actually need a fast charger. I know this. I actually own an EV, people, so I'm not against EVs. But the average consumer does not actually need a fast charger. A 10-amp charger will recharge an average EV from 50 to 80 per cent overnight with no problem. Just because you can fast charge, it doesn't mean that you should. It makes no sense for everyone to plug in and charge quickly, which would put more demand on the grid, when the vehicle can be plugged in and charged overnight. So we must be careful when we're thinking about the infrastructure that we will be putting in place.

For those of us who are camping enthusiasts—and, as I've said, I'm one—the gross combined mass of a vehicle is one of most important specifications to look for in a tow vehicle. This measurement refers to the maximum weight that a vehicle can tow safely. Staying within your vehicle's towing capacity is particularly important when you're using an electric vehicle, as the more energy an EV expends the sooner it must be recharged. It's the basic law of physics.

Knowing your vehicle's towing capacity and range is even more critical when driving in remote areas or heading on a trip to the West Australian north-west, where towns are few and far between and using charging stations becomes more challenging. What was once a 10-minute exercise to fuel up and grab a coffee at a roadhouse could turn into an exercise of hours.

Some on the other side may say, 'Well, only 10 per cent of Australians might hook up a caravan or a heavy load on the weekend.' My response to that is: if Labor wants to penalise those in that 10 per cent and add further pressures to their everyday cost of living for simply having the temerity to own a camper trailer, then they need to be upfront with them.

I read with interest the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries' submission to the inquiry into this bill. The study that the FCAI commissioned found that, if a 100 per cent battery electric mandate were to be put in place by 2030, an entry level car would go up by $12,500, and Australian drivers after a mid-sized SUV would need to increase their budget by $10,000.

Now to some science and facts. You don't need to like these facts, but they are constrained by the laws of physics. There is no development of the laws of physics. They are what they are. We can try to master them, but we can't defy them.

So what disturbs me in the EV and broader climate change debate is that there is a real, significant lack of scientific literacy and realistic projections. Current generation lithium iron phosphate batteries have a gravimetric energy density of approximately 150 watt-hours per kilogram. Now, diesel and petrol have a gravimetric energy density of 12,700 watt-hours per kilogram—nearly 85 times the weight.

Now, granted: EVs use their stored energy more efficiently than do internal combustion engine vehicles. Think of the wasted heat that radiates from an internal combustion engine car. An EV converts about 90 per cent of the energy stored in the battery into motion, whereas an ICE vehicle only converts about 20 per cent of its energy into motion and the rest is wasted as heat and through other mechanical losses.

But the issue here is the weight and mass of the battery. In order to get the payload capability in an EV equivalent to an ICE vehicle, you need a battery that weighs about 60 times the weight of the fuel that would otherwise be stored in the vehicle's fuel tank. Why is this important? A small-to-medium battery EV practically makes perfect sense for people who are just commuting around the city. A model 3 Tesla has a 60 kilowatt-hour battery. This battery weighs 460 kilograms. EVs bigger than this really start to become impractical and, arguably, economically irrational.

Take, for example, the F-150 Lightning dual cab, which you can currently only buy in the USA. This big American truck is super impressive. I'd love to drive one; I reckon it would be really exciting. The big problem is that the battery weighs 817 kilograms. Even with this enormous battery, the standard-range F-150 Lightning is only equivalent to that from 18 litres of fuel. This means that the range is severely limited, especially if you load it up—let alone hooking up a trailer, boat or caravan to it. Anyone who has ever towed anything marginally heavy will know that as soon as you hook it up your range is more than halved.

Case studies in the US have demonstrated that the real-world range capability of an F-150 Lightning, when loaded up, is about 100 kilometres. Imagine driving from Perth to Exmouth: 13 times on the trip you would have to pull over for three hours, and that is assuming that you've got a fast charger at the roadhouse. It's simply not going to be possible. To get the range capability of a diesel powered vehicle, you would need a battery nearly four times the size of the one that is currently in the F-150 Lightning. This is completely unworkable. It would be ridiculously expensive, would weigh too much and wouldn't even fit within the form factor of the vehicle itself. Imagine the extra wear and tear on the road, the safety implications if you had an accident and the extra wear and tear on the tyres and brakes—not to mention the insane amount of raw material required to make these batteries.

As I said, small-to-medium electric vehicles make sense. They don't have to carry a big payload and, for the most part, if they're used in and around town, their batteries can be topped up overnight. But four-wheel drive SUV and ute EVs don't make a lot of sense, unless of course you don't intend to go big distances using their payload capacity.

Some may say that battery and charging technology will improve. I've been looking into this and I'm disappointed to have to tell them that there is nothing, even on the periphery of battery science development, that promises to increase the energy density by a factor that makes them a practical replacement for a larger vehicle. This is why, for now, a hybrid actually makes sense. Let's face it: most owners of dual cabs and four-wheel drives are not loading them up or towing over big distances for 365 days of the year. So having a small battery which will cover the short commutes and be recharged daily, backed up by a small internal combustion engine for those occasional longer and loaded-up drives, makes sense over the short-to-medium term. Why is this an issue? The latest figures from the Australia Chamber of Automotive Industries show that the biggest-selling vehicles are dual cabs and four-wheel drives. These are the vehicles that Australians want, and someone actually needs to be upfront with them if Australians are to be expected to change their buying habits.

I note the amendment proposed by others to sunset the inclusion of plug-in hybrids in this FBT-exemption bill. While the coalition doesn't support the bill—because we don't believe in just providing subsidies to the wealthy to enable them to buy electric vehicles while poorer people or those on lower incomes, particularly in the outer suburbs and regional areas, won't be able to afford it—I have to say that this amendment is actually sending the wrong message. If the purposes of this bill are to increase the uptake of EVs and get high-emissions vehicles off the road, then ensuring that hybrids are off the road, that they're not going to be part of this, is sending the wrong message. It doesn't actually deal with the reality, particularly the uniquely Australian reality. The most popular vehicle in Europe—I can't remember the name of the car—is basically the size of a Corolla; it's a small vehicle. Here in Australia, the most popular vehicle is a HiLux and the second most popular is a Ranger. Then we have the RAV4 and, further down the list, the D-MAX. Four of the top 10 best-selling vehicles, by a long way, are four-wheel drives and dual-cab utes. So those opposite are sending the wrong message to people.

A subsidy—make no mistake about it; that's what this is—for electric cars, the owners of which will then fail to contribute to road maintenance by avoiding taxes, is emblematic of this modern Labor party. This is a policy that will achieve no environmental benefit. It will give a tax break to the wealthy, hurt everyday Australians and be widely impractical; in short, it checks all the boxes of the ALP policy handbook. There's no doubt that Australians will adopt EVs.

They are.

We've bought one—our household has bought one. For my wife, commuting to work, it makes perfect sense. She no longer has to visit a petrol station—she plugs it in every night, and it's absolutely fantastic. I've been driving it, and it's an excellent vehicle. It drives better than any other vehicle I've driven. It's great. But the reality is that for many Australians, who like to recreate and to get out and about in the regions are towing their caravans and their boats, these vehicles might have the capacity to tow. The F1-50 can tow four tons—or possibly even 4½ tons—but if you can tow it for only 100 kilometres, it doesn't suit the Australian lifestyle or landscape.

We have to think more seriously about this. We can't just have policies driven by inner-city MPs, inner-city elites who don't think about it. I had someone recently say to me, 'Maybe they just need to change what type of vehicle they need to buy.' Be upfront with the Australian people that that's what you're expecting them to do! Don't just create these policies that will impose on them without being upfront. Minister Bowen, the member for McMahon, went over to America and took a photo in front of an F1-50 Lightning at a Ford dealership, saying, 'They said we were going to ruin the weekend, but this car can tow big loads'. But guess what? It can tow only 100 kilometres.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. I'll start with a framing of where we're at. We're facing a climate crisis. We turn on the news and see the results of that every day. It's not going to get better. Clearly, Australia has to lift its game when it comes to the transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy future. Australians are also faced with a cost-of-living crisis where households across the country are having to make really tough decisions, when it comes to their weekly budgets, on what they spend money on.

Electrification is a huge opportunity not only for Australia but also, at a household level, for households to save money. If you look at rooftop solar in Australia, we now have some of the cheapest—if not the cheapest—rooftop solar in the world. Australian households are benefiting from that. They continue to install solar and reap the benefits of lower power bills. That policy started under the Howard government, and has had bipartisan support in developing the certification systems, bringing down the price of installation, and putting into practice the work and amazing innovation of some of our best scientists in Australia to improve the efficient of solar PV cells.

Clearly, Australians want electric vehicles. The demand far outstrips supply. It's no surprise that Australians want electric vehicles. According to the Australian Automobile Association, households spend more than $100 on average per week on fuel. That's more than $5,000 a year every year. The recent restoration of the full fuel excise charge will ensure that prices remain high for petrol and diesel. That money that Australians spend on fuel doesn't stay in Australia. Most of the tens of billions of dollars spent on fuel flows back to oil-producing countries. It's bad not only for the economy but also for our energy security. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has reported that our fuel stockpile has been as low as 20 days in recent years, well below the 90-day requirement set by the International Energy Agency. It's no wonder that Chris Barrie, former Chief of the Defence Force, said that climate change is the greatest threat to our national security. And yet we continue to power our cars with dirty, imported fuel from insecure supply chains, rather than from clean Australian wind and sunshine—sunshine that can be captured on your roof at home and put into your electric vehicle.

The rest of the developed world have seen the writing on the wall and have been shifting to electric vehicles at pace. In Europe, EV sales make up 17 per cent of the market now. In countries like Norway it's as high as 86 per cent. Even in the fuel-hungry United States, electric-vehicle sales now make up more than six per cent of the market. Here in Australia, electric vehicles make up two per cent of the market, at least for the figures we have for last year. Slow adoption of EVs is costing Australians money. It's costing Australians money every time they go to the fuel pump, and it is causing damage to our climate. We have to look at the transition to EVs in the context of climate change. This is something that we have to rapidly speed up.

The bulk of the 18.6 per cent of Australia's total emissions due to transport come from light vehicles. Our cars are highly polluting. The average Australian car is 45 per cent more emissions-intensive than the European equivalent. If we're to reach net zero by 2050, we clearly have to do better and we have to move fast. Research by the Grattan Institute shows that, to get to net zero, EVs need to make up 100 per cent of light vehicle sales by 2035 at the latest.

Australians are ready to make the change. Earlier this month, an NRMA survey showed that 57 per cent of respondents would consider purchasing an EV. But, as we all know, one significant issue is that there is a shortfall in supply. In the ACT, the wait on a Hyundai Kona is now 12 months. Manufacturers like Hyundai don't want to send great numbers of affordable electric vehicles to Australia, because it's currently not an attractive market. Why is that? It's because we continue to see scaremongering and still have poor policy settings that make us a dumping ground for a whole range of inefficient clunkers that we see on the road. Leadership and action is needed to move us from the back of the queue up to the front of the queue when it comes to the electric vehicles.

By far, the biggest issue that we need to deal with to change that is to have fuel efficiency standards. Australia is one of only two OECD countries that do not have fuel efficiency standards. The other country is Russia. In 2014, the Climate Change Authority under the Abbott Government recommended introducing fuel efficiency standards, and modelling shows that the standard would have had a net benefit to the economy of $13.9 billion had that recommendation been implemented by policymakers.

We need to act now. We have an opportunity to act and to start realising this benefit. It's great to see Minister Bowen and the government commit to fuel efficiency standards to drive the change that we need. We need independent, robust and ambitious fuel efficiency standards. We need them to ensure that these standards have integrity. They need to be mandatory to ensure standards apply fairly across different manufacturers, and they must be based on real-world driving patterns. Recent research of SUVs in Sydney shows that actual emissions are up to 65 per cent higher than claimed by manufacturers. Indeed, we've seen in the news over recent history vehicle manufacturers being caught out for fudging the numbers. The same standard should be implemented for all passenger vehicles without exception. Finally, it should be based on and monitored by independent and publicly accessible data. I'll continue to work to encourage the government to move swiftly to bring on these fuel efficiency standards that have integrity, alongside a world-class fuel efficiency standard. The government needs to move quickly to improve EV charging infrastructure across the country. In our cities many people are renting or are in apartment buildings without charging infrastructure. In regional and remote Australia, range anxiety acts as a barrier to the uptake of electric vehicles.

Progress reported.

 Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022; Second Reading Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

I'm speaking in continuance from the debate last night, and I'd like to conclude my remarks on the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022. The coalition supports the development of other industries in the Kakadu area, including Jabiru, to supplement the loss of investment caused by the close-out of Ranger and to ensure opportunities for sustainable, tangible economic growth. Development in our regions is paramount for our nation's future, as is creating opportunities for Indigenous communities.

To conclude, the coalition supports the continued rehabilitation of the Ranger site and supports the progress of this bill to ensure that Energy Resources of Australia is able to continue its rehabilitation operations and monitoring. To secure future rehabilitation of the Ranger site, it is imperative that this bill passes to allow relevant stakeholders to commence negotiations on the next stages of the overall process. As referenced by CEO Brad Welsh, ERA therefore urges the parliament to consider this bill as a matter of urgency and well in advance of 23 November 2022 so that the bill can preferably be passed by parliament this calendar year. This will allow ERA and the traditional owners to move forward with their agreement negotiations with the Commonwealth and enable ERA to plan, with certainty, the world-class rehabilitation of the RPA. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to support the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022 as it demonstrates that the coalition are certainly responsible and dedicated to balancing economic and environmental management. I commend this bill to the Senate, knowing that the coalition began the process of engaging with Energy Resources of Australia over the rehabilitation of the Ranger mine under the previous government. I personally, in a former professional capacity, worked closely with the Mirarr people, the traditional owners, in terms of their connection with the Ranger mine. The Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022 supports all mine rehabilitation being completed to high standards. The current framework allows for ERA to undertake remediation work until January 2026.

Back in 1999 an agreement was reached between the Commonwealth government and ERA that, upon the completion of mining activities at the Ranger mine site in the Northern Territory, ERA would take charge of the rehabilitation of the Ranger mine site. Mining at Ranger ceased in January 2021, and remediation is already underway—and rightly so. More than 20 years ago it was believed that ERA would only need five years to complete the rehabilitation work on the site. This bill extends the legislative framework surrounding the rehabilitation, ensuring that ERA can complete this very important work to close out the site, continue monitoring and return the land, of course, to the Mirarr people, the traditional owners.

This bill's primary purpose is to enable the long-term remediation and monitoring of the site. Australia has some of the most stringent environmental and rehabilitative standards and processes in the world, despite what many environmentalists would argue, and supports ERA fulfilling their obligation to properly remediate the Ranger mine site. The Ranger Uranium Mine has served the country well over its years of operation, creating economic benefits for the country and local community and providing jobs and employment services to the local population and within the Northern Territory itself.

Traditional owners, the Northern Land Council and other Northern Territory bodies are supportive of this bill and have expressed their support for ERA fulfilling their obligations set out under the Atomic Energy Act to rehabilitate the Ranger mine site. The coalition began the process of engaging with ERA over the rehabilitation of Ranger mine under the previous government and supports this bill proceeding in order to guarantee Ranger can be fully rehabilitated by ERA over the coming years. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022. Ranger mine sits east of Darwin, smack bang in the middle of Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage listed site for its exceptional natural and cultural values. Kakadu has been home to First Nations people for over 50,000 years, and it is full of beautiful rock art, sacred sites, tidal flats and flood plains and provides a home for a wide range of rare species of animals and plants. It is a precious place, unlike any other in the world.

Despite this, in 1980 mining operations by Energy Resources Australia—or ERA, as it's commonly referred to—began at Ranger after the uranium deposit was discovered in 1969. Ranger mine ceased operations in January 2021, and in just over 40 years the mine had produced more than 130,000 tonnes of naturally radioactive triuranium octoxide—which is known as yellowcake—to be exported. This mine was established against the wishes of the traditional owners. In such a culturally and ecologically significant area, ERA were allowed to come in, bring their big machines and dig up dangerous and radioactive materials. In doing so they changed the landscape and the cultural heritage of the place.

What's done is done, but it's important to highlight that what we are considering today is the result of colonialism and corporate interest being considered more important than First Nations culture. ERA did not obtain consent from the traditional owners in any sense of the word, let alone in the context of free, prior and informed consent, which is paramount in respecting the sovereignty of traditional owners and their cultural heritage. This place must pass the Australian Greens's bill to legislate our obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes the principle of free, prior and informed consent. It's frankly embarrassing that this government and previous governments have made zero effort to legislate these commitments. But I think we all know why, and if this government is serious about giving First Nations people a voice, as it claims to be, it has to walk the walk and it has to support our bill. The principles of my colleague's bill are intrinsically linked to what we are considering here in this chamber today.

We all know that uranium is radioactive. We have all seen the impacts that exposure to radiation can have. We've seen the devastating impacts of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in World War II and the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima. And we've anxiously heard the recent threats from Russia. Whilst Australia has strict regulations around the use of Australian uranium to ensure it's not used in nuclear weapons and legislation at both federal and state and territory levels prohibits the use of nuclear energy at varying degrees, the fact that we are still mining and exporting uranium sends a very different message. In fact, it's hypocritical—we do not want it in our country, but we are happy to supply it to other countries. Clearly our concerns can be ignored if there's a nice pay cheque attached to the end of that.

You might tell yourself that's all fine because we learned from the catastrophes and we have appropriate safeguards in place to protect workers and people in the surrounding areas, right? In 2004, the supervising scientists at Ranger found the ERA had breached their environmental requirements in an incident where water was contaminated with uranium, leading to 28 workers falling ill. In 2013, a 1,400-cubic-metre tank of uranium oxide slurry and acid actually collapsed. In June this year, low-level radioactive waste was found in an excavator at Winnellie, some 275 kilometres away from the mine, after being transported through Kakadu National Park. This was considered a significant breach of the environmental plan due to the risk to both people and the environment. This was just at Ranger.

There are two other uranium mines in Australia—Olympic Dam and Four Mile. Both are in South Australia. I don't even want to get started on the nuclear waste dump in Kimba, which has seen significant opposition from locals and the traditional owners.

Indeed, traditional owners are fighting uranium mining all over this country. In Western Australia, the Upurli Upurli people are facing the threat of mining of uranium at Mulga Rock, which would be WA's first uranium mine. The company involved in this mining proposal, Deep Yellow, had connections with Rio Tinto at the time of the Juukan caves explosion and Paladin, who have a very concerning past. They include spills from uranium mines into nearby lakes, workers dying and getting sick, and workers striking over pay and work conditions.

Just yesterday morning we heard the British Prime Minister announce that Australian nuclear test veterans and scientists involved in the British nuclear testing at Maralinga, Emu Field and the Montebello Islands will receive a newly introduced service medal to mark 70 years since the first nuclear test across the Commonwealth. These tests devastated First Nations communities in the area, most of whom were displaced by these tests. This is the legacy of nuclear and uranium mining that has been left behind: destruction, death and displacement.

People working in uranium mines have a higher rate of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, such as tuberculosis and emphysema, due to the dust that they may inhale as well as the radioactive inert gas radon, which is released when the ore is mined and crushed. Through the mining of uranium, not only are we damaging the environment, eroding cultural heritage at the same time; we are putting the health of workers and inhabitants in the area at risk.

In particular at Mulga Rock there are concerns that I have heard from the traditional owners that the dust will fall into the plants that kangaroos and other animals eat and which are eaten, in fact, by the traditional owners in that area. If this weren't bad enough, some of the shareholders from ERA were pushing for the company to reopen more uranium mines, particularly the one at Ranger. This, again, is against the wishes of traditional owners, who were opposed to the Ranger mine way back then, 40 years ago, and they are opposed to any further mines now. One of the shareholders was quoted as saying, 'It is in the best interests of all shareholders to give the Mirarr and the Northern Territory Land Council about 10 per cent of ERA and give them a seat on the board.' What is truly in the best interests of the Mirarr is ERA respecting their opposition to the destruction of their land and simply going off into the sunset.

Cultural heritage is not something that you can put a price tag on. The sheer arrogance of whitefellas telling First Nations people what is best for us will never cease to amaze me. I've been very pleased to see these proposals shut down.

Of course, the Greens want Ranger to be rehabilitated. We acknowledge that the unique legislative framework that Ranger sits under has some of the best rehabilitation standards in the country. They are arguably better than the EPBC Act, although that does more to show how inadequate our current environmental act is than show how good those standards are. We acknowledge that the unique legislative framework currently allows ERA access to the site until 2026 and that these changes are necessary to allow them more access to the land to complete rehabilitation beyond that time.

This bill was referred to the Economics Committee—and I want to acknowledge the work of the Acting Deputy President today, Senator Walsh, in her role as the chair—and a hearing was held in October, which I participated in, where we heard from various stakeholders, most notably ERA and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, who represent the traditional owners. I, along with others, was pleased to hear about the level of involvement of traditional owners in the rehabilitation, including consultation for this bill and committee memberships relating to the rehabilitation but also extending to the procurement of contracts and ensuring the rehabilitation will support the post-closure land use requirements, allowing traditional owners to reconnect to their country a connection that has been disrupted because of this mine.

It is paramount that traditional owners are deeply involved in every process of the rehabilitation of our own land, because we know the land. We know where things should be—trees, waterholes, grasses. We hold this knowledge, and it is passed down from our ancestors. It is our land, after all. This land will need to be managed for a long time, due to the potential radiation risks. This management will likely continue long after the companies have left, but these communities are the ones who will remain. It is these families who have lived there throughout the lifespan of the mine and will continue to be there long after. These are the people who need to be deeply entrenched in the rehabilitation process and should also be benefiting from it economically.

There have been issues raised about the cost of the rehabilitation, which is more than double what was originally estimated. Rehabilitation costs are currently sitting between $1.6 billion and $2.2 billion. This price tag could make Ranger the biggest rehabilitation exercise in the history of Australian mining. Ranger not being rehabilitated is in fact not an option. We cannot afford to have this mine abandoned or for ERA to pass this debt onto the government after profiting from this mine for 40 years. The rehabilitation of a mine is equally important as, if not more than, mining itself, and it must be treated as such. It should be the first part of an approval process of all mining licences in this country. Rio Tinto owns 86 per cent of ERA. Rio Tinto's annual profit in 2020-21 was $53.538 billion, so a price tag of $2.2 billion for rehabilitation is just a drop in the ocean for them. They've stated that they are committed to funding the rehabilitation of Ranger should ERA fail to do so, although we heard at the inquiry into this bill that there's no binding agreement between ERA and Rio Tinto that will require Rio to step in should that need arise.

The Greens support this bill, which will ultimately give the Mirarr their land back. But we hold some serious concerns about the funding of this rehabilitation, and I look forward to working with the government to ensure that companies are held responsible to clean up the mess they create.

I'll start by thanking senators for their contributions and for their support of the Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022, which contains important amendments to the Atomic Energy Act 1953. These amendments put in place a number of measures important for securing the rehabilitation and eventual closure of the Ranger Uranium Mine in the Northern Territory. This is a goal shared by government, the mine's operator and the traditional owners. Amendments will ensure Energy Resources Australia, ERA, Ranger's longstanding operator, remains authorised to conduct approved rehabilitation and monitoring activities at Ranger for as long as it is needed and for ERA to demonstrate it has achieved the high standards of environmental rehabilitation that have long applied to the site. I'm glad that the bill enjoys bipartisan support and was recommended by the Economics Legislation Committee to pass. I know all those in the chamber recognise Ranger rehabilitation as a priority and look forward to Ranger becoming a world-class example of mine rehabilitation.

In concluding, I wish to thank the ERA, the Northern Land Council and the Mirarr people for their close engagement on this bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

 Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022; Third Reading Atomic Energy Amendment (Mine Rehabilitation and Closure) Bill 2022

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022; Second Reading Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022

Our veterans are important. Their service was important, and parliamentarians in both houses in this place and on both sides recognise the contribution they have made. That is why the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022 is important and that is why the opposition will be supporting this bill.

This bill provides an increase to the totally and permanently incapacitated payment that is given to our veterans by $38.46, which will increase it to $1,595.66 per fortnight. That provides an annual increase of around $1,000, which is not much in the scheme of things and not much when you consider the service our veterans have provided. The bill achieves this by amending the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to increase the rate of pension payable to TPI veterans. It will make the payment comparable to the national minimum wage and make it only just greater than the after-tax payment of the minimum wage that an earner would receive.

As we know, the TPI is a payment that is provided to veterans for life, unless their circumstances are deemed to have changed. It is not taxable and it is not included in a means test for other income support payments. It was formally called the disability compensation payment at the special rate and is offered when a veteran's injuries from war or service are assessed under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 as preventing them from having a normal work life. And it's the least we can afford these people, who put their hand up to serve in the defence of our nation and our way of life. It is paid to those who have been injured through that service, and, as I said, it's the least we can do.

When you consider an extra $1,000 a year, given the current cost-of-living increases and the pressures that people are facing, the rises in grocery bills, rents, mortgages and, as we have all seen, power prices—and the absolute disbandment of the new government to deliver on their $275 decrease to those power bills. As soon as they got into government, they ran away from that as fast as Usain Bolt runs. They disbanded that promise and walked away from it.

So this $1,000 increase to the TPI payments will barely touch the sides. Hopefully it will help our veterans meet rising daily living costs. TPI veterans also receive the veteran gold card, which provides cover for all their clinically required treatment of medical conditions, and this increase to the TPI payments will not impact on that at all. While we know that the wheels of government can turn slowly, I thank the government for bringing this bill into this place in time so that the legislation can be enacted to start the payments from 1 January 2023. It is an important process.

There are around 27,000 TPI recipients across Australia. While we're moving this bill today, we know there is so much more we can and need to do to assist our whole veteran community. Over the years there have been many inquiries and reports. Most recently, we've had the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and they recently delivered an interim report which went through all of those past inquiries. They noted the considerable number of reports and the multiple recommendations that have been made across several governments—from both sides. The commissioners identified over 50 reports, with more than 750 recommendations. While they acknowledge that many of the reports and inquiries were about discreet topics, they were dismayed to learn the limited ways that governments from all sides have responded to the recommendations of these inquiries. So we know we have to do better, and, when the veterans royal commission currently underway reports, I hope that all sides look at those recommendations very seriously to consider how best to implement the recommendations to ensure we do better by our veterans.

We know that when our veterans transition out of the Defence Force they often feel isolated. They often feel that they've lost their purpose. There are bodies and agencies out there for support—the Returned & Services League and Soldier On, amongst others—and I met with another organisation the other day, which is quite a young organisation in the scheme of things: Disaster Relief Australia, founded in 2016. It's very topical at this point in time as we're seeing such devastating flood crises across the eastern seaboard, particularly in New South Wales. Disaster Relief Australia works with veterans who volunteer their time to be deployed, to use the military term, into a disaster-hit area, where they use the skills that they learnt through the Defence Force and help coordinate relief and response, working with communities, bringing everyone together and managing logistics.

Disaster Relief Australia have found that, for many of the veterans they work with, this is giving them back that sense of purpose. It is having a really good outcome amongst the veteran population that they work with, not because they're going out and saying to veterans, 'How can we help you?' but because they're going to veterans and saying, 'How can you help others?' That is what our Defence Force personnel are so good at doing. They sign up not to get something for themselves but to do something for others. That is why it is such an important thing. And we need to look at other ways we can support our veterans to give them back that sense of purpose and to give them back that sense of community that we provide.

We know that veterans who've been medically discharged, who've been found to be totally and permanently incapacitated, often struggle the most because they entered the Defence Force fit, healthy and robust—you've got to pass a medical the enter the Defence Force—and they came out the other side with a TPI label. For many of them, that's devastating. Many of them depend on these payments to put food on the table and to meet the costs of their daily living expenses. We do need to ensure that those payments keep up with the cost of living. We need to ensure that our TPI veterans are not left behind and that they know that we in this parliament and in this chamber value their service. On average one Australian veteran commits suicide every two weeks, and that is a statistic that should not be happening in a country that claims to value the contribution and sacrifice made by defence members and veterans and the sacrifice their families have made.

As I said, this bill will deliver an annual $1,000 extra to our TPI recipients, but that is only a tiny gesture in recognition of the value of those veterans. It is a small step in showing that they are valued and that they will not be forgotten. The opposition supported this bill through the House of Representatives and we support it in this chamber. I thank the government for ensuring this bill will be passed in time to start these payments from January 2023 to give our TPI veterans recognition and some financial security and certainty moving forward.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we'll be supporting the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022. But we do so with significant reservations. This bill will introduce amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act to implement what the government said they would do with disability compensation payments. The government made an election commitment for a modest increase in TPIs, and I'd have to say that this is largely fulfilling the modest nature of that commitment. This bill will increase the rate of the disability compensation payment at the special rate, often referred to as the TPI or totally and permanently incapacitated payment, payable under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Because those payments are legislatively linked, the amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act provisions will also increase the temporary special rate under that act and the special rate disability pension payable under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

What is that increase going to be? Well, the increase that the government has committed to is a total payment of $1,000 over the year, which equates to $38.46 a fortnight, or, to really understand how modest this payment is, it equates to a bit less than $2.75 a day—not even a cup of coffee. That's the commitment that the government has brought to this chamber. We know that there are approximately 27,000 veterans who are struggling on the TPI payment. When you look at the entire TPI payment, plus all the very modest additional payments for energy supplements and the like, veterans who have been totally and permanently incapacitated because of injuries received during their service for the country are being asked to survive on less than $1,600 a fortnight, so less than $800 a week. With this payment, it will just touch $800 a week. For most veterans, given the cost of living in Australia, that is effectively a lifetime of poverty. That's what veterans get under the TPI: effectively a lifetime of poverty.

When the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee looked into this in 2021, they got submission after submission from veterans saying: 'Hang on! We served for the country. We put ourselves out to serve for the country, sometimes for decades, and we've been thrown on the scrapheap, with a TPI payment that barely keeps a roof above our heads, let alone keeping the power on or giving us access to the internet.' Although the quantum wasn't agreed, in 2021 the recommendation was that the government consider increasing the TPI payment. There wasn't agreement among the committee about how much that should be, but I'm pretty sure that if we went back and looked at the submissions and read the evidence, and if we spoke to veterans, we could all agree in this chamber that $2.75 a day is not enough; that committing veterans to a lifetime of poverty is the wrong policy call from this government. I know that there are competing priorities for government expenditure, but this total package is probably $20 million or less this year—maybe a little bit more next year. We're talking tiny amounts of money in the government's budget.

We see how veterans are valued in the priorities of this government and the priorities of the previous government. I want to make this clear: we're six months into this government, and at least we're getting an increase in the TPI. It's not much of an increase, it's embarrassingly small, but at least it's happening. So I'm going to give the minister and his office credit for achieving that. If you have a look at what happens to veterans on TPI, you'll see they are pretty much the only recipients of benefits that have gone backwards over the last seven years. They have fallen below the cost of living over the last seven years. They went backwards under the coalition government.

Often you see the coalition wanting to wrap themselves in khaki and say how much they care about the military and how much they love the defence forces. Let's have a look at what they delivered. They delivered to veterans falling real TPI benefits—less at the end of the coalition's term than they were at the beginning of the coalition's term. So let's have a look at all of those pictures of Dutton and others wrapped in khaki, standing beside the ADF—

Senator Shoebridge, if you're going to refer to someone from the other chamber, please use their appropriate title.

Let's have a look at the former coalition leadership team wrapped in khaki, sitting on tanks, hanging around with Defence Force personnel and saying how much they care about the military, and then let's look at what they provided for veterans: falling payments and endemic poverty.

At least we've got some movement from this government, and I'm going to give the minister and his office credit for that. But you couldn't have a better definition of 'modest' than $2.75 a day. That is like the Oxford dictionary definition of 'bugger all'. That's what this bill delivers.

The inquiry said: increase the payment. The problem, of course, is that the inquiry was in 2021. We've had more than a year of veterans struggling to get by on a payment that pretty much the entire committee recognised was inadequate in 2021, and now the increase is only $2.75 a day. And that's being generous—that's rounding it up, by the way. That's the increase they get from the government. I can understand why veterans are saying: 'What about us? When is our turn really going to come?'

We saw the federal government, under the coalition's watch, spend $4 billion not getting French submarines. In the military space, the ADF space, the former coalition government spent $4,000 million to not get French submarines, and then 27,000 veterans on TPI got nothing—not one red cent. I think that really shows the priorities of the former coalition government.

What veterans get under the new Albanese Labor government is nothing like $4 billion; it may be $20 million a year for the next four years. They get $2.75 a day. They know, because they've seen it, that the same Commonwealth government has dropped $4 billion not getting French submarines, and they say: 'Hang on. Where's the priorities? Do we matter?'

We think that veterans should matter and we think that they should get a payment that is substantially more. I want to credit the veterans who have contacted my office and pointed out how they deserve better. In particular, communications with my office from the TPI Federation of Australia have shown us clearly how there has been that real decline in veterans' payments—over decades in fact. I will just quote from the correspondence that our office got: 'Recent increases of 30 per cent for petrol, 30 per cent for food, 38 per cent for insurance—house and car—will be greatly addressed by the two per cent this bill offers to TPIs. There are many TPIs who must now decide whether to buy their medication or food. If they choose their medication, they need to approach community food pantries to obtain their meagre food supplies.' That's what we're saying to veterans: choose food or medication.

This bill is not going to fix that choice. I know that veterans wanted us to move amendments to double it, and we were close to moving amendments to double it. But we were advised by the government that if we did that it would basically kill the bill, and veterans would have got nothing. Veterans should get at least double, but the reason we're going to support this bill is so that they end this year knowing they're going to get a tiny, modest increase starting on 1 January. We want that to happen and we're not going to delay that. But let's commit collectively to coming back next year and start by doubling it, and then to having a really serious look at the level of payment that veterans deserve and need in order not to have that lifetime of poverty. They served the country and it's about time that we returned that service with respect.

It's not often in this chamber that you have a National Party member endorse virtually everything a Greens member says, but I was ticking off my talking points through Senator Shoebridge's speech and shortening my speech on this Veteran's Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022.

As Senator Shoebridge said, there are roughly 27,000 Australians on the TPI, and they have given their all. They have given their health as well as giving their service. They have always deserved better and they will always deserve better. The reasons for not moving that amendment are understandable. We saw a previous vote in this place—on seniors being able to double their allowance for work without penalty—it got referred to the other place, came back and, to pass it, it had to be walked back on. So it's a good thing that this gets through now; it gives them something. But it is not enough. We saw under the last government a National Party minister effectively having to grandstand for $94 million to try to help veterans' processing. One thing this government has done is to resource this quite well, to try to reduce the backlog. Senator Shoebridge and I were talking with DVA—with Liz Cosson AM, the secretary of that department—about the process. We were talking about backlogs and all those sort of things, and about reducing to zero the overdue dates—there are massive, massive claims by veterans going back. We have to do more.

Why have these people not gotten what they deserve? It's because they're the quiet people. They served this country with pride, they're used to a chain of command and they don't want to be upset at what's going on so they effectively suffer in silence. It's a good thing this money is here. I note that the Tune report, which was referred to by Senator Shoebridge, put four options forward. Option 1 was no change to the TPI level and classification—it's great that wasn't taken up; that's gone. Option 2 was a one-off increase in the TPI payment, while maintaining non-economic-loss status. And there were other, bigger options.

I'm small fry on our side—I'm not in government—but I heartily endorse Senator Shoebridge's contribution. When we come back, let's look at what we can give these people to go on. As Senator Davey said in her speech, every two weeks a veteran commits suicide. This is a cohort of people who worked together as a team, and they still have a great sense of loyalty to each other. They trusted their lives in other people's hands. Through their entire career, we picked them up and moved them on postings, and they did this without concern. They lost family, they lost their contacts and they lost friends—and they lost everything if they lost their health and qualified for a TPI pension. If we aren't giving them the basics to survive then we need to look at ourselves as a country.

What happens when a person gets to the end? I have a constituent who has been contacting me over some time, and their situation is not a fault of the minister or the previous minister—it's because of the process. They are now at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on a claim that was initially approved and then taken back. When you talk to the people at DVA you see that they care, that they get it and that they want to do the right thing. This person has medical bills and they have had to hire someone at $100,000 a year to perform their role in their business. They are paying not only to get their health fixed but also for someone to do the job they could do.

We look at this $2.75, which is what I think you calculated. Why is it important to the Nats so much? Because the military is overrepresented by people who come from the regions, just like it was in the call-up for the wars. People from the regions are overrepresented in the military. They are willing and happy to do their work. The analysis of the Tune report showed that TPI veterans within the broader TPI veteran cohort may have less financial security because of their individual circumstances, and that other changes to the TPI payment would be beneficial.

We need to look after these people who have finished their career, have bad health and, honestly, have no future career prospects. They have sacrificed so much and are left with very little. We need to give them hope, if nothing else. This $2.75, or $1,000, is something. I thank the government. We will be supporting this going forward.

In everything we do let's always think of these people. We celebrate so many people in this country, but not this cohort of people who get on, do the right thing, stay quiet and don't protest. We don't get clicktivism or noise from them. They're not out the front of Parliament House, but they are there and they are deserving of this. I wholly support this bill.

I also rise to add my comments on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022. As others in this chamber have mentioned today, this bill sees the government implement the election commitment to increase the TPI payment and responds to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report that recommended an increase in this payment. The TPI is paid to severely disabled veterans who are unable to work and support themselves because of permanent injuries that resulted, as other senators in this place have mentioned, from their selfless service for this country. It is financial support that we provide to severely incapacitated veterans. It's the minimum that we in this place should do.

It's a modest increase. As my colleagues Senator Shoebridge and Senator Cadell referred to, it works out to be $2.75 a day. Veterans will get that increase in their pension. They have been struggling for a long time and are feeling cost-of-living pressures here in Australia, like everybody else right now. We will give them that modest increase of $2.75. I, on behalf of the Australian Greens—as Senator Shoebridge already said—congratulate the government, but it's not enough and we should be doing more.

My electorate office in Western Australia is contacted all of the time by Western Australian veterans, including some First Nations veterans as well. They call my office and they send me emails. They tell me in their emails and phone calls about their struggles with rising energy costs, expensive medical bills, lack of accessibility to mental health services and just having enough money, as Senator Shoebridge already said, so that they don't have to make a choice between medication and food. This is their story—feeding their families, paying their rent, getting from A to B, and putting petrol in the tank.

Also, during my time in WA Police, I heard stories from ex ADF personnel who had joined the local police force—and I worked beside them—about the compounding trauma that they experienced during their time serving this country and the compounding trauma that stays with them still. I also watch and observe the Soldiers & Sirens Facebook page and others where I still see stories. I see the lack of accessibility to the front-line support that we provide to our veterans.

Our veterans have been reaching out to politicians for years, in this country, and talking about the suffering that's happened to them, and their mates, and how nothing ever changes, no-one ever listens, and how this culture of turning a blind eye results in poorer mental health outcomes. As Senator Davey mentioned, it results, unfortunately, in suicides.

This bill provides that modest additional financial support in TPI for veterans and their families who already receive this payment and for other eligible veterans of the future. The increase to this payment means it will be comparable with the national minimum wage and more than the after-tax national minimum wage a wage-earner would receive. Do the Greens support this? Yes, we do. Do the Greens think it's enough? No, we don't. I'd like to see the representatives in this place who have no military experience live off a modest pension such as this and make some of those choices that our veterans are making today.

The sacrifices these veterans have made for us during their Defence Force service are worth more than the minimum wage in this country. These veterans and their families live with their sacrifices every single day. We can do more in this place. We can start by sharing the dark stories of war—sad and horrifying realities that veterans have faced in battles on foreign shores—the truth-telling about the torment of these experiences that veterans live with every single day.

My people are also part of this story. They served in wars for this country and were denied some of the fundamental human rights and basic decency and respect, in relation to their identity. They served in the Boer War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War all before they were recognised as citizens in this country. Let's not forget that their lives were also lost in the frontier wars that raged across this country. That's not the definition of 'veteran', unfortunately, so we barely acknowledge that. I have spoken directly to Assistant Minister Keogh, in the other place, and I want to congratulate him for some of his recent commitments, in relation to his work on this bill, in making sure that the wrongs of the past are righted. But we have a long way to go. We have a lot of work to do.

I want to say to ageing veterans: you are not forgotten. We are not going to forget that you deserve the recognition, the support, that we as politicians have the power to provide through change. For our current service men and women, we must show them that we can do better, when it comes to veterans' issues, and we must give them the platform for their voices to heard.

The Australian community has a clear expectation that defence personnel and veterans and their families are well looked after. This is an important task and responsibility of government, and a solemn commitment.

In summing up the debate on this Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022, I would like to thank the opposition and all of the others in this place for their support of it. This legislation demonstrates the Albanese Labor government's commitment to delivering a better future for our veterans and their families. It addresses the adequacy of support for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans—often referred to as TPI veterans and their families—and provides them greater financial support, to ultimately deliver a better future for them.

In April, the federal Labor team announced that the Labor government, if elected, would act on the recommendation of the Senate inquiry to increase the TPI payment by $1,000 a year. This bill today implements Labor's commitment by increasing the special rate of disability compensation payments for veterans. We're very glad that today we are receiving the support of senators to ensure that the TPI veterans are better off. This $1,000 a year increase to the special rate of disability pension, an increase of $38.46 per fortnight, is to ensure veterans and their families are better supported financially, helping them keep up with cost-of-living pressures.

It forms part of the recent federal budget, which is delivering on the Albanese Labor government's commitment to deliver responsible cost-of-living relief. The increase to the TPI payment means it will be comparable to the national minimum wage and, crucially, greater than the after-tax national minimum wage a wage earner would receive.

This initiative recognises the importance of supporting veterans who have been severely impacted by their experiences in the Australian Defence Force. The bill will achieve this by amending the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 to increase the rate of pension payable to TPI veterans. This government is committed to implementing practical support measures to better support defence personnel, veterans and their families. We are committed to ensuring that they get the support that they not only need but, more particularly, deserve. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022; Third Reading Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2022

No amendments to the bill 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 this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

 Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022; Second Reading Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

It's good to make a contribution to the debate on the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022. I state at the outset that the coalition strongly supports the government's commitment to expand the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. The amendments to the bill are an additional incentive for recruitment in expanding the ADF and meeting existing recruitment targets. As we know and would expect initiatives like this can directly contribute to retaining skills and talent within the ADF, which is, as everyone would agree, critical in the current geopolitical climate. The coalition supports measures that will reduce the cost of living for currently serving and former ADF members. One other benefit is the fact that measures like this can improve the health and wellbeing of ADF members, both past and present.

Going to the details of the bill and what it will do, the bill will amend the eligibility criteria for the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, which will improve access to home ownership for Australian Defence Force members earlier in their defence careers and allow veterans to access the scheme any time after completion. In particular, it will reduce the qualifying service period for initial access to the DHOAS and minimum service periods for each subsidy tier so that eligible members and veterans are entitled to receive higher levels of subsidy payments sooner. It will also remove the existing five-year post-separation time frame to access the scheme.

The bill will also make other minor amendments to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008: firstly, to create a power for the Secretary of Defence to declare that a subsidy-ceasing event did not occur if they are satisfied that all outstanding amounts due under a subsidised loan were not paid due to a genuine error, a mistake or an accident; and, secondly, to insert a recoverable payments mechanisms to address the risk of breaches of section 83 of the Constitution arising from payments purportedly made under the act in good faith in the bona fide administration of the act but not supported by the act.

Turning to the scheme, its background and history, the scheme was established in 2008 and provides eligible ADF members and veterans with a monthly subsidy payment on the interest portion of their mortgage payments for those who choose to purchase a home of their own to live in. The assistance is provided in response to the additional difficulties that ADF members, veterans and their families have in purchasing a home as a result of military service.

DHOAS sits within the portfolio responsibilities of the Department of Defence but is actually administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs on behalf of the Department of Defence. The Department of Veterans' Affairs was consulted extensively on the development of this bill, based on information provided by the government. It's a retention initiative aimed at encouraging members to continue serving in the ADF. The scheme provides, as I stated, an incentive for members to stay in the ADF. The longer you serve, the more entitlement you accrue and the longer you can receive assistance.

To be able to access DHOAS, you need to have served in the ADF within the last five years, completed a qualifying period of service and accrued a service credit. For permanent members, the qualifying period is four consecutive years of service. For reservists, however, it is eight consecutive years of effective reserve service of at least 20 paid days per financial year. For all members, if there is a break in service, there needs to be a commencement once again. Continuous full-time service can fast-track reservists' qualifying periods.

The assistance provided by the scheme is not tied to a home loan with a specific value. Eligible banks are the Australian Military Bank, Defence Bank and the NAB. Changes to the act that administers the scheme came into effect from 22 June 2020. The amendments extended the time frame for ADF members leaving the ADF to access their final scheme subsidy certificate from two to five years. Those changes also ensure that members who leave the ADF and rejoin within five years will retain all service credit accrued prior to their break in service.

I've already stated that the coalition strongly supports the government's commitment to expand this scheme, the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme. The coalition believe that, if young Australians are prepared to defend Australia, we should help them buy and establish a home. The amendments in this bill are an additional incentive for recruitment in expanding the ADF and meeting existing recruitment targets. Initiatives like this can directly contribute to retaining skills and talent within the ADF. Defence annual reports mention the conduct of surveys that identify DHOAS as a key factor in ADF retention, which is why these changes in this legislation from the government are so vitally important.

The coalition, of course—as you would expect of all parliamentarians in this place—supports measures that will reduce the cost of living for current serving and former ADF members. Measures like this, as I have already said, have an impact on the health and wellbeing of past and present ADF members. The ADF is currently facing significant challenges to recruit and retain its numbers and is, therefore, struggling to grow its workforce. So this bill, it's hoped, will improve the ADF's ability to recruit and retain. Housing and homeownership are critical factors that influence the health and welfare of ADF members and veterans.

Just in terms of some areas that were of concern to the coalition, there was at least perceived to be considerable risk that amendments in this bill may not achieve the intended outcomes being proposed. There's no statistical data that supports some of the presuppositions about the changes, but we will be watching quite closely the rollout of this scheme and the impact that it has.

With regard to increased separation rates, reducing the minimum service period for eligibility may well or could impact negatively on retention, with members separating once they reach the minimum eligibility criteria. The current minimum period of service for eligibility aligns with the initial minimum period of service and members' return of service obligations following their fully funded courses for recruitment, training and university education. Again, that's another matter we will be watching quite closely through the estimates process.

In terms of financial risk, there's a growing exponential cost associated with funding these amendments that runs into the forward estimates given the growth rate expected from amending and reducing the eligibility criteria. We have also expressed concern around the limited number of providers. It would be great to see that broadened out.

But, in broad terms, I think it's quite clear that this is a good piece of legislation. The coalition absolutely supports any measure that helps our Defence Force, its serving members past and present, to continue to make the contribution that they do with these added incentives and a degree of peace of mind around homeownership and the costs associated with it, particularly at a time when we are seeing mortgage interest rates increase to the extent they are. This will be welcome relief to current and past members of our ADF. On that basis, I've stated the coalition's position and I commend the bill.

I thank Senator Duniam for his contribution to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022. The bill demonstrates the commitment the Albanese Labor government made to boost homeownership for Defence members and veterans and to assist veterans transitioning from military to civilian life. As part of the government's election commitment, the bill will amend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme and expand access to it by providing Defence members with access to benefits earlier in their careers. The qualifying period will be reduced to two years for serving members and to four years for reservists.

The bill will also allow veterans to apply for their final subsidy certificate at any time after they have separated from the Australian Defence Force by removing the current five-year limitation. This will ensure veterans can access the scheme at a time that suits them, without feeling pressured to do so in a set period. These amendments will mean better outcomes for Defence members, veterans and their families, and will reinforce the government's commitment to retention in the Australian Defence Force, to homeownership for members and veterans, and to the wellbeing of members and veterans.

The bill will also help our Defence personnel and veterans with the cost-of-living pressures that all Australians are feeling with regard to housing, which are making it increasingly difficult to achieve the great Australian dream of homeownership. Labor created the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme, and now the Albanese Labor government is expanding it. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

 Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022; Third Reading Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Amendment Bill 2022

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

LL (—) (): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022; Second Reading Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

As with so many policy issues that we have seen since the change of government, regional and rural Australians are once again the forgotten people in this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. They've been thrown to the kerb. While the virtue signallers on the other side of the chamber clamber to make expensive cars cheaper so they can demonstrate their climate credentials, we have hundreds—possibly more—of families in rural areas at the present time with no car, no truck and no means of transport, and their roads are being absolutely shredded to pieces. Even when these floods go, buying any car will be a challenge for these people, who will have to face the clean-up costs and the repair bills in their struggle to get back to some semblance of normal life. How do you think those families in our flood effected areas, who are trying to save their homes and furniture, are going to feel when they hear the Albanese government is pushing hard to get legislation through, doing secret deals with the Greens to get legislation through, that gives people who can probably already afford it access to a discounted imported electric car? How do you think our local governments in those areas are going to feel when they realise the Albanese government is pushing hard to legislate to get more vehicles on our roads that contribute nothing to road maintenance, because electric vehicles don't pay the fuel excise?

This is a tax relief for electric vehicles which will undermine our general revenue. How are we going to repair our roads when the whole of Australia is driving around in electric vehicles, even though we don't have the infrastructure to support them yet? Once again, this is a government that has no idea what happens in the engine room of Australia, and, as its budget has demonstrated over and over again, it have no interest in supporting the regions, which are the engine room of our economy. It's just another example of disregard.

For the city dweller, electric cars are an easy way to get to the shops. If the car battery is running low, you can just plug it in. There are numerous recharging stations very close by. Or, as we've seen in the Daily Telegraph and other news, you just run an extension cord out your window to the kerb. Of course, the irony is that, especially here in the ACT—and I know Senator Pocock is very passionate about this bill as well—the ACT government boasts that they are 100 per cent renewable powered when the reality is that overnight, when the lights go out, they connect back to the grid, and all those people plugging their cars in overnight are actually plugging into coal fired power. But we won't let detail get in the way of good virtue signalling!

In our regional communities, however, there aren't endless recharging stations and a trip to the local shop isn't just a kilometre away; it's often many kilometres. If I want to get a bottle of milk, I've got a 36-kilometre one-way trip from my house, and there are no charging stations nearby. There will, hopefully, one day, be such infrastructure in regional Australia, but it's not today. So this discount car buying opportunity is of zero use to regional Australians. Not now, not yet.

Before those opposite start to accuse me and others on this side of not supporting net zero strategies or of being climate Luddites, let me remind you of the coalition's Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy. That plan recognised that progress must take all Australians along with it. All Australians need to be on the journey to net zero, not just the inner-city dwellers. It must be embraced in step with advances in technology to underpin the changes. There must be investment in the infrastructure across the nation to keep up with those advances. Our plan was well researched and well consulted and was intended to bring long-term benefits to all Australians.

The strategy detailed a technology-led approach to reducing transport emissions while ensuring Australians could drive their preferred type of vehicle, be it petrol, diesel, hydrogen, hybrid—which are now being demonised—or electric powered. The principles that underpinned our policy were to partner with the private sector to support uptake and stimulate co-investment into future fuels, focusing on reducing barriers to the rollout of future fuel technologies. That also was a focus on where infrastructure investment needed to be and expanding consumer choice by enabling informed choice and minimising costs of integration into the grid.

Debate interrupted.

 BUSINESS Leave of Absence

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Dodson for 25 November 2022 on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for 25 November 2022:

(a) Senators Hughes and Molan, for personal reasons; and

(b) Senator Ruston, for a parliamentary delegation.

Question agreed to.

 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Tasmania: Northern Cancer Support Centre

Not much else in this world is more chilling to hear than a cancer diagnosis. Cancer can feel like, and may well be, a death sentence. It can mean that the creature comforts of everyday life are ripped away instantly. That's despite the incredible advancements in modern medicine and treatment options ensuring that more and more people are survivors. However, the reality is that most people who receive a cancer diagnosis spend a lot of time in clinical settings such as hospitals, surgeries and emergency departments. Remember the last time you were in one of those settings, with the white walls and the incessant beeping of medical equipment? They may be necessary for medical treatment but are not conducive to rest.

The comforts of home can help relieve the stresses of treatment following a cancer diagnosis, and it's the comfort of home that Cancer Council Tasmania replicated at its Northern Cancer Support Centre, the first of its kind in Australia, which this year celebrates 10 years of operation. This is a remarkable milestone that deserves recognition, as do the many hundreds of volunteers who have been volunteering throughout that time. The centre provides around 1,500 sessions of support to its clients every year and was designed to be a homely space. It brings the comforts of home into a non-judgemental space, where clients and their families can rest and take stock of what they are enduring and what is to come next.

The Northern Cancer Support Centre offers a range of evidence based resources and also provides access to a wig library for those who are struggling emotionally with the loss of their hair during treatment. There are many reasons why the Northern Cancer Support Centre should be celebrated, but the most important reason is this: if you live in northern Tasmania and are going through your own cancer journey, you are always welcome at this Launceston based centre. It's more than a building; it's a community.

 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022

Thank you, Senator Askew, for that contribution. I know it's shared with senators on this side as well. We appreciate you addressing the Senate on that today. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 is designed to ensure that people in female dominated professions, like health care, aged care, disability support and the early childhood education sector, get the pay rise and support that they so desperately deserve. But it's these changes that those opposite in question time yesterday deemed radical and, in the other place, referred to as 'extreme'. It's very important for us to understand what is in this bill and how it will improve gender equality.

Those opposite call these changes radical, including gender equality and job security as objects of the act—and I don't see anything extreme or radical about that—and also limiting the use of fixed-term contracts to give genuine fixed-term arrangements. Again, I don't see how this is incredibly radical but that is the proposition being put by those opposite. This bill introduces a statutory equal remuneration principle. That's right: equal pay to close the gender pay gap. How crazy and extreme!

The bill also includes prohibiting pay secrecy clauses, something that we know has contributed to the gender pay gap for many, many years. The bill includes providing stronger access to flexible working arrangements, desperately needed by women returning to work. And the bill makes sure that we're providing stronger protections against workplace discrimination for the protected attributes of gender identity, intersex status and breastfeeding.

The bill also does this very important thing, which those opposite don't want to talk about. It implements recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work report—a report they let sit on a table—to prohibit sexual harassment at work. Well, if this is radical and extreme, it's for those on the opposite side to explain way.

 Youth Voice In Parliament Week

I'm delighted to have been asked to read out the speeches of several intelligent, passionate and articulate young people from Queensland as part of the Raise our Voice in Parliament campaign. Today I'm reading out a speech from Ella Sheahan. Ella says:

Hi, my name is Ella Sheahan. I'm 15 years old and a year 10 student at Earnshaw State College in the Lilley electorate in Brisbane.

Put yourself in the shoes, or rather the feathers, of a migratory shorebird where you've just battled gale force winds and rain flying 12,000 gruelling kilometres in search of a safe resting place and habitat only to return and find something horrific—a townhouse development.

This is the sad reality for many critically endangered birds, and we are watching the mass extinction unfold right in front of us, just one site being the much loved Toondah Harbour wetlands in Cleveland.

Why are we letting this happen to our ancient rainforest, bush and wetlands? Please answer the calls and crows of our wildlife and future generations. Australia's ecosystems are disappearing from the face of our Earth. Why don't we pull the parachute? There is no safety net below. In the time it has taken for me to read this speech alone, 50 football fields worth of precious forests have been flattened—destroyed; 20 hectares of uniquely biodiverse ecosystems—destroyed; 17,000 tons of carbon stores—destroyed.

We need to get to the root of the problem. You have all the power. You can be the Lorax who speaks for the trees and my generation. You can stop us all from toppling over the edge. It will take time, but together we can use our intellect to resurrect and redirect our future.

Thanks, Ella.

 Western Australia: Juvenile Detention

I rise to bring to the attention of the Senate a national disgrace in how our young people in Western Australia are being treated. Imagine if you were a parent of a 12-year-old boy and you saw footage of your son being sat on by three custodial officers with another five watching on? He is silently screaming because he is struggling to breathe. This is not 200 years ago; this was last month in Western Australia. This barbaric practice, called folding up, is a restraint position that is banned, I understand, by law enforcement globally because it risks suffocation and death. Unbelievably, it has been revealed through footage that the McGowan Labor government in Western Australia is allowing this practice and so many other inappropriate and quite frankly barbaric practices to be occurring on children in our detention system.

What is almost as shocking as the revelation of this practice is the cold and callous response of our Premier, saying the system was actually 'working well'. There is no doubt that these children are incredibly challenging to manage. But, it is not only barbaric but it is counter-productive to treat any child in this way. It is no way to treat them, and it is certainly no way to rehabilitate them. Even former Labor Premier Carmen Lawrence has said that Mark McGowan's response was 'tone deaf' and it was 'insubstantial'.

There is another way. There are far more humane and far more effective ways to manage these destructive behaviours through behaviour support. These practices, done well, largely eliminate the need for physical and chemical restraint practices. They are humane and they work, and we must treat our children differently in Western Australia.

 Ukraine

I was pleased to meet this week with the Ambassador of Ukraine to Australia, His Excellency Vasyl Myroshnychenko, to receive an update about the situation in Ukraine. As chair and former deputy chair of the Ukraine-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, I've had many contacts with the ambassador since his appointment. I will just say that my husband has family in Ukraine so the situation with the war in Ukraine is particularly personal to me. The recent liberation of Kherson, as reported in the media, is a major setback for Russia's illegal efforts to invade and occupy Ukraine. While Ukraine has now recaptured around 50 per cent of the territory previously held by Russia, Kherson is of particular strategic importance as a Black Sea port and the gateway to Crimea.

I'm proud that Australia has contributed to this effort. On 27 October, Prime Minister Albanese announced that, in addition to the support Australia has already provided, we will send 70 ADF personnel to the United Kingdom as part of the UK's efforts to train Ukraine's armed forces. Australia has also committed a further 30 Bushmaster protected mobility vehicles to Ukraine, bringing the total number of gifted Bushmasters to 90. In financial terms, this brings Australia's total assistance to $655 million, including $475 million in military assistance. We are the largest non-NATO contributor to Ukraine since the invasion began. Our contribution to Ukraine's self defence is vital to upholding the global rules based order. It sends a strong signal that we will not tolerate the invasion of a democratic sovereign nation.

The combination of targeted sanctions against Russia and Belarus, global military assistance to Ukraine and the fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people have all been key to making Russia's invasion a monumental failure.

 Aged Care

We have seen the horror stories about sludge on a plate—meals you wouldn't even feed to your dog. This is the food being fed to our elderly and vulnerable in aged-care facilities—to our parents and grandparents. There's no way they're getting the nutritional value they need from those meals. The royal commission into aged care said that up to 50 per cent of residents were suffering malnutrition. For our elderly population, malnutrition can lead to more falls and a higher risk of infections and disease. To put it in a nutshell: for some people, malnutrition can be a death sentence. Since the royal commission, a lot of residential facilities have upped their game; they're preparing better meals. But a lot of them aren't. There are still residents being fed on less than $10 a day. Aged-care homes were given extra money to fix this. Some of them pocketed it and kept on feeding the residents sludge. That's not good enough. It's time to have someone who is independent take a look at this.

We could send a dietician in to look at what food the home is feeding to people. The dietician would make sure residents are getting all the nutrients and good stuff that they need from the meals. A dietician could also assess residents at least once a year for malnutrition—just like a check-up from the doctor. They would make sure that the residents were healthy and, if they weren't healthy, they could refer them to someone to get help.

We've made a lot of progress in aged care since the royal commission, but we still have a long way to go. The residents of these homes have worked hard all their lives, just to end up in a facility that doesn't even feed them properly. I hope that if I'm in a home one day that I'm in a facility that will give me the decency and the respect to feed me a proper meal.

 Youth Voice in Parliament Week

I rise to speak on behalf of Harrison Mather, a 17-year-old school senior and proud resident of Moncrieff in Queensland. He says:

What is democracy without integrity? Integrity is the core foundation of trust between the elected and the electors. A lack of integrity erodes the trust in our democratic institutions, and in the very principles our great nation was founded upon.

Public trust in our government is at an all-time low and falling. 85% of Australians believe federal politics is plagued with corruption (The Australia Institute). Whether or not this is the case, this level of public distrust is a critical issue which directly threatens our democracy and which must be resolved.

Parliamentary integrity should not be an oxymoron, but an assurance to the country. Australia needs an anti-corruption watchdog. We need a federal ICAC.

We're fortunate enough that the vast majority of our public servants are sincere and hard-working politicians, who have dedicated their lives to serving this country. Nonetheless, a federal ICAC would serve to protect integrity, preserve public trust and to weed out the small number of corrupt politicians.

I speak for myself, my friends and if not all young Australians when I say, we want to have faith in our governments. We want to have faith in our politicians. We want integrity to be reflected in the actions of our nation's leaders, not merely their words.

We need a federal ICAC.

I rise today to read a speech written for the Raise Your Voice campaign by Gabrielle Colloff, a young retail worker and proud member of her union and my union, the SDA. Thank you, Gabrielle, for writing this important speech about what our new parliament should accomplish and for your work in supporting your colleagues as a union delegate.

Here are Gabrielle's words:

Retail workers are essential workers. The fact is, retail workers are the backbone of our economy. Australia must step up and protect the people who are our front line, the workers who keep the nation running, before it's too late.

Too many retail and fast-food workers are being abused at work, verbally and/or physically. Enough is enough. Everyone has the right to a safe work environment.

As challenges continue to unravel after the pandemic, now is the time for our society and economy, as well as our government and businesses, to show retail workers that they are a valued part of our nation.

In order to rebuild our society, the government must invest in maintaining and nurturing our workers, thus creating a safe work environment free from abuse.

Unions are only a small step towards achieving this, so it is vital for the government to continue supporting its workers. We must give them the respect they deserve.

Retail workers have always been essential, but now it is impossible to ignore. Time after time, retail workers are not being considered; instead, they are being taken for granted.

Doesn't the health and wellbeing of 1.5 million retail workers deserve attention, Australia?

Retail workers consistently face job insecurity, staff shortages and customer abuse.

It's time, Australia, to stop saying retail workers are essential and start treating them as essential.

I thank Gabrielle for her words and her advocacy. It has been an absolute privilege to bring her voice into the Senate today.

 Youth Voice in Parliament Week, Defence Equipment

Today I will be sharing a speech written by 15-year-old Angelina as part of the Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign, a campaign that gives young female and non-binary people from all backgrounds the opportunity to have their stories heard on the national stage. This is what Angelina writes:

Many of you in this room are connected to a young person in your life. Whether it would be a niece or nephew, son or daughter, or perhaps grandson or granddaughter, if you're lucky. Regardless, we were all once narrow visioned in this fathomless world. In other words, we were all young.

I am forever grateful that our politicians have believed that our youth could grant insight on what we should achieve as our nation's future leaders. With that said, there is an ongoing issue plaguing our younger demographic, the growth in incarceration rates and criminal behaviour. Like the faith you've had for me and millions of other youngsters, I implore you to also share this with incarcerated youth. By throwing them into prisons, we push further the untrue narrative that they can never improve. Especially at the ages where the brain is still in development, we must take the initiative to correct this behaviour, before it merges with their temperament. We must not punish them and abandon what my fester into resentment. Instead, with a positive attitude, we must reinforce proper behaviour and build rapport with them. This approach will reduce the current rate of recidivism of 54 per cent within 12 months. Just as we would not disown our child for misbehaving, our nation must not leave behind any person who is a part of our future.

Thanks so much, Angelina.

The answer to war is not more war. The answer to escalating militarism is not nuclear bombers stationed here. The stationing of B52 nuclear-capable bombers in the Northern Territory is a dangerous escalation and it must be opposed. No one needs nuclear-capable bombers, least of all this country. It makes Australia an even bigger part of the global nuclear weapons threat to all of humanity—our very existence. They should have no place, no safe harbour in our country.

 Tourism Industry: First Nations

During the pandemic, many of us used this opportunity to explore our own backyards, get out bush or go up the coast. Some people may or may not know just how many of our tourism businesses are owned and operated by First Nations people. It is a relatively small part of the Australian tourism sector, but a vitally important part for our mob.

Employment for First Nations people in the tourism sector provides an opportunity for mob to stay on country and earn an income by maintaining and sharing their culture and traditions. First Nations cultural tourism can provide an important source of income, particularly in regional and remote areas where other job opportunities are limited. It has been found that the number of international tourists taking part in First Nations cultural tourism activities is increasing, which is welcomed. Often, there's a joke that Australia has no culture, but as First Nations people, we do. We have a very rich cultural heritage that spans across the whole country, with art, song, dance, stories, scientific knowledge, food, traditions and law. In most cases, First Nations communities welcome the chance to share this incredible knowledge, as it has been passed down for thousands of years. We are the oldest continuing culture in the world.

As the tourism sector recovers from COVID lockdowns and border closures, First Nations tourism ventures need to be given support as Australia markets itself as a place to travel to. The government must genuinely include and promote First Nations owned and operated tourism ventures. Further, I urge travellers to ensure that, when they go out bush, onto the coast or anywhere in this country, they know whose land they are actually on, and make sure that they make an effort to learn about the community's unique culture and stories. Support First Nations local businesses and participate in First Nations cultural tourism activities.

Lastly, the State of the environment report said that poorly managed tourism was one of the factors putting cultural heritage at risk. We need to do better and protect our precious places, sacred sites and unique landscapes.

 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022 Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022

I rise to speak in relation to the government's proposed industrial relations bill, which I think represents a great threat to businesses—small and medium-sized businesses in particular—in my home state of Queensland. Yesterday there were questions asked in this place about how, in the regulatory impact statement, the government came to the view that small and medium-sized businesses would be able to get a consultant to help them through this industrial relations maze at $175 an hour. The government has produced this regulatory impact statement in terms of the impact of this bill on small businesses and medium-sized businesses. It has assumed that, for $175 an hour, you can get a consultant to help you go through this maze that you've been compelled to go through.

Numerous sources were quoted, but I did something obvious. I actually rang a small business that provides these services. How astounding! I actually rang someone who provides these services. Do you know what they told me their services cost? A junior associate costs $350 an hour—twice as much as the assumption contained in the government's regulatory impact statement. $350 an hour. Multiply the cost on small and medium-sized businesses by a factor of two. If you want to get someone more senior—if you're up against a Senator Tony Sheldon in his previous life, a Senator Tim Ayres in his previous life or a Senator Raff Ciccone in his previous life—you're looking at between $400 and $500 an hour. This bill needs scrutiny. It needs more time. This Senate needs time to do its job. I call upon the government to get this legislation right.

 Energy

I've just come from a presentation by Dr Jordan Peterson. He's done a lot of work exposing the Left's infestation of the West's education systems, as well as defending free speech and championing open and honest dialogue about difficult subjects. It was wonderful to hear someone other than myself—I feel like I just talk to blank walls all the time in this place—trying to get the message across about ordinary people out there. He's right in what he's saying because he travels the world.

Here we are trying to deal with climate change, yet we're allowing people in this country and across the world to live in absolute poverty. They are hanging on by their fingernails and dropping off the edge because the main thing is that they cannot afford cheap energy. Cheap energy drives everything. Yet we have governments that have constantly put in place systems that are driving up the cost of power and causing the loss of jobs. That's the main factor. You're worrying about saving the planet at the expense of people living in poverty and not being able to have a decent life. The whole fact is that you have 20 million people a year who die due to the air that they breathe in. These people living in poverty without electricity are actually dying because of the dung they burn in their fires. You're not dealing with that, because you couldn't care less about it. You're all worried about saving the planet.

Here we have the Labor Party, which is all about the working class people, but they prefer to see them in poverty and heading down this path. Do you know what it's all about? People need to start growing up. They need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, make decisions and not be led by those who will fill their heads with garbage and rubbish. That is happening in our education system with the indoctrination of children, which I spoke about and covered in my bill. Get out of telling people how to live their lives. People need to grow up, get a backbone and stand up for themselves.

 Workplace Relations

On Wednesday last week, Deliveroo abruptly shut down its Australian operations, leaving around 15,000 riders out of work, with no warning. For the thousands of riders who had relied on Deliveroo for income, there was little consolation in the company's announcement that it would compensate them with two weeks pay but not actually deliver the payment for at least a month. There's also no guarantee that riders will receive what they were already owed, as their claims are ranked low in the hierarchy of the company's administration. Deliveroo's complete abandonment of its workforce is symptomatic of a deeper problem with the gig economy. Gig workers are treated as individual business entities and, as a result, are denied all the basic pay and conditions which Australian workers have fought for generations to achieve. The evasion of employment obligations underpins the business model of many gig platforms, not just Deliveroo.

Currently, I have an intern in my office from ANU, Kesh Karupiah, who has written a wonderful research report about the gig economy and the regulation that Australia desperately needs. His research report highlights the sheer scale of the problem. In 2020, Australia's gig workforce was estimated to be as large as 250,000 workers, outnumbering the workforce in industries like media and communications and mining. On top of that, the gig workforce is overrepresented with young people, migrants and disabled people. Research tells us that these are groups with particularly limited knowledge about their rights and how to defend them, making them very vulnerable to the predatory and ruthless practices of gig platforms. It is essential that gig workers receive the same minimum pay and conditions as other employees. All kinds of workers should be on an equal footing.

We look forward to Labor introducing industrial relations legislation to plug this significant regulatory gap that's currently working to entrench an already vulnerable workforce.

 Defence Personnel

In March this year, the former government announced that the Australian Defence Force would be grown by 18,500 uniformed personnel by 2040. This investment is an important step in increasing our country's security, particularly considering the changing situation in the Indo-Pacific region and in eastern Europe.

This growth, however, cannot occur without retaining the people that we currently have. With separation rates climbing, we are approaching a retention crisis in our defence force. Defence workers are expected to carry gaps in staffing, becoming overworked and leading to burnout, frustration and disillusionment in the work being done. Even the smallest of improvements can change a workplace. The Chief of Air Force recently announced that men would now be able to grow a beard—something that I've done recently. The collective joy of Air Force personnel was palpable, as was the collective envy of the Army. The ADF Employment Offer Modernisation Program is offering extra incentives and flexibility to entice defence members to extend their service. Retention is a complex issue so it would be so important to listen to those with the boots on the ground, to iron out the frustrations that some feel, and to continue to make our defence personnel feel valued. We need to invest in the people that we have as a first step in growing our defence force to ensure the future safety of our nation.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge the assistance with the preparation of these remarks by Sergeant Jennifer Singleton of the Royal Australian Army. It has been my privilege to have her in my office this week as part of the ADF exchange program. Sergeant Singleton is attached to the Headquarters of the Special Operations Command, based here in Canberra. I thank Sergeant Singleton.

 Youth Voice in Parliament Week

As part of the Raise Our Voice program Youth Voice in Parliament Week, I would like to use my time to amplify the voice of a young woman from Canberra, Grace Eveille, and read a speech she has written:

My name is Grace I am 20 years old, and I would like Australia's new parliament to achieve and focus on equality in the workplace.

I chose a career pathway and studied to become an early childhood educator because I am passionate about early childhood education.

Knowing I am teaching young children is a steppingstone for children to become whom they want to be, to help their pathway into primary school education and far beyond...

Our industry is fraught with challenges, staff retention is one of the biggest.

To put it simply—our pay rate is one of the lowest in this country.

Whilst we look after your precious children to give them the best start in life we barely can afford to live.

Rising costs of living are scary as a young independent adult living out of home who wants to just make a go at life and living with Type 1 Diabetes, a serious chronic illness, means very little change at the end of the week..

However, I am forever thankful to the Albanese Government and the support from my local MP Alicia Payne for supporting JDRF Australia's Access For All campaign and funding CGM access for everybody.

This technology is and will be life-changing and lifesaving for so many.

(Time expired)

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. I refer the minister to two statements the department put out on Tuesday night saying they did not actually rely on the website of a modern-day spiritual healer when calculating the cost of a bargaining consultant. Is it just an amazing coincidence that the figure of $175 an hour that his department uses in the report is the figure mentioned on the modern-day spiritual healer's website which the department provides as a reference in the regulatory impact statement? Will the minister take responsibility for this appalling error?

Thank you, Senator Duniam.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators, I don't want to repeat of the shouting that we had yesterday. The question has been asked. I'm going to call the minister in a moment, and I expect him to be heard in respectful silence.

Thank you, Senator Duniam, for the question. Well, another day, and we have the opposition continuing to clutch at straws to find any reason possible to stop workers in this country from getting a pay rise. They will do anything to stop talking about workers getting a pay rise. They will do anything to stop small businesses and medium-sized businesses being able to participate in a system that exists under their current legislation to deliver pay rises for their workers, a more simple industrial relations system and higher productivity for small businesses.

A point of order, President, on relevance: the question was pretty clear, around the source of the information and whether the minister would take responsibility, not the—

Thank you, Senator Duniam. I will draw the minister to the question.

As I say, this is a continuation of what we saw yesterday from the opposition, trying to find any possible reason, whether it be websites or people—consultants. What this is actually about is one of the false claims that the opposition has been making this week, which is their claim that it will cost small businesses $14,000 to participate in multi-employer bargaining, and medium-sized employers will pay even more. Now, you'll be surprised to hear that that's actually wrong.

The way the laws are structured allows for small businesses to have access to the cooperative workplaces stream, so that, if a small business wants to go and engage a consultant, whoever that might be, to assist them with their results, then that's a matter for them. But what I think you will find is that most small businesses are members of chambers of commerce, are members of industry associations, who would actually go and do the negotiations on their behalf. And then a small business would have the option of choosing to be part of that or not. Of course, if their workers would like to be part of that, then the majority of those workers have to go through a process to support that option. They also have to go to the Fair Work Commission to get approval to do so. So this idea—

A point of order on relevance, again, Madam President: this business round—everything other than the answer we asked for.

Thank you, Senator Duniam. I will draw the minister back to the question, and I would ask those on my left to listen—

in silence, thank you, Senator McKenzie!

So, as I say, what the opposition is saying is just plain wrong, and I'll keep telling you why. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm waiting. You have a senator on his feet.

It's unbelievable. But ACCI, in terms of chambers, released information yesterday showing the cost of a bargaining consultant is actually closer to $438, rather than $175, the figure it uses in its data, making costs for small businesses higher than $20,000. Is the minister going to ask his department to fix the regulatory impact statement, or does the minister stand by the calculation of the modern-day spiritual healer he references in his report?

I'm not going to call the minister until there's silence. And those interjections are disorderly, Senator Ayres.

I understand that this has given the opposition a lot of amusement this week, but we don't think it's amusing that, for 10 years, workers have had to get by without a pay rise.

It's in your RIS!

We don't think it's an amusing situation—

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I have asked for silence. The minute the minister got to his feet you were shouting louder than the minister who has a microphone. I ask again for there to be silence so that we can all hear the minister's answer. Minister Watt.

I haven't seen that report from ACCI, but, if they are putting that sort of information out then they are wrong and they are misleading their members—

They're wrong! Murray knows best.

They're wrong!

Because what ACCI and the opposition should know is that small businesses will have access to the cooperative workplaces—

Minister Watt, resume your seat. I asked at the start of question time for there not to be a repeat of the disorder that was in the chamber yesterday during question time and immediately we have the disorder back again. I'm going to ask for about the fourth time for members on my left in particular to listen to the answers in silence. Minister Watt.

ACCI should know, because—

Yes, they should!

they've been involved in these discussions, that small businesses will have access to the cooperative workplaces stream.

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, you immediately started shouting again after I had asked for silence. I ask for silence and some respect for the rulings of the chair. Minister Watt.

In fact, ACCI is one of the organisations that will have every ability under this legislation to prepare a template agreement for all small businesses to opt into under the cooperative workplaces stream. So are ACCI telling us that they oppose a wage rise—shock, horror; ACCI have always supported pay rises, haven't they? Are they also saying that they're not prepared to play their role as an employer group to design a template agreement that small businesses can sign up to? That would be a very interesting offer to their members.

Senator Duniam, a supplementary question?

Slamming ACCI—a great way to go. Will the minister put out a new RIS—

On a point of order, Senator Wong?

That's debate; that's not the question. Can you please call them to the question?

Senator Duniam, I called you for your second supplementary.

I refer to the minister's characterisation in the negative of ACCI in his last answer. Will the government put out a new RIS fixing their calculations—

Senator Duniam, Senator Wong is on her feet.

I again have a point of order. That is commentary. If he wants to give a speech, he can do so later.

There are a plethora of people, but I'm going to take your point of order, Senator Birmingham.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sorry, Senator Birmingham, but not until your side is quiet.

Opposition senators interjecting—

You have your leader on his feet. Senator Birmingham.

On the point of order from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, it would make a mockery of the concept of supplementary questions if a senator were not able to commence a supplementary question by referring directly to what the minister just said in the preceding answer. So Senator Wong's point of order has no basis.

Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat.

It's nothing to do with the question.

His answer had nothing to do with the question.

Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham! I note that it has been the custom in this place for senators from all over the parliament to make comments leading into their first and second supplementary questions. If we're going to call it to order, it's an order for everyone. Senator Duniam, your second supplementary question?

Thank you for your ruling, President. Having made that point twice, will the government put out a new RIS fixing their calculations and referencing errors with the spiritual healer, or does the minister contend the RIS is right?

I'll tell you what's right about the RIS. I'd like to read from the RIS. It says:

The significant benefits of being covered by an enterprise agreement and the costs that may be associated with remaining covered by a Modern Award outweigh the additional cost for businesses to engage with the new multi-enterprise bargaining streams.

You forgot to read that bit of the RIS, didn't you? You forgot to read the bit that says that businesses—

Senator Watt, please resume your seat.

Did a spiritual healer write this?

This is embarrassing, Murray.

Minister Watt, please continue.

Senator Duniam also forgot to read the bit of the RIS that says:

Businesses are often covered by multiple Modern Awards which can be complicated and difficult to interpret. An enterprise agreement enables an employer to have one industrial instrument which applies to a business which simplifies their workplace relations arrangements.

Wouldn't it be a terrible thing to have an industrial relations system which provides a simple method for small businesses to participate in an agreement that is—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Once again, order. This is question time. If you wish to make a contribution, there are plenty of other times to make the contribution throughout the week. The question has been asked. I've called the minister to answer it and I expect him to be heard in silence.

Thank you, President. It is interesting that the opposition chooses to cherrypick from the RIS but leaves out all the bits that talk about the benefits to business, the benefits to workers, the benefits to the economy, of pursuing this. And we make no apologies for doing things to give workers a pay rise and small business— (Time expired)

Domestic and Family Violence

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November, and the 16 days of activism that follow, can the minister update the Senate on the importance of addressing gender based violence?

I thank Senator Bilyk for the question and for raising this matter today. Tomorrow is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which is an important day for us to acknowledge one of the widespread human rights abuses that exist worldwide. This day also commences the 16 days of activism.

We mark this day as part of a global call to action to end violence against women. Worldwide, one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner. This is even higher when including sexual harassment. This statistic is mirrored by the Australian experience, where one in three women have experienced violence by an intimate partner, one woman dies every 10 days in Australia at the hands of her former or current partner, and one in two women in Australia have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. First Nations women are 11 times more likely to be killed due to experiencing family violence than non-Indigenous women and are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of this violence. We know that this violence is compounded for women from some backgrounds who also experience other forms of discrimination, like ableism, homophobia and racism. It doesn't just have a human cost. It also costs the economy, at $26 billion a year, half of which is borne by the victims themselves.

This violence against women and children is not inevitable, and we can and must take action to end it. It's why we're working with states and territories on a collective goal—to end violence against women and children in a generation—through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 that was released on the 17 October this year and agreed by the Commonwealth states and territories. Together, we can take action to achieve an Australia and a world where all women and girls live free from fear and violence.

Senator Bilyk, a first supplementary question?

Thank you, Minister, for that response. Can you outline for us what the Albanese government is doing to address gender based violence?

Thanks, Senator Bilyk, for the supplementary. The government is already taking action to support the national plan. There is $1.7 billion of investment through the recent budget to support initiatives under the national plan, including funding for consent and respectful relationships education and 500 frontline service and community workers to support women and children experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence. That was a policy designed and advocated for by my colleague Senator McAllister in the previous term of parliament.

We've also introduced paid family and domestic violence leave. We're implementing the recommendations, all of them, from the Respect@Work report, including legislating a positive duty on employers to provide workplaces free of harassment. We're investing $1.6 billion from the returns of the Housing Australia Future Fund, including to support women escaping DV and older women at risk of homelessness. We're also developing a standalone First Nations national plan for family safety under the leadership of Minister Burney and Minister Rishworth. (Time expired)

Senator Bilyk, a second supplementary question?

Minister, can you outline what role we all have to play in achieving an Australia free from gender based violence?

Thank you, Senator Bilyk. While we are proud to be investing record Commonwealth funding to end gender based violence, we know we cannot end it and do it alone.

The National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children provides a blueprint for our collective action and outlines the shared role we all have to play in ending violence against women. It's a joint initiative. The national plan also highlights that everyone must play a role in ending this violence, across government, communities, workplaces, sporting organisations, business and the media. If we all pull in the same direction and pull together, change is possible.

I put on the record my support and respect for all of the advocates who've been working year after year, day after day, to end violence against women and children and to make sure that the issue of ending violence against women and children is never off the national agenda.

 Workplace Relations

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The tourism industry directly employed over 666,000 Australians in the June quarter of this year, many of them being small-business operators. Under Labor's extreme IR changes, could a cafe on the Mornington Peninsula employing 20 staff be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a large hotel in the Mornington Peninsula due to them being in the same industry and the same geographical location?

I just have a point of order. I have not intervened, given the political contest here—

It's a point of order. I'm making a point of order.

Senator Henderson, I've called Senator Wong on a point of order.

She's called me.

Resume your seat. Excuse me! Senator Henderson, I'm the President. I've called Senator Wong to her feet. She's making the point of order, and you're interjecting. Senator Wong.

Thank you. The point of order goes to whether the question is in order given where the bill is. I have not intervened to date because I understand that the policy and politics of the issue is in the matter that the Senate has historically questioned and continues to question, even when legislation is before the Senate, notwithstanding the standing orders. I may have misheard Senator Henderson, but I thought she directly went to the legislation, in which case I would assert it is out of order in the current terms. But the way I would deal with it—because I understand the issue, Senator Birmingham—is that, if that is the case, I would invite her to rephrase.

President, just before you rule on the point of order, I do note that, on Tuesday of this week, the government themselves asked a question related to this legislation. I further note that you and previous Presidents have ruled broadly in relation to these questions about anticipation of Senate business, and I would encourage you to uphold your ruling and previous rulings about that breadth of questioning that is available to senators.

I'll take some advice, Senator Birmingham, because I thought the question was not confined to Senator Farrell's area, but I'll take advice. In relation to the point of order, I'm advised that, if the question went generally to policy issues, then it would be reasonable to ask Senator Farrell to answer it. But the question, in my view, did go to details, because it sought a comparison under an aspect of the proposed bill that related one type of business to another type of business. I can invite Senator Farrell to answer the broad policy nature of that question.

Sorry, Senator Henderson; I've got Senator Wong on her feet, and then I'll come to you.

I will simply say: we would give leave to rephrase, rather than going to Senator Farrell, if that is convenient to the opposition.

The advice from Senator Wong is that she is perfectly fine if you wish to rephrase the question rather than it going to Senator Farrell, because it does go to detail.

Senator Farrell, how would these changes impact on a cafe on the Mornington Peninsula employing 20 staff compared with a large hotel on the Mornington Peninsula, with respect to multi-employer bargaining, due to these two businesses being in the same industry and geographical location? I'm asking specifically in relation to the tourism industry.

I do believe, Senator Henderson, that that is the same question simply reframed. I have Senator Wong on her feet on a point of order.

I was going to say the same.

Okay, thank you. Senator Birmingham.

I would contest that, in terms of the way in which rulings on these matters have been held previously, it has been clear, and Odgers' states, that the rule concerning anticipation is not interpreted narrowly. If it were, it would block questions on a wide variety of subjects. Indeed, none other than former senator John Faulkner argued previously about the broad interpretation taken in relation to this. The senator's question relates to policies and reforms of the government. She's asking about those policies, reforms and changes. She has not referenced specific legislation either in her first go at the question or in her rewording of the question.

In response to the Leader of the Opposition, I think that the difficulty here is that the senator repeated precisely the words, 'these changes', to which I responded. It's clearly the case that 'these changes' mean the legislation which is before the chamber. As such, I would submit that the question needs to be rephrased to be compliant with standing order 73.

I am going to rule. I will seek further advice after question time, Senator Birmingham—

Senator Henderson, I'm speaking. Please resume your seat. I will come to you. As I said in my first answer, if the question is around the broad policy, it's at the invitation of Senator Farrell to answer. I remain with that response, but I am happy to take further advice after question time. Senator Henderson, did you have a point of order?

I was going to ask if I could be given an opportunity to rephrase in line with your further clarification.

Yes, that's perfectly fine.

Senator Farrell, in light of the government's extreme IR policies, could a cafe on the Mornington Peninsula employing 20 staff be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a large hotel in the Mornington Peninsula due to them being in the same industry and geographical location?

I thank Senator Henderson for her question. I totally reject your description of this legislation as 'extreme'. The Labor Party went to the last election saying we were going to lift the wages of Australians and, in particular, low-paid Australians—and that's what this legislation does.

If I were a small business operating a cafe or, for that matter, a hotel in the Mornington Peninsula, I would be delighted with this legislation because I would know that for the first time in 10 years low-paid workers will have an opportunity to lift their wages. We know from what the former Leader of the Government in the Senate said that low wages were a design feature of the Liberal Party's policy. A design feature of the Labor Party's policy is lifting the wages—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson.

I rise on a point of order, on direct relevance. I was asking the minister to answer the question in relation to the two businesses: could they be compelled into multi-employer bargaining? Could the minister please directly address that.

Thank you. Minister Wong.

On the point of order, the question actually put a hypothetical, which also was not in order, but, given what we'd already gone through to try and get to a question previously, I didn't take a point of order on that. But it would be unsurprising if the minister answered in slightly broader terms, given you've put a hypothetical to him.

Thank you, Senator Henderson. I'll remind Minister Farrell of the question. I note that he started down that path but probably got distracted by the disorder in the chamber. Minister Farrell, please direct yourself to the question.

If I were an operator in the tourism industry in the Mornington Peninsula—I'm regrettably not; it would be a lovely place to be operating—I would be saying to all of our community: what's going to help tourism in my community? That's going to be more people coming out and coming into my cafe and coming into my hotel. And how is that going to occur? By lifting the wages of all the people in that community. As we lift the wages of those—

Who's paying for this? The small businesses?

Senator Cash, I know you don't accept these fundamental— (Time expired)

Senator Henderson, first supplementary?

Minister, I take your answer to mean that these businesses could be compelled to bargain together. I ask: under Labor's extreme IR policies, could a local winery employing 20 staff on the Bellarine Peninsula be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a local pub in Port Arlington, Victoria, due to being in the same industry and geographical location?

Point of order: I remember there is a standing order that prevents hypothetical questions. Both of these questions have been hypothetical questions—as in, 'would this' or 'would that' are hypothetical in nature. I know the wage cutters over there don't like being held to standing orders but—

Order! Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham, on the same point of order?

Same point of order: Australian businesses only wish that Labor's policies were hypothetical! The sad reality is that—

Senator Birmingham, that is not a point of order. Resume your seat. On a point of order, Senator Gallagher?

Same point of order: if you look at standing order 73(1)(g) around rules for questions, it's very clear that questions that contain hypothetical matter are not in order.

Standing order 73(1)(g) does go to hypotheticals, but the question that Senator Henderson asked was around policy, and I'm going to allow the question. Senator Henderson, I am not sure if you finished your question. I think you were midway through when you were sat down. Can you ask the question again? I'm going to reset the clock.

As I was saying, Minister, I take your answer to mean that these businesses could be compelled to bargain together. I ask: under Labor's extreme IR policies, could a local winery employing 20 staff on the Bellarine Peninsula, where I live, be compelled into multi-employer bargaining alongside a local pub in Port Arlington, Victoria, due to being in the same industry and geographical location?

I thank Senator Henderson for her supplementary question. I totally reject you putting words into my mouth. I'm happy if you quote what I say as my answer: I reject the words that you were trying to put into my mouth.

I also fundamentally reject your suggestion that this legislation is extreme. This is not extreme legislation. We told the Australian people in the last election, and that includes all of the tourism operators—

Point of order on direct relevance: I asked the minister about the compulsion between two businesses, whether they will be compelled to engage in multi-employer bargaining. Could the minister address the question?

Senator Henderson, you also made a political statement before that question, and I do believe the minister is being relevant. Minister, please continue.

When you were in government, you totally let down the tourism industry in this country. For you to now— (Time expired)

Senator Henderson, a second supplementary question?

After two years of COVID impacting Australia's tourism industry, when the former coalition government did so much for the tourism industry—an industry now suffering labour shortages—why is the Labor government bringing in extreme IR laws which employers, including tourism operators in Victoria, have said will make it harder for them to employ people?

I thank Senator Henderson for her second supplementary question. Are you kidding? Are you kidding me? What your government did—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I have a senator on her feet.

I'm not kidding. I'm very serious. But on a point of order I will ask that the minister direct his comments through the chair.

I remind the minister of the question.

I will direct my comments to the chair, but I will also direct them to all of those people over there who totally let down the tourism industry in this country. We're finally starting the rebuild of the tourism industry. Whether it's a cafe on the Bellarine Peninsula or a hotel on the Bellarine Peninsula, we are lifting their wages and starting the rebuild. You left this industry for dead. You cut JobKeeper when you should have kept it going, you kicked out—

Opposition senators interjecting—

You were giving it to all your big mates. You were giving it to your mates when you should have been giving it— (Time expired)

 Waste Management and Recycling

My question is to Senator McAllister, representing the Minister for the Environment and Water. In recent weeks Australians were shocked and bloody angry when news broke—

Senator McAllister is an assistant minister. Do you wish to redirect? Assistant ministers don't take questions. I'm happy to go to Senator Pratt and come back to you if you want?

No, I'll just make my question more broad. My question is to the senator representing the Minister for the Environment and Water.

Senator, I don't know who that is, so you need to be direct.

I don't either, actually. Given Senator Farrell was on a rare roll and a moment of animation, I might direct it to him. I actually don't know, President.

I'll take it.

Senator Wong, thank you. In recent weeks, Australians were shocked and bloody angry when news broke that the soft-plastics recovery scheme run by Redcycle had collapsed, with billions of tons of plastic packaging being stored in warehouses rather than being recycled. Australians who were doing the right thing and taking plastic packaging back to supermarkets where it was purchased, rightly had expectations that big business and government would live up to their end of the bargain and see these plastics, which are so commonly found and dangerous in our oceans, recycled. Minister Plibersek expressed frustration at the news, saying, 'It shouldn't be beyond big companies like Coles and Woolworths to come up with a viable solution to soft-plastic recycling.' Senator, why is it seemingly beyond these big businesses to sort out their mess, and what is your government now planning to do to hold them to account?

I thank you for the question. I acknowledge there are quite a lot of representing ministers here, so I understand the mistake that was made. We share your frustration and the frustration of Australians with what has occurred in the soft-plastics recycling sector. I know that, in our household and in many households, people who have done the right thing, put soft plastics together in a big bag and taken them down to the local supermarket in the hope of actually reducing the amount of soft plastic in the environment were very, very disappointed by the news of the financial position the industry was in but also the lack of results.

I was asked the question: why is it beyond big business? Well, I guess you'd have to ask them. What I can say is that it's clear the regulatory settings that were in place and the incentives that were in place, whether they were government or market driven, were insufficient for that sector to work.

We know that there is not just environmental but economic benefit in recycling, as opposed to landfill. Knowing Ms Plibersek as I do and knowing her determination, as Minister for the Environment and Water, to take action on this, I have no doubt she will look very carefully at what the best way forward is. This is an issue where I would say to the industry that Australians are clear in terms of their behaviours—what they want to do—and it would be a good thing if the market could respond to that incentive, which is that people want to do the right thing.

Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary?

The environment department has said multiple times in estimates that it will likely know by the end of this year whether Australia will meet our 2025 packaging waste reduction and recycling targets facilitated by the big-business led Australian Packaging Covenant. Well, it's the end of the year, Minister, and this is a significant matter of public interest, as you just mentioned. Can the government now provide to the Senate and the Australian people an update on whether we will meet our 2025 packaging targets?

Well, firstly, the senator was critical of the targets. What I understand is that we're a long way from meeting them. The note I have in front of me—and I'll confirm this—is that the target of 70 per cent of plastic packaging was set for 2025, and Australia has been stuck at 16 per cent for four years. I don't know if that's going to be worsened by the subsequent industry collapse, or challenges, that you've described.

Clearly, nine years of a coalition government who didn't want to do anything on this has meant we're a long way behind.

Oh, what? We banned—

Senator Henderson, I'd like you to explain to us, then, why, if you set a target for 70 per cent and announced it, we're still stuck at 16 per cent. The problem with the coalition is that they seem to think that if you announce something it magically happens. Well, transitions and policy take a bit more work than that.

Senator Whish-Wilson, second supplementary?

It sounds like yet another failed plastic waste reduction and recycling scheme, based on what you've said. So I suppose my question is: what is it going to take for your government to accept that, after 25 years of repeated failure to reduce plastic packaging waste, a voluntary approach that relies on the goodwill of big business to do the right thing doesn't work and you now need to regulate the packaging industry and give actual consequences for failure?

Senator Whish-Wilson, I come from the state of South Australia. You might remember the arguments over what I think was called container deposit legislation. We ended up going it alone, and, frankly, it proved to be the right response.

Could I just go through what I understand to be what we have done in the six months we've been in office. There's a $250 million investment in infrastructure to sort, process and re-manufacture materials, including $60 million in the recent budget for hard-to-recycle plastics, such as soft plastics. The minister has added plastics from medical waste, mattresses and tyres to the minister's priority list. Listing these products is a signal to industry to act, and, if not, then obviously government can. In October, Minister Plibersek led the environment ministers' agreement to reform the regulation of packaging by 2025.

Obviously, there is more work to do, but we understand how important this is not just for the environment but actually for Australians.

 Housing

nator PRATT (—) (): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Senator Farrell. Can the minister explain how regional Australia is benefiting from the Albanese's government's housing agenda?

I thank Senator Pratt for her question—a very important question, and it's pleasing to see some sensible policy questions being asked here today.

We know that far too many Australians are struggling to buy a home, and that Australians living in regional areas have faced some of the largest drops in housing affordability, making it increasingly hard for locals to save a sufficient deposit. After almost a decade of inaction, the Albanese government is finally showing national leadership to help get more regional Australians into their first home. The Albanese government acted to deliver on our commitment to establish the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee by October, three months earlier than promised. Ten thousand places will be available each financial year through the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee to support regional first homebuyers to purchase new or existing homes with a deposit of as little as five per cent.

To be eligible for the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, applicants must be Australian citizens, must purchase outside a capital city and must demonstrate that they have been living in the region in which they're purchasing the property for at least 12 months. The regional guarantee is part of the Albanese government's ambitious housing reform agenda to support people into home ownership and to improve the supply and the quality of social and affordable housing.

Senator Pratt, a first supplementary question.

Can the minister provide an update on the number of Australians who have accessed the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee to date?

I thank Senator Pratt for her genuine interest in this issue. The Albanese government has of course hit the ground running on housing, and is delivering immediate action with the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. Since being launched early on 1 October this year, over 1,000 regional Australians have been assisted into—

Oh, 1,000?

Yes, 1,000 have been assisted into home ownership by this guarantee. I recently saw the story of Abbey and Corhan and their baby, McKinnon, who live in Townsville. They had the opportunity to access this program, and now expect that by Christmas they will be moving into their new home. (Time expired)

Senator Pratt, a second supplementary question.

Can the minister explain how this program supports the Albanese government's broader housing agenda?

Thank you, Senator Pratt. As a matter of fact, I can explain that to you. It's a very sensible question. Alongside the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee, the Albanese government will deliver the National Housing Accord and will deliver the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.

We have unlocked $575 million in funding from the National Housing Infrastructure Facility. The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council will provide independent advice to the government, we will have a national housing and homeless plan and we will implement the help-to-buy scheme. All of our housing policies are targeted to ensure that more Australians have a safe place to call home, including the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee. (Time expired)

 Tasmania: Health Care

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The government has budgeted for national urgent care clinics, with three promised to be established in Tasmania. Is the government going to honour that promise?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for her question and her interest in health and health services in Tasmania. The urgent care clinics are a new model of care which we committed to in the election, and Senator Tyrrell is correct to say that there were three committed to in locations in Tasmania as part of that campaign. The commitments were in Burney, Launceston and Hobart. I understand the Premier of Tasmania has requested that the Burney clinic be in Devonport or the Latrobe region, which was agreed to as well. The very short answer to your question is: yes, they will be delivered. We are working with states and territories on finalising the model, and we'll go through that work, but the money was provided in the budget to deliver on the commitment we made, which was 50 urgent care clinics. Subsequent to making that commitment, New South Wales and Victoria have supplemented and provided funding, I think in the order of $100 million, for clinics in their states, and so we've added in some money on top of the original commitment to work with them to get the model right.

It is an exciting model. I know that here in the ACT it's a different model, but we had nurse-led walk-in centres which provided a bit of the gap between emergency departments and out-of-hours care, particularly for those not needing to head to the hospital. They've been very popular with the local community here, and we think that model can be built upon, but obviously with general practice as key participants.

We will deliver it. We're working with states and territories to refine the model and of course working with general practice across the country to make sure it aligns with their priorities as well.

Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary question?

Given the serious shortages of GPs and nursing staff in Tasmania, how are we going to ensure that these three clinics will be fully staffed and resourced?

Working with the relevant state is a really important part of that, so working on workforce more broadly in the area of health care, which is why I think what works in New South Wales and Victoria will assist in the rollout of the clinics nationally and how that can complement state workforce with what they're doing with what primary care needs. You're right, urgent care clinics on their own are not going to solve some of the issues because of the issues in remote and rural parts of the country. That's why it has to be part of the other commitments we've made, like the investment in the strengthening Medicare fund, where we've got the task force in place working with primary care, essentially rebuilding primary care, which is under so much strain. We're looking at the role delineation within primary care, so nurse practitioners and the work they do, and the announcement around meeting the HECS debts for health practitioners to work in the region is also part of it. (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary question?

A serious question now: when are we going to get them?

We've committed to them over the first term. In fact, we've profiled the money in this financial year, so the intention is to get them up and running as soon as possible. Working with the jurisdictions and with primary care, it might be that there are different starts in different jurisdictions as they get rolled out. We completely understand that this support needs to flow, but it's not something the federal government can do on its own. The money is there; it's profiled in that first year. We're going to work in partnership with those jurisdictions that want us to. And obviously those other investments, like the one to support staff that I talked about starting January this year, the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, is in place. And the grants going to GPs—the $220 million worth of grants to help them accommodate their workload—is also funded in the budget.

 Victoria: Suburban Rail Loop

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office says the Suburban Rail Loop would cost $36.5 billion for stage 1 and $125 billion for the full project. At Senate estimates on 28 October infrastructure department officials gave evidence the funding available for the Suburban Rail Loop included:

$11 billion from the state; $11 billion through some kind of value capture … and $2.2 billion from the Commonwealth.

The announced funding adds up to only $25 billion. In the Australian Financial Review today, Premier Andrews is quoted saying the Suburban Rail Loop is 'fully funded and under way'. Minister, what advice other than the Australian Financial Review has the Victorian government provided that the Suburban Rail Loop is fully funded?

A point of order on this—

That was word salad!

I don't think that's a point of order, Senator Ayres! I might have misheard, but it seemed to me the question does not go to a ministerial portfolio. A question about the state government's sources of advice and how the state government came to a position is not a matter for a Commonwealth minister.

On the point of order: Senator Van directly quoted evidence from departmental officials at Senate estimates. The question goes to assurances given to the Commonwealth. This is a government that has decided to give $2.2 billion to a project.

What's the point of order?

It's perfectly reasonable to ask with this project whether, in giving that budget commitment, they're aware if its fully funded or not.

Senator Watt can answer that question to the extent that it covers his Commonwealth responsibilities, bearing in mind that the question referenced the Victorian budget office and the AFR.

We may need Senator Smith to run his eye over some of those questions to make sure they comply with standing orders, something that we know he takes very seriously. The Suburban Rail Loop is a once-in-a-generation infrastructure project. We're doing something that the former government never chose to do, which is to honour election commitments. Remember that funny, old tradition of honouring your election commitments? I know that it didn't happen under you mob, but we actually take these things seriously. We went to the people with an election commitment to spend—

Honourable senators interjecting—

I ask those particularly on my left to listen to the answer in silence.

We went to the election with a very clear commitment to spend $2.2 billion towards early works for the Suburban Rail Loop East. That was on the back of the fact that the Victorian government had prepared a detailed business and investment case for the Suburban Rail Loop, which was released last year and demonstrated a cost-benefit ratio of up to 1.7, meaning—

A point of order on relevance: Senator Watt is simply reading out the talking points that he has read out all week.

That is not a point of order.

Let's get straight to the point of order, Senator McKenzie.

On relevance: the question went to quoting Senate estimates evidence at the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, where departmental officials listed how much the government has actually put on the table in its budget for this project, which is directly contradicted by the Premier of Victoria.

The question went to the rail project and estimates, and the minister is being relevant. Please continue, Minister.

I know that the opposition chooses to ignore this, but we have repeatedly made the point that the business case provided by the Victorian government demonstrates a benefit cost ratio of up to 1.7, which means that $1.70 would be returned for every $1 invested.

It's interesting that the opposition is so hung up on projects, involvement with state governments and things like that, because it wasn't that long ago that former Prime Minister Turnbull—someone I know they all choose to forget and pretend was never a member of their party—announced that the Commonwealth would commit $5 billion to the Melbourne Airport rail link project without even speaking to the Victorian Premier first. In March this year, the coalition announced a $1.6 billion commitment for the direct rail line from Brisbane to the Sunshine Coast, which the Queensland government described as a bit of a surprise, and the money appeared plucked out of the sky. Again, if we're seriously going to be relying on the Liberal and National parties to lecture people about the appropriate spending of public money, we're going to have to be waiting a fair while.

Senator Van, a first supplementary question?

Minister, has the Victorian government provided any evidence or assurance to the Albanese government that Premier Andrews's controversial Suburban Rail Loop is fully funded?

I have every confidence in the Victorian government's commitment to build—

So there's no evidence that it's fully funded?

Is it fully funded?

That's five seconds.

Minister, please resume your seat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left! I have a senator on his feet. Senator Van?

A point of order on relevance: I didn't ask about your assurances; I asked about evidence.

With respect, the minister was about five seconds into his answer, so we'll listen.

Things must be pretty grave in the Victorian campaign if Senator Van is the person who is being turned to to rescue the Liberal Party in Victoria. As I said, I have every confidence that the Victorian government will—

Senator Watt, please resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on my left and right! Senator Henderson?

That was a really inappropriate reflection on a senator in this place, and I ask the minister to withdraw that comment.

I don't believe it was a personal reflection, but, if it assists the Senate, I'm sure Minister Watt will withdraw.

I withdraw.

You should withdraw from the room!

I know it's hard to hear facts. I know it's hard to hear about governments that actually do things by the book. I know it's hard to hear about governments that invest based on business cases. Remember all those business cases that didn't exist?

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, your incessant interjections are incredibly disorderly. Minister Watt.

Here's a business case that's been provided by the Liberal Party and the National Party. I don't think it can be a prop, because it's a blank piece of paper. I'm not sure that that constitutes a prop. That's the extent of the business cases that we used to see from the Liberal and the National parties when it came to investing in projects. In contrast, the Victorian government has put forward a business case, which demonstrates this is a good project, and we have every intention of getting behind it.

Senator Van, a second supplementary question?

Minister, if the Victorian Premier is saying the Suburban Rail Loop project is fully funded, can the minister advise the Senate how much each government is contributing, and will the government provide a commitment that no additional Commonwealth dollars will be provided to the project?

Senator Van knows full well, and I have already said, that our government has committed $2.2 billion towards this project. We know that the Victorian government has committed funding of its own. We know that this is a project that will take some time to complete. You know why it will take some time to complete? It's because the former government didn't want to invest in public transport infrastructure. So now we're getting on with the job of actually investing in this. It will take until 2035 to complete the project, and that will require future budget decisions.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. I'm asking you to listen quietly, particularly senators on my left. Minister Watt, please resume.

It's not fully funded, is it?

Senator McKenzie, I've just asked for quiet, and you immediately interject again.

As I said, we know that for 10 years we had a government in Canberra that didn't want to invest in public transport infrastructure. That has changed. We now have an Albanese Labor government that is prepared to get behind big infrastructure projects that will help with public transport and relieve congestion.

Senator McGrath! Senator Sterle, on a point of order?

If he's still going, President, I'll wait.

As I was saying, we're getting behind public transport infrastructure in Melbourne. Remember it was the last government that pulled out the funding for Cross River Rail in Brisbane as well. They didn't want to see public transport infrastructure there.

You were the finance minister. You could've got behind this, and you didn't do it.

A point of order on misleading the Senate, the Albanese government didn't even fund the Great Ocean Road when they were last in government.

Senator Henderson, as I explained yesterday, there are many opportunities throughout the week in the Senate to debate points. That's a debating point.

It must hurt the opposition, especially those Victorians who fought tooth and nail against this project, but we're going to get this project done, because we want to relieve congestion in Melbourne, just like we want to relieve it in Brisbane and Sydney—

and even provincial cities, Senator McKenzie. (Time expired)

 Workplace Relations

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Albanese government has committed to getting wages moving with its workplace relations policies, which will provide Australians with job security, gender equity and sustainable wage growth, after a decade of neglect by the Liberals and Nationals. Can the minister please outline the benefits of these policies to both Australian workers and businesses. Why is it important to get wages moving?

Thank you, Senator Sterle, another one of our comrades over there who has spent a lot of time for working people right across the country. We are unapologetic standing up for working people in this country. I was hoping we'd end the week on a question from the government about our industrial relations reforms.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I would ask those again on my left to stop with the shouting out. It is not a football match; it is question time. You are all being incredibly disorderly.

As I was saying, I'm very happy that we're ending the week of question time speaking about the government's important industrial relations policies, which are all about helping people get a decent pay rise, because if there's one thing that drives this government, it's our ambition to deliver a decent pay rise for working Australians, and there are some pretty simple reasons why that is—not just because Australian workers both need and deserve a pay rise but also because good, sustainable wage growth is good for our economy. Our policies provide workers on low and middle incomes facing the pressure of inflation and interest rates with a way to also get pay rises, and the best way to do this is by encouraging more agreements to be made and stopping the race to the bottom on wages.

But Australia's bargaining system has not worked effectively for a very long time—in fact, I would say for about 10 years. Only 15 per cent of employees are covered by an in-term agreement, and we want to make more agreements that benefit both employers and workers, rather than continue the conflict that we've seen over the last 10 years. Agreements allow trade-offs and provide a more simple and tailored set of conditions than the award, which benefits small business. To give one example of how this benefits small business, Jane has been an early childhood educator for 40 years. She's now the director of an early childhood education centre in Melbourne. She is incredibly passionate about her job, but it has been a tough industry to dedicate her life to. As the director of her centre she has faced constant struggles with staffing shortages, due to low wages and conditions in the sector. Jane and her sector, along with workers in 70 other sectors in Victoria, now benefit from being part of a multi-employer agreement, and not only have they won wages up to 18 per cent above the award; they've also won more things, like planning and professional development— (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, first supplementary?

Can the minister outline how some of the commentary around the government's workplace relations policies is just plain wrong?

I'd love nothing more than to point out how some of the commentary about our policies is just plain wrong. For nearly 10 years, wages were kept low as a deliberate design feature of the previous government's management of the economy, and the scare campaigns being run now by those with vested interests are good media fodder but are completely unfounded. Let's fact-check some of the claims that have been made over the last couple of weeks by the coalition and some of their supporters. First of all they say there'll be coast-to-coast strikes, ignoring the fact that nothing in relation to the system for industrial action at all will change compared to the system that was under the former government, except for the fact that there will now be a requirement for conciliation first—an additional requirement before industrial action occurs.

Claims are being made that we'll see pattern bargaining. Again, there are no changes compared to the legislation that existed under the former government. There are claims that businesses will be roped in to industrywide agreements—plain wrong, and Senator Brockman got skewered on that yesterday. The fact is that an employer can choose to be part of multi-employer bargaining— (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, second supplementary.

Can the minister outline to the chamber the safeguards and benefits of the government's policies for small and medium-sized businesses?

I would love to do that, Senator Sterle, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to the chamber about that. The Albanese Labor government's reforms and policies make bargaining more accessible for small and medium-sized businesses. It has been designed specifically to support those who are new to enterprise bargaining or are less equipped to navigate it. Small businesses often don't have the benefit of an HR department and can often be shut out of the benefits of enterprise bargaining that many medium- and larger-sized businesses enjoy. For those small businesses who do wish to bargain together, the cooperative bargaining stream is an attractive option as it's voluntary and they can opt in to the stream at any time.

You're going to cost them more!

Isn't it ironic that the party of choice and individual choice over there doesn't want to give small businesses the choice to opt in to cooperative bargaining. They're all for choice except when it gives small businesses the choice—

No way, really?

Let's send in the thugs to run the HR of small businesses!

Senator McGrath, exercise some self-control, please, along with Senator Henderson.

And even when a small business has employees who do want to have multi-employer bargaining, before that can occur it needs the majority of employees to agree and it needs the Fair Work Commission to find that there are common interests amongst those employers. This is good for workers and it's good for— (Time expired)

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice today.

I look around and I see an Australia that's getting smarter and smarter, an Australian that's getting tired of getting talked down to and controlled. Why is this? Union membership is heading to an all-time low. According to ABS statistics, just 14 per cent of employees were trade union members, and we're well down on the 40 per cent of employees who were trade union members back in the 1990s. Although those opposite want to take our industrial relations laws back to the Hawke Keating years, we do not live in the Hawke-Keating years, Senator Ayres. Despite this, the Labor Party is intent on pursuing an industrial relations policy that lives in a fantasy land where everyone is beholden to a union, and that's what those opposite want. They want to take Australia backwards.

Don't get me wrong, we on this side of the chamber want changes to Australia's industrial relations system. To quote the Leader of the Opposition in parliament:

We all have a genuine desire to improve our industrial relations system. What we don't want is a system of control that those opposite want—a system that wants to control workers, to control where they can work, control what they can earn, control their lives inside and outside the workplace.

The industrial relations legislation that the Labor government has been trying to pass is some of the most radical in decades. If this government gets what it wants—or should I say, what its union masters want—small business and the economy will suffer. Like most legislation from the Labor Party, it's small business that gets hit hardest because under Labor governments small businesses are on their own.

One of the most dangerous parts of Labor's new industrial relations bill is the prospect of multi-employer bargaining. If it goes ahead, small business will face bargaining costs of $14,638. Don't take my word for it: this is according to the department's regulatory impact statement to the bill. Medium businesses would face costs of $75,148 and large businesses $94,311. Unlike Labor and the union hacks who have never run a business in their life, I've actually run a business, and businesses know that they're hurting under this government.

Thank you very much for that segue. Thank you, Mr Mouth, you wait until my contribution!

Didn't you come from a union, Senator Sterle? While businesses are dealing with the Labor Party's 56 per cent increase in power prices, those opposite seem to think businesses have a spare 14 grand lying around. Well, wake up! They don't.

Labor's proposed changes will move Australia's industrial relations system from bargaining done at enterprise level, also known as bargaining with the businesses where you work, to bargaining done across multiple workplaces and potentially across a whole industry. This would massively expand the power of trade unions, allowing them to operate in businesses they currently have no connection to. This includes tens of thousands of small businesses right across Australia. Under Labor's legislation, multiple sectors will be able to engage in crippling, economy-wide strikes. Those opposite don't realise that enterprise-wide bargaining will mean industry-wide strikes and the breakdown of the Australian economy.

Industrial relations illiteracy.

Don't you worry, Senator Ayres. It's my time to be on my feet, so you can be quiet. If the Labor Party gets its way, the union thugs that they protect will be breaking down the doors to small businesses and telling them what to do. That's what the Labor Party are all about: command and control. Their attitude is: 'We know how to run your life and run your business better than you do.' Guess what? You don't.

Just open a book and read a book.

To conclude, Labor's dangerous industrial relations changes will mean more strikes and fewer jobs, giving unions unprecedented access to small businesses, which will lead to the death of hundreds of those small businesses.

There is a saying: only one van comes along in your lifetime. But I have to say: seriously, Senator Van? You want to have a real good look at yourself and get a grip when you start accusing us on this side of never running businesses and being union thugs and union hacks. I'm going to give you a little bit of history. For your information, I grew up working class as the son of a truck driver. I'm now the father of a truck driver, and I was a long-distance truck driver myself. Nothing hurts me more than when ill-informed ignoramuses make stupid statements like this.

Don't leave, Senator Van. Don't leave. I want—

A point of order, Senator Van?

I believe that was a reflection on me, and I also noted another one from Senator Ayres earlier. I ask that both senators withdraw them.

Is this another point of order? Let me deal with the first point of order.

This is not a debate, Senator Henderson. Senator Van, who is the second senator that you have taken issue with?

Senator Ayres.

I didn't hear what Senator Ayres said. Senator Ayres, do you wish to withdraw?

Deputy President, there is so much sensitivity over there—

Don't debate it. Either withdraw it—

If you're asking me to withdraw, I'm very happy to withdraw.

Thank you. I'll take the withdrawal. I think Senator Sterle was referring generally to Liberals, but I would ask him, to the extent that he may have referred directly to Senator Van, to graciously withdraw.

Deputy President, to assist with your running of the chamber, I am more than happy to, but I will not resile from the fact that—

I have asked you to withdraw.

I have withdrawn, but I will not resile from the fact that I take umbrage. You're now walking out of the chamber, you weak link! To have a crack at me as a union thug—

Senator Sterle, you shouldn't reflect on whether a senator is leaving the chamber or not. I ask you to withdraw to that extent and then proceed with your contribution.

I'll debate you any time.

Senator Van, that was inappropriate as well. You go back to your chair and withdraw that.

I happily withdraw, Deputy President.

Okay. Are we all ready to go? Senator Sterle?

It's all good, Deputy President. Thank you very much. But I just want to stress this—through you—

Don't disappoint me, because I was—

I'm all cool. I'm having a ball. I actually ran my own business. This is what irks me when I hear ideology and ridiculous statements from people who have no idea of the background of others in this chamber. I, for one, can talk with the authority. I left school early. I ran my own business. My wife and I put our necks on the line with one month's payment and a house to hock everything we had to buy our first truck. Six trucks later and I'm proud as punch that we did that. I couldn't have done it without my wife, and I couldn't have done it without the drive that I had. To be accused of not knowing business really gets up my nose.

Senator Van, in the first speech to this motion, came out and said that this is all about ideology. He said it has nothing to do with providing an opportunity for lower paid workers to get a decent pay packet and negotiate decent contracts. This is what really, really annoys me—I speak to this from authority—when we look at the likes of the bed wetters and the ones who are running around this country screaming out that the last thing that we should be doing is pushing to change industrial relations laws so that those who can't bargain collectively could actually have a chance to increase their pay packet and their working conditions.

And who is this charge led by? It is the usual suspects, starting with ACCI. I'd be so sad if ACCI went missing because I'd think something had gone wrong and that they actually had some brains in that outfit. The Business Council of Australia is another, as is AMMA—if AMMA didn't start the fight, there's really something going on. Guess who started the fight? AMMA. And guess who else bought into it? None other than Mr Alan Joyce and Qantas. Senator Sheldon, you've got a massive pair of shoes to fill. I can't fill them when you're talking about how bad an employer Qantas has become under Mr Joyce's tenure, but I'll give it a good shoot. Here we have a man who has his footprints etched into the blue carpet in this joint. He ran to the previous government's ministers, seeking support to give him money to give to his employees. Was it Work Choices?—I'm having a real nightmare today! It was through JobKeeper. That was nearly a billion dollars, and what did it deliver? I'll tell you what it delivered: it kept Mr Alan Joyce and Qantas going—ably backed by Mr Richard Goyder AO, with his $560,000 sitting fee and God knows whatever else as the chairman, so he could go out in the middle of the night and sack nearly 2,000 baggage handlers.

Then I read in the paper today not only the fine comments from my colleague and mate over here to my right, Senator Sheldon, but that Qantas have to upgrade their profit margin now. We've only been out of COVID for seven or eight months or something, but they made a mistake: they have to up it by another $150 million. While Qantas are gouging the travellers of this nation, they're now saying that they're back in the red—anywhere between $1.4 billion and $1.5 billion. I say to everyone in Australia: who thinks that Mr Alan Joyce has run a magnificent business since he's been in charge?

I can tell you now—and I look at my colleagues around this chamber from all sides—that we spent more time on his planes than anyone. I had no problem for many, many years as a Transport Workers Union organiser, after I sold my truck and after doing two years nonstop in Darwin, with two babies at home that I never got to see. I missed my daughter first walking and talking, and I wasn't going to miss more time with my six-year-old son. So I came off the road. The TWU gave me an opportunity because—guess what?—I actually know things about trucks, I actually can put two words together and I actually can talk to employers and employees. I want nothing more than employers and employees working together to deliver magnificent outcomes for both. Without a successful business, you don't have the opportunity to provide an appropriate wage for your employees, who I was so proud to have join me in my union so that we could collectively bargain. I have the greatest of respect for them, but I have absolutely no respect for Alan Joyce.

If you fly in this nation, you could be gouged, lose your baggage or be lied to whilst you're sitting on the tarmac. And then they're blaming baggage handlers, an explanation which I copped this morning, and there wasn't even any baggage being put on. This is what really irks me.

I too rise to take note of answers made during question time today by Ministers Watt and Farrell. It is very, very clear, colleagues, that the old saying is true: leopards do not change their spots. It has taken very little time—in fact, less than six months—for it to become crystal clear to the Australian public why Labor was in opposition for nearly a decade. It is so clear that they have not yet learnt. Just as they have done before in government, they are taking both our workplace relations system and our economy backwards at the same time. They simply cannot be trusted, not only on their word but on their ability to manage our nation through challenging times.

What have we already seen in less than six months under a Labor government? We have an economy with high inflation, we have high interest rates, we've got a rising cost of living and Labor has had to admit that electricity prices under their policies will go up 56 per cent and gas up 44 per cent, together putting unsustainable cost-of-living pressures on everyday Australians. They talk a lot about solutions, but they have done absolutely nothing this year in a policy sense to change any of that.

And now the Albanese government's reckless attempts to change industrial relations laws will hit every single sector of our economy and, in particular, every single small business in our nation, who are the absolute backbone of our economy. They are going to be hit the hardest. Shame on Labor for that. The cost of bargaining under the Albanese government's radical shakeup of the industrial relations system was revealed at just under $15,000 for a small business and $75,000 for a medium-sized business. How on earth is any small business going to find another $15,000 just to comply with what Labor are imposing on them? Most of them will no doubt not be able to afford it.

Let's have a look at the impact of this in my own home state of Western Australia. The West Australian has reported that small businesses across WA could, if not will, be pushed to the brink if Labor's one-size-fits-all industrial relations omnibus bill is rammed through the federal parliament this and next week. That is very clear. What does our own Premier, the Premier of Western Australia, a Labor Premier, say about this? Is he backing small businesses? Is he backing Western Australian families? Is he backing employers who are already doing it tough? Nope, of course he is not backing any one of those groups in Western Australia. In fact, he says that what we're saying about all of these pressures is just scaremongering. I tell you what, if he was a small-business man who had to put his hand in his pocket, with all of the other cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business expenses, to find another $15,000 to comply with this, he would not see it as scaremongering, because it is the truth.

A poll taken by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia is the first in the country to reveal the true sentiment of Australian businesses to these reforms. It revealed that more than nine in 10 Western Australian businesses fear impending change to industrial relations laws, and only eight per cent said they were unconcerned by the changes. Thirty-four thousand workplaces would employ fewer staff if they were no longer able to set their own work conditions and had them replaced by the Fair Work Commission. Twelve thousand businesses would employ fewer people if limits on fixed-term contracts were put in place, as is proposed by those opposite. More than four in 10 businesses would scale down operations if forced into multi-employer bargaining or immediate bargaining for a new agreement when the existing one expires. This, more than any of the other destructive elements of their bill, is the most duplicitous, because this was not in the Labor Party policies that they took to the election. They had a workforce summit—and guess what? Surprise, surprise, this popped out of the union's mouths and the Labor Party said, 'Oh, we didn't think of that before the election, but let's implement it and let's destroy our businesses.' Shame on you, Labor.

We come to a situation here in the Senate where we get a number of speakers from the opposition who get up and talk about industrial relations. In actual fact, they even have the hide to talk about being the representatives of small businesses. Senator Sterle set them straight. In actual fact, I have the great pleasure of saying I was the elected head of the largest small-business organisation in this country, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, with over 15,000 owner-drivers. I know that whenever I went into a workplace I wanted to make sure there was an outcome where the company was successful, the industry was successful and those workers got a fair deal, whether they were a small-business person or an employee.

All those chimpanzees on the other side of this chamber are saying they're going to make sure that they do what they're told by the big gorillas—the ones that were called out by Steve Knott—because those big gorillas give them bananas; they just won't share them with the rest of the country.

The fact is, small business is getting it in the neck, under these laws that were stood over by this opposition when they were in government. We have to have a law that turns around and makes sure that we can lift productivity. Productivity gets lifted when groups of workers come together and collectively bargain with their employer and—heaven forbid—across an industry.

I've been in industries and have seen industries where employers that are in the middle of the supply chain are continually stood over by the top of the supply chain—the big gorillas that they are protecting, the ones who have the hide to come in here and represent ACCI and others and have turned around and supported not small business but big business. If you really talk to small business, they'll say it's those economic employers who engage them that are the problem, because they're the ones who don't turn around and make sure their payments are made on time. They're the ones who give them 120 days. They're the ones who turn around and say, 'I can't train my staff,' because it's a race to the bottom. They say, 'I can't turn around and give them a pay increase, to keep my experienced staff in the business, because my competition will go lower and it's a race to the bottom.'

You only have to go to Alan Joyce to see that. Now that's the big gorilla. They're the people they are supporting. It's not just them or even Alan Joyce; it's companies like Amazon, these international companies that are competing with small and other businesses that are stealing their arrangements. What they're doing is undercutting, by turning around and having multiple labour hire companies, having very few people on decent wages, refusing to have bargaining arrangements, that sack people because they're pregnant, that sack them because they're in a union, that sack them when they try to organise. They're the people they're standing up for. They don't want the system changed.

Wait a second—they do want the system changed. Only in this last number of days, and again this morning, Angus Taylor said the system's working okay. Wages aren't going up—that's why he said it's working okay. Small businesses are getting done over by those big gorillas because they can't keep and train their staff, they can't get the wages across their markets, and sometimes that's even negotiations across government contracts. They have to have the capacity, in the private and government sectors, to bargain when they want to, when there's an appropriate way to do that. Workers have a right to say that, as business has a right to say that, and parties have a right and obligation to come around and negotiate an agreement.

If an employer says, 'I want to negotiate an agreement across the site,' they have a right to do that. If an employee—more than 50 per cent plus one—says, 'I want to negotiate an agreement across the site,' they have a right to do that. Heaven forbid! That's where you have an equal voice. That's where you have equal opportunity. That's where you can turn around and start moving wages up. When wages go up, people start talking about how to make it more efficient, more effective, with better training and skills, and, heaven forbid, productivity goes up.

You only have to look at the ACHC that gave evidence to the inquiry. You only have to look at what was said by the Victorian early childhood educators and their employer association. They said that's how they got better conditions, better arrangements, not just for the workforce; these small multiple employers all got together and said, 'Let's do it together.'

The last big myth is when Senator Reynolds talked about this $15,000. It was in place—right now—without any law change! The fact is, you make a choice whether you want to do it or not.

Thank you, Senator Sheldon.

I was loathe to stand up and interject then, because Senator Sheldon was recounting what appeared to be a game of Donkey Kong Country there, with his analogies about gorillas and bananas. I was lost in the theatre of it all. But I'll tell you what I'm not lost on: the radical, dangerous and ill-conceived rushed bill that we're seeing coming through our parliament, as we speak.

These are changes that represent the most significant change in our industrial relations system in decades. They are, ultimately, changes that will do exactly what we all know. This is not Super Nintendo. This is not a game of Donkey Kong Country. This is a very serious matter. These are the first stages in handing back the keys to this country to the militant union movement.

And we're already seeing this in South Australia, where there are already reports of the John-Setka-led CFMMEU taking the reins of the South Australian branch and starting to swing the axe. And why wouldn't they? They now have Labor governments at both the state and federal levels, both of whom are paving the way for what we know is going to be a terrible time for business. This is not an issue of people talking about their personal stories, which are excellent stories—the story Senator Sterle spoke about was basically a small business story. These are stories about the imposts that are going to be put on business.

We've heard them from the Albanese government's regulatory impact statement, which has said, very clearly, that the costs associated with this bill are going to be significant: $14,638 for small businesses and $75,148 for a medium business. Those ain't small bananas; they are serious, serious imposts. And they're real; they're not made up. They are absolutely real and they're now written down. Labor have made it clear that they don't care about small businesses. Small businesses do well for workers when they're profitable, but they don't do well when they're getting hit with sums of money like that. Labor have made it clear that they're going to hand all workplaces over to the unions, whether small or large. Industry-wide bargaining is simply set now to increase the number of strikes across the economy. We've seen this before; we saw it through the Hawke-Keating era and we're going to see it again. This is going to be devastating for the Australian economy and it's going to be devastating for Australian businesses, with widespread strike action and, potentially, sympathy strikes by those unrelated to a potential dispute. We saw this in the 1970s; it has happened before and history is repeating itself.

Everyone in this room wants higher wages for every Australian, but there's no evidence that the reforms will ever deliver higher wages. In fact we know, based on comments from businesses and employers, the evidence is that it will be quite the opposite. This is just a fact: Labor's legislation is going to lead to more strikes and more job losses, and it's going to allow unions into small businesses, which have never really had to deal with them before. Take a business, for example, like Crane Services, which was reported on last week in the Adelaide Advertiser. That's a fine publication; as you all know I'm a great fan of it—that's me being ironic, by the way, in case anyone wants to hear about that! But that's not on point and I'll come to that later on. The article said that the boss of an Adelaide crane company said that the livelihoods of the workers were at stake as a stand-off with the militant CFMMEU neared the end of its fourth day, at that stage. This is a family owned business, just like the story that Senator Sterle told about a family owned business. It's now going to be stood over by Mr Setka and his 'colleagues'—we'll use that terminology. There is absolutely no question about that. There will be unreasonable demands for conditions like a 25 per cent wage rise in one year. Businesses can't stomach this sort of knee-jerk reform.

These laws are also going to hold up wage rises because of the complexity of the system. We're now seeing more imposts put on businesses, which are now going to have to get to grips with various different systems. This is going to undermine competition and therefore Australians are going to have fewer choices and higher costs. It's going to force up prices and increase the cost of living—all, by the way, at a time when the country cannot afford it. Thanks to the conditions imposed here, we're all living through growing inflation, higher costs of living and higher energy costs. We have lots of batteries and wind farms though, which is good—lots of batteries and wind farms. They're doing a great job for the grid, by the way, while we're on the subject— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

 Waste Management and Recycling

I move:

That the Senate take note of the responses to my questions to Senator Wong today.

I'm very proud to be standing in the Senate today and asking, on behalf of the Australian Greens, the hard questions of this government on an issue that matters to millions of Australians. I know that a lot of senators in this chamber have received correspondence in recent weeks about the collapse of REDcycle, a soft plastics recycling facility. People are furious and frustrated. After all these years of doing the right thing, of collecting their soft plastics and taking them back to the supermarket—which, by the way, they have no choice about at all—they find out that those plastics are being stockpiled by a company that actually can't get them recycled. No-one's buying the recycled content from the recycler.

Big packaging companies produce this plastic waste—this pollution—and companies order it to wrap just about every grocery item in plastic. Nobody wants it but they get it anyway. Do you know why this scheme has collapsed, Mr Deputy President? Do you know why we're about to find out that our 2025 packaging targets have also failed? There are a number of reasons, but the key reason is that the big companies that produce this stuff don't give a rat's arse about what happens to it. They really don't. They have no producer responsibility; they do not care. They put it all back onto the consumer: 'If you use these products, it's up to you to dispose of them.' But what's a consumer to do when there are no options?

I asked Senator Wong today: why is it seemingly beyond these companies to actually come up with a scheme to recycle these soft plastics properly? Actually, that was based on a quote from our Minister for the Environment and Water. Out of frustration, on the day this was announced, Minister Plibersek said, 'It shouldn't be beyond big companies like Coles and Woolworths to come up with a viable solution to soft plastic packaging recycling.' Do you know why they don't care? Because they know the government don't care. They have, since 1998, under the Australian Packaging Covenant, repeatedly failed to meet even the most basic recycling or packaging waste reduction targets, and they have never once been penalised. That's because this scheme is voluntary. It's always been voluntary. There's been no-one in this building or even at a state government level through the COAG process who's been willing to take on the big packaging companies—companies like Coca-Cola and the big grocery companies, who are, may I say, just as a passing comment, big donors to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party.

The Australian people have had enough. Senator Polley, I'll take that interjection. They have had enough of big governments failing to act on this recycling crisis. We need to ask ourselves: if we find out that the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation, APCO, which is now an accredited voluntary product stewardship scheme under the new act, are not going to meet their 2025 targets—they're three years away, but we were told we would know by the end of this year—what are the government going to do? Are they going to let this pollution continue? Are they going to continue to let down Australians? I hope they do the only thing they can do to fix this crisis—step up and regulate these companies.

Regulating these companies is something the Greens tried to force two years ago in the Senate debate when the legislation came in. We had a tied vote on mandating these targets so that these companies had no choice but to meet them and, if they didn't, there would be consequences. I remind senators—those of you who were here two years ago—that we had a tied vote and it was Senator Hanson who walked away from the deal we thought we had with her to pass mandatory regulatory targets. The government cast the deciding vote from the chair, and we lost that debate. Surprise, surprise! Two years later we've had a massive failure of soft plastic recycling, and we're about to find out that our national targets, run by big business and led by big business through the Packaging Covenant, are also going to fail.

I would ask senators to reflect on this as a final point. The Greens aren't going to stop asking questions on this. We're not going to stop putting up good ideas. We're going to continually needle you until you do something about this—and I say that to both parties. This should be across political lines, because this issue cuts across political lines. All sides of politics want to see better recycling. They want to see waste reduction. They do not want to see plastic pollution in our oceans, killing our marine life.

Question agreed to.

Senator Whish-Wilson, the chair doesn't have a casting vote, for your information.

 BUSINESS Rearrangement

by leave—I move:

That Senators may make statements relating to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and that speaking times be as follows: 10 minutes for party leaders and Independent senators and five minutes for any other senator.

Question agreed to.

 STATEMENTS International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

Tomorrow is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which also commences 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. It's a time when we come together across the world to call for an end to violence against women, and I thank the Senate for the opportunity for all of us to make contributions today.

Every year we ask the same thing: how do we end violence against women? Like most people, I am sick of asking, sick of having to say, 'Let's not hit women, let's not kill women, let's not accept the all-too-many cases of a woman's partner controlling her movements, bank accounts, work and freedom.' Like so many, I'm sick of asking each year for men to stop being violent to women—something we should never have to ask or demand. As Chief Minister, as a senator and now as Minister for Women, I've heard from too many women about their trauma, their frustration, their fear, the loss of their friends, the loss of their loved ones, and the impact on their lives and their children's. The violence has to end.

We have a lot to be proud of in this country, but the rates of violence against women and children that persist in Australia are our national shame and an uncomfortable truth. It's a national shame that one woman is killed every 10 days in Australia by her former or current partner, that one in three women have experienced violence by an intimate partner, that one in two women have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime, that 51 per cent of women in their 20s have experienced sexual violence, and who are then 45 per cent more likely to experience high levels of financial stress. It's an uncomfortable reality that if you asked the women in this chamber to put their hands up if they had experienced violence, sexual assault or sexual harassment in their lifetime, how many of us would put our hands up. It's the same in every workplace, every home, every small business, every big business, every educational institution, every nightclub, every restaurant—everywhere. You ask the women how many of them have experienced violence or know someone who has, and all of our hands would go up.

Behind these statistics I just read out are the millions of women in Australia who live with this violence—hundreds of thousands who are living with this violence today, women who carry trauma with them every day, women each year who live with increasingly lower expectations of anything ever changing. There must be an end to women becoming statistics or names on the front page of a newspaper. There's a temporary outcry and calls for change, and then the next day it still goes on. We must have an end to women being subjected to fear and trauma— often in their own homes by men that they love and trust—and an end to men choosing to use violence and control and not being held to account or changing their behaviour.

I acknowledge the statements made yesterday in the other place on this important issue ahead of International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, including comments by the Minister for Social Services, Amanda Rishworth, who is leading our work to end gender-based violence through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and by the Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence, Karen Andrews, who spoke so candidly about the devastating impact of this violence on victims-survivors and those people around them. These statements reinforce the cross-party commitment on this issue, an issue that requires action from all of us—men and women—in this place. This is why we are working with states and territories, through the national plan, to end violence against women and children in a generation. One death is one death is one too many.

The national plan includes a powerful statement from victims-survivors of gender-based violence. It implores us to put their experiences at the core of our policy-making and to truly listen to them. It reminds us that this is a matter of life and death. In that statement it says:

We should not have to die to get your attention.

It's confronting, but it's a message that we must hear. Ending this violence will save lives, because right now women and their children are dying.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the all-too-many women who have experienced domestic, family and sexual violence, the women who relived this experience of trauma in order to advocate for change, the women who live with the enduring emotional, physical and financial impacts of violence and the women who are not here today because their lives have been stolen by the deliberate acts of others—often those that they loved. I acknowledge the activists who have spent years and decades calling for action and the frontline workers who are on the ground supporting those victims-survivors to access help, support and justice. We know we've made a start, with the national plan and the investments to provide consent and respectful relationship education, to provide additional frontline service and community support workers, to prevent violence before it begins and intervene early to support men to change their behaviour, to respond to victims-survivors' needs and support their healing and recovery, and to implement all the recommendations from the Respect@Work report so that women are safe at work.

We're also looking at our investments in relation to housing. We know this is a massive issue for women wanting to escape violent situations with their children and also for older women, who we know are such a significant and growing group of people who are at risk of homelessness in this country. We've passed legislation to provide paid family and domestic violence leave. There is also the important work that's being led by Minister Rishworth and Minister Burney on a standalone First Nations action plan to sit under the national plan. There is work going on there, and from consultations to date we know that it is a national priority to finalise those action plans and get them in place.

We are targeting a key driver of violence against women through our work to advance gender equality. We know that, whilst the statistics remain as they are and the prevalence of violence remains as it is, we will not be able to achieve a country with gender equality at its core. This work includes investments in paid parental leave, early childhood education and our work to develop that national strategy. I know there's a lot of interest in the national strategy and people want the consultation process to get underway, and we welcome all of the input and the support that will be provided there. We are hoping to finalise that national strategy in the first half of next year.

We know that gender inequality is not only a key driver of gender based violence; it's also a result of it, with long-term impacts on women, their economic participation and the economy, and on their children. The cost of violence against women and their children has been estimated to be $26 billion a year, with victims-survivors bearing approximately 50 per cent of that cost. We know that we need to take action, and we'll continue to act, to listen, to consult and to talk with local communities. But we can't do it alone; we must work in partnership with a whole range of stakeholders, including all levels of government.

Every year when we have this day, I always am frustrated at the fact that we have to recognise this day each year because the prevalence of violence remains at this unacceptable level. But I am also optimistic. I believe in the aspiration of the national plan. I believe in the strength and support of the sector in driving to reach that goal—a goal which imagines a society that is free from gender based violence. It is ambitious, but if we work together we can achieve it. We know the importance of achieving it, because lives will be lost if we don't achieve it, and lives depend on us getting this policy response right. I'm proud that so many people in this place share this vision, determination and commitment. I acknowledge the work of Senator Waters, who has consistently and often in this place raised this to remind people of what's happening out there in our country.

Living free from violence is a human right. Women have the right to be safe in their homes, at work, in the community and online. So tomorrow, throughout the 16 days of activism and on all days, I encourage everyone to unite and consider the role they have to play and the actions they can take. Let's imagine a society without violence against women and children and let's commit to achieving an Australia and a world where all women and girls live free from violence and from fear.

I thank the government for providing this time for the chamber. As we mark another International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women—acknowledged, around the world, tomorrow—we should commence by remembering, 12 months on since the last day, those women and children across Australia and around the world who have lost their lives due to unacceptable, unforgiveable acts of violence. We should recall and remember those victims-survivors who have felt pain, anguish and loss through that period of time, whose lives have been changed forever as a result of the unacceptable actions of others. We should also recall those who are brave and who drive and work for change. We have come a long way across the globe, but we still have a very long way to go.

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women has been observed on 25 November since at least 1981. Activists across the world selected that date to honour the Mirabal sisters, three political activists from the Dominican Republic who were brutally murdered in 1960. It's been recognised by and at the UN General Assembly since at least 1999 as the official day.

Here in Australia, we have continued to recognise but also, most importantly, continued to do more. I want, early in my remarks, to particularly thank and acknowledge those who have ensured that we all do more and better understand, including men like me. It's important, critical, on occasions like this for men to take responsibility and to speak out too. In contemplating this time for the chamber today, we discussed whether my good friend, Senator Hume or I would lead the debate for the coalition. I decided that I should and that it's appropriate to do so, and it's appropriate for all of us to take and accept the responsibility that comes with doing so. But, with that, I acknowledge it is people like Senator Hume, Senator Payne, Senator Ruston and others across the chamber, on the crossbench, in the other chamber and perhaps even more so in the community, who have helped to educate me, as with many other men, about the responsibilities that we must take and accept to recognise the problems of violence against women, to understand those problems, to speak out and to call them out, and to support action for prevention and for support.

I was pleased last night to join the team and supporters of Our Watch for their annual event, thankfully back in person in this parliament after a couple of years of remote attendance. I was there with Senator Waters and others from around the chamber and across the parliament, as I and others have been before. The work of Our Watch and so many other organisations is crucial too, as their evidence based framework to guide the national approach to preventing violence against women says: 'Change the story. Change the story from one of perpetual death, violence and loss. Change the story to one in which future generations can have the type of hope and opportunity that we expect all to enjoy.'

Most of us lead fortunate lives. Most of us are lucky to avoid this type of violence, but far too many are touched by it. For those who have been so fortunate it is a responsibility for us to work and to do more. There are many causes of violence, but they all begin with disrespect against those that the violence is perpetuated against—disrespect in this case against women, against partners, against family members, against people who are meant to be loved ones—and it is that disrespect that we must work fundamentally to overcome.

One of the fundamental pillars in overcoming that disrespect is to achieve greater equality. Again, Australia and much of the world has made huge steps, but we have many more steps to take. I was proud that during our time in government we were able to see the majority—around 60 per cent—of new jobs created go to women and to see women's workforce participation reach record highs. I was pleased to see the gender pay gap close somewhat, but it still remains unacceptably high. I was pleased to be part of a government that provided funding through significant women's budget statements, particularly in my time as Minister for Finance—some $5.5 billion over the last two women's budget statements—across different spheres in relation to support, for health care, for academic activity and, critically, for women's safety. In the most recent budget there's a further $1.3 billion of support.

Of course, the funding itself is inconsequential without great organisations and successful and effective evidence based programs to help back it up—the work of Our Watch, Stop It at the Start, and Respectful Relationships, and effective education platforms. We're expanding domestic violence alert training. There's support in terms of domestic violence payments, emergency accommodation, legal protections, reforms in relation to cross-examination, frameworks that ensure perpetrators are held to account, and medical programs. There are a whole raft of initiatives that are crucial and are supported across our country, but no doubt they need continued support to help achieve the type of ambition that we have, which under the national plan is to end violence in a generation. It's ambitious and it will be difficult, but it is absolutely worth pursuing. It's a goal that we across all parties should remain sincerely and deeply committed to.

I, and I'm sure all others across the chamber, join in pledging to do what I can do and what we can to help ensure that we eliminate violence against women and children in our country, but we also act as an exemplar and a messenger to the rest of the world, recognising that in many other parts of the world the unacceptable grave statistics that we hear about our country are replicated and are even worse. We have that responsibility in our region, with other partners and in other cultures to do what we respectfully can to educate, support and affect change, be it here across our broad country and the many cultures represented here or elsewhere in many different and diverse circumstances, so that ultimately all women and girls can look to a life of safety, opportunity and equality.

I welcome those words from the senators who have spoken so far. I also welcome the fact that we are having this debate in the Senate, as they did in the House yesterday. It's appropriate. I thank the government for that.

Tomorrow marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It also marks the start of the 16 days of activism to end gendered violence globally. As with all international days, it is a reason to pause and reflect, but that cannot be the sum total of our attention on this issue.

Globally one in three women have experienced physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime. Of those women only one in 10 go to the police for help. Of those who go to the police for help, many never have their complaints taken seriously and properly investigated or their abusers charged, and even fewer than that manage to secure a prosecution.

These statistics are shockingly familiar in Australia. We can't claim to be doing any better than our neighbours. We can't pretend that sexism and disrespect don't underline the culture in many workplaces, clubs and homes in our country. In Australia, one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence since they were 15. On average, one woman is killed by a current or former partner every nine days.

This year 40 women have been killed. When we used to have motions I used to recognise the names of the women who had been killed since the last motion. Unfortunately, we've lost the procedural ability to recognise those women, but we won't forget them. We know the figure is at 40 because a volunteer organisation tracks them, not because we have a national toll of women killed, which is something that the Greens have pushed for for years and still think would be a very meritorious idea.

I also want to note that First Nations women experience significantly higher rates of violence throughout their lives and reiterate our support for a standalone national plan to end violence against First Nations women and children that is designed, implemented and evaluated by First Nations women and community controlled organisations. First Nations women know what needs to be done to end violence in their communities, and they need to be empowered to take action. My colleague Senator Cox will speak about the importance of that work in her contribution. She is currently with another colleague, Senator Thorpe, at an event to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the establishment of the inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and the appalling fact that a lot of violence against First Nations women goes unreported.

The last few years in particular have laid bare the pervasive nature of gendered violence across Australia. Brave young women have come forward and forced this conversation onto the national agenda. We've all talked about it many times, but despite this, on a lot of metrics, the first national plan to reduce violence against women and their children failed. Violence against women remains shockingly high. Sexual assault amongst people under 25 has actually increased. Things need to change. I'm very pleased that the second national plan commits to ending gendered violence within a generation. It's an ambitious goal, but it's critical that we all work together to make that happen. We can't just keep coming back and making speeches about how things need to change. Things actually need to change. Many, often survivors themselves, work behind the scenes to support survivors to get justice or just peace and safety to rebuild their lives. We owe it to those women to do everything we can to end gendered violence now.

Stopping this violence starts with believing and listening to survivors and learning from their experience so that others don't have to suffer the same harm. The victim-survivor statement in the national plan is a powerful call to action, to listen, to hear, to act, and the new Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, Micaela Cronin, has been tasked with ensuring that all actions are grounded in the experience of victims-survivors. It is tough and critical work. We need survivor-centred essential services that understand and respect survivor experiences and don't compound trauma when help is sought. This requires specialist services that understand the specific needs of First Nations women, young women, older women, disabled women, LGBTIQ+ women and women from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Stopping violence against women will take systemic action to tackle root causes, transform harmful social norms and empower women and girls. Gender inequality and gender stereotypes foster disrespect. All of the evidence confirms a correlation between rigid gender stereotypes and rates of violence, so small things like calling out casual sexism will actually help to drive the cultural change that, ultimately, will stop so many women being killed.

Individuals must be held to account, but we have to go beyond individual behaviours, and we have to consider the broader social, political and economic factors that drive violence against women. We must promote the equal distribution of power, resources and opportunities between men and women. We know that you can't be what you can't see and that workplaces like ours should be showing leadership in the representation of women in decision-making roles. We do okay in the Senate, but our friends in the House have a long way to go to reach gender parity.

Critically, stopping gendered violence requires properly funding the organisations that do the work on the front lines of this epidemic. In estimates a few weeks ago we learned that the government doesn't have any data on unmet need, but I hear from services on a very regular basis that every day they have to turn women away from shelters, from calls to support services and from legal services because they don't have enough funding to help everyone who reaches out for help. The sector have repeatedly said that it will take an investment of $1 billion a year to make sure that they're able to help everyone who reaches out for that help. That's the absolute minimum that women should expect from their government, but the government delivered less than half of that amount in the recent budget. What a tragic missed opportunity.

We need to also fund prevention programs. Respectful relationships curriculum needs to be embedded from early education onward. Targeted prevention programs, workplace training to make sure employers can identify and act on abusive behaviour—we must effectively engage men and boys in that prevention work. Some positive men's behaviour change programs were funded in the budget, and we welcome that. Men need to take responsibility, and they need to be better.

We also need proper investment in housing, in crisis accommodation, in transitional housing and in long-term affordable housing options. No woman should have to choose between violence and homelessness, yet that is the consistent evidence that we have received from frontline organisations for years. It's particularly acute for older women. No-one should be turned away because a shelter doesn't have enough beds, but, unless women are confident they've got somewhere to go, too many will stay in dangerous situations. Delays in accessing crisis or social housing can literally cost women their lives. The recent budget allocation of $100 million for 720 homes for DV survivors is a drop in the ocean of what is required.

We also desperately need to lift income support and raise wages so that women have the financial security they need to get free, to seek help, to stay safe and to leave if they need to. We know that it can take 140 hours and at least $18,000, on average, to escape an abusive relationship. That's something that women on low incomes or in insecure work simply don't have. We strongly welcome the introduction of paid family and domestic violence leave just a few weeks ago. That's an important safety net, but more needs to be done. The government's escaping violence payments, which are designed to provide emergency funding to help women escape abuse, are oversubscribed. Women are having to wait 28 business days to access funds. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

We need to recognise and understand the insidious forms of violence and abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. We know that up to 70,000 women were coerced into withdrawing their super early during COVID. Earlier this week, the Centre for Women's Economic Safety shone a light on the role that banks could play in ensuring that financial products like credit cards, mortgage payments and bank transfer descriptions can't be weaponised. We call on the banking industry to do that voluntarily and, if they won't, for government to work to regulate.

We need to address the culture in our policing and legal systems, which have let women down time and time again. The review of the culture within the Queensland Police Service released this week is devastating but, sadly, deeply unsurprising reading. It can't be a mystery to anyone why so many women choose not to report. We need holistic, expert wraparound services and alternative pathways for reporting and addressing violence. We need to understand the experience of victims-survivors who say that the legal process was re-traumatising, and we need to listen to them about what needs to change.

Last night I attended an Our Watch event, and I want to acknowledge the work that they do as the premier experts on prevention. They're an incredible resource, and I urge everyone in this place to take a look at their resources. As for workplaces, I look forward to discussing Respect@Work tonight. I will conclude by saying ending violence against women and children is a job for all of us. We've all got to make this happen within this generation, if not before.

Tomorrow is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. This day is a global call to action, when we are being asked to unite in activism to end violence against women and against girls. We know that worldwide one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner. These aren't just international statistics, though; these are statistics reflected in the Australian experience. It's one in three here too. We know that on average one woman every 10 days in Australia will be killed by an intimate partner. When we include sexual harassment in the picture, it is even bleaker: 53 per cent of women will have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. These are women we know, women we love—this is us.

Every Australian has the right to live a life free from violence, whether at home, at school, at work or in their community. And violence is not inevitable. We know this. That's why we're taking action as a government to end it. I acknowledge where there has been bipartisan support to do that, and I acknowledge the work of many senators in this place who have made that work part of their core mission and core business in the Senate and in public life.

As a government, we are committed to addressing the underlying factors that drive gender based violence as well as rates of violence, and we've backed this up with a record $1.7 billion worth of investment. As senators here know, in October our government released the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This is the national policy framework which will guide our efforts and actions over the next decade. Along with the states and territories, our government has committed to a shared goal of ending gendered violence within one generation. It's an ambitious goal, and for it to be achieved will require tangible actions. The plan outlines actions to address gender discrimination, implement prevention strategies and embed effective early intervention approaches, and importantly it outlines actions that will build the frontline sector workforce to ensure women and children can access tailored and culturally safe support no matter where they live. As Senator Waters said so eloquently, we know that whilst this is an issue which affects all women in our community, it does affect certain women in our community more than others. That includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, and that is why there will also be a standalone plan focused on domestic and family violence against First Nations women and children.

The work under this plan is important, but so too are the other policies our government has been working on, including paid family and domestic violence leave, our work and significant and substantial investments in housing and our work in implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work report. I'm proud of these policies, I'm proud to be part of a government that recognises the fundamental right of women and children to live safely and without fear and I'm proud of the bipartisan efforts to come together on this mission and this goal. This isn't an easy fix; it requires all of us, not just in government but across all parts of our communities, to work together to drive the systemic changes required to stop this type of violence at its core, to stand up and to loudly and fiercely say that we will not stand for domestic and family violence anymore, that we will not stand for violence against women and children, that we will take action, that we will invest the money required to do so and that we won't stop fighting until every single woman and child feels safe in their home, in their school, in their workplace, in their community, in this country, in the world. No lesser goal is worthy of our efforts. No lesser goal will do.

I rise also to lend my contribution to this International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, held on 25 November each year. Addressing violence against women remains at the forefront of women's issues right around the world and in Australia as well. I once went to an event to raise money for an organisation that assists women fleeing from domestic violence, and the MC said to the audience, 'Ladies, look into your partner's eyes.' People all dressed up in their ball gowns looked adoringly into their partner's eyes, and then the MC said, 'This is the man whose hands you are most likely to die in.' Of course, there was an uncomfortable titter around the room, but when people thought about what that actually meant it was extraordinarily confronting.

More than half the women killed around the world in 2017 died at the hands of an intimate partner or of a relative. That was around 50,000 women. On average, each week in Australia a woman is killed by a violent or controlling male whom she knows. It's harrowing, it's disturbing and it is totally unacceptable. The figures and statistics don't end there. One in four Australian women have had experiences of physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner, and in all likelihood we know many of these victim-survivors. Indeed there are likely to be many in here today. Intimate partner violence contributes to more deaths, more disabilities and more illnesses in Australian women aged between 15 and 44 than any other preventable risk factor. That includes smoking. It includes obesity. It includes high blood pressure.

Stories of family and domestic violence are distressing, and they stay with you. From my home state of Victoria I think of Poonam Sharma and her six-year-old daughter, Vanessa, stabbed in their home in Mill Park in January this year by her husband. I think of Kylie Griffiths, a mother of six, whose husband set fire to their home in Albanvale. I think of Shirley Kidd, a grandmother who died of fatal injuries in Bacchus Marsh. Of course, no-one can forget the horrific story of Hannah Clarke and her three children in Queensland. It doesn't bear repeating. There are, unfortunately, so many names across Australia, and we hear these stories constantly from police, from nurses, from doctors, from careworkers, from family and from friends, helpless and grieving. We hear them also from the victims-survivors whose lives will never be the same. These stories remind us that, despite the progress we've made as a society, there is still so much that can and must be done. The dedication of this day gives us an opportunity to reflect on, to confront and to oppose violence towards women—the blight that has transcended time, culture and location. While it is a global issue, that is no excuse for inaction. It must be addressed domestically, it must be addressed locally and it must be addressed culturally as well. All forms of family and domestic violence have their genesis in lack of respect for a partner. We need to change our behaviour, change our thoughts, change our values and change our levels of tolerance for this behaviour.

I was very proud that, in government, the coalition committed a total of $2 billion since 2013 to address family and domestic violence through programs that focused on prevention, early intervention, response and recovery. We funded initiatives like Our Watch and 'Stop it at the Start' which was an extraordinarily successful campaign around changing attitudes. It was recognised by three in five adults, encouraging action towards more respectful relationships. We expanded DV-alert training. The escaping violence payment, which was a new initiative, delivered tailored assistance to victims-survivors who were escaping relationships, providing wraparound services to those who wanted to flee a dangerous home. Other initiatives included maintaining protection against cross-examination by family violence perpetrators and increasing legal assistance, including family advocacy support services, children's contact services and the very well-known—in fact, part of the vernacular now—1800RESPECT service.

It's so important that we continue a bipartisan response to this. Women must feel safe, free from violence and free from fear in order to be equal. The responsibility for this lies with us all.

I thank Senator Gallagher for her statement about the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Sadly, many people have become numb to the shocking global statistics on violence against women and children. More than a billion women worldwide—or around one in three—have experienced physical or sexual violence. Some of the most shocking forms of abuse include child sexual abuse, child marriage, human trafficking and slavery, and female genital mutilation. Of course, we know that violence around the world isn't perpetrated exclusively against women and girls, but women and girls are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the victims of it. Many proud Australians would like to think of our country as being the envy of the world and much more enlightened. In many respects we are. We are a wealthy, peaceful, democratic country that values freedom and the rule of law. But, when it comes to violence against women and children, this is one area where, to our great shame, we have made far less progress than we should have.

In Australia, one woman is killed by a current or former intimate partner every 10 days. Almost 10 women a day are hospitalised for assault injuries perpetrated by a spouse or domestic partner. Police are called to a domestic or family violence matter every two minutes. One in three women has experienced physical violence and one in five women has experienced sexual violence, from the age of 15. A little over half—53 per cent—of women, have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetime. We all know that the situation is worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. For example, in 2018-19, Indigenous women were 29 times as likely as non-Indigenous women to be hospitalised as a result of non-fatal family violence assaults.

Violence against women and/or children is estimated to cost Australia $26 billion a year, but that dollar figure doesn't account for the enormous physical, emotional and psychological costs that victims experience. As has been said, tomorrow is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the theme for this year is 'UNiTE: Activism to end violence against women and girls'. A global campaign of 16 days of activism starts tomorrow and concludes on 10 December, or international Human Rights Day. We cannot underestimate the value and the power of awareness of this issue as just a first step to eliminating violence. Much of the problem of violence against women happens behind closed doors, and so raising awareness helps to bring it out in the open. The Me Too movement has been instrumental in showing the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual harassment. It has empowered victims-survivors to speak out and to show others that they are not alone.

For many years, I worked as an early childhood educator. As one of the co-chairs of Australian Parliamentarians for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, APPCAN, I want to highlight the impact the culture of violence against women and children actually has on children. It manifests in the violence against girls perpetuated by adult men. It manifests in the sexual harassment experienced by girls in school, in sport, in day-to-day living. It manifests in boys who have grown up in a culture of toxic masculinity and who have not learnt how to have healthy, respectful relationships. It manifests in the trauma experienced by children—boys and girls—when they witness family violence at home.

Protecting children from this violence takes on a particular significance, not just because of the vulnerability of children but because of the effects it has on them later in life. If gender based violence is normalised for children, boys who grow to become men will often learn it is acceptable to treat women that way, and girls who grow to become women will not be empowered to escape the violence. Protecting children is key to preventing the violence experienced by and perpetuated against women in adulthood.

I commend the work that has gone into the Australian government's 10-year National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, released on 17 October this year. This plan is the national policy framework that will guide the government's actions over the next decade to eliminate violence against women and their children. I am proud to be part of a government that has committed $1.7 billion to fighting gender based violence in our recent budget. We heard Senator Gallagher outline some of those initiatives in question time, but government alone cannot fix this problem, so I encourage everyone in the community to work together to end gender based violence. We have to do this because, as we have heard, one death is one death too many.

I would like to again congratulate the government on the new National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children and I acknowledge the work of the former government on this too. I thank the many members of this Senate who have worked tirelessly on this.

One in six women in Australia have experienced physical and/or sexual violence. The elimination of violence against women and children before 2032 is a bold plan. This work and this cultural change is clearly urgent. The target is very ambitious, and the achievement of this target is contingent on a cultural shift, a mindset shift, amongst Australians. This shift requires individuals, families and communities across Australia to challenge much of our ingrained patriarchal thinking that normalises male domination and power. It requires us to rethink the normalcy of violent actions which are so prevalent in our modern society. This is uncomfortable and challenging work, but we all stand to gain from this. It's an uncomfortable thing to challenge our ingrained attitudes—things that we learn growing up and just take as the way things are. Cultural change is hard, but it can be done.

We have heard much about toxic masculinity. I have a concern that this is not often the most helpful way to talk about it to drive change. As the late author bell hooks put it:

The crisis facing men is not the crisis of masculinity, it is the crisis of patriarchal masculinity. Until we make this distinction clear, men will continue to fear that any critique of patriarchy represents a threat.

Clearly, this is something we need to be able to talk about more as men. Violence against women needs to become a men's issue. We all need to stand up on this issue, and we all stand to gain as we are part of this shift in thinking and our culture. Clearly, this is up to all of us, not just women. We need men to stand up and speak out, to call out sexism, to have the difficult conversations with our friends in our peer groups about the things that we've learnt—about what it means to be a man and to allow ourselves to be vulnerable, to seek help and support when we need it, rather than believing that to be a man is to be tough and not show weakness. This shift needs to come from every person in Australia, regardless of gender and age. We all have a role to play.

Now is a fitting time to be talking about this, ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women tomorrow. I'd like to note that, to mark this day, the Zonta Club of Canberra will be lighting Canberra orange. This is something Zonta do each year as part of their 16 days of activism to keep raising attention to this matter. The Malcolm Fraser Bridge will glow, so too will each of our light-rail stops, the National Carillon and, importantly, this building, which is a focal point of both Canberra and the nation, in recognition of the decisions that get made here on behalf of Australians.

I hope that this small gesture at Parliament House, supporting Zonta and their efforts, goes some way to highlighting the support and the work that is being done across parliament to further this issue. I invite senators who will be in Canberra tomorrow night to come and speak with Zonta at 7.30, just after the sun sets, out the front of Parliament House. For those who can't make it, we all have a role to play in this: start to have those conversations; start to speak to loved ones and to friends about how we shift this. It is an ambitious plan. It is a worthy goal. It is something that is possible. There are so many people who have dedicated their lives and are working tirelessly to make this happen.

Just to finish, I want to give a shout out to some of our local organisations who are working on the front line here in the ACT dealing with the impacts of domestic and family violence every day. That includes the YWCA, the DVCS, and the Beryl and Doris women's refuges. Thank you for all you do for our community.

I would like to express my support for the government leading the next National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, and I'd also like to begin by recognising the work of my own mother, the first Warlpiri speaking, the first language speaking, minister in the Northern Territory government, of the former Country Liberal Party, Bess Nungarrayi Price. She was integral in the establishment of the very first national action plan to reduce domestic violence, and she worked closely with my now colleague Senator Michaelia Cash.

It was very difficult for her, but this is an issue that is very close to our hearts, both my mother and I being survivors. We have also seen violence played out within our immediate family over the years and have experienced the challenges of being Aboriginal women in a traditional Aboriginal context. We talk about culture, and today we are bringing to light the traditional cultural impacts that immediately affect our family. When I hear my colleagues speak of the rates of violence against Aboriginal women in this country, they're speaking about the women in my family. There's a lack of understanding or want of understanding to understand those cultural impacts of when young girls are promised to older men and are forced to be in outstations, where, like my aunt, they go missing for decades. They are forced into those circumstances. When these circumstances are supported by family members, it makes it even it harder for Aboriginal women. It makes it harder when Aboriginal women try to get up and talk about these circumstances and we're immediately affected by our own traditional culture. Others call you a sellout; others call you many different names but don't want to recognise the pressures that we come under as those who live under the confines of traditional Aboriginal culture.

If we were to address this correctly, we would see rates of incarceration drop dramatically. We would see children being able to live in homes free of violence. We would start to see the sort of equality that we want in this country if we could actually recognise those elements that are most destructive, those elements that have taken away the lives of many of my family members, those elements that led to the death of Candy Napaljarri; Marion Napurrurla, her daughter; Kayleen Nungarrayi, another mother to me; Linda Nangala, my niece, who was stabbed in a town camp and killed, who left two children behind; Rita Penangke, my aunt, who left my little cousin behind; Rosalie Nungarrayi, my mother's sister, who was stabbed and killed in a town camp in Katherine; Caroline Napaljarri, my cousin; and, Stephanie Napaljarri, my cousin whose body I had to ID in a morgue.

If we are serious in this nation about lowering the rates of domestic violence for Aboriginal women, we have to listen to the voices of the women who are prepared to speak up. One of those voices is Cheron Long, who I brought to this parliament last year, and her sister, Meescha. Her sister was found hanged from a boab tree in a Territory community, but they believe she was murdered. The investigation didn't find that. These are injustices that need to be followed up in this country. These voices, those ones that are rarely heard, need to be heard in this conversation. Otherwise, we'll continue to see the rates of deaths of Indigenous women remain at critically high levels. These deaths are due to family and domestic violence and sexual abuse that are experienced in places that are out of sight and out of mind to the rest of this country. It must be understood. We talk about culture and toxic masculinity. It occurs in traditional Aboriginal culture as well. I know because my family have been subjected to it, and we need to start taking this seriously.

Tomorrow is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, another day of significance in our calendars where we as First Nations women try desperately to have our stories heard, heard here in this place, heard in the media and heard in the courtroom. It's a day where a lot of us can only hope that our blak lives and our blak bodies matter, too.

I pay my respects and I honour our women and the struggles and the trauma we face every day. I particularly honour those who have lost their lives. First Nations women are the backbone of our communities—strong, staunch and loyal. Our women care and fight for country, keep our families together and keep our communities grounded and strong. First Nations women bear the brunt of colonisation in a way like no other. We face a greater risk of domestic and family violence in this country. The statistics paint a heartbreaking image. That image like a mirror, really.

When I see the statistics, I think of the physical violence, the broken teeth, the bruised blak bodies and the sexual violence and harassment. I think of those calls all blak women know too well, of our sister girls wailing down the other end of the phone. I think of the mattress coming into the lounge room, for the woman who is now homeless. I think of our women being demonised by child protection services. I think of our babies being removed, torn from their mothers' arms. I think of the police not viewing us as the 'right type' of domestic violence victim. And I think of our women sitting in intimidating courtrooms, seeking safety from the same system that on every other day is violent and unjust towards our blak bodies. We know that violence against our women continues after the assault, through systemic racism. Domestic violence is crippling for all victims-survivors, and I acknowledge this. The sad reality is that our voices, our pain and our solutions are not heard or taken as seriously as those of white women.

We need a holistic approach that addresses not only the immediate problem we face but also the historic, political and socioeconomic factors which we did not cause but which contribute to this violence. We need a self-determined, standalone plan designed and delivered by First Nations women. First Nations women have cared for and sustained this country for thousands of generations. Our leadership will only strengthen this country for all.

The Albanese government have said that they support a standalone plan to end violence against First Nations women in this country, but they haven't given us any detail or funding commitments to get this critical work done. This is urgent and overdue. We need to work together to make it happen. Today and every day I will fight for the lives of black women in this country. I will not allow our pain, our struggle and our survival to go by the wayside.

Senators, we are at our best when we speak from the heart and we speak about domestic violence. I want to say how moved I've been today by the contributions thus far about one of the most uncomfortable of topics. It is, in fact, one of the most important topics, where we can actually demonstrate to the community that it is a topic that affects each and every one of us in our communities, because there's no discrimination when it comes to domestic violence, and if you've never walked the walk, it's not so easy to talk the truth.

We in our society need to educate the men and the women, the girls and the boys about respect—and respect for one another. That's why I'm proud to be in the Senate today: it does demonstrate that, as senators, we can be respectful to each other and listen to one another when we're talking about a topic that has touched too many of us and our families. In Australia, on average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner. One in three Australian women has experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by a man they know. One in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner since age 15.

International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women aims to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls around the world. But we in our own communities should be the leaders. We should speak up. As many here have acknowledged, community leaders and people in this place, the other place and state parliaments have the aim, as one of their main aims as public figures, of changing the attitudes of too many who turn a blind eye to what is happening to their neighbours and families and, in fact, what is happening in their own homes. We need to be open. We need to show compassion in relation to domestic violence. Too often, when a woman is in a violent situation, people ask, 'Why doesn't she just leave?' What we should be asking is, 'Who could she turn to and where will she go?' We need to remove the burden from victims and provide an opportunity for them to have a safe place to land. It takes enormous courage for a woman to pack up her children and leave a violent situation.

I'm proud of the Albanese Labor government because we are acting, and I know from the debate today that we have the support of those who have spoken and those who won't get the opportunity to speak today. Women who escape this violent, intense situation need to have somewhere to go. We need to provide affordable housing for these women and children. If you're a child raised in a home where there is domestic violence and coercion, you're more likely to stay in that type of relationship in adulthood. We must break down the barriers.

It has been fantastic to have some of our male senators make a contribution today and to hear that they have been educated by not only women in this chamber but also in the other place and by leaders in our community. It's a huge task and we know it's huge, but we have to start. Domestic violence is everyone's business, not just those in this chamber. It's not the police force that has to enforce the law. It is the responsibility of all of us. That's why we have to encourage men in the community to step in and tell their mates, 'That's enough. You're going too far.'

Whatever circumstances you're in, every young girl, every young boy, every male and every female deserves to be treated with respect and protected from any type of violence in this country—because one death is one too many.

PAYNE () (): I acknowledge and thank my colleagues for their indulgence. This is a very important day not just here but across Australia and our region. I want to record the strong support of the opposition, in this place, for the statement and initiative of this debate.

Our focus as a government on women's safety was a strong one, as demonstrated in the budget of 2022-23. We clearly said that we wanted to create an Australia that is free from violence against women and children, and where women are safe and respected, by focusing on the four pillars of prevention, early intervention, response and recovery. Our policies and funding followed that focus. We had a specific Minister for Women's Safety in our government. My friend and colleague Senator the Hon. Anne Ruston is unable to be here this afternoon and I want to acknowledge her contribution.

I had the extraordinary privilege of hosting, chairing perhaps, a significant number of women's round tables in my previous ministerial role. They were held in Australian capital cities and regional areas across the states and territories, some of them forced online by the invidious nature of COVID. It was an extraordinary privilege to hear dozens and dozens of Australian women. These were immensely powerful opportunities for them to share their views and experiences from vastly different walks of life across our country. More times than I care to remember, disclosures were made, at those round tables, of individual and family experiences and, inevitably, sometimes for the first time. Everybody would stop in their tracks and realise that we all know someone who has experienced family and domestic violence in their lives. For many, that is a confronting fact to accept.

Today is an opportunity for me to thank the people who participated in those round tables, who were so open and frank with us, who challenged me and those who attended. It's also an opportunity to thank those who work to support women and their children across Australia and victims-survivors across this country, as Senator Pocock did in his remarks. I also thank the many frontline workers and organisations that do everything and anything they can to support and protect women and their children and to prevent violence. Many of us here work with them and support them in our communities. Their work is often not acknowledged, and I want to do that now.

Across New South Wales and as a minister, I have met so many people whose lives are committed to this issue. I know Patty Kinnersly and Moo Baulch were here in parliament this week, and I want to acknowledge them and their work with Our Watch and the previous chair, Natasha Stott Despoja, for what they do. I want to acknowledge ANROWS for their vital research and I want to acknowledge the refuges that exist across our communities to protect women who have nowhere else to go. In New South Wales and perhaps elsewhere—I'm not sure how far they have spread—there's the organisation Women's Community Shelters, the initiative of Annabelle Daniel and so many others, including people like Yvonne Keane in Western Sydney.

There are refuges like The Haven in Penrith, such an important service in our community. I acknowledge one member of the board, my very good friend who is actually the mayor of Penrith, Tricia Hitchen. She has gone from police inspector in Western Sydney to a board member of a refuge. She has gone from pursuing perpetrators to ensure that they paid the price for their attacks on vulnerable women and children to being able to support women and children who have nowhere else to go. Tricia doesn't turn a hair at the thought that she needs to pick up the toilet paper supplies or the cereal or whatever it might on any day be for The Haven. That is nothing to her because it delivers for those women and children, and I'm immensely proud of what she does in my community.

As human services minister I initiated a program in the Department of Human Services in relation to the prevention of family and domestic violence and support for victims and perpetrators, called Enough. I was very proud of that. At the moment I'm the deputy chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Parliamentary Standards, and I serve on that committee with my colleagues Senator Chandler, Nola Marino and others. The committee is chaired by Sharon Claydon. After we finish with our parliamentary standards report, I want to make sure that we take steps to address support for people in this place that experience family and domestic violence: the workers, the staff, the contractors and others. (Time expired)

The 16 days of activism against gender based violence is an annual international campaign that starts on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Violence against women does not happen in a vacuum; it is most often perpetrated by men, and it is time to seriously reckon with that fact and how we change it. A whole-of-society approach that tackles the root cause of the problem that is patriarchy and the power imbalance it creates is really the way forward. This means recognising the systemic ways that women's inequality is linked to violence and how violence and abuse is sustained through this inequality. Women continue to be underemployed and underpaid and they represent the vast majority of workers in precarious and undervalued work, such as in the care economy. Violence against women is preventable, and greater gender equity is at the heart of the solution.

We know that First Nations women as well as women of colour are far more likely to face domestic and family violence. The fact is that Aboriginal women and women of colour also face many extra barriers trying to access services. Systemic racism is part and parcel of our institutions, such as health, law enforcement and justice. There is a complete and utter lack of investment in Aboriginal community controlled organisations that specialise in providing culturally safe family violence services. Similarly, there are very few services funded especially for women of colour or trans women or women with disability. This is an unacceptable situation. We know that family violence increased during COVID, but let's be frank here, let's look at the truth: violence against women was at epidemic levels in this country even before the pandemic began, and the lack of support services and women's refuges has meant that women have always been trapped in homes with their abusers because they simply have nowhere to go.

Every year we count the numbers and every year they are distressingly high. Politicians in this place on days like today say how shocked they are and how terrible it is, yet governments are still unwilling to take the necessary steps and to invest at the large scale needed to tackle violence and abuse. Counting Dead Women Australia—who have taken on the heartbreaking and difficult work of doing just that: counting how many women we lose to violence every year—say that, as of this week, we have lost 40 women in Australia this year.

A case that really broke my heart is that of Arnima Hayat, a 19-year-old medical student who was found dead in a bathtub full of acid in her North Parramatta home in early February. Her new husband was later charged with murder after handing himself in. Her young life was cut short. Her family said she'd aspired to be a surgeon. Arnima was just a teenager.

This story, and others like it, can't be 'just another story', and then we move on. We know what needs to be done and we must do it now. We know that at the heart of violence against women is control, misogyny and sexism and a culture that continues to endorse these. This kind of violence happens repeatedly because there are apologists for toxic masculinity in society. It's plainly and painfully obvious that we need to do much more. Governments need to do more; society needs to do more. Victim survivors who do reach out rely on a system that is desperately underfunded and overstretched. There is a dangerous shortage of services for survivors of domestic violence all over the country. When women, some with children in tow, have taken the brave step to walk away from violence, there is nowhere to go—no safe place to go to.

Our goal should be to prevent and end domestic violence. To do that, we can't have bandaid solutions. It can't be one size fits all or something based on administrative rationalism. It has to be holistic—an all-encompassing approach that actually changes culture and systems, at the same time as it provides the best possible care and services for victims and survivors.

I want to use the few minutes that I have to speak directly to men and boys who might be listening. Violence against women—the violence so regularly perpetrated against women and girls—is an issue for you. It affects women, sure—in small ways and in big ways. Sometimes it's the immediate trauma; sometimes it reverberates in the months and years to follow. It does affect women, sure. But it is perpetrated by men against women and girls. Of course it's a human rights issue. It really is, though, I think, a men's issue. It is men who perpetrate the violence, after all.

Why should women and girls bear the burden of dealing with the violence that is perpetrated against them? Individual women and girls bear that burden, of course, when they speak up about the violence that is perpetrated against them, or against their friends or their daughters; when they speak to the police, or to their parents; or when they go through the long and difficult, unlikely and often fruitless process of seeking justice or just trying to stop it happening again.

Imagine then—consider, for a moment—the courage and determination of young women like Chanel Contos or Saxon Mullins. What courage, what determination, what decency—to put aside their own interests, to put themselves into the public, in the interests of all Australian women and girls. And the hundreds of young women with whom they spoke, who spoke up themselves to policy-makers about their experience—that, I think, is real courage. We should celebrate their courage, their resilience and the dignity with which they spoke. And we should listen.

I don't know if you know, but so often, when women get together, if you overhear, they talk about this violence. It's violence perpetrated against them at home, at work, at school, at university, at their friends' homes—in so many public and private settings. Mostly what men should do is listen, reflect, act and lead, because the burden of acting on violence against women should fall on men—all of us. If so many women are the victims of intimate-partner violence or of sexual assaults in the home, in social settings or in public or if they are subjected to sexual harassment at work, then an awful lot of men are engaged in violence. That means that the problem is wide and deep in Australian culture.

From brutal, catastrophic assaults to the accumulation of small, daily, physical or verbal assaults and intimidations that leach the joy and confidence away from so many women—it's the boys at high school, the men at the pub or the club or the BBQ, the male students and lecturers at uni or TAFE, the workmates and the supervisors who need to show the same courage and the same decency that all those women like Ms Mullins and Ms Contos have shown to stand up to take the wind out of the sails of men who say things that denigrate women, make light of violence or commit violence.

Culture is critical. It doesn't remove individual responsibility or agency, but leadership matters and so does culture and behaviour at work, school, uni and TAFE. Workplace sexual harassment is violence perpetrated against women in their workplace. Again, it's women who have provided leadership here. I saw that the Attorney-General made some appointments today to the Respect@Work Council, and I want to recognise some of the women who I know who have been appointed to that council. I congratulate everyone who has been appointed to that council, but Emeline Gaske, Julia Fox, Jo Schofield, Mel Donnelly and Abbey Kendall are women in the trade union movement who have led the fight against sexual harassment in the workplace. I congratulate them in anticipation of all the leadership that they are going to show again.

Violence against women and girls happens everywhere—in families, at school, at work, in political parties and parliaments, in the street, in our clubs, in our organisations and in our unions. When men see it, they must act. Call out thuggishness, violence, misogyny, whether it is deliberate and calculated or careless or reckless. That's my message to men and boys. Stand up with the courage of the women and girls in our lives.

There are few issues that unite everyone in this place more than this issue. I commend Senator Ayres and the other men who have spoken on this issue here today.

While International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is one day, we have to find in this place a way to make it every single day that we stand up in this place, lead by example and do everything we can to eliminate violence against women. This unites us as women, as senators and as human beings. All of us in this place know somebody who is the victim of coercion, domestic violence, physical violence or sexual violence, and some, as we heard so poignantly. have multiple members, in the case of Senator Nampijinpa Price, whose female relatives and friends have been murdered.

We all need to stand up and say very clearly that there is no such thing as family violence and there is no such thing as domestic abuse. It is violence, it is murder and it is a crime. The diminishing of this as family violence or as things that are acceptable to remain hidden in plain sight, behind closed doors, has to end. We are in such a great position to do that because it does unite each and everyone of us.

I was very, very proud to be a member of the cabinet task force on women's safety and economic security with my other cabinet colleagues who put so much work and passion into the women's budget statements and into the many programs that we initiated with great passion for women's safety and women's economic security. Because there can be no safety without economic security.

We know, and I think we all know here today, that no matter how many policies you have and how much money we throw at this issue—as important as those things both are—nothing will change if we do not change the attitudes of all Australians. Fifty per cent of Australians don't know what to look for, they don't know what it looks like and they certainly do not know how to call it out. Not only do we have the responsibility to set the example here—to make sure we support the best possible budget statements, the best possible policies and the government of the day to implement them—but we also have to do more in our own communities and in our own families to call it out for what it is. Whether you are in an Aboriginal community in Alice Springs, or our neighbours next door, this is happening.

I want to quote from the United Nations Secretary General, who said:

Achieving gender equality and empowering women and girls is the unfinished business of our time …

How right he is, because this is not just an issue for women in other nations; it is as much of a problem in our own societies, as much as we try not to accept that this is the case.

Violence against women and girls is one of the most widespread, persistent and devastating breaches of human rights in our own nation. Clearly, this is a problem for us as much as it is for anywhere else, whether it's in this nation that you are vulnerable, or overseas, whether from war, famine or the many other factors that make people vulnerable—you can be just as vulnerable in the house next door to us in all of our suburbs all around our nation. Having a look at this and accepting that this is a problem for us, and having so many men in this chamber today calling it out, is a great, great next step. Let's do what we can in this place on a multipartisan basis to make every single day a day where we work together to eliminate violence in all its forms against women and girls.

Violence against women and children is not inevitable. It does not have to be the standard we set for ourselves as a nation. It does not have to take the toll that it does on women and children our world. Too many women and children experience gender-based violence. I have experienced it as a child, and I know the lifelong psychological damage that it can do. We know that one woman dies every 10 days at the hands of her former or current partner. Thirty per cent of women have experienced violence by a partner, another known person or a stranger since the age of 15. We all know it needs to stop.

I note that we need to talk deeply about these issues. People say it is a crime—yes, it is a crime, but not every child will want to send their father to jail, for example. It's really important that we know how to stop this abuse while supporting families, whether they choose to stay together or separate through that journey in a way that keeps everybody safe. Every Australian should have the right to live a life free from violence. I'm proud of what our government is doing in partnership with state and territory governments, and that is indeed about addressing underlying factors that drive gender-based violence—underlying factors that we can change, and that relate to cultural and gender norms. We know that men experience gender-based violence, too. They can experience family and domestic violence, but it doesn't happen at the same rate as it does to women. One in 13 men has experienced this, according to the data. I recognise that there may be more men in this context. But it does not detract from the fact that it is often gender norms that underlie the nature of gender based domestic violence and are part of generating that violence to start with. When we have debates in this chamber where we talk about violence against men being under-recognised, but do it in a way that exacerbates restrictive gender norms and continues to put people in very, very narrow boxes, we're not going to fix anyone's domestic or gender based violence issues.

In that context of addressing these issues of family and domestic violence, we can talk about ending violence against women and children, but that is not to make it as if we are deprioritising men. When we value people's ability to live freely, to express their gender identity, to exhibit feminine characteristics without being seen as weak—we know, for example, that men don't speak up about violence because it can be seen as a weakness. When we liberate ourselves from restrictive notions of gender and who is safe and who is not and how and why, we can recognise where gender based violence comes from. We know, of course, that women and children are more likely to experience domestic violence, and that is because of the shape of those gender norms that can make men victims too.

In this context, it's really important we have a strong national plan that unpacks cultural factors as well as practical ones: housing to flee violence, new frontline workers, positive duties on employers— (Time expired)

I thank the Senate and I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this debate today. I especially want to thank those senators who have suffered violence for sharing their very powerful stories. It's been a difficult debate to sit here and listen to, as someone who has experienced family violence, but it's an important debate. Sometimes, when senators and MPs bear too much of ourselves for the sake of breaking the convention of speeches in this place that are very matter of fact, we can often feel like we've said too much. This is a debate when not enough can be said, and not enough can be said from personal reflections. It supports and helps women in the community to hear these very personal and deeply powerful stories being said here in our most powerful place. There are women on every side of this chamber who can speak from personal experience, and that speaks to the prevalence of this issue in our society. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's a situation that allows us to talk frankly and quite personally today.

I'm very thankful for the work that has been undertaken by senators in this chamber over many years, and I do want to acknowledge that work. There have been calls for funding strategies and efforts to highlight the importance of this issue. Perhaps one piece of this puzzle seems insignificant against the huge, insurmountable problem we face, but I think when you put those things together they actually have delivered strategies that can work and a discussion in this country that has changed. So I thank Senator Waters for her continued support of women and for always making sure that this is on the agenda. I thank Senator Payne, who worked very hard in the previous parliament; Senator McAllister obviously, my friend, who always gives me a pat on the back after these speeches; and Senator Gallagher, our current Minister for Women. When I was growing up and I didn't really know much about politics I knew that Senator Gallagher was a boss and I knew that she was the kind of woman that would get things done. I'm really pleased and proud that she is our Minister for Women. I know she really cares about this issue.

I thank those women and the chamber for this discussion today. I also want to thank one of the women who are here in the chamber today—Helena Brunker. She is an ANU intern. She has been working in my office on some work around the operation and efficacy of Australian consent laws, which is part of the discussion that we need to have around ending gender based violence in this country. It's really tough work. For such a young woman she has taken on this work with skill and without being daunted by the task ahead of her.

In contributing to this debate today I want to speak to Helena, her friends and her generation and to acknowledge that this is an opportunity for us to talk about the work that we're doing and the work we've done. I'd like to think that when your generation gets the opportunity to sit in these seats we're not talking about this issue in the same way anymore and we're not talking about these things from personal experience, because we've put an end to domestic violence, to gender based violence and to sexual assault that isn't able to be rectified through any form of justice for victims. That's a tall ask, but we take that on. We thank you and your generation for giving us something to work towards and giving us something to deliver.

Finally, I thank my family. My mum doesn't talk very much about this issue and about the past, but she is very special to me. I thank her.

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is very significant, but I don't think we should confine talking about this issue to one day. We have heard today about its prevalence; this issue touches every woman, every family and every community across Australia. Before I entered this place I worked in the family and domestic violence sector for nearly two decades. It's something that I have spoken about at length, written about and researched. I have worked in front-line services, with the police and in refuges. I have packed Christmas gifts and put teddy bears on the beds of kids in refuges. Those kids had been separated because of violence that had happened in their household. It is heartbreaking when you have to do that work.

Last night I had the pleasure of attending the Our Watch event held here at Parliament House. I acknowledge my colleague Senator Waters, the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate, for her work on the parliamentary friends group alongside Bridget Archer and Alicia Payne. I had a great time catching up with colleagues and reflecting on the time that I was on the Our Watch board. Before this I also worked with then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to develop the blueprint to the first national plan in this country. I was the only First Nations woman on that committee. I was a lone voice speaking to the Prime Minister. I also want to acknowledge the work of the then Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, who's part of the Labor Party. During that time, the Time for action report was handed down into this place. I was honoured to be part of some of those key recommendations that recommended Our Watch and ANROWS, as Senator Payne reflected, as being developed during that time.

Last night was a reflection of how far those organisations have come, when I hear about the work that they've done in this space, but also how far we have to go. When I think about the prevalence and I think about the stories and I think about all of the things that are still happening across Australia, I know that there is so much work for us to do collectively, especially in regard to violence against First Nations women and their children.

I saw the recent announcement of the government's ambitious plan to end violence against women in a generation. A key part of that was the standalone plan. I have relentlessly advocated for a standalone plan for more than a decade, and I'm glad to see this government taking it on board. It's a plan that has got to be created by mob for mob, and it has to be designed to give communities the support they need and to take into consideration some of those cultural factors that are unique and solutions that are unique, in fact, across this country.

In the 46th Parliament, I co-signed a motion, alongside Senator Thorpe, to trigger an inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children in this country. Tomorrow it will commemorate its one-year anniversary. I'm really proud to say that Senator Green and Senator Scarr, in their stewardship of the Senate committee, have been very mindful of the issues and the stories that will be told in this committee. We know the unacceptable rates for First Nations women compared to non-First-Nations women. They are up to 12 times more likely to be murdered. I want to acknowledge also the other First Nations senators in this place and the other place, who have those stories, as well, that reverberate across our families and communities. These are unacceptable and disproportional rates.

Regardless of numbers, we know that far too many of our women are dying and that not enough is being done to stop this from happening. It's no surprise to those who have worked in this area, who have been affected by it, that this hurt, this grief, this trauma is still reverberating across our communities. The truth is we still don't know the true extent of that, and that's because some of these cases are unreported and the data is inconsistent. In fact, even today the media didn't show up to talk about the inquiry. That's telling. That's why we're having this inquiry in the first place. We sent out a media alert and asked them to come, and they didn't turn up. We see the 60 Minutes coverage and we see the vigils and the rallies, but we also hear the reverberating silence. In the next 16 days, I want everyone to remember that as we move forward it's about action. Your activism matters, and here in the federal parliament is where it starts. (Time expired)

This Friday 25 November marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. It starts the global 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, which concludes on 10 December, International Human Rights Day. Around the world, there has been an explosion of activism responding to violence against women and girls. Since the #MeToo movement gained international attention five years ago, the momentum has continued. I want to acknowledge the ongoing grassroots activism from women defending their own human rights, whether it's here in Australia with women such as the formidable Grace Tame or elsewhere across the world, such as with the women in Iran. It is important for us to acknowledge one of the most widespread human rights abuses in the world.

I'm a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade subcommittee on human rights. In light of the recent inquiry into rights of women and children, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting Emma Macey-Storch, the director and producer of a documentary called Geeta. This film, set in the urban slums of Agra in India, tells the story of Geeta Mahor, a mother of three daughters, whose husband tried to kill her and her daughters in their sleep by maliciously throwing acid on them. The incident resulted in Geeta being badly injured. The two daughters were severely scarred, and the baby, tragically, passed away. The reason for this atrocious act of violence stemmed from the husband's frustration of having three daughters and no sons, but no reason will ever warrant or justify domestic and family violence.

Despite permanent disfigurement caused by the burns, Geeta and her daughters have become loud activists, calling for an end to gender based violence and criminalising acid attacks. Geeta's story shows the power of everyday heroism that creates grassroots change, change we desperately need.

Worldwide, one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner. In Australia, one woman dies every 10 days at the hands of her former or current partner. Family and domestic violence continues to be a scourge on our society, and we must do everything to end it. Family and domestic violence is experienced at disproportionately high rates by First Nations women, as we've heard already today; culturally and linguistically diverse women and children; people with disability; and people who identify as LGBTQI+. It is on every person to change this. We must do better.

Not only does family violence have a human cost; it has an economic cost. This issue continues to drive gender inequality in the areas of employment participation and financial security and is the leading cause of homelessness in women and children. In WA, taking inspiration from the global 16 Days of Activism, we have the 16 Days in WA campaign. Western Australians are encouraged to create change to educate, motivate and advocate in their own communities and stand up to stop violence against women. I want to acknowledge the tireless work of WA Minister for the Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence, Simone McGurk. She's an incredible leader for my home state on this issue. but this work is not for any one minister or person; it is a shared mission. It is everybody's responsibility and everybody's business.

At the federal level we have a lot of work to do in this space, but we have started. I'm proud to be part of the Albanese Labor government, as we have legislated to provide 10 days of paid family domestic violence leave. Economic security is a key factor determining whether a person can escape a violent relationship, so this will save lives. We all need to stand up and do our bit, because ending violence against women is everybody's business. I commend every senator, every colleague, in this chamber for their efforts and contributions today. On this International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women we need to work together to ensure a safer Australia for all.

Senator Rice, you have the call.

Excuse me.

Yes, Senator Hanson.

I am asking for the call, as a party leader. Also the Greens have already had a few speakers on this issue. I believe One Nation should have the chance to add to this discussion, considering debate will finish at 5.30.

Senator Hanson, you have the call.

Thank you very much. International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women—we know what has happened is horrific: the death of women and the impost it's had on children. But, as I keep saying all the time, it's also about domestic violence against men. I've been listening to the speeches here in this chamber and I have not heard anyone refer to the domestic violence that is carried out against men. Twenty-five per cent of domestic violence in this country is attributed to women. If you want to stamp out domestic violence, you must speak about it truthfully, instead of coming in here and beating your chest about it. I've spoken about domestic violence. I never grew up with domestic violence in my own household—I was very, very fortunate—but I had a husband who was domestically violent. So I know what it's about. But the fact is that you women who have stood up here today—

Senator Hanson, please direct your comments through the chair and do not refer to people as 'you' across this chamber.

To the women in this chamber, the senators: you have sons, husbands, brothers and uncles as well—people who are not domestic violence perpetrators. This is not what you should be pushing. Push right across the board and look at the problems that we have. If you look at our Family Court system, that's where a lot of problems are happening, because men—and some women—are absolutely frustrated that they don't have the opportunity to spend time with their children. They are denied that right. If you go to the guts of the problem, you will solve a lot of the problems. If you deal with the family law courts issues and then allow parents to see their children, you might stop half the problems that are going on. It is a very important issue.

This was my time to actually debate my bill on the Voice to Parliament, but then you actually denied me that right and took away my time, which a senator only has twice a year, to debate this. Therefore, you've taken away from that time. Why? It was because you didn't want to debate on the Voice to Parliament. But we are here discussing this because you didn't want it to go to the vote, so you denied me the right to put that up.

But you need to address domestic violence and acknowledge that it is also women that are murdering men. It is women that are responsible for a lot of the problems as well. You need to address the problem and ask why it is happening. Don't go around beating your chest here and saying, 'Well, how are you going to deal with it?' I've just told you: the biggest problem is coming from the family law courts. Start addressing those problems in the family law courts and let parents be parents to their children. You'll get rid of a lot of the angst that is happening. There are fathers who go through it; they're thrown out of their homes with their children. The fact is that there's nowhere for them to go. I've championed that fact and pushed for them. They must be looked after as well, so that they have refuge and can get the assistance and help that they need.

But it's all about women. Yes, men are the main perpetrators, but they are not the sole perpetrators. What about the woman who threw cooking oil all over her husband or the woman who stabbed her husband to death? Don't you care about that? What about the women who try to run over their husbands? Don't you care about that? They are still people who need fair representation across the board and who need to have it discussed in a fair and honest way.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is parental alienation; that is not being addressed either. Until we address that, you're going to have domestic violence. I'll be honest with you—I'll tell you what happened. My husband was giving me a hard time. I cooked dinner for him and said, 'Your dinner is ready.' He never came up for his dinner, so I took it down after saying it a third time. He was standing across the pool table, and I said, 'Your dinner is ready.' He said, 'I'll come up when I'm ready.' You know what? I said, 'You're ready now,' and threw that plate full of dinner across the table at him, and it smashed against the wall. So I admit to the fact that you can both have your agreements and disagreements and get into arguments and debates in the household. Don't make out that it's just purely men who are responsible for this, because women can instigate it and cause problems in the household as well.

The sheer fact is: don't put up ads that say men should get counselling to do with domestic violence. Women need to be told where to go too, because women are responsible and can instigate domestic violence in the household. But let's look at it fairly, right across the board, and treat everyone equally, rather than by what sex you are. It's alright to call a person a woman now when you're talking on this topic, but any other time there's no male or female. It's like we don't have a sex or an identity. You use the sex when it suits you.

The time for statements has now expired.

 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022; Second Reading Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

I was saying earlier that I can't support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 because it is again the Albanese government rejecting rural and regional Australia. I was talking about what we did in government and our future fuels and vehicles strategy. We also committed $2.1 billion to help increase the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicle technologies, and market movements were happening.

There is an uptake of electric vehicles, and the range and choice of suitable cars is widening. Tomorrow, thanks to Senator David Pocock, I am going to trial an electric ute, which will be an experience, indeed, because one of the things I hear from where I live is there are just no commercially available electric utes or decent farm vehicles yet. Given that, and given technology is advancing, the market is actually determining it. Why is the government deciding it needs to interfere in the market? For what purpose?

The independent Parliamentary Budget Office have reported that this bill will cost billions of dollars through the next decade. To back up that conclusion, Treasury is not even able to articulate the long-term costs of the measure. It's billions of dollars in unnecessarily forgone revenue, helping the elite, when we face massive infrastructure rebuilds because of the floods that have gone on now, with massive ongoing and extensive natural disaster repairs to our roads network. These electric vehicles will contribute nothing to general revenue because they don't pay fuel excise. It's billions of dollars in lost revenue which could have alternatively been put towards hospitals, more regional doctors, more regional teachers and more support for small businesses—but, no. The government are trying to convince Australians that they are strong, fiscal managers. This bill shows they are not. This bill is a typical example of the government's usual modus operandi, their grab for votes, irrespective of the benefits or the consequences of their too-little-thought-through policies.

It's not just the independent Parliamentary Budget Office that thought it an unsound idea. Despite being called 'tax reform' by the Treasurer, the Senate inquiry held into this legislation showed it to be high-cost, low-impact and designed with no consultation with industry, government or civil society. A number of experts have actually raised serious questions about the equity, fiscal sustainability and price pressures this will place on the EV market. Professor Miranda Stewart, director of the Tax Group at the University of Melbourne Law School and fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the Crawford School of Public Policy, is quoted as saying the policy will deliver subsidy to 'a rather narrow class of employee beneficiaries and provides the largest benefit to the highest income earners'. Guess what? They don't live in regional Australia.

The bill does not line up with the government's sensible economic policy and fiscal repair promises that they had prior to the election. The Treasurer said in June:

… Government must make the hard decisions necessary for responsible budget repair.

…   …   …

… making sure that spending is about building value, not buying votes.

Why are we buying votes through subsidising electric vehicles for those who can already afford them, those who are getting a salary-sacrifice benefit? The government can't say what this bill will actually do for emissions reduction, as I said earlier. If you plug your car in overnight to recharge, chances are you are plugged into the grid and you're burning coal. They can't say what this bill will do to the EV market and they can't even say how they would assess whether it is a success or not.

The best thing the government could do is scrap this bill, take the revenue that they would achieve through the ongoing fringe benefit tax and invest in practical measures that would actually drive investment into EV infrastructure, which would by its own measure lead to market change, lead to behavioural change and see more people take up the opportunity to drive electronic vehicles. As I said at the outset, on this side we're not anti electronic vehicles, we are not anti electric and we're not anti low or zero emissions transport, but we are pro investing into how to make it possible and not just delivering a benefit to those who actually don't need it.

Market pressures and technology advances are and will continue driving wider uptake of electric vehicles. We will soon see the day when we do get the long-distance trucks, cars, utes, farm vehicles and indeed even electric vehicles capable of towing trailers and caravans, as Senator O'Sullivan talked about in his earlier speech, and we will see vehicles that will be able to travel the hundreds of kilometres that I indeed do just to get to work here in Canberra before needing to recharge. But that is where we are moving to. Making current electric vehicles cheaper for a narrow, privileged few will not make that happen, so I cannot support this bill.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. The history of climate change and related energy bills is replete with terrible governance, shoddy governance, deceitful governance. There have been genuine errors made, there have been decisions taken on greed and self-interest, contradicting the science, and now we have inappropriate market manipulation from a cynical, meddling government. This bill is designed to force the uptake of electric vehicles. What hubris, what deceit—and who pays? As always, the people are paying.

How can the Albanese government ignore the critical shortage of minerals essential to producing this many electric vehicles? Lithium has been a global arms race fought between electric vehicles and Labor's other loves: batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. There's not enough lithium on earth for one of these follies, let alone all four. Stuart Crow, chair of Lake Resources, said:

There simply isn't going to be enough lithium on the face of the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it just won't be there.

So what's the government's plan to handle the lithium shortage in the electronics industry as net zero sucks up supply of cobalt, lithium and copper? Demand inflation will force these resources up in price over the next few years. How's the government going to explain to citizens why their phones, laptops and household goods have been made unaffordable from so-called sustainable, green technologies? By the way, have you noticed how United Nations World Economic Forum sustainability programs can exist only with subsidies, meaning they're not sustainable?

Back to the point, the engineering boundaries are real, and wishy-washy responses about finding new solutions don't work when the best solution, lithium, is being wasted on the vanity of net zero. Labor's much-hyped goal of net zero for 2050 will run out of charge between 2025 and 2030, when lithium supplies are predicted to dry up.

This shortage is already manifested in mineral prices. In 2020 lithium was $6,000 per tonne. Today, what is it? I'll tell you: it's sitting around $78,000 per time, 13 times higher. Everything this precious resource is being wasted on will be sitting in landfill before 2050. I say it again: everything this precious resource is being wasted on will be sitting in landfill, buried before 2050. Every wind turbine, every solar panel, every big battery, every home battery—all of it rotting while the earth and its oceans are torn apart to feed the monstrous dream of net zero through the strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals that are necessary for the production of these follies.

Even electric vehicle manufacturers admit to being in trouble. The World Economic Forum, whose policies seem to find their way into Australian legislation, thinks we need five billion electric vehicles to achieve net zero. That's not five billion through to 2050; that is five billion every five to 10 years for ever. No wonder you're looking startled; this is news to most people in this room. The reason electric vehicles are so damn expensive is that, in manufacturing electric vehicles, they are resource and energy hogs. They are resource guzzlers with a huge environmental footprint, far greater than petrol and diesel cars. These price hikes, which have already started, are set to push almost all purely electric vehicles beyond the luxury car threshold required to qualify for Labor's amendment to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act.

After the amendment moved by the Greens and Senator Pocock goes through, in 2025 hybrids will no longer be included in the bill. Price inflation will ensure not much else will be either. When President Biden gave a $7,000 subsidy, the first thing that happened? Car manufacturers put up their prices by $7,000. Subsidies make things dearer, not cheaper. They shift the price label but not the affordability. Perhaps some cheaper EVs that are made in China and that may or may not still be working in 2030 will benefit.

Labor could, of course, raise the threshold, but at what point do we say that big business is being given a subsidy from working Australians to buy luxury vehicles? Our European friends are a decade ahead of us in this madness. They've dismissed policies like this as expensive, wasteful and counterproductive. Their conclusion is that government interference benefits rich companies at the expense of natural market competition. It's why German finance minister Christian Lindner said:

We simply cannot afford misguided subsidies anymore. These cars have so far been subsidised over their lifetime with up to 20,000 euros, even for top earners. That's too much. We can save billions there, which we can use more sensibly.

Germans are saying this.

This bill for luxury foreign electric vehicles is designed to fix a number on Labor's spreadsheet of carbon dioxide output. It's not to assist a transition to electric vehicles for the general public. The fastest rise in product quality occurred when electric vehicles were forced to compete on merit against their oil and gas hydrocarbon fuelled betters. It was only then, when the customer was king, that their price came down. Their quality went up and their range increased slightly. When European governments handed the electric vehicle market billions in subsidies, car manufacturers grew fat and lazy. They took the money, slacked off on development and raised their prices knowing that public money would cover the difference. This is transferring wealth from taxpayers to electric vehicle manufacturers.

Labor's bill is more of the same failed economics that fundamentally misunderstands what drives success. Given the price dynamics at play, if anything this bill penalises full electric vehicles and preferences hybrids. At the same time hybrids begin to win the consumer war, this government's net-zero policies are pushing up the price of fuel and leaving every car owner worse off. We're quickly reaching a point where car ownership will become a rare privilege that won't impact at all anyone in this chamber, yet it will make the lives of everyday Australians an intolerable misery. As Norway, the world's premier electric vehicle buyer, has stated, they want to reduce individual car ownership and see their population walk or catch public transport. The United Nations World Economic Forum EV policy is not about having different cars; it's about no cars—no cars. Good luck telling Australian tradies that, but that's what will happen.

These EVs have no resale value because they tend to be sold when the batteries are cooked. If we're talking about sustainability, electric vehicles are on a swift path to landfill, unlike conventional cars that have many lives and many owners. To get electricity consumption down in order to improve range, EVs are made of composite materials, aluminium and plastics. Most of the steel in the subframe is needed to hold the extra weight of the battery. Recycling is, of course, possible, although with the price of electricity in Australia, thanks to weather-dependent solar and wind driving up power prices, our recycling industry is struggling. Think about this: much like used plastics, glass, solar panels and wind turbines, EVs will not be recycled beyond their copper wires and the little steel that has been used. If electric vehicles are a less desirable product at a terrible price heading towards extinction, what are their alleged climate virtues? Let's consider that: this virtue is not based on science; it's not a calculation of their cradle-to-grave life cycle. It's a self-declaration. Electric vehicles identify as net zero, and so this government treats them as such.

No-one is looking at the harm these electric vehicles cause out of sight in the Third World or asking why they still have a social licence, given that most of them source raw materials on the back of child slave labour—child slave labour. What is the environmental cost of the Third World mining operations to build a car that sits in an Australian dealership with a green virtue sticker on the side? That's completely irrelevant as far as this government is concerned. Why else would Labor throw good money after bad behind Congo cobalt? Labor are turning a blind eye to the 40,000 children in the Congo mining the cobalt for EVs—after this bill, 45,000. Leading electric vehicle manufacturers claim to be free of child slave labour, yet their supply contracts for cobalt are with companies with child slave labour in their supply chains—deceit.

We like to think that our civilisation has advanced, yet these net-zero technologies, more than any other, are indulging in the cheap, largely unregulated labour of our poor neighbours and their children. When it's not children down mines clawing at the ground with their bare hands, it's the toxic mining practices for rare earths that make coalmines look like an oasis. This is the truth behind the green sticker. Electric vehicles need mining, and the Greens hate mining—or so they tell us. Greens and teals demand coal stay in the ground. How can anyone make more EVs without using coal to smelt the steel and the aluminium, process the plastics from coal and oil and make the glass? How can we make more electric vehicles without oil in the bearings? It seems the government and the Greens and teals cheer squads are determined to find out. It's impossible.

Added to the list of disasters waiting to happen is the effect of this many electric vehicles on the national electricity grid. Now we're talking about something that's hurting everyone. All it takes is three or so electric vehicles on an average suburban street to charge at the same time, and the powerlines melt down or shut off. Weather-dependent power like solar and wind cannot charge this many electric vehicles—full stop, that's it. I'm sure this bill will lead to government departments buying another off-market round of electric vehicles to zip around Canberra. What it will not do is save the planet. What it will not do is make electric vehicles more affordable. What it will not do is ease the cost of living. What it will not do is create a better, more competitive product. And who will pay? As always, the people will pay for this government's stupidity and deceit.

Even if they are miraculously delivered in this fit of madness, as a product electric vehicles have serious unresolved issues, like their tendency to spontaneously combust. Australia's firefighters have complained that they do not have the ability to put out lithium-ion battery fires in electric vehicles. So what happens when our underground car parks are packed full of these things and one starts off a chain reaction? What happens if they catch fire beneath apartment blocks, inside shopping centres, in tunnels? The ventilation of buildings and car parks is not designed to handle the safety issue, the hazard and risk issue of the scars, and there will be serious accidents in tight residential areas. If there's a fire, the water used to fight that fire is 10 times the amount for a conventional car fire. Firefighters are terrified of this. Even worse, that water becomes toxic as a result of contact with a toxic battery fire and must be captured and treated. Allowing firefighting water to run off site is an environmental contamination. EV does not stand for electric vehicle; EV stands for environmental vandalism.

This bill states that its purpose is, 'To encourage a greater uptake of electric cars by Australian road users to reduce Australia's carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector by making cars more affordable'. Let me be straight: this is a big-business perk to help the richest people in this country improve their environmental virtue-signalling and their social credit status on paper. It is nothing more. Labor is offering another incentive to the rich, urban, professional teal voters to come on over to Labor and to keep their buddies in government, the Greens, with them.

Yet underneath it all, the Australian people are left to pick up the bill for Labor's empty virtue-signalling and economic stupidity. This government needs to stop sucking up to the teals and start governing for Australia, and replace policies from the United Nations and World Economic Forum alliance, that began in 2018, with policies instead that serve Australia.

I want to mention a couple of points from Judith Sloan, the economist and journalist. At a time when United Nations and World Economic Forum policies drive goals of converting our transport fleet to electricity and hugely increasing demand for electricity, our bureaucrats push United Nations and World Economic Forum policies to kill reliable, baseload coal power and replace it with expensive, intermittent, unreliable wind and solar. And here's what Judith Sloan said:

It is surely ironic it was Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen who explicitly outlined the numerical challenge in front of transforming the NEM in such a short time frame. He has told us we will need 22,000 solar panels every day and 40 wind turbines every month for the next eight years. There will also be a requirement for at least 10,000km of additional transmission lines.

At the same time, we'll see 11,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation coming off capacity. This is insane. And who will pay? It's the people who will pay.

We need sensible government—honest governance. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one nation. And we stand for affordable, clean, secure mobility for all Australians.

I too rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. It probably comes as no blinding surprise to people that I'm going to speak about this from a regional perspective. But also, it's from the perspective of where I currently live. I live in Perth. Obviously, doing this job has demands in terms of travelling to Canberra and travelling around the entirety of my home state of Western Australia—which means that being relatively close to an airport is pretty essential. So I guess I do live in an inner suburb of Perth.

We have seen in our area an absolute explosion of electric cars just this year. We have seen a significant number of all models of electric car, but particularly Teslas, which are highly visible—you notice them when they're on the road. We've seen a significant uptake in people deciding, through their own purchasing decisions and looking at their own requirements for transport range, and the electrical system they have in their home in terms of being able to charge off their own solar cells—through their choice—to take up an electric car.

But one thing I can absolutely guarantee those listening to this debate and those in the chamber is that you don't see that same uptake in regional and rural Australia. And you don't see that same uptake for a pretty obvious reason: the capacity to charge and the range are simply not there. People need to be able to drive long distances, as my good friend and colleague Senator O'Sullivan pointed out. People need to be able to tow heavy weights. They need to be able to have ranges that go beyond 50, 100 or 200 kilometres. They need to be able to move around the vast state of Western Australia as they have been able to with a petrol engine car—with an internal combustion engine car—and continue to do their business and lead their lives.

We see in this bill a huge shift of wealth, effectively, from outer metro and regional areas to the inner city. As I said, I do live in a relatively inner suburb and we are seeing electric cars there. So, why do we need, through this bill, to give a tax break to those inner-city people who are, quite frankly, already buying electric cars? The uptake is pretty significant. And that is coming at a direct cost—at a direct burden—to those who live in outer metropolitan regions, who have further to drive; to those who live in the regions; and to those who have a requirement to tow heavy loads. That's particularly—and obviously of interest to me—the farming community, tradies and people who work in the mining industry: people who simply don't have a choice.

It is highly questionable—and I'm not going to go through the technical details again; Senator O'Sullivan did a great job of going through the technical details—and it is highly unlikely, using current technology, that there will ever be a solution to towing heavy weights and having electric vehicles that can travel the long distances in rural and remote Western Australia. There could be a technological breakthrough, I have no doubt about that. But why, through this bill, are we effectively penalising those people in outer metropolitan and rural and regional Australia who simply cannot utilise electric vehicles as they currently stand, and will stand for the foreseeable future? Why are we providing a subsidy to the inner city? It really does beggar belief, particularly from a government that claims to be the defender of the working people of Australia. It absolutely beggars belief.

Obviously, I certainly won't be supporting this bill—and there are so many reasons not to support this bill. As I said, it really just represents a transfer of wealth in our society from the regions to the inner city. But it's also bad economic policy. We've got inflationary pressures in the budget, and how has the government chosen to respond? With measures such as this: measures that potentially just lead to more inflation in our economy. And will it have an impact on carbon emissions? No. Experts have said: 'It will have a negligible impact on reducing Australia's carbon emissions for the transport sector. Government's assertions that this initiative makes the take-up of EVs more affordable is misleading. Private buyers and sole traders of EVs cannot access these savings. There are other measures that would have a far greater short-term benefit for the environment than this measure.'

So it's not going to help the environment and it represents a transfer of wealth in our society from the regions to the inner city. Quite frankly, this looks like an ideological frolic. It's a bill that really does show the true colours of this government: it's one that wants to go on ideological frolics to provide lip service on a particular issue but, when it comes to proper policy development—

Senator Ayres, do you think you should be riding a horse? Is that what you're trying to get at? I'm sure you could. I'm sure you could provide a tax break to horses if it was of political advantage to the Labor Party! But you choose not to. You choose to provide tax breaks to the inner-city elites. I'm sure there'd be plenty of people who'd take a tax break for horses, Senator Ayres. But instead, the Labor government provides tax breaks for the inner-city elites. For those reasons, and many more, I will not be supporting the bill.

I too rise to speak about the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. I'd just like to flag that I'll be moving a second reading amendment to this bill, to do with recycling—which is very, very important—to make sure we clean up the mess that this bill will create. And I just want to reiterate Senator Brockman's words: that this is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Just this week, the Australian Financial Review came out and said that this tax break could be worth up to $30,000—$30,000, for rich people who can afford to buy an electric car. And that's going to come out of general revenue, which means that the poor, the lower-income earners, will have to pay more taxes, just to balance the budget. We've heard in here from Senator Wong—she's not here this afternoon, which is a shame—that renewables are cheaper. So can somebody tell me this: if renewables are cheaper, why do we need to give a tax break of up to $30,000 for every new EV that is bought? That is absolutely absurd.

I can tell you something: if you want to look after the environment, the best way to do that is to have a strongly growing economy. And there is nothing productive about giving a tax break on cars that are going to be driven around the inner city and might travel a couple of hundred kilometres if you're lucky. We're going to be having extension leads running out over footpaths and hanging up over trees. The stupidity! We've seen this in Sydney already, where people are trying to charge their cars on the street, with on-street parking. How dangerous is that? And for what? For nothing but a pipe dream.

These people want you to believe that they're struggling under global warming. We were told that yesterday, by the CSIRO, who came out and said that the temperature has risen by 1.47 degrees since 1910. I must admit, when I first heard that figure quoted in question time yesterday, I nearly fell out of my chair, because, just back in 2018—and I remember these numbers, just like that—the CSIRO and BOM said that the temperature had risen by one degree. So, in 2018, in the 108 years since 1910, these guys said the temperature had risen by one degree. Now they want us to believe that it has risen by another 0.47 of a degree in just the last four years. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure it isn't hotter this year. The last two years have been cooler and wetter than the prior years, 2018 to 2020. They were quite warm years, I'll accept. But, in the last couple of years, things have actually cooled off a bit here in Australia, certainly along the east coast—and even up in Cairns.

I was up in Cairns earlier this year, and it was down to seven degrees. They were complaining that they had to put jumpers on for the first time in their lifetime—that's how cold it was at the Cairns show. That had never happened before—people wearing jumpers at the Cairns show. Isn't that right, Senator Scarr?

Absolutely!

It just goes to show.

I have to note that Senator Wong isn't here. She called me a coward yesterday, when I questioned these figures, as if to ask: who was I to question the BOM and the CSIRO? I'll tell you who I am to question the CSIRO and the BOM: I'm someone who has studied statistics in senior, at university and in my postgraduate degree. So I'm very well versed in statistics and I'm very well versed in record keeping. It is very important to note that the record keeping that the BOM undertakes is nothing to do with science; it's purely record keeping. You take a measurement, you write the number down and you store it away for posterity. You don't start creating multiple datasets—well, you're not changing the initial dataset. You create a new dataset and then you report the whole new dataset.

And you don't have to take my word for it because, back in 2011, there was an independent peer review done on the BOM's observation practices. You can look this up. It's a really important one. I haven't talked about this in years, because I've been distracted by a few other issues. Of the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network—Surface Air Temperature, or ACORN-SAT, there was an independent peer review, and I've got here the Report of the independent peer review panel, 4 September 2011. I want to come to the key paragraph, because they do acknowledge that the Bureau of Meteorology is very good at homogenisation. Now, that is doublespeak for modelling—which is doublespeak for fudging, right? I can talk about economists; I've dealt with economists all my life. There's a big rift between accountants and economists, because we don't like modellers; we like people that measure real things. So let me take you to the key paragraph here:

… the World Meteorological Organization's Guide … states that an acceptable range of error for thermometers (including those used for measuring maximum and minimum temperature) is ±0.2 °C. However, throughout the last 100 years, Bureau of Meteorology guidance has allowed for a tolerance of ±0.5 °C—

plus or minus half a degree—

for field checks of either in-glass or resistance thermometers. This is the primary reason the Panel did not rate the observing practices amongst international best practices.

There you have it, Senator Wong—I know you're not in the chamber, but if you're listening, check it out. This was the review that you commissioned—either you or Greg Combet—back in 2011 when you were the environment minister. They're not my words, they're from an independent peer review in 2011. One of the first questions I asked in estimates as a young whippersnapper back in 2019 was to the bureau on whether or not they'd reduced that margin of error—and they hadn't. Plus or minus half a degree is one degree. Minus half a degree on the low side and plus half a degree on the top side is a degree. That is exactly what they were claiming until about two years ago. The so-called increase in temperature is purely within the margin of error. I could go on, but I thought that needed to be said for the record after that imputation from Senator Wong yesterday about me being a coward. No, it's actually all written here.

The other thing we need to talk about here is that somehow renewables are cheaper. I'd really like to know on what basis the Labor Party, Senator Wong, and the member for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek—who said it earlier this week on TV—think that renewables are cheaper. That's an interesting comment to make. When I was in estimates, I asked Senator McAllister how many kilometres of transmission lines are going to have to be built to reach the 43 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2030? Lo and behold, Senator McAllister had absolutely no idea. Here is the range we were given: somewhere between 5,000 kilometres and 28,000 kilometres. Can you believe that? That is a massive range. If we had done 28,000 kilometres of ripping out scars across the beautiful countryside, farmland and native forests, is that good for the environment? I don't think so. I don't think scarring the landscape with transmission lines will be good for the environment at all. But that's not all: we'll also be getting the deaths of eaglehawks and bats. Bats, along with bees, are one of the key pollinators of our native plants in this country, but in the name of reducing carbon emissions—by the way, as I said the other day, carbon dioxide is recycled naturally every four years. That's all free. That's true. If you want free energy, come back to photosynthesis. But I digress.

Let's get back to the batteries. I can tell you, if you think transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines are going to be bad for the environment, wait until you break down the cost of what goes into building a battery. Lithium is a one per cent ore body. That means you have to mine 100 tons of the ore to get one ton of lithium. That involves an intensive electrolysis process to get the metal out of the ore. But that's not all—you can't go and get the ore body out of the ground; you have to go around and around in the big mining trucks and the caterpillars and everything else that picks up all the dirt, and cart it out. You can often have a stripping ratio of up to 10 to one, which means to get one ton of lithium metal you might have to shift a thousand tons of dirt. Guess what? That's just one of the many metals that goes into a battery. You have other things, like aluminium, steel and cobalt. And where's the world's biggest producer of cobalt? It's the Democratic Republic of the Congo. How do they get their cobalt out of the ground? That's right, child labour. Gee, that's going to be good for the environment. It's bad enough that all of these so-called renewables—which they're not, none of this stuff recycles naturally throughout the environment every four years like carbon dioxide does—but it's also a human rights issue. It's going to be bad for the children in the Congo and who knows what other countries.

It's obviously a human rights issue here because we are transferring $30,000 every time a new car is bought from the poor to the rich, from the working class to the wealthy. That is what the Labor Party and the Greens are today—they are the parties for the inner-city, self-loathing, virtue-signalling, rent-seeking elites. That is what they are. I well remember a former Labor Prime Minister said, 'God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor-General.' Let me say, 'God save the King, because nothing will save the Labor Party from the working class when they have their noses driven into the grindstone by the increase in taxes and the economic pain that is going to come from higher energy prices and watching as the urban elites drive around with their electric cars while the working class are struggling in their petrol cars.' And it's not just a handout of $30,000 for a car. The working class are also going to have to pay the fuel excise. These electric cars aren't going to have any fuel excise. Are we going to have a user toll on them?

On top of that, good luck to you if you're trying to actually get your car charged. I was reading an article on the weekend that someone sent to me. It said that there is now 'recharging rage' in the UK because people have to wait so long to get their cars charged. If someone accidentally bumps into the queue where others have been waiting for three hours, fights are starting at the recharging stations. It's not like with an internal combustion car—you just pull up, fill up your tank and drive away. It won't be too long before there's another bill in here where we're suddenly going to have to start building the recharging stations. I guarantee you that's what will be happening.

No sooner has the ink dried on the 43 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide by 2030 and what have we got? We've got another handout with the fringe benefits tax for renewable cars. It will just keep on coming. I guarantee you that the Rewiring the Nation fund of $20 billion will have to be increased. There was modelling the other day that showed that it will cost about $1 billion, or some astounding amount, for every kilometre of transmission line. It was estimated that, to rewire Australia to get to the 43 per cent, it would cost something like $100 billion. So the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund is not going to cover it.

If you think that the private sector is going to stump up $80 billion of their own money, forget it—unless, of course, it's superannuation money. They might get there that way. It's bad enough that you've got to pay the fuel excise, but now you're being forced into paying 12 per cent super. I say to our young people: don't think you're ever going to see your super again, because they are going to blow it because these super funds are driven by ideology, not productivity—this ESG stuff. They're all bought. You've got the Marxist in the boardroom now. They're not driven by productivity; they're driven by ideology. That is a sure recipe to send this country broke.

I just want to touch on one other thing: these electric cars are going to be up to 800 kilograms to 1,000 kilograms heavier. That is going to increase the distance for braking. We're going to have more car accidents because your braking speed is going to be much slower. The weight of these cars can increase by 20 to 30 per cent. We're going to have to use more energy just for the car to travel around because they're going to have massive batteries. These things are solid bricks. Imagine the impact of getting T-boned by these cars, especially here in Australia.

I was actually just talking to a famous Queenslander—Queenslander of the Year 1986—Russell Strong, who did Australia's first liver transplant. I'll let you guess why we got in touch. He's on my side, by the way, if you're wondering. The reason why we have more liver transplants in Australia is because we drive on the left-hand side of the road. If the driver gets T-boned, it damages the liver. So there are going to be more liver transplants.

The other thing is: what about the southern hairy-nosed wombat? What will happen to it when all these inner-city elites from Sydney are driving down in their new EV cars for their ski trip? The member for Warringah had a lovely career growing up, travelling the world and competing in ski trips. What will happen to these guys—our little marsupial friends on the road—with increased braking time? Are we going to have more deaths of southern hairy-nosed wombats because of these electric vehicles throughout the winter season, with all the elites driving these heavier cars with longer braking distance? What about all the extra rubber pollution off the tyres and all the extra brake wear? What about that? Have all these people looked into this?

Then there's the cost of recycling. Who could forget Larry Marshall's famous words in estimates when he said—and I didn't ask him this; he actually proffered this himself—that it's going to cost three times as much to recycle a battery as it will cost for the materials that actually go into it. What are the chances of that actually ever being economical, when the cost of recycling something is three times more than the cost of building it? I'll tell you: it is not going to happen. This bill will not only destroy the environment; it will destroy the economy and it will destroy our country. It is just another step on the path to destruction because of this useless Albanese Labor government.

The coalition will not support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. It's not because of electric vehicles; it is about bad policy. In this legislation, the government has failed to do a number of things. It's failed to establish clear criteria and metrics of success for the policy. It has failed to ensure the expenditure is temporary, proportionate and linked to tangible productivity gains. It has failed to quantify any benefit of the policy to electric vehicle uptake, to emissions reduction or to the budget bottom line. It has failed to tangibly address the biggest constraint on electric vehicle uptake, which is supply and infrastructure, and it has failed to consult with business and civil society on policy design.

This is at odds with the new government promising sensible economic policy and fiscal repair prior to the election. In fact, the Treasurer said on 28 June 2022:

… Government must make the hard decisions necessary for responsible budget repair.

…   …   …

… making sure that spending is about building value, not buying votes.

… every household has to make tough decisions about what they can and cannot afford—and it shouldn't be any different for their government.

And because the budget should be about high-quality investments in the right priorities.

Throughout the bill, this government has revealed this to be nothing more than pre-election posturing.

This is about a Greens deal to deliver for the inner-city and not about practical measures for people in Australia who are struggling under unaffordable cost-of-living issues, who are struggling to meet basic cost-of-living measures. This government is introducing a bill that is going to bake in costs to the budget for years and years to come. This is very serious. It is incredibly serious because the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has said that this bill will cost billions of dollars—that's billions with a 'b', not an 'm'—through the next decade. And yet the government cannot say what it will deliver for emissions reductions. They cannot say what it will deliver to the electric vehicle market. They cannot even say what criteria would make it a success.

Demand for electric vehicles is already high. It's growing. Figures from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries shows sales of pure battery electrical vehicles last month represented the highest market share ever recorded. This bill is not just about pure electric vehicles; it also covers hybrid vehicles and variations. My daughter, who lives in Brisbane and is able to commute around the city, has a hybrid vehicle. It is very cheap to run. That's terrific news. But she pays registration and, when she uses diesel or fuel, she pays a fuel tax. But this bill removes the FBT payable on vehicles up to $84,915. It provides a subsidy for people with electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, but not for people who do not have the luxury of a short commute. It does not provide the same advantage to people living in northern Australia.

This is a bill that is incredibly poorly conceived and poorly budgeted. Despite being referred to as tax reform by the Treasurer, the Senate inquiry suggests this bill is high-cost and low-impact and has been designed with no consultation with industry, government or civil society. A number of experts have a raised serious questions about equity, financial stability and price pressures on the electric vehicle market, and evidence from Treasury and the department of climate change shows the impact of this policy on emissions reduction has not been quantified. Third-party evidence suggests it is negligible.

I am perplexed because, daily, we hear the Treasurer talk about the difficult financial situation he is in. He talks about the $50 billion budget increase, additional income thanks to commodity prices, which he has spent, and he is once again spending more money than he is collecting with this budget measure. It provides a subsidy on FBT to some people but does not make that same subsidy available to every Australian. It does not take into account that some of the vehicles they are subsidising will not pay fuel taxes. It does not take into account the impact on road maintenance and the collections that Treasury relies on in order to fund the cost of road maintenance, of safety concerns for Australians travelling big distances. Instead, it subsidises people who have very short commutes.

This is a crazy policy. We know that there is not enough infrastructure available yet to charge your vehicle. Imagine living in a high-rise building, in Sydney or Melbourne, where there are not enough shareable power points to allow these vehicles to be charged. We see images every day of extension leads draped out of windows and onto the street, to support vehicles that may not be paying the electricity cost to their high-rise building body corporate. Yet the government will subsidise the market share of a vehicle that is growing in popularity. I want to be clear: the opposition is not opposed to this bill because we have any problem with electric or hybrid vehicles; it's opposed to it because of poor infrastructure planning and poor budget planning. This is poor policy.

When Peter Shergold reviewed the government's ability to make good decisions, I am almost positive that this would be a shining example to him of poor government policy and decision-making. 'No consultation' was the No. 1 thing identified by Mr Shergold. 'Poor budget outcomes' was another. 'Clear criteria' and 'measurements of success' and 'ensure the expenditure is temporary, proportionate and linked to tangible productivity gains'—I could go back and repeat the list that I started with, at the beginning of this contribution.

I shan't, because there is nothing in this bill and policy-making that gives me any confidence in this government's ability to manage the budget and make good decisions, and I certainly have no confidence in the government supporting people who are not as advantaged as those who have short commutes, who live within places that have—hopefully—some sort of infrastructure to charge their vehicles. It is a government that has no plan to replace diesel fuel and fuel taxes. Instead, we're going to subsidise the FBT benefit for people who are buying electric and hybrid vehicles.

The Institute of Public Accountants—not a group usually known for hyperbole or exotic statements—has stated that this policy:

… will have a negligible impact on reducing Australia's carbon emission from the transport sector.

It has said:

The Governments assertion that this initiative makes the take up of EV's more affordable is misleading …

And—

Private buyers and sole traders of EV's cannot access these significant savings …

The Institute of Public Accountants went on to say:

… there are other measures which would have a far greater short-term benefit to the environment than this measure.

Finally:

Given the cost of EV's, their limited supply and the lack of infrastructure, it seems the cost of this initiative is not warranted, particularly given the small number of vehicles that is anticipated to take advantage of this initiative over the three-year exemption period.

I have a range of quotes. I've quoted the Institute of Public Accountants. There's the Tax Group at the Melbourne Law School, UnitingCare, Treasury. Even Treasury is not able to articulate the long-term costs of this measure. Treasury agrees with the Parliamentary Budget Office that the cost of this measure will grow over time, stating in response to a question on notice that the costs of the measure are expected to increase over time as the measure matures, including into the medium term, and that the Treasury costing is sensitive to the uptake of electric vehicles, and this is something which could vary.

I'm truly appalled to be part of this Senate, forming part of a parliament that is led by Labor, which is making such poor policies decisions that the only people who support them are the Greens! The only people who support this bill are people who want to encourage electric vehicle rollouts in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is not a necessary budget measure. It is not going to increase the uptake of electric vehicles, which is already a growing, mature market. It is not going to increase the infrastructure that's available to support these vehicles. Worse—for me, as a representative of regional and Northern Australia—is that it will not provide any advantage at all to the people who are doing it the toughest: the people who have the highest cost of electricity, the highest cost of insurance and the highest cost of food. The Labor Albanese government, in partnership with the Greens, are delivering for the most entitled and supported group in Australia but they're not supporting poor Australia. They're not supporting working Australia and they're certainly not supporting regional Australia.

It's shocking, and we should be ashamed to sit and pass this piece of legislation, because it is not by any measure good policy. Peter Shergold would tell us that. Blind Freddy on the street would tell us that! This is not a measure that is suitable for the outcomes that this government says it's trying to achieve: budget restraint, emissions reduction and supporting Australians who are struggling with the cost of living.

Ashamed we should be. We have the opportunity in this place—the opportunity that I'm taking right now—to point out shortcomings in policy development. We have the opportunity to get a decision right on this particular bill. I would encourage those opposite, members of the government, to pull this bill and to say: 'We're going to go back and think about it. We're going to have another look at how we can deliver on all of our stated objectives.' Budgetary measures, emission measures, consultation with industry, delivering for Australians who are under increasing cost-of-living pressures, the lack of infrastructure that's available to support these vehicles—it's for all these reasons that this poor public policy should be stopped immediately.

I love cars. As I'm someone who came in here and started their first speech describing the last third of a lap of Mount Panorama, you might get that. I love everything about them. I love driving them, I like owning them, I like spannering on them and I like working on them. I don't love cleaning them—that's a downside. And yet I stand here against this bill. I can't make a great argument, because I will benefit from this bill. I have in my folder my order, dated 26 August 2021, for my Tesla, yet to be delivered. I'm proud to get out there because I want to drive that car. I bought it because I want to own it. I bought it because I want to have a crack. And it's not just that. I spoke to Toyota last year about a Toyota Mirai, a hydrogen car. It's a great car. James May loves it. I love it. I'm on a list. But I can't refuel it. I can get it but can't refuel it.

So what does this bill mean for me? This means that, on top of my taxpayer funded salary, you're going to give me another 30 grand to buy a car. I don't deserve it, but that's what this is. We're playing races not with cars but with technologies. We're going back to the gaslight versus the electric light or the Betamax versus the VHS, and we're trying to pick winners early.

There are different cars. As I said, there's the Mirai hydrogen car, and last month Volkswagen, in cooperation with Kraftwerk—which I thought was a 1980s German techno band but is now an automobile organisation—has lodged patents for a different kind of hydrogen engine, using ceramic instead of plastic. They get 2,000 kilometres of range out of a hydrogen car. You've got the Hyundai N Vision 74 coming out, another hydrogen car that's looking good. I'm watching this space. We all saw Richard Hammond's crash the Rimac, one of the leading-edge electric cars, which took two weeks to put out after it caught on fire because each cell kept on burning.

On this side, we have said that we're not anti electric car, but this is a waste of taxpayers' money. People who have had a windfall gain, like me, or been lucky or worked hard in life don't need taxpayers' funds to buy these cars. I have a company; I can do this. If we're going to spend this money, let's build the infrastructure that Senator McDonald was talking about to refuel these cars, to give them range and to give country and regional people the chance to have access to these same things. But we're not; we're giving money to people who are already likely to buy these cars. And we're backdating it for people who have already done this. We're going to say to people who have already bought cars, 'Please have some more money for making a decision that you've already made.' That's a great thing for them, but that's not good for the country. So we sit here looking at a bill that will fund people who don't need it to buy things they've already bought, and we are not out there funding the infrastructure needed. We're not making the cost of living easier for people or making it easier for people to get through what they have to get through.

This car won't be captured by road tax. I think Senator O'Sullivan mentioned this. We were working out the battery: there's a 100-kilowatt battery which weighs 666 kilograms. It will be chewing roads, but it won't be captured by the fuel tax. A Toyota Mirai isn't captured by the fuel tax, and we don't have the fuel infrastructure. There is some fuelling in Canberra, but there is nothing in Newcastle and nothing in the Hunter.

And what is this for? I was in my office when I heard Senator Rennick talking about the hairy-nosed wombat, but a wombat in the spotlights of a LandCruiser coming down the highway—'Oh, an energy electric car, a hydrogen car, we must support it.' That's not good policy. Just because it has some click words and we can share it and do a little TikTok energy dance doesn't make it good policy. Giving money to people who don't need it for decisions they've already made is the definition of waste.

I think COP27 has just been, but last year we went to COP26 and meet with Tesla and the climate change committee of the UK. Their point was not that we need to subsidise cars. People are buying as they see fit. What they were talking about was the infrastructure that can charge these cars, fuel these cars, prevent the road rage that is happening. That is the single determinant in what people take up—how usable they are. And this bill does nothing to make it usable. It takes funds from the government that should be going into building that fuelling infrastructure, and it puts those funds into the pockets of those who don't need it.

That's a good point. We haven't even got mobile coverage in the regions. How are we going to have charging stations out there for people? How are we going to incentivise that when it takes 20 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour to charge cars? If they can't get on their mobile phone in the bush, how are they going to charge a car? That's what we're not looking at here.

It is great that the take-up of electric cars in Australia is going well. I think hydrogen, if this new technology of VW and Kraftwerk picks up, could be a great thing. Let's not rush to outcomes for a media grab. Let's watch the market work. Let's let the technology evolve. Let's make choices that make sense.

I will be voting against this bill. I think it's going to pass—and I will thank you for the 20 or 30 grand you give me if you pass this bill—but it shouldn't be like that. That's not why we were elected. That's not an energy policy that will reduce any emissions. In the regions this will be the weekender car, the hobby car or the spare car; it won't be the main car. The people in the regions who buy one will be treating it as such.

I heard Senator O'Sullivan, another car nut on this side, talking about the towing capability of vehicles. We watched an episode where they towed a boat across the United States. It got to the point where they had to put a diesel generator in the boat to charge the car at the 100 stops it made across America.

These things will get there, but let's not rush. I go back to Senator Smith again. It's like the UK. We were talking about offshore wind. We are in this rush for offshore wind—'Let's get this offshore wind because the UK can do it.' The UK has depths in the channel of about 40 metres. The depth on our shelf is about 400 metres or more. Floating wind technology will come, but it is not commercially viable yet. Let's not rush.

Someone else spoke about the cost of green energy, what we're doing and how we do it. Let's face it, at the moment most of the energy for electric cars comes from coal. Prices will have changed, so I'm not breaching any confidentiality. I was working on a hydrogen project at the port of Newcastle. If we wanted to have green hydrogen produced at that time, it was $9 a kilo from renewable clean energy. That's the market telling us that. If I wanted grey hydrogen, it was $2.90 to $3.30. It's not a mystical cloud-cuckoo-land where unicorns fly around and we have wonderful times and can say that something is cheaper. When you have to buy it, at the moment it is not cheaper. We're rushing towards a goal without looking at the consequences.

Even though this bill will benefit me, who is in this place taking taxpayers' funds, earning a good wage, it should not be supported. I've demonstrated why this bill is wrong and why we should not be supporting it.

We have a modern trend of putting in brackets the attributes of a bill—the talking points, if you like, or the government's propaganda. This bill is called the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022. Sometimes there are more accurate parenthetical descriptions of bills. Instead of having 'electric car discount' in the brackets, this one should have 'tax cuts for the rich' in the brackets. That's really what this bill is about. The government provided no evidence to the Senate inquiry on this bill that this bill will lower greenhouse gas emissions—nothing at all. I will come to why they haven't been able to provide that evidence.

As Senator Cadell has outlined, this bill will make it harder to fund our road network in the decades to come. By God, we need investment in our roads. In the last sitting period I drove from Rockhampton through Senator Cadell's patch in the Hunter—I went down the New England Highway—to get here. Then I had to drive all the way back. We need a lot of investment in our roads, especially rural roads. This bill will make that harder.

As I said, the primary effect of this bill will be a massive tax cut for people on very high incomes, without any real evidence that it's actually going to generate much. I think it's important to go through the figures here to let people know exactly what we're talking about—the size of the tax cut we're talking about for people of very good means. The Australian Taxation Office website has a fringe benefits tax calculator. This bill effectively exempts purchases of electric cars from fringe benefits tax. So when you go and use that calculator, if you bought an electric car worth $50,000—that's a pretty cheap electric car; they start at about $40,000 and most of them would set you back $60,000 or $70,000, sometimes even more, but let's be generous to the government and say a $50,000 electric car—that would provide an annual fringe benefit of $9,972.60. That would come off and be deducted from your taxable income under this bill. You don't get all that saving; that's what your taxable income would fall by, so then the benefit to you depends on your marginal tax rate.

Of course, the more money you earn, the higher your marginal tax rate is and the greater that exemption from fringe benefit will be to you. If you're on $200,000 a year, that's a very good wage, not uncommon—as I'm aware, I'm on about that amount of money—here in this place. This would be a very good bill for politicians, I should say, for those listening out there. Politicians will do very well out of this bill. But if you're on $200,000 a year—as I said, that's a well above average wage, about double the average full-time wage in Australia—you'll be on a 50 per cent marginal rate, roughly, so that $9,900 deduction will actually help you out $5,000 a year. You'll be $5,000 a year better off thanks to a Labor government. In this country the Labor Party is giving a rich person, someone on that sort of money, a $5,000 free kick a year. Amazing. If you're in the lowest tax bracket, if you're earning only 50 grand a year out there—not the lowest tax bracket but the lowest one above which you pay tax—your benefit will be just a thousand dollars a year.

We hear lectures often from the Labor Party about how they try and represent the poor. They accuse us of giving tax cuts to the rich and of cutting services to the poor, and here we have a bill, one of the very first bills that this Labor government has introduced, which is all about giving massive tax cuts to the rich. You have to wonder how many extra electric cars will be bought thanks to this bill. We don't know. There has been no evidence provided by Treasury, the government or the committee. I know people, some friends of mine, who do very well and earn very good wages. They are rubbing their hands with glee because they're going to get these multiple-thousand dollar tax deductions when they've already bought Teslas. Keep in mind this bill is backdated to 1 July this year, so anyone who has bought Tesla in the last few months, even if they didn't know they were going to get the deduction, just gets a free kick. 'Here you go. Thank you for electing a Labor government. Here's 5,000 bucks a year,' to a rich person. That's a year. Over the life of the car it'll be tens of thousands of dollars, as Senator Rennick pointed out.

This bill, if nothing else, will go through this place, because they've got partners in the Greens here. The average income of Greens voters is way higher than any other political party in this place, so they have that constituency. They have an excuse, the Greens. Their voters are on $200,000 a year, quite often, so we know they've got to look after their voters. The Labor Party's voters are still about the average income, but I don't think they've even realised yet—they're going to find out, especially in this term of government—that the Labor Party aren't really for the working class anymore; they are for the rich, well-educated, tertiary-educated professional classes in this country. Good luck to those people. A lot of my friends are those people, but the Labor Party are out to protect their interests, not the working class in this country, who cannot afford to buy even a $50,000 Tesla—I don't think you can Teslas for that price, but a $50,000 electric car—let alone a $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000 electric car. That's just beyond those people who are struggling right now with higher living costs. They will get no benefit from this particular bill.

As I foreshadowed earlier too, on top of all that, on top of the regressive nature of this bill, it's not even clear that this bill will lower carbon emissions at all. As I mentioned, there has been no evidence provided by the government that this will encourage additional electric vehicles to be purchased, and actually there are very large questions about how much electric cars themselves will lower carbon emissions, because the basic problem here is that the manufacture of electric vehicles is extremely energy intensive and by being energy intensive is therefore carbon-emissions intensive. In fact in a recent study by Volvo on one of their vehicles, on their XC40 vehicle or the equivalent of the XC40 for their electric fleet, that car actually created 70 per cent more carbon emissions in its manufacture than a traditional internal combustion engine vehicle. So when a car comes off a lot, the internal combustion engine vehicle, the ICE vehicle, as they call it, has 70 per cent lower emissions—no, sorry, that should be the other way around. The electric car has 70 per cent higher emissions when it comes off the lot than the internal combustion engine car. So there are higher emissions, and from day one of this bill coming into effect—if it does mean that additional electric cars are purchased and more are produced—then there's no doubt that it will actually increase carbon emissions over the next few years.

Of course, electric cars don't use petrol and therefore, potentially, have lower carbon emissions in their use, but they do need electricity to be charged. So what's crucial to the carbon emissions calculations are what types of electricity electric cars use to charge. This Volvo report had some very good analysis of that. It showed that if the electricity you source for your electric vehicle came from the global average of different fuel types, then coal accounts for about 40 per cent of that and gas is about 15 per cent. So you would be looking at close to half of your electricity probably coming from fossil fuels. If that's the electricity grid that you charge your car from then you'd have to drive the car 110,000 kilometres before it became carbon neutral. That's just to be at the same amount as the internal combustion engine—not better! It would just break even with the internal combustion engine after you had driven 110,000 kilometres.

The average Australian drives 13,300 kilometres in a year. So the average Australian would need to drive the car for eight years—eight years!—before they could break even. There wouldn't be any savings, they would just break even. The Labor Party came to government saying that they're going to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. By my maths, that's in how many years? Eight years! That will be in eight years time. So this bill will actually increase carbon emissions from now—global carbon emissions, because of course these cars will be built overseas—over the next eight years. That's because all these electric cars will be carbon positive for the first eight years of their lives, on average.

Why are we doing this? What's the point of this? I should add, as a bit of a footnote to this, that that analysis is based on the global fuel electricity mix, as I said, but in fact Australia has a more carbon-intensive electricity system than the rest of the globe. We get about 60 per cent of our electricity from coal and another 20-odd per cent from gas, so our particular break-even number is different. I don't have access to the modelling to do my own figures on it, but you'd actually have to drive one for longer. So I'm being generous to the government here; it would probably be 10 or maybe 12 years of driving here in Australia before you got to carbon neutrality.

Really, we have to wonder what this is all about. If we're serious about reducing carbon emissions, why are we spending so much money on cars that are much more carbon intensive? You have to wonder—and you have to come back to the money. That's what this is about. It's about the money and it's about giving people a tax break to buy a new car. If they can afford it, good luck to them—

It's ideology.

Well, I don't know if it's ideology, Senator Rennick. I think it just comes down to money. It's just that people want to have a subsidised vehicle. Good luck to them, but we're approaching a trillion dollars in debt and we have to get our house in order—and we're coming out of the coronavirus period. I don't think we have the money to provide very, very rich people in this country with a subsidy for a new car. I don't think that should be a fundamental priority of this nation.

I also want to come back to Senator Cadell's excellent point about the fact that electric vehicles are already subsidised, in a sense, or, at least they get favoured treatment in our overall tax system. Electric cars are not subject to any kind of fuel excise. We don't hype that fuel excise. I think it's almost 40c now on petrol or diesel when you go to fill up your car. About 40c of that comes back to Canberra here. It doesn't directly go back to roads, but the basic system is that we put that tax on fuel so that we can have funds to invest back into roads, and especially into rural roads that aren't doing so well. We spend about the same amount of money that's raised from car registration at the state level and the fuel excise on roads every year.

As electric cars continue to be in demand, that revenue source will dry up and we won't get that fuel excise anymore. So there is a real question here about how we fund our roads. Of course, those people buying electric cars already get that benefit. They already get that now. They don't have to pay a fuel excise to drive and run their car. It's an open question how we will tackle this issue going forward, but there actually already is an in-built subsidy to electric cars right now. This bill just perpetuates that subsidy and not in ways that seem as if they will progress any particular public any good.

I think we also need to understand here how these electric cars are made. I said before that they're very carbon intensive, but the other issue here is that the minerals and techniques that are used to create batteries have potentially other environmental downsides as well. It's something that goes complete unremarked, especially by the renewable energy industry, that production of cobalt, nickel and lithium in some countries can be extremely environmentally hazardous. There are ways of doing this properly—and I would argue our mining industry in this country does generally do things properly—but that comes at a certain cost. The production right now of especially minerals like cobalt is done largely in developing countries. Cobalt is produced largely in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there are terrible labour standards and also shocking environmental outcomes.

The reason for this is that those minerals that go into batteries—unlike fossil fuels like petrol, oil, gas and coal—aren't easily obtained in the natural environment. Coal, oil and gas, generally speaking, are contained in large deposits and are quite easily extracted without having to do too much to them—maybe a bit of washing with water in the case of coal. In the case of these hard rock minerals, like nickel and cobalt, you have to engage in serious use of chemicals to extract the somewhat rare ores within the overall rock that you've mined. There's a huge amount of waste, a huge amount of energy and, yes, a huge amount of use of chemicals. As I say, if you do that properly, you can protect the environment—but it's costly and it takes significant regulation. However, in countries like Congo, you don't have those regulations and you have terrible environmental pollution of rivers and environmental wastelands.

This bill does nothing to set any standards. While we are doing this, why don't we set standards? Why don't we say we'll subsidise only cars that have ethical standards for the sourcing of cobalt and nickel? Again, it comes back to the money. That's what this is about. We won't set those standards because that would interrupt the money flows that are going to people in the renewable energy industry from the Greens and their voters, and of course the rich people will get a massive big tax cut thanks to this so-called Labor bill.

I would like to begin by thanking senators who have contributed to the debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 implements the government's election commitment to provide a fringe benefits tax exemption for employer provided eligible electric cars. The bill amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to exempt from fringe benefits tax the use or availability of eligible electric cars made available by employers to employees from 1 July 2022.

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has considered and reported on the bill. We thank the committee for its work, and we also acknowledge and thank the individuals and organisations who provided submissions through that and appeared at the public hearings. Overwhelmingly there was support for the measures; however, some thought the bill could go further and raised issues such as fuel efficiency standards and the need for a comprehensive national electric vehicle strategy.

The government is putting in place the next steps to establish Australia's first national electric vehicle strategy. At the heart of the strategy will be a plan to improve uptake of electric vehicles and further improve affordability and choice by growing the Australian electric vehicle market. The government welcomes the committee's recommendation that the bill be passed.

The Australian Greens support a fringe benefits tax exemption for electric cars but are recommending that plug-in hybrid vehicles be excluded on the basis that such vehicles are not zero-emission vehicles. While the government appreciates this view, it also recognises our current low take-up of any electric vehicles and the important role that plug-in hybrids can play in facilitating Australia's transition to zero-emission vehicles, particularly in rural and regional areas.

The Greens have also recommended the inclusion of personal electric vehicle charging infrastructure. The government is looking at more direct support for EV charging through our Powering Australia plan, and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy recently announced funding for a streetside EV charger trial.

We acknowledge that the opposition provided a dissenting report recommending that the bill not be supported and that the funds be redeployed to other methods of increasing EV uptake, including infrastructure. The government is supporting EV infrastructure through the Powering Australia plan and exploring further options to increase electric vehicle uptake through the National Electric Vehicle Strategy.

The amendments contained in this bill will incentivise greater electric car uptake in Australia and contribute to reducing our emissions. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Dean Smith to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 be agreed to.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 Alex Antic Wendy Askew Andrew Bragg Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jonathon Duniam David Julian Fawcett Sarah Henderson Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald Andrew McLachlan Matt O'Sullivan Marise Ann Payne Gerard Rennick Linda Reynolds Malcolm Roberts Paul Scarr Dean Smith David Van Penny Allman-Payne Tim Ayres Catryna Bilyk Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Nita Green Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Louise Pratt Janet Rice Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Glenn Sterle Lidia Thorpe Anne Urquhart Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Linda White

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that with this policy the Government has failed to:

(i) consider the need to dispose of EV car batteries in an environmentally safe manner,

(ii) address the hazardous by-products of redundant EV car batteries and ensure that toxic substances do not leach into the environment,

(iii) consider the costs of recycling EV car batteries,

(iv) introduce regulatory standards or criteria for recycled EV car batteries to be re-sold to the public,

(b) calls on the Government to outline a plan for EV battery recycling and consider other proposals to cover the costs of recycling and disposal of EV car batteries

The question is that the second reading amendment, as moved by Senator Rennick, to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 be agreed to.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022 Alex Antic Wendy Askew Andrew Bragg Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jonathon Duniam David Julian Fawcett Sarah Henderson Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald Andrew McLachlan Matt O'Sullivan Marise Ann Payne Gerard Rennick Linda Reynolds Malcolm Roberts Paul Scarr Dean Smith Tammy Tyrrell David Van Penny Allman-Payne Tim Ayres Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Nita Green Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Louise Pratt Janet Rice David Shoebridge Glenn Sterle Lidia Thorpe Anne Urquhart Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Linda White Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022; In Committee Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Bill 2022

There are two amendments that we are going to be debating tonight, both of which have been put forward by the Greens and by Senator David Pocock. I move amendment (1) on sheet 1746 revised:

(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:

8 Review of operation of electric car disco unt

(1) The Minister must cause a review to be undertaken, in accordance with this item, of the operation of:

(a) the provisions of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 that are inserted or amended by this Schedule; and

(b) any provisions of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that are inserted or amended pursuant to Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 5) 2022, which was moved in the House of Representatives on 2 August 2022 and of which notice was given by the legislative instrument numbered F2022L01001.

(2) The review must relate to the operation of those provisions, as so inserted or amended, during the 3 years from the commencement of this Schedule and, in particular, their effectiveness in encouraging the uptake of cars that are zero or low emissions vehicles.

(3) Without limiting subitem (2), the review must include consideration of:

(a) whether the operation of some or all of those provisions, as so inserted or amended, should continue; and

(b) what types of motor vehicles should be covered by the provisions.

(4) The conduct of the review must include consultation with the public about the matters to which the review relates.

(5) The review must be completed, and a report on the review must be given to the Minister, within 18 months after the end of the 3 years from the commencement of this Schedule.

(6) The Minister must:

(a) cause the contents of the report to be made available to the public as soon as practicable, and in any event within 28 days, after the Minister receives the report; and

(b) cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

This is an amendment to review the operations of how successful this measure is actually going to be at increasing the use of electric vehicles. We've had a lot of debate during the debate on this bill about the effectiveness of this measure and whether this is the appropriate measure and the most effective measure to increase the use of electric vehicles.

As I said in my second reading contribution, the Greens are supporting this bill. It's a small step forward, and we believe there are much more significant measures that need to be taken to really kickstart the use of electric vehicles. But this is an important measure, and it's an important measure for be getting electric vehicles into fleets. It's an important measure to then be able to have electric vehicles flowing through as second-hand vehicles. But we thought it very appropriate, given there's a whole raft of different ways we could be supporting the use of electric vehicles, although we actually think that getting decent fuel efficiency standards and carbon dioxide standards is probably the most important thing to do, and we are hoping that the government will introduce something along those lines. In the meantime we thought it would be appropriate to have a review in place to determine whether this legislation is effective.

Basically, the review would occur after three years from the commencement and it would include consideration of whether the operation of some or all of these provisions should continue and what types of vehicles should be covered by the provisions. Of course, what types of vehicles goes to the point of the issue of zero-emission vehicles versus low-emission vehicles, which is in the other amendment that Senator Pocock is going to be moving. That amendment would phase out the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles being eligible for this discount after three years. We think that after three years it would be very appropriate to do that review, to make sure that this measure is being effective.

The coalition will be supporting the amendment that has been proposed by the Greens senators and Senator David Pocock. Given the substantial cost of the measure to the budget over the medium term, it is essential that this proposal be reviewed rigorously. During the Senate inquiry into the legislation, the government could not outline any criteria that the policy's success or failure would be measured against. Given the alarming lack of policy analysis underpinning the legislation, it's important that it be subject to a thorough and wide-ranging review. While the coalition opposes the broader bill, we will support amendments to ensure that, if it does pass, appropriate safeguards are placed around the substantial costs of this measure.

The government will be supporting this amendment. It was our intention to review the legislation at about the three-year mark anyway. This simply puts that into the legislation and we're happy to agree with it.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

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

(2) Page 5 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Electric car discount: termination of exemption for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles

Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986

1 Paragraph 8A(2)(b)

Omit "vehicle; or", substitute "vehicle.".

2 Paragraph 8A(2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

3 Subsection 8A(5)

Repeal the subsection.

4 Subsection 136(1) (definition of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle )

Repeal the definition.

5 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 made by this Schedule apply to benefits provided on or after 1 April 2025.

(2) Despite subitem (1), the amendments do not apply to the application or availability of a car at a particular time (the relevant time) on or after 1 April 2025 if:

(a) the application or availability constitutes a car benefit because of subsection 7(1) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986; and

(b) before 1 April 2025, the employer, the employee, or an associate of the employer or of the employee, committed to the application or availability of the car, in respect of the employment of the employee by the employer, for a period that began before 1 April 2025 and includes the relevant time; and

(c) at no time on or after 1 April 2025 and before or at the relevant time did the employer, the employee, or an associate of the employer or of the employee, commit to the application or availability of the car, in respect of the employment of the employee by the employer, for a period that includes the relevant time; and

(d) before 1 April 2025 a car benefit relating to the car was provided; and

(e) the car benefit referred to in paragraph (d) of this subitem was an exempt benefit in relation to a year of tax because of section 8A (Exempt car benefits: zero or low emissions vehicles) of that Act.

I welcome this bill and the function it serves to create a second-hand EV market in Australia. This is much needed. Most Australians are currently priced out of the EV market. Incentivising EVs in this way for fleets will have flow-on effects to create that affordable EV market which will allow a number of people to get into it and unlock the cost savings that electric vehicles provide, both in terms of not having to fill them up with petrol at the servo but also in reducing maintenance costs.

While it's a great thing to incentivise EVs in this way, there is a concern with plug-in hybrid vehicles over the long term. The reality is that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in fleets are not plugged in often and end up being used on the engine, which is a smaller engine, and, as has been pointed out many times, they are heavier vehicles. This drastically increases the amount of fuel that they use. This amendment will limit the problems with the plug-in hybrids. It has a sunset clause which provides certainty for fleets and people who are looking to get a vehicle. It ensures that we are moving towards the more efficient and newer technology of battery electric vehicles.

I thank the government and the Greens for the way in which they have approached this issue to reach this outcome.

I also want to speak in support of this amendment. Obviously, the whole aim of this legislation is to reduce emissions from our vehicles and to shift to zero-carbon vehicles. As I said in my second reading speech, this is what we need to be doing so that our carbon pollution from transport can be reduced as much as it can be in as quick a time as possible. Including plug-in electric vehicles in this scheme was just going to continue—and not just continue but subsidise—vehicles which have ongoing and substantial use of fossil fuels. A report was done just this year by the International Council on Clean Transportation which showed that the use of petrol or diesel in plug-in hybrids is actually much greater than what the manufacturers claim. Rather than claim fuel consumption of about 1.6 litres per 100 kilometres, the real-world experience across Europe is that as these cars are being driven they're actually being driven on their petrol motor a lot more and ending up with fuel consumption of around four litres per 100 kilometres. So they are, in fact, a fossil fuel vehicle and certainly are not deserving of subsidies. Essentially, if we included plug-in hybrids in this legislation, it would be yet another ongoing subsidy for fossil fuels, which is the last thing we need when we should be doing everything we can to tackle our climate crisis.

We thought coming to the position of phasing out plug-in hybrid vehicles out of this scheme over three years was a reasonable compromise. Clearly, we do have an issue at the moment of a lack of supply of electric vehicles. The previous government was so recalcitrant and did nothing to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles that the vehicle manufacturers just said, 'Why would we bring electric vehicles to Australia?' It just has not been a good market for them. We know that for anybody wanting to buy a new electric vehicle at the moment, the wait time is six to 12 months. So we do have an issue with supply.

We are allowing plug-in hybrids to be included in the scheme, to encourage their uptake for the next three years. They do, at least, produce lower emissions in general, but it's not something you'd want to continue for any longer than those three years. We really need to shift to zero-carbon vehicles as quickly as possible. We know that the world is facing climate catastrophe. We know that we have to reduce our carbon pollution by at least 75 per cent by 2030, otherwise the consequences are extremely dire. We think we've got problems with floods and fires at the moment—and that's after just over one degree of global warning—but we are headed for three degrees of global warming. We absolutely need to drastically reduce our carbon emissions as quickly as possible.

We need to shift to getting a zero-carbon fleet as soon as possible. We know that cars that are purchased today have a lifetime of 10, 15 or 20 years, so it is important to get all the support for 100 per cent completely renewable, zero-carbon vehicles as soon as possible and not to prolong the use of fossil fuel vehicles in any way for any longer than is necessary.

The coalition will not be supporting the amendment proposed by Senator David Pocock and Senator Rice. Hybrids play an important role in bridging the gap between internal combustion engine vehicles and electric vehicles. They are more affordable, have a wider range and produce lower emissions than conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. Importantly, they are also very popular choices with consumers. There is substantial stakeholder support for retaining hybrids in the bill, in the event that it does pass.

Is this backdated to 1 July for transactions? I want to know if that is for order dates, invoice dates or registration dates?

I'm just getting some advice on that. But you're right; it is backdated to that date. I should flag here that we will be supporting the amendment that's before the chair, in relation to the phase out of plug-in hybrid vehicles. I've lost the bit of paper I was looking for, but we support the amendment. In answer to your question: they were first held and used on 1 July 2022.

Minister, can you detail for the Senate what the expected uptake of this initiative will be over the next three financial years in terms of the number of vehicles?

I'm going to be assisted by my advisers, at this time of the night and week. Senator Smith, were you on the committee that looked into this?

I didn't get answers then, and it doesn't look like I'll get the answer now.

I think you were advised or the information provided to that committee was that there wasn't an overall figure that could be provided but that reducing the cost of electric vehicles and the charges on them would increase the overall number of electric vehicles on the road. It is an incentive, essentially, to increase the number of electric vehicles.

I have a question on the amendment. Given that the top-selling vehicles are Toyota HiLux, Ford Ranger, Isuzu D-MAX—these are dual-cab utes—as well as, in the top four, the Toyota RAV4, has the government received any advice that there will be pure electric vehicles available, in that class of vehicle, in the following years that would be available for purchase? Has the government sought any advice from manufacturers as to whether those vehicles will be available? My understanding is that they do have some hybrids earmarked but they are still some years away. So what advice have you received as to whether or not there will be those vehicles available, given that that's what Australians are choosing to buy right now?

The best answer I can provide you there is that the government will continue to talk with manufacturers. I think what you're seeing around the world is that where there are supportive arrangements in legislation or regulation manufacturers respond to that. We are seeing the effort, in terms of manufacture and output going into the design and delivery of electric vehicles over standard petrol vehicles. That's just the reality of what's happening. That's where the R&D is going. It's where the manufacturing effort is going.

Part of what we're doing with this legislation is sending the message that there is a government that's supportive of electric vehicles and the development of electric vehicles. The bit I'm responsible for in the APS is ensuring that we're purchasing electric vehicles so that we can start to generate the second-hand car market as well, which is really important.

In relation to the Commonwealth fleet, I'm wanting to understand what the government is intending to do, particularly in regard to the vehicles that parliamentarians will be driving.

I'll come back to you on whether there's anything I can provide about the vehicles you get for being a parliamentarian. Is that what you're talking about? I know there are MPs with electric vehicles, and there are MPs and senators with hybrids as well. You only have to look in the carpark, in the basement, to see that.

In terms of COMCAR, we would be wanting to move towards electric vehicles through that, and certainly through the APS, through our fleet, where we are able to, to replace these with electric vehicles. Obviously there will be some vehicles, including special-purpose vehicles and in Defence, for example, where that is not possible. So we'll take a sensible and responsible approach. But we want to generate an affordable second-hand car market as well. We're a big purchaser of vehicles, and it's responsible and shows a bit of leadership for the government in doing that.

Could the minister reconfirm for the Senate the total cost of this measure over the forward estimates?

The FBT exemption as amended is expected to cost $195 million over the four years of the forward estimates.

And can I reconfirm that the government is not able to detail for the Senate the actual number of extra electric vehicles that will be on the road for each of the years over the forward estimates as a result of this $195 million initiative?

I think it would be very, very different to predict, to be honest. But what we can say is we are putting these arrangements in place to incentivise the uptake and remove a disincentive to purchase electric cars over other more standard vehicles.

Has the government been able to model what the expected reduction in emissions will be as a result of this $195 million initiative?

We see it as a component of supporting progress to our 43 per cent emissions reduction target. We know that transport emissions are something that we have to reduce, and so having a National Electric Vehicle Strategy, incentivising the purchase of electric vehicles and making sure we're putting in the infrastructure to support those vehicles is a clear commitment we've made through our net zero and emissions reductions targets.

Recent research shows that, after price, the second major barrier to adoption of EVs is a lack of charging infrastructure and range anxiety. I understand that the government has committed to building more charging infrastructure. Could the minister detail that commitment and how this bill supports an increase in charging infrastructure.

The bill itself doesn't do this, but since coming to government we have doubled the Commonwealth's investment in electric vehicle charging and refuelling infrastructure and fleets, and the new Driving the Nation Fund will provide $275.4 million over six years from 2022-23 to help meet some of these costs. The fund will support electric vehicle chargers across Australia. It will also support electric fleets and vehicle-to-grid technology. Initial investments under the fund will be $39.8 million over four years for a national EV charging network to be delivered by the NRMA, and $89.5 million over four years for a national expansion of hydrogen highways. The remainder of the fund will be delivered by ARENA, but initial investments are expected to target charging infrastructure for regional and remote areas and household managed charging.

Does the government believe that supply chain issues are currently constraining the availability of electric vehicles in the Australian market?

I think supply chain issues are affecting the availability of a lot of things—including of cars in general—but, yes, they would be having an impact on electric vehicles. Anyone who's trying to purchase a new car at the moment or even a used car, with the price of used cars, would realise that the car industry is being significantly affected by supply chain issues.

Given that supply chain issues exist in the market, isn't this the wrong time to be increasing demand because that would put upward pressure on prices?

No.

Minister, connected with this bill was, I understand, the commitment of the government to have procurement of Commonwealth vehicles to be 100 per cent electric except in exceptional circumstances.

Yes, that is the intention under the APS net zero strategy. Our fleet is an important part of that. It won't be for all of the vehicles. As I think we've made clear, there are some vehicles where that's not possible. But, yes, the government sees its role as being a leader in purchasing electric vehicles, not only to reduce our own emissions—transport emissions being something that we all want to reduce—but also, due to the turnover of our vehicles, because we are generating a second-hand electric vehicle market in this country.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 19:30